Neutering Money in Politics

I know, I've already written about the "money had nothing to do with the Wisconsin recall results" argument. First, I pointed out why the media would be biased toward the Citizens United ruling that allows unlimited money to be poured into elections; i.e., they stand to make a bazillion dollars selling advertising to Super PACs. Then later, I also pointed out the obvious -- that if spending ungodly amounts of money on candidates' election campaigns didn't make any difference, the marketing-savvy billionaires, corporations, and Wall Street firms wouldn't do it.

I think I've done a pretty good job of showing why the "money had nothing to do with it argument" doesn't even make sense and why people have a vested interest in pushing it. But I'll let Sen. Bernie Sanders, by way of John Nichols, explain what it means:

“There is,” the senator says, “an aggressiveness out there among the ruling class of this country, among the billionaires who are saying: ‘You know what? Ya, we got a whole lot now, but we want even more. And we don’t give a damn about the middle class. We don't care about working families. We want it all. And now we can buy it.’ ”

CONTINUE TO POST>>

GOP: T-Shirts -- Not Unlimited and Secret Corporate Cash -- are Destroying Democracy

Two stories provide an excellent example of what's wrong with our system of campaign finance. The first is an example of one of the almost daily Republican freakouts over nonexistent scandals. The second demonstrates the scandalous state of our campaign finance system -- and how that's just fine.

First example first:

Wall Street Journal:

At a New York fund-raising event Tuesday called "Runway to Win," President Barack Obama's re-election campaign plans to begin selling campaign-themed tote bags, T-shirts and accessories designed by more than two dozen famous designers.

Attendees can purchase a tote bag designed by Derek Lam for $75. A collectible makeup bag created by Richard Blanch with nail polish in Red-y To Win Red, Victory White and Bo Blue is going for $40. And a silk scarf featuring Mr. Obama's likeness by Thakoon Panichgul is $95. Profits from the sales will go to Mr. Obama's campaign chest.

Republicans contend the sale might violate campaign-finance rules. The gear will sell for a fraction of the price the designers' merchandise typically fetches at department stores. Republicans say that suggests they relied on corporate resources to keep costs low, which could amount to illegal campaign contributions. On Mr. Lam's website, handbags range in price from $340 to $1,890. The three scarves offered on Mr. Thakoon's website go for $325 apiece.

CONTINUE TO POST>>

Republicans' Jobless 'Jobs Agenda'

If you want a great example of how the Republican Party's reduced itself to empty talking points, consider their argument that government doesn't create jobs. It's obviously untrue on so many levels, but they keep saying it because the chumps keep buying it. They almost always immediately contradict themselves by talking about all the ways they think government could create jobs. Pet projects like the Keystone XL pipeline, cutting taxes, reducing regulations, etc. will all create a great big jobs avalanche, we're told, if only government would get around to creating all those jobs that they also argue government couldn't possibly create. And lets not forget that all of these people are either drawing a government paycheck or competing for a government job.

But the idea that government can't create jobs becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy with Republicans. They get into government and block measures that would increase employment. And that's when they aren't calling the shots. When they are calling the shots, all that stuff they talked about on the campaign trail and Fox News goes out the window. When Republicans are in power, it becomes time to pay off narrow constituencies that helped get them elected. These payoffs have absolutely nothing to do with jobs, mind you, but good governance was never really the point. The point is a corporate anarchy they wrongly refer to as "free market capitalism" -- and a Republican majority to protect that anarchy.

Since you don't achieve anarchy by passing laws, Republicans become obsessed with trivial busy work. You repeal what you can, hamstring this or that agency when the opportunity arises, but mostly you dick around with inconsequential BS that throws a bone to those narrow constituencies.

Steve Benen:

With Congress' approval rating reaching depths unseen since the dawn of modern polling, self-interested lawmakers should probably focus at least some of their attention on addressing actual problems.

House Republicans apparently disagree. In 2010, the GOP majority invested considerable energy in tackling imaginary threats (killing farm-dust regulations, protecting the "In God We Trust" motto); picking unnecessary culture-war fights (restricting abortion rights, going after NPR); and pursing right-wing measures that couldn't become law (replacing Medicare with a voucher scheme).

CONTINUE TO POST>>

Corporate Parasites and the Failure of 'Trickle Down Economics'

If you want one clear message coming from the Occupy Wall Street crowd and the 99-percenters, you can boil all they're saying down into one argument; Reaganomics has failed and should die. After decades of bending over backwards to make sure that helped the wealthy become as wealthy as humanly possible, we see no real positive results. "Trickle down" economics is really the economics of scavenging -- if the wealthy have a big feast, they'll leave a lot of crumbs. And, as we shift the role of government away from helping people to helping business, even the holes left by cutting spending benefit corporations. Remember that after Bill Clinton ended Aid to Families with Dependent Children, the only real positive impact the reforms had were for the financial industry. A whole new market opened up and payday loan outfits sprouted up all over the nation like mushrooms, charging usurious rates to people with nowhere else to go. And of course, poverty is at an all-time high.

If this is a successful economic model, I think I'd prefer the old "failures" of New Deal liberals, thanks.

Still, all that wealth is sitting up there, just waiting to trickle down. We've sent pots and pots of money up the economic ladder all these years with pretty much nothing to show for it -- except this:


Chart courtesy of Mother Jones

CONTINUE TO POST>>

The Absurdity of Corporate Personhood

The Citizens United ruling can be boiled down to one simple and crazy idea; that this...



...is virtually indistinguishable from this:



I'm guessing you don't really see the resemblance. Neither do I. In fact, Bank of America has more rights than Skeezix here, by virtue of being an adult. Apparently, corporations are born into full adulthood -- another obvious difference we're all supposed to ignore.

CONTINUE TO POST>>

Auction House Democracy

You've probably heard the name, now meet the Koch Brothers, as introduced by Jane Mayer on NPR's Fresh Air (Video courtesy of Crooks and Liars):



OK, so a couple of rightwing nutjobs are giving money to the GOP -- who else would these days? There are two possible intentions in giving a political donation and it always pays to keep this in mind. People will give to candidates or parties because they agree with them, which only makes sense. If candidate Bob believes what you believe, you're going to want him to win. So you're going to do what you can to help him.

The other intention is as a legal bribe. If candidate Bob is sort of squishy on your issues, then maybe a big campaign contribution will give him an incentive to be a little more solidly on your side. Where the first intention is the political system as it was meant to operate, the second is corruption -- and there's a very fine line between the two. Unfortunately, both are legal. Which only makes sense, since it would be nearly impossible to distinguish between the two with any level of certainty.

CONTINUE TO POST>>