Matt Taibbi comes through again, explaining in no uncertain terms why this year’s Presidential race lacks interest:
The reason 2012 feels so empty now is that voters on both sides of the aisle are not just tired of this state of affairs, they are disgusted by it. They want a chance to choose their own leaders and they want full control over policy, not just a partial say. There are a few challenges to this state of affairs within the electoral process – as much as I disagree with Paul about many things, I do think his campaign is a real outlet for these complaints – but everyone knows that in the end, once the primaries are finished, we’re going to be left with one 1%-approved stooge taking on another.
Most likely, it’ll be Mitt Romney versus Barack Obama, meaning the voters’ choices in the midst of a massive global economic crisis brought on in large part by corruption in the financial services industry will be a private equity parasite who has been a lifelong champion of the Gordon Gekko Greed-is-Good ethos (Romney), versus a paper progressive who in 2008 took, by himself, more money from Wall Street than any two previous presidential candidates, and in the four years since has showered Wall Street with bailouts while failing to push even one successful corruption prosecution (Obama).
There are obvious, even significant differences between Obama and someone like Mitt Romney, particularly on social issues, but no matter how Obama markets himself this time around, a choice between these two will not in any way represent a choice between “change” and the status quo. This is a choice between two different versions of the status quo, and everyone knows it.
Why is this the inevitable outcome? Taibbi has that covered, too:
But the ugly reality, as Dylan Ratigan continually points out, is that the candidate who raises the most money wins an astonishing 94% of the time in America.
That damning statistic just confirms what everyone who spends any time on the campaign trail knows, which is that the presidential race is not at all about ideas, but entirely about raising money.
The auctioned election process is designed to reduce the field to two candidates who will each receive hundreds of millions of dollars apiece from the same pool of donors. Just take a look at the lists of top donors for Obama and McCain from the last election in 2008.
. . .[Lists of donors removed; they’re heavy with embedded links, and are summarized in the following paragraph] . . .
Obama’s list included all the major banks and bailout recipients, plus a smattering of high-dollar defense lawyers from firms like WilmerHale and Skadden Arps who make their money representing those same banks. McCain’s list included exactly the same banks and a similar list of law firms, the minor difference being that it was Gibson Dunn instead of WilmerHale, etc.
The numbers show remarkable consistency, as Chase, Morgan Stanley, and Citigroup all gave roughly twice or just over twice as much to Obama as they did to McCain, almost perfectly matching the overall donations profile for both candidates: overall, Obama raised just over twice as much ($730 million) as McCain did ($333 million).
The system is not broken; it’s working fine – for the 1%. After all, they own it. I don’t see much point in investing any energy in this year’s race.
Granted in MA Obama is almost certain to win, but if you start taking the attitude indicated by your final sentence, then we let the 1% win. Can we also please be precise about what we are saying? I realize this is a quote rather than your words, but the last quoted paragraph says in part, “…Chase, Morgan Stanley, and Citigroup all gave…” No they didn’t. Contributions from corporations to candidates are illegal. Maybe their PACs or their employees gave.
You could even click the links in it. Here are the lists I omitted in the article, they are full of links to Open Secrets. If corporations can’t give to candidates, you’d better tell them.
Whether you or I vote or not, and regardless of where we vote, the 1% are going to win the Presidential race.
After all, loooooooook at the voter remorse and the passion going into recalling Gov. Scott Walker, who did more damage in part of one term to Wisconsin than the recession/depression did http://www.wisdems.org/RecallHQ
Mind you, the right of free speech is under assault, the integrity of the vote and of elections are under assault – these “rights” may well fall under use them or lose them.
Just because the candidate who raises the most money tends to win doesn’t mean that they win because they do. A fairly plausible alternative is that candidates who are popular to begin with are more likely to get donations, both because rich people have their opinions shaped by the same forces the shape the 99%, and from the more cynical perspective, if you’re going to bribe a politician, you want to bribe the politician who’s going to win.
All other things being equal a candidate would certainly prefer to have more money, and obviously money matters, but the point of campaign contributions is to campaign, so how much effectiveness you can get out of them depends on how much an extra amount of advertising can sway swing voters.
How could one plausibly claim that this year’s presidential race “lacks interest”? I’m willing to bet that at the end of the day, the percentage of people eligible and voting is comparable to the past couple presidential elections — each of which had considerably more voter interest than the previous elections in the 90s.
In fact, the corruption of politics by money, the reality that 94% of the time the candidate with more bucks wins, combined with Citizens United AND now NDAA have given birth to the Occupy movement and, in fact, a lack of confidence in either Republicans or Democrats as able to rein in – or with the will to rein in – banksters and other plutocrats. So it is closer to a vote of no confidence than it is to a lack of interest. Sad, really. But, if anything it is more important that ever to educate oneself about the issues and fight for honest and honorable candidates not connected to Wall Street, or the Congressional/Wall Street alliance.
…that still must be a shorthand way of identifying donors as I’m pretty sure I’m correct about the law. Any experts out there who can clarify?
Corporations can’t contribute directly to campaigns – that’s been the law for decades, and Citizens United didn’t change it. Here’s a clarifying explanation from Open Secrets:
So, when Open Secrets (or others) list contributions from particular corporations they are aggregating contributions from the corporation’s PACs, employees of those companies (including management) and (often) immediate family members of those employees. Corporations are prohibited from contributing directly to candidates.
A tricky exception is lobbyists. They are usually listed separately as “attorneys” even if they work exclusively or primarily for a single corporate client. But many are contributing as part of their work and at least implicitly on behalf of their corporate client.
Read this page — from top to bottom — it provides a strong summary of President Obama’s many triumphs for the Republican cause during his first three years in the White House. It’s one of my favorite sites on the web: http://www.republicansforobama.org/firstterm