The BIG problem with the corporate political money decision.
The media and the people aren’t getting the real problem with the SCOTUS / Corporate decision.
While there have been a lot of “troubled” political pundits, none of them, from what I’ve read, have articulated the real problem with giving corporations the power to make political contributions without limit or regulation.
I’m reading messages with people who are suggesting that little has changed. They suggest that the rich were already able to fund, however indirectly, basically the same kinds of advocacy ads before as they will be able to now through corporations.
But this is not what can happen now. Not by a long shot. The issue is not how rich and powerful people can spend their own money. The issue is how rich and powerful people can spend YOUR money and use it against YOUR interests.
Since the inception of IRA’s and 401k’s, the proportion of common stock owned by the middle class has exploded. The never-spoken truth is, however, that 100% of the CONTROL of those companies has remained in THE SAME HANDS.
Money is Power
Money is more than what house you live in, car you drive or where you vacation. Money, if you have enough of it, can change law and gov’t regulations to your favor or to favor your business. Don’t let anyone tell you about “win-win”. When laws are passed there are winners and losers. Most often, however, the losers are the ones who don’t have influence upon the political process.
How important is money to the political process?
Let’s run some numbers to get some perspective.
In 2008, Obama spent over $730 million on his campaign. That was a record, almost twice as much as prior elections. I clearly remember Hillary Clinton’s speech declaring her withdrawal from the primary. I remember clearly the major factor in his favor: Obama’s locking the nomination was directly as a result of his ability to raise so much money.
Note: He didn’t win a proportionate victory. While he spent more than twice what McCain spent, he didn’t get twice the votes.
Source on spending – Source on election results
Here’s the point: Take that $730 million and compare it to how much a single company makes. In 2009 Exxon had PROFITS (that’s not revenue) of $45 BILLION. $730 million is LESS THAN TWO PERCENT OF THAT.
The question however, is WHO CONTROLS such large corporations, and are their interests the same as yours? That’s the question because now, thanks to the Supreme Court, those companies can take YOUR money and influence how our country is run against YOUR interests.
Energy companies can now take your money and influence how energy and global warming policies are made.
Pharmaceuticals can now take your money and influence how gov’t runs the FDA and their safety regulations.
Military contractors can now take your money and influence what will be done with our national defense.
Airlines and aircraft builders can now take your money and influence safety regulations.
Food and agribusinesses can now take your money and influence nutritional guidelines and what can be served to your children in schools.
It’s a fact. Before this ruling, a rich person could, as a matter of free speech, use their money and by exercising their freedom of speech, hiring lobbyists, and making campaign donations, try to influence congress to be favorable to themselves and their property. It was done time and again.
But until this ruling which overturned almost 100 years of precedent (what’s “conservative” about that?) that money (and time) was out of THEIR pocket, after taxes. (political spending is not tax deductible)
NOW, they can spend OTHER PEOPLE’S MONEY in order to finance their political influence!
The CAPPER is how few people in the media have picked up on this. Why do I have to do everything around here?
Posted by The Former DittoHead on Wednesday, April 14th, 2010
Filed under: Politics.