Big Money Comes Out for the Inauguration

randall_burns writes "Open Secrets is running an interesting story about major donors to Bush's inauguration. The founder of Dell is one of the high rollers funding Bush's party."

Comments

Money is bad

[SimianOverlord]

Such is the corrupt grip that monied interests have on our nations leaders and senators, it seems the only way to solve this problem comes down to two choices. 1)Allow public funding of political parties or 2) make every wannabee politician take a vow of poverty, like church leaders did back in the Dark Ages. Of the two, the latter is the only sensible option.

The first leads down the road to chaos, as every splintered faction appears quite literally from the woodwork, holding their hand out for tax dollars to advertise their presence and garner votes. With the constitution being what it is, this is a dangerous charter for extremists, as a white supremist organisation (for example) would be just as eligible for public funds as a major political party, and one can only assume, would use those funds to push their hateful agenda. I can see Californica, in particular, as the worst hit by this sort of proposal, as it has more than its fair share of cults, drawn by the bright sunlight and fine oranges.

Yet happily another option exists to go back to the glory days of rule by disinterested self-abasing, self sacrificing people like Mother Theresa. Let's face it, if you still wanted to be a politician after being told you would live a life of abject poverty, living day by day on scraps scavenged from kitchen bins, only the truly motivated would stay in the profession. A similar system could be put in place for the law profession. Just a thought.

Re: Money is bad

[Black Parrot]

> Such is the corrupt grip that monied interests have on our nations leaders and senators, it seems the only way to solve this problem comes down to two choices. 1)Allow public funding of political parties or 2) make every wannabee politician take a vow of poverty, like church leaders did back in the Dark Ages. Of the two, the latter is the only sensible option.

A third option would be to hand over the money to someone who would spend it wisely, such as me.

Re:Money is bad

[ImaLamer]

Such is the corrupt grip that monied interests have on our nations leaders and senators, it seems the only way to solve this problem comes down to two choices. 1)Allow public funding of political parties or 2) make every wannabee politician take a vow of poverty, like church leaders did back in the Dark Ages. Of the two, the latter is the only sensible option.

I don't think so...

The candidates don't just get to keep that money and buy cars and shoes with it. The real reason the money is important is because they can use it to leverage voters votes.

It's like this: Michael Dell wants to change the law or bend it. He gives money to Bush who spends it on ads and spreads it around where it will get him popularity and power. Then we (well, other people besides me) elect him and he let's Dell break the rules.

Re:Money is bad

[miu]

Point taken, I am still shocked myself that Bush could win a second term after it was obvious that he had lied to the American public to start a war so damaging to our interest.

I guess every nation is irrational in different ways. I understand the dynamics that created Bush, they don't make me proud - but I do understand them. I just don't understand what keeps the British royal family not only supported financially, but popular as well.

Re:Money is bad

[milohanrahan]

Yes, I agree with you. The irrationality of the British, though, is (I would venture to suggest) considerably less damaging. The royal family are essentially harmless, after all. Bush, on the other hand, is responsible for a war in which God only knows how many innocent people have died. (The) America(n government)'s support for Israel, which isn't at all entirely down to Bush, I know, is nonetheless significant because America are in this case effectively supporting and/or endorsing the kind of suppression and persecution that the Iraq war was ostensibly begun over.

I don't think the average American has much of an idea about what's going on over the Atlantic, less still what those over the Atlantic think of America and the people in charge of America. They really should try listening.

Re: Money is bad

[Seumas]

Does it really matter? People act as if there is ever much of a choice in who we elect. The world would not be drastically different if we elected Kerry instead of Bush or Dole instead of Clinton or Dukakis instead of Bush.

They're more or less the same people, same parties, funded by the same corporations, imbued with the same corruption and hell-bent on jamming their ideologies on the entire country.

300,000,000 people and only two viable parties with little difference. But you see, in the same way that the current administration uses perpetual war and terrorism to control and bend the citizens toward their want, so are they distracting you from the real problems of the world/country/government by convincing you that the real difference is in whether you vote for a Republicrat or a Libservative.

Re:Money is bad

[CrimsonAvenger]

Seriously, could someone please explain to me one more time how it is that this man was even re-elected?

In a nutshell, his major opponent was an imbecile who couldn't campaign his way out of a wet paper bag - he lied when he should have told the truth, and told the truth when he should have lied.

Just how stupid is America?

Not quite stupid enough to let the Agriculture and Fishery Meeting adopt Software Patents for all of Europe without a vote, but beyond that, no brighter than anyone else.

It's always interesting to see people who assume that THEIR interests should be assumed by a foreign government. Hint: the EU government, nor any member nation has my best interests at heart (these days, I'm not even sure it has the European people's best interests at heart). The US government doesn't have the best interests of Europe or Europeans at heart (and it may not have the best interests of the American people at heart - at least not the hlaf that's out of power at any given time). And that (the non-parenthetical part) is the way it should be.

Re:Money is bad

[Seumas]

People who were responsible for bringing us Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, the Euro and find Jerry Lewis an David Hasselhoff brilliant have no place pointing fingers at Americans; accusing stupidity. There's enough idiocy to go around the globe.

Re:Money is bad

[SimianOverlord]

It isn't irrational of the Britons at all. Millions of Americans and others visit Britain just to catch a glimpse of a bunch of toffs in their palace, offsetting the horrendous expense of having them with tourist revenue. Really the whole thing is just a sham - everyone in Britain knows this. The real royal family died in 1943 during a bomb raid and a family of actors were employed to take their place. The actor who plays Charles is simply brilliant. We're all just waiting for the Aussies to finally work it out.

Re: Money is bad

[Kick the Donkey]

SS is just another slight of hand. His proposal is not that different from the British system implemented under Margrett Thatcher. And look how well that turned out.

His plan is just an excuse to give more money to investment houses...

Re:Money is bad

[Seumas]

You gave us "Waiting for god" and other crappy shows, you bastards.

Of course, you also gave us Eddie Izzard so . . . You break even. ;)

Re:Money is bad

[GreyWolf3000]

Seriously, could someone please explain to me one more time how it is that this man was even re-elected? Just how stupid is America?

I'm no Republican, but I really think that if the Dems would have focused more both on what they wanted to do with this country and what grievances they had with the previous administration, instead of calling Bush and Republicans alike silly names, they may have had a chance.

I'll be the first to admit that many Republicans sunk to name-calling as well, but I'll bet quite a few swing voters got really sick of liberal elitism and Bush-bashing.

Re:Money is bad

[An Onerous Coward]

Your entire argument is bogus for one simple reason: We cannot expect rational behavior from a busy, harried electorate when the politicians use corporate money to advertise themselves as something they're not.

For every voter who actually takes the time to figure out the problems arising from corporate influence, there are probably five who can be suckered in by simplistic sales pitches, fraudulent attack ads, and promises the politician has no intention of keeping.

So, if I'm a politician, do I take the high road? Do I work hard, study issues in depth, write rational legislation that fixes serious problems, and make realistic campaign promises? That's what I'd do. But then I'd lose in a landslide to some pompous, self-aggrandizing bastard who tells people what they want to hear, while whoring the political process out to whoever will give him the money he needs to amplify his voice.

Your final point is incoherent. You believe that corporations give money, but don't expect anything in return. You believe that politicians accept money, but don't expect they have to do anything in return. Which brings up the critical point: If nobody expects anything, why are all these checks being written?

Take, for example, the post-9/11 bailout of the airline industry. The taxpayers gave the airlines, what? Fifteen billion dollars? Why? Not to protect jobs, obviously. All the airlines cut tens of thousands of jobs despite the bailout. Not to protect against an interruption of transportation, either. In the end, we taxpayers basically handed a crapload of money to the people who invested in the airline industry. Corporate welfare at its finest. But politicians lied to us, telling us that if we didn't do this the planes would be grounded.

Collectively, we accepted this because the corporations fund the means of communication that matter to most voters. Had there been a real debate over the issues arising from the bailout, said bailout never would have happened.

You seem to believe that the system, as it stands now, is behaving in a basically fair and rational manner. Either you're making serious cash off the status quo, or you're seriously deluded.

Re:Money is bad

[CrimsonAvenger]

Your final point is incoherent. You believe that corporations give money, but don't expect anything in return. You believe that politicians accept money, but don't expect they have to do anything in return. Which brings up the critical point: If nobody expects anything, why are all these checks being written?

One of the newer fund-raising techniques being used is to:
1) Pick a victim,
2) Write a piece of Legislation that would seriously damage the victim,
3) Start the legislation through the process of becoming law,
4) Visit the victim, making sure that he knows you could be convinced to abandon said legislation for a suitable bribe...er, campaign donation,
5) Wait while victim writes the check,
6) Go back and pull the Bill from the docket,
7) Repeat the following year.

Often as not, it's not the businesses controlling the policitians, but the politicians blackmailing the businesses. Yes, blackmail is such an ugly word, but it frequently fits very well in describing how politicians ask for campaign contributions from businesses.

Re:Money is bad

[HMA2000]

:) Now you know you're in trouble.

Expect a flurry of comments all saying the same thing "You've been brainwashed."

The best part is I think a lot of the people on the left don't realize they have been exploited by individuals like Michael Moore, Franken, Stewart, Richard Clarke, etc so that they can sell their books. I really think they believe the saw only cuts one way.

Re:Money is bad

[miu]

The left is not that simple. I'm more on the liberal side of things in the sense that I believe that human rights need to be protected from business, but I'm anti-abortion after the first month, pro-gun, anti-Israel, pro-separation of church and state, pro-gay marriage/civil-union, and think Moore/Franken/Coulter/Limbaugh and Hollywood liberals are all pompous fools who oversimplify complex subjects for credulous fools.

I said that right continuing to believe that Bush is a good president is an irrational act, it doesn't prevent my seeing that sort of irrationality in the left.

Re:Money is bad

[Doc Ruby]

So, because corruption is default, we should just accept it? We need to believe that this corruption is new to remark on it, to reject it? Who's naive?

Re:Money is bad

[commodoresloat]

Let's face it, if you still wanted to be a politician after being told you would live a life of abject poverty, living day by day on scraps scavenged from kitchen bins, only the truly motivated would stay in the profession. A similar system could be put in place for the law profession.

We already have this kind of system in place for teachers.

Re:Money is bad

[CrimsonAvenger]

And just two days later while facing a mere fraction of the German army (the bulk of which was fighting in Poland) the British and French military masterminds launched the hugely successful Operation Sitzkrieg in an all out assault on Hilter's regime in an attempt to save Poland.

One must keep in mind that Britain only began mobilization for war the day after the invasion of Poland. Shifting from a peacetime stance to wartime mode is not done overnight - the British didn't even get conscription going for another month, much less have any ability to fight a war, in western Europe or anywhere else so quickly.

In fact, the French invaded western Germany only a week after the declaration of war, though, as far as I recall, they didn't push very hard, and were ultimately wasting their time - WW1 was still too much on everyone's mind at that point in the game.

It took a month and a half or two months for the BEF to even reach France, much less be in condition for offensive operations. Note also the existance of the Siegfried Line, and the refusal of Belgium to allow Anglo/French access to Germany through Belgium.

Note that by the time the BEF was in France, the German Army was back in Germany, Poland having surrendered.

Note further the German-Soviet Pact signed just the week before the invasion of Poland. Which leaves a great deal of room for doubt on the part of the Anglo-French General Staffs, since they now have to take into account the possibility (remote, but uncertain then and there) of Soviet intervention on behalf of the Germans.

I've never been terribly impressed with either British or French early actions in WW2, or in their decisions leading up to the War. But they didn't have a whole lot of options in late '39 and early '40.

It really wasn't until it became clear that they USA would violate its stated neutrality to aid the British that it became obvious that the British had the wherewithal to actually carry on a serious fight against the Germans. Note that pretty much all US support for Britain before 8 Dec 1941 was technically a violation of both international law and US law - being neutral means that you can't supply one combatant with warships, planes, tanks, guns, oil, steel, food, etc. Which we did almost from the beginning of the War in Europe.

Not surprising really..

[phaze3000]

This is, after all, the same Dell that expects to pay no state tax.

big money... big money...

[evilmousse]

...no whammies!!

idunno, wouldn't it be nice if we had a president that could have an inaguration where of their own desire, fireworks artists would want to donate a performance, the police would want to volunteer extra unpaid time, caterers would donate food, singers would donate performances, etcetcetc.

large corporate monetary donations, fundraiser dinners, et all seem so cold to me.. inagural day comes off more as a stockholder's holiday weekend to me.

What's the point?

[superyooser]

There is an inauguration every four years, no matter whom the president is. Inaugurations are always expensive. They always have big corporate donors. It's not surprising that some donors are in high tech. I see Qualcomm on the list, too.

Is there something special we're supposed to be inferring? Slow news day?

Re:What's the point?

[tdemark]

Is there something special we're supposed to be inferring?

According to most TV reports and newspapers, any of the following should be fine:

• Bush is a bad president because this money, which was donated by citizens and corporations explicitly for the inauguration, should go to the tsunami victims
• Bush is a bad president because this money, which was donated by citizens and corporations explicitly for the inauguration, should go to the Iraq war
• Bush is a bad president because his inauguration total was around $40 mil, while Clinton was a good president because his '93 inauguration was only $33 million.
• Bush stole the election

- Tony

Re:What's the point?

[Seumas]

That's interest, because I haven't heard _any_ criticism of Bush. Especially on the radio. In fact, all I've heard is about how stoic and somber he is. How he has a lot on his mind. How he's busy saving the free world from tyranny.

Bush is a bad president because he of the incredible corruption. Just follow the realations and the ties (including family) between him, Saudi's, Halliburton, Fox News, Baseball, energy companies . . . It's just incredible.

I didn't like Clinton. I wanted Bush instead of Gore. But in retrospect, Clinton is looking damn good and Bush is just a mess. Christ, the guy has conversations with God in his head. And he thinks 51% of the votes (and 16% of the country) is a "mandate". Not to mention, as far as he is concerned, I am not a Patriot and I don't deserve to be an American citizen, because I'm agnostic. (Okay, so his father actually said that in the early 1990s and then again in late 2004, but one may presume that since all of the other beliefs between the bushes are similar, this might be too).

Oh, wait - I thought of other reasons that Bush is a bad president.

* John Ashcroft
* Michael Powell

I'm not saying that the Democrat's feces doesn't stink. But it's a conservative turd that's sitting at the desk in the Oval Office at the moment. I can't wait to get the next four years over with and, while I find it incredibly unlikely, hope that the next administration (whatever party they may be) have more respect for civil liberties and the wellfare of someone other than his fat-cat corporate buddies.

Re:What's the point?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Bush is a bad president because this money, which was donated by citizens and corporations explicitly for the inauguration, should go to the Iraq war.

Bush is a bad president because all of this fru-fru pomp and circumstance is inappropriate when the country is at war. Life should not go on like normal for the people responsible for sending the military out to risk life and limb. Celebrate when the killing is over.

If Kerry, or even Dean had won and were doing the same thing I'd say the same thing.

Love the U.S.? Educate yourself about the U.S. gov

[Futurepower(R)]

If you love the U.S., you will educate yourself about what the U.S. government is doing:

Unprecedented Corruption: A guide to conflict of interest in the U.S. government

History surrounding the U.S. war with Iraq: Four short stories

New York Governor Pataki's statements are equivalent to a declaration of war.

U.S. Federal Deficit by Political Party

funding Bush's party? rather...

[whathappenedtomonday]

funding a lunatic.

"We have a calling from beyond the stars to stand for freedom, and America will always be faithful to that cause."

I once worked at a mental home; there, you could pick up sentences like that all the time. You know, people hearing voices, callings from the Great Beyond and stuff. Scary.

Re:funding Bush's party? rather...

[Seumas]

"Any American citizen who is athiest should not be considered an American, nor should they be considered a patriot. This is one nation under God." - George Herbert Walker Bush, 1988 (and again restated in 2004 in an interview on the Don Imus radio program)

I suspect the apple does not fall far from the tree. As someone who believes strongly in freedom for all to believe or not believe in anything they want, I am extremely offended that two of my presidents do not feel that I deserve to be an American or a patriot, because of my beliefs (or lack thereof).

That alone is all the reason I need to dislike Bush and not support him - the rest of his actions and policies be damned.

(By the way, I'm actually agnostic; not atheist.)

Points about the money

[ghereheade]

For those that think companies are buying access to the White House or special treatment, one might compare some of the donation levels to see which party the company favors (thus implying which party would best serve the company's special interests)

BIGGEST DONOR LISTED:
Ameriquest Capitol (4 divisions worth)
$1M to inaugural, $2.25M to the republicans, $470k to the democrats, $1M to Bush

OIL (for the Iraq invasion fans):
T. Boone Pickens $250k for inaugural, $125k to Reps, $1k to Dems, $4k to Bush

Chevron $250k to inaugural, $416k to Rep, $81k to Dems, $23.7k to Bush

Exxon Mobile $250k, $726k, $85k, $72k

Occidental Pertroleum $250k, $296k, $61k, $15k

and so on......

There can definately be a case made for certain companies and industries trying the old "I'll scratch your back if you'll scratch mine." And this is all occuring while the republicans are weakening ethics legislation because their own people (e.g., Tom Delay) are being caught with their hands in the cookie jar.

Cancel the Academy Awards

[Picass0]

If we are supposed to be offended at the expense of throwing an event of this nature in light of the tsunami, where are the voices calling for the MPAA to cancel the Academy Awards? The inaguration costs a fraction of what is spent on the Oscars. Take all of that money and send it to Asia, and I'll be impressed.

Soft bribery

[booch]

Generally such contributions that are not directly for candidate election purposes are called "soft money". (Although that generally refers to contributions to the general political party funds, so I'm not sure if this technically would count as "soft money".) Contributions directly to candidates are limited to $2000 per donor, to limit bribery, or at least the appearance of quid pro quo. So effectively, we're limiting direct bribes to $2000 per person, which doesn't get you too far in Washington these days. So instead, the big donors hold dinners and such, or donate to 527s or the political party itself, which are "soft money" contributions with no limits.

So I was thinking about this yesterday. There's an argument that 1st Amendment free speech requires that spending on political speech not be limited. But is that what's going on here? If I give money to the Democratic Party, is that me expressing my opinion? Or is it me trying to buy influence? And if I'm free to spend my money any way I please, doesn't that mean bribery should be legal? So obviously, there must be limits to what we're allowed to spend our money on.

Language matters. The labels we put on things effect the ways we think about those things. So let's change the language here to call a spade a spade, just like RMS suggests we call DRM "digital restrictions management". So I propose that we call these "soft money" contributions "soft bribes". Because that's what they are.

Re:It's time to bury this lie

[Seumas]

If you've got REAL proof Bush 41 said this, post it.

Okay. How about this. Though I'm sure you'll nit-pick and say that he doesn't explicitely say the same phrase here. But he does elude to his initial comment over a decade ago and re-affirms it, in the context of being president rather than being a patriot. When he first made the statement (I remember it, I was about twelve years old when it happened), he had continued by saying something to the effect that an atheist could not be president, because an atheist can not be a patriot.

Here is the MSNBC transcript of George Herbert Walker Bush being interviewed by Don Imus on his radio program on September 1st, 2004. He does not make the same statement word for word, but eludes to having made the statement about atheists not being able to be patriots. He actually says an atheist can not be president, but he is clearly nodding toward his original statement a decade and a half ago in which he had said explicitely that atheists can not possibly be patriots.

Not only is the entire transcript right there, but so is a video of the interview.

Now, you could quibble and say "but he doesn't say atheists can't be patriots - just that they can't be president", but it's clear from his comment what he is asserting. I certainly don't see how this specific statement is any less offensive. Hell, just imagine if he made this statement about any other race, sex or religion? He'd be in incredibly hot water.


"Lincoln said you cannot be President without spending some item on your knees. I have repeated that and a bunch of Atheists got all over me. Wait a minute. Does that mean that you cannot be President if you are an Atheist? I say yea that does mean that." -- George Herbert Walker Bush, 2004

Can a tax accountant/attorney answer this one?

[HungWeiLo]

Can the corporate contributions to this event be tax-deductable? Are menial wage earners like myself paying for any of this?

Or am I asking something I already know the answer to?

Re:Once again, it's Bush Hatin' Time!

[demachina]

""Bush's inauguration costs too much! Rich people are paying for it! The money should go to Tsunami relief! The money should go to the poor! There shouldn't be an inauguration!!!""

I'll have to agree with you on this one. Ranting about the cost and extravagance of the inauguration is silly. About the only criticism I can make of it is:

- Some of those singers they were unbelievable. Kind of proves Republicans are some combination of tone deaf or don't know how to throw a party. The fact they are going after Sponge Bob now confirms a few screws are loose someplace.
- That speech Bush gave was silly. All that never ending repetition of freedom, democracy and liberty. Everyone knows he his only going to liberate countries that are:

o Anti American
o Have oil
o Are a threat to Israel

Amazingly Iran pops to the top of the list on all counts. Venezuela is right up there too though they happen to have a democraticly elected government, it wasn't a perfect election but it was better than all the countries below. Meanwhile he ain't gonna lift a finger about the dicatorships in:

o Saudi Arabia
o Kuwait
o Egypt
o Pakistan
o Russia
o China
o Tajikistan, etc.

I love it how right wingers used to rant about Communist dictatorships but now that they are all making a killing in China they love the place and its government, though it hasn't really changed other than they threw open the door to the running dogs to make a fortune on their cheap labor, and transfered the world's economy to China's control. The Chinese are genius, they beat capitalism at its own game and destroyed it without firing a shot.

So all in all I'd agree ranting about the inauguration shows a lack of focus on the part of the media and the left. Lets:

- Focus on the quagmire of a war in Iraq. Here is an interview with an Army medic back from Iraq. Right wingers rant Iraq is going great and its the "liberal media" thats just making it look bad. Well this is grunt that was there and his main complaint is nobody in Iraq wants the U.S. there anymore and he had no clue what the point of the war is other than control of oil and he apparently isn't alone among the enlisted men. Don't listen to officers on Iraq, they are gonna spew the company line, the grunts will tell the truth.

- Focus on the fact Bush has increased government spending over 25% in three years at the same time he slashed taxes for the wealthy and is pushing U.S. debt to unsustainable levels. The U.S. government is becoming so in debt to China and Japan they can start dictating policy to the U.S. There is an old axiom the Bush administration has forgotten, "Neither a borrower or a lender be", well at least the borrower part is true. The U.S. is by a huge margin the world's largest debtor nation now and that debt is going to come home to roost. Just because it hasn't yet doesn't mean it wont especially when its hitting these extravagant levels.

- Focus on the staggering trade deficits the U.S. is running with the world especially with China. It is crossing the 5% of GDP market and deficits of those levels violate every tenent of sound fiscal policy and again are not sustainable. The U.S. will be come so mired in debt it will again be vulnerable to foreign blackmail or foreign induced economic collapse

- Look at the state of the U.S. dollar especially compared to the Euro. It makes U.S. exports cheap but otherwise its a disaster waiting to happen and its cratering because of fundementally unsound fiscal policy coming out of the Bush administration. Foreign investors, especially OPEC states are getting tired of taking a bath on their dollars and are dumping them for Euros. There is also a real risk now they will start selling their oil in Euros and the dollar will stop being the worlds main currency. That will be another devastating blow to the U.S. economy and the dollar's value.

- Foc