Slashdot Mirror
2016 Election Cycle Led By Billionaire Donors
Nicola Hahn writes: The pluralist stance of American politics contends that true power in the United States has been constitutionally vested in "the people" through mechanisms like the electoral process, freedom of speech, and the ability to establish political parties. The traditional view is that these aspects of our political system result in a broad distribution of power that prevents any one faction from gaining an inordinate amount of influence. And today the New York Times has revealed the shortcomings of this narrative by publishing the names of the 158 wealthy families that have donated almost half of the money spent towards the 2016 presidential race. This group of donors is primarily Republican and is dominated by interests in the banking industry. These facts lend credence to the idea that national policy making is influenced heavily by a relatively small group of people. That the American body politic is largely controlled by a deep state.
Unless they're directly buying votes, then that remains true. I'm not sure why we're equating advertising dollars with votes, because they aren't the same thing.
Take for example the Colorado state senate recall election a few years back: 11 times the amount of money was spent lobbying in favor of the incumbents as there was for the newcomers, yet the incumbents lost anyways.
Larry Lessig found this out the hard way, he assumed (very stupidly I might add) that he could just buy votes for his mayday campaign. Instead he found out that every candidate he spent money on that won was already likely to win anyways, and the rest lost.
According to the FEC, contributions to Democrats so far total US$64.2 million, while contributions to Republicans total US$61.2 million. Hillary Clinton has received US$47.1 million, more than the top three Republican candidates combined. (Not surprising, given the fragmentation of the Republican field).
The summary's breathless implication that "rich Republican bankers are buying the Presidency" doesn't appear to reflect the facts.
Once you get past the Pavlovian reaction to "socialist", you'll find that he is the only candidate NOT dropping to his knees in front of the latest batch of plutocrats. If nor no other reason, a victory for him would be a victory for democracy remaining in the hands of the people.
And this is precisely why the advertising industry doesn't exist.
“It comes from a very ancient democracy, you see..."
"You mean, it comes from a world of lizards?"
"No," said Ford, who by this time was a little more rational and coherent than he had been, having finally had the coffee forced down him, "nothing so simple. Nothing anything like so straightforward. On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people."
"Odd," said Arthur, "I thought you said it was a democracy."
"I did," said Ford. "It is."
"So," said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, "why don't people get rid of the lizards?"
"It honestly doesn't occur to them," said Ford. "They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted in more or less approximates to the government they want."
"You mean they actually vote for the lizards?"
"Oh yes," said Ford with a shrug, "of course."
"But," said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?"
"Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in. Got any gin?"
"What?"
"I said," said Ford, with an increasing air of urgency creeping into his voice, "have you got any gin?"
"I'll look. Tell me about the lizards."
Ford shrugged again.
"Some people say that the lizards are the best thing that ever happenned to them," he said. "They're completely wrong of course, completely and utterly wrong, but someone's got to say it."
"But that's terrible," said Arthur.
"Listen, bud," said Ford, "if I had one Altairian dollar for every time I heard one bit of the Universe look at another bit of the Universe and say 'That's terrible' I wouldn't be sitting here like a lemon looking for a gin.”
For all man's accomplishments, we're still largely at a tribal stage where we will instinctively protect the in-group even when it makes no rational sense to do so. It's millions of years of evolutionary baggage that we need to overcome as we move forward.
You'd have to be dumb to think otherwise....
Exactly. It is disgusting how President Romney was able to buy his way into office. Here in California, both Governor Whitman and Senator Fiorina were swept into office by spending millions of their own fortunes along with plenty of corporate contributions. Yup, the people have no power, and you would have to be dumb to think otherwise.
Ahh, another self-described Homo economicus.
Where would Slashdot be without the powerful man who is 100% rational, informed, and pulled themselves up by their bootstraps.
The Koch Brothers do not believe in climate change, or in any public policy that would do anything to mitigate it.
Oh, the Koch Brothers believe in climate change, alright. They realize how damaging the reality is to their business interests. That's why they funnel so much money in to conservative candidates and PR groups to create the false impression that there is serious scientific debate.
Suzanne Goldenberg of the London Guardian reports that "conservative billionaires used a secretive funding route to channel nearly $120 million . . . to more than 100 groups casting doubt about the science behind climate change," helping to "build a vast network of think tanks and activist groups working to a single purpose: to redefine climate change from neutral scientific fact to a highly polarizing 'wedge issue' for hardcore conservatives."
What pleases me is that no amount of money can keep the current set of Republican presidential candidates from self-destructing every time they open their mouths. The GOP should heed Bobby Jindal's advice to "stop being the stupid party."
So people elected by 15% of the eligible population ends up as the Representative. No wonder they don't listen to you. You did not elect them. 85% of America did not elect them. You find it in the polls. 85% of America has negative opinion of their Reps.
If mere 15% more people arm themselves with facts, start showing up in the polling booth, register as independents to vote for the best candidate from either party, the influence of money on the politics will wane. Don't blame the rich people for being jerks. Blame the non-so-rich people for being lazy and ignorant.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
If you want to change the system then you have to be involved a lot sooner than voting day.
And it all starts at the grassroots level.
Don't simply vote for the "lesser evil" in your local elections. Get out and help campaign for someone whom you could actually support.
Get your friends together and form your own voting bloc.
Schedule time to meet with the candidates. Even the ones who "have no chance".
MAKE the change instead of waiting for someone who's already bought to do so for you. Because that isn't going to work.
And with that first comment, you perfectly demonstrate your complete lack of understanding of the desire for a just society. Up until the seventies, the blue collar middle class grew and thrived. People could work a single job and buy a house, raise a family, live a modest lifestyle, and be perfectly content. But since then those with wealth used it to undermine that culture, and thus began the decades-long erosion of the middle class and working families, all while those with wealth saw their prospects improve.
Now you have families where both parents work two or three jobs and still can't improve their economic outlook. There's much less opportunity to start a business. I'm not saying none, but much, much less. People just want a chance to give their children more than they had, to take risks to get ahead, to see their labor rewarded. Instead of taxing the rich more I'd much rather see a livable wage—or better still—a basic income guarantee that would bring these opportunities back to all of society.
Freedom to fear. Freedom from thought. Freedom to kill.
I guess the War on Terror really is about freedom!
The real news is that the mainstream media (NYT) is reporting on it. Also, that money is influential is obvious, but the degree to which it is influential is finally being measured. With numbers backing up observation, and MSM exposure, something may have to be done about it.
Online tech forums are fond of saying the MSM is a puppet of government. Here we have an instance where it isn't.
That's news for nerds.
When Wall Street paid for Senator Clinton's campaign, she "represented" 20 million New Yorkers, and saw 0.000001% of them face-to-face. She DID spend face time with Wall Street bankers, she didn't spend (unscripted) face-to-face time with "normal" people. Senators generally don't do that much.
My state representative represents 167,000 people, is my neighbor, and sees me once a week at church.
Who do you think is more influenced by Wall Street bankers vs influenced by people like you and I - my neighbor, who is my state rep and sits two rows down at church, or my federal senator? My state rep has never met any of the Wall street bankers who bankroll federal candidates.
At an even more local level, my city councilman represents a district of about 8,000 people. He's my daughter-in-law's brother. I have his phone number. He's also never met a Wall Street banker.