Romney Leads Gingrich In Money; Obama Bests Both
February 1, 2012
Listen to the Story
http://www.npr.org/2012/02/01/146182332/romney-leads-gingrich-in-money-obama-bests-both
Millions of dollars have been spent on television ads during this campaign cycle.
As the Republican candidates were rallying their supporters in Florida on Tuesday night, their campaigns were quietly sending disclosure reports to the Federal Election Commission in Washington. The big picture: Mitt Romney had more money than Newt Gingrich. President Obama had more than either of them. And a few of the new superPACs filed donor lists filled with high rollers.
Tuesday's disclosures run only through Dec. 31 but still reveal some essential truths. http://www.npr.org/2012/02/01/146182332/romney-leads-gingrich-in-money-obama-bests-both
BBC WORLD SERVICE
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-15949569
Editor's Choice
-
NewsThe latest news, features and analysis on the 2012 US presidential election
THE POWER OF MONEY IN POLITICS
David Rothkopf in Superclass: The Global Power Elite And The World They Are Making (2008) states that in politics, the power of money is overwhelming. He writes that historically, the definition of being rich was having the resources that enabled one not to have to work for a living. But there is rich and then there is oh-my-God-there-are-countries-with-smaller-bank-accounts rich. Given that most of the “exaggerated rich” has to bother with actually running a national government, their disposable resources are presumably available for exerting their influence in other powerful ways, whether by backing political candidates, giving to prominent charitable causes, or investing in other deals that extend their business holdings even more broadly.
When justifying the benefits to society of allowing giant paydays for the wealthy, one of the first rationales given is that such people are best able to reinvest the money and thus create jobs and fuel growth. The merits of the argument aside, it is certainly true that having substantial financial resources translates into that asset allocation power mentioned earlier, enabling those who have it to decide which projects get resources, which ideas are supported, and who will have a chance at big returns in the future.
But of course money translates into power in many other ways. Take politics in a place like the United States. To run for president in 2008 [required] that candidates raise in excess of $100 million each in order to be truly competitive. That means that before there was one primary election among voters, there was a “money primary” in 2007 that selected which candidate’s voters would see.
Although donation amounts to individual candidates [were] limited by campaign finance law ($2,300 per individual for the primary season and $2,300 for the general election), there are still ways to raise piles of money quickly. You could have powerful people hold large, lucrative fund-raisers, like billionaire David Geffen, the Hollywood music producer and had of Geffen Records, did for Senator Barack Obama.
Or get the leadership in major companies or Wall Street firms to encourage donations from employees. Those firms then become the top sources of funding, increasing the leverage of their leadership among candidates and eventual officeholders. For example, during the first quarter of 2007, the number one donor with over $500,000 in contributions to presidential campaigns was Goldman Sachs. The next nine companies on the list: Citigroup, UBS-Americas, Credit Suisse, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns, and two hedge funds, fortress Investment Group and SAC Capital.
Similarly, American politics is flush with those who have used their personal fortunes to win political office, from billionaires like New York mayor Michael Bloomberg to the profusion of millionaires who still dominate the American political scene, including names like Kennedy, Corzine, Kerry, Kohl, Schwarzenegger, and many, many others. In fact, 40 out of 100 members of the Senate and 123 out of the 435 members of the House of Representatives are millionaires which raise all sorts of questions about terms like “representative democracy.”
Money plays into political power in other ways, such as the funds doled out to lobbyists. Businesses and individuals alike can direct money under the table to political decision makers themselves, or use it toward media coverage to influence public opinion on key issues. Through such an approach, individual companies and industry groups undertake global campaigns to advance special interests, such as pharmaceutical companies’ desire to promote the creation and enforcement of intellectual property laws protecting their patents.
Business and financial interests have regularly been at the heart of decisions about war and peace, whether it is the cozy relationship of big oil with U.S. administrations that has resulted in wars to protect their vital supply lines in the Middle East, or the wars to preserve mercantilist business interests during the colonial era, or the resistance of big businesses in the United States to confronting the Nazis prior to World War II.Today there is the pressure of multinational corporations to reduce political and trade tensions between the United States and China. Sure, in many instances there is a direct connection between the interests of these businesses and the national interest, but that is not the case often enough to suggest that this historical power of money to do more than just purchase a luxurious lifestyle has been sufficiently constrained. Indeed, one of the surest signs of the potency of political money is that for all the outcries against its influence, it has managed to forestall real reform. In fact, in the political bloodstream of the United States, money often serves the role of both the red cells, carrying ideas to the heart and brain of the system, and the role of white cells, killing ideas that special interest find threatening.
CITIZENS UNITED & THE UNRAVELING OF AMERICAN PLURALITY
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 08-205 (2010), 558 U.S. ––––, 130 S.Ct. 876 (January 21, 2010), was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court holding that the First Amendment prohibits government from placing limits on independent spending for political purposes by corporations and unions. The 5–4 decision originated in a dispute over whether the non-profit corporation Citizens United could air a film critical of Hillary Clinton, and whether the group could advertise the film in broadcast ads featuring Clinton's image, in apparent violation of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, commonly known as the McCain–Feingold Act in reference to its primary Senate sponsors.[2]
Super PACs
Citizens United paved the way for the creation of independent expenditure political action committees, sometimes dubbed Super PACs. These organizations may accept unlimited contributions from individuals, unions, and corporations (both for profit and not-for-profit) for the purpose of making independent expenditures. The Court majority wrote that, for purposes of establishing a "compelling government interest" of corruption sufficient to justify government limitations on political speech, "independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption."[74] Accordingly, lower courts, most notably the D.C. Circuit Court in Speechnow.org v. Federal Election Commission, held that groups could pool contributions and make expenditures in support of or opposition to a candidate provided that the expenditures were made independently of a campaign or a candidate. [75] The effectiveness of this system remains a hot topic in American politics.
CriticismsAmerican politicians
President Barack Obama stated that the decision "gives the special interests and their lobbyists even more power in Washington — while undermining the influence of average Americans who make small contributions to support their preferred candidates".[41] Obama later elaborated in his weekly radio address saying, "this ruling strikes at our democracy itself" and "I can't think of anything more devastating to the public interest".[42] On January 27, 2010, Obama further condemned the decision during the 2010 State of the Union Address, stating that, "Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law[43] to open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections. Well I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities."
Democratic senator Russ Feingold, a lead sponsor of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, stated "This decision was a terrible mistake. Presented with a relatively narrow legal issue, the Supreme Court chose to roll back laws that have limited the role of corporate money in federal elections since Teddy Roosevelt was president."[44] Representative Alan Grayson, a Democrat, stated that it was "the worst Supreme Court decision since the Dred Scott case, and that the court had opened the door to political bribery and corruption in elections to come.[45] Democratic congresswoman Donna Edwards, along with constitutional law professor and Maryland Democratic State Senator Jamie Raskin, have advocated petitions to reverse the decision by means of constitutional amendment.[46] Rep. Leonard Boswell introduced legislation to amend the constitution.[47] Senator John Kerry also called for an Amendment to overrule the decision.[48]. On December 8, 2011, Senator Bernie Sanders proposed the Saving American Democracy Amendment, which would reverse the court's ruling. [49][50]
Republican Senator John McCain, co-crafter of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act and the party's 2008 presidential nominee, said "there's going to be, over time, a backlash ... when you see the amounts of union and corporate money that's going to go into political campaigns".[51] McCain was "disappointed by the decision of the Supreme Court and the lifting of the limits on corporate and union contributions" but not surprised by the decision, saying that "It was clear that Justice Roberts, Alito and Scalia, by their very skeptical and even sarcastic comments, were very much opposed to BCRA."[44] He pointed out that "Justice Rehnquist and Justice O'Connor, who had taken a different position on this issue, both had significant political experience, while Justices Roberts, Alito and Scalia have none."[51] (In fact, Rehnquist had joined Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Kennedy in dissenting in McConnell v. FEC). Republican Senator Olympia Snowe opined that "Today's decision was a serious disservice to our country."[52]
Sanda Everette, co-chair of the Green Party, stated that "The ruling especially hurts the ability of parties that don't accept corporate contributions, like the Green Party, to compete." (In fact, 2 U.S.C. 441i, which was not altered by the decision in Citizens United, prohibits all parties from accepting direct contributions from corporations.) Another Green Party officer, Rich Whitney, stated "In a transparently political decision, a majority of the US Supreme Court overturned its own recent precedent and paid tribute to the giant corporate interests that already wield tremendous power over our political process and political speech."
Ralph Nader, a lawyer who placed third in the popular vote in the last three presidential elections, condemned the ruling,[53] saying that "With this decision, corporations can now directly pour vast amounts of corporate money, through independent expenditures, into the electoral swamp already flooded with corporate campaign PAC contribution dollars." He called for shareholder resolutions asking company directors to pledge not to use company money to favor or oppose electoral candidates.[54] Pat Choate, Reform Party candidate stated, "The court has, in effect, legalized foreign governments and foreign corporations to participate in our electoral politics."[55]
How SuperPACs Are 'Gaming' The 2012 Campaign
Joe Hagan is a contributing editor at New York Magazine and Vanity Fair. He has previously worked for The Wall Street Journal and The New York Observer
Interview Highlights
Joe Hagan's cover story in the Jan. 22 edition of New York Magazine details why the 2012 election will be the "most negative in the history of American politics."
On opposition researchers at superPACs
"The superPACs, in many ways, have displaced a lot of work that the Democratic National Committee or the Republican National Committee used to be doing. Those people are doing it also, but these people are doing it with much more money. So they can afford to hire more people, do more digging, get more advertising, [buy more] air time. And if Mitt Romney wants to do a certain attack on Newt Gingrich and say that he is grandiose, the superPAC supporting Mitt Romney — Restore Our Future — can begin to go through its opposition research archives, slap together a bunch of ads and air them in Florida."
On how the media influences negative ads
"What these guys realize is that you can dig up all of this negative information, but if it's coming from a Romney press release about Gingrich, let's say, it's going to have a lot less gravity with people than if it comes out in a newspaper like The New York Times or it comes out on MSNBC or CNN. So a lot of what the opposition research is about is getting the information to reporters, getting them to report it, and putting the imprimatur of an objective outlet around it. So this is the warfare that's going on between these campaigns."
On relationships between the press and campaign strategists
"There's such a tight relationship between the political reporters and these consultants who are giving them all of this information. I think this is part of a larger trend, over the last 10 years, kind of a merging of politics and media. You have Fox News and now MSNBC, which kind of represents the left. The distinction between the messaging that is coming out of political campaigns and their superPACs and what's going on in the press is getting more and more blurred."
On tips given to the media
"They're providing them not just tips about radioactive, bad stories that could lead to the opposition being kneecapped for good, but video content and archival information that [reporters] can use in their pieces: quotes and videos and things that [the researchers] dug up. ... It's not just Deep Throat kind of information, it's a daily barrage of well-researched information."
On how social media has made this process more open
"This has always happened throughout the ages, but in the past this was much more secretive. ... All day long there's this churn going on, and the reporters have these relationships with opposition researchers — they go out for drinks with them, they learn things. This has been going on in the past, but now it's much more out in the open. There are more of those opposition researchers and maybe less of the reporters. The power, in many cases, is with these opposition researchers." http://www.npr.org/2012/01/31/146137765/how-superpacs-are-gaming-the-2012-campaign
YE OF LITTLE FAITH IN BARACK OBAMA
In The Obama White House, A Crisis Of 'Confidence'
September 20, 2011
A new book by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Ron Suskind paints an unflattering picture of rivalries and dysfunction within President Obama's first economic team — rivalries that Suskind says then slowed the administration's response to the financial crisis.
http://www.marketplace.org/node/50607/player/popout" (chyrsler)
[34 sec]
The profit for Chrysler is a sign the turnaround under Italian car company Fiat is working. Earnings were driven by higher sales of Jeeps, Dodge Durangos and other redesigned models. http://www.npr.org/2012/02/01/146192021/chrysler-reports-first-annual-profit-in-years
The critics of Barack Obama would have you believe that his presidency and his administration are a failure and incompetent. Even Ron Suskind in Confidence Men: Wall Street, Washington, And The Education Of A President (2011) tells the tale of a administration taking on a chaotic financial situations, yet in the end winning one battle at a time over time. He writes that there was perhaps no better case study for how the “systemic” risk posed by the turbulence on Wall Street threatened the broader economy than what was happening six hundred miles west, in Motor City. The crisis in Detroit was ignited by New York. When credit tightened after Bear Stearns’ March 2008 fall, auto sales began to decline precipitously from their historic peak of seventeen million units in 2007 by late March 2009, the question of what to do about the automakers had persisted for more than a year. (221)
Without a definitive recommendation, more than a dozen of advisers gathered with the President in the Oval Office on the afternoon of March 26. The problematic at the discussion was, if Chrysler were to fail, would GM and Ford in fact profit from feeding off the corpse? Obama was intrigued by this. It was the kind of integrated solution that often caught his eye, where large, dysfunctional systems connect in such a way that one’s adversity can be turned to the other’s advantage.
“Mr. President, these are the reasons we can’t kill this company. The damage to these communities and people will never be undone,” Bloom said, drawing attention to the chasm between economic modeling and on-the-ground realities.
The discussion now broke beyond the bloodless norm of economic colloquy, of speculative predictions about corporate and consumer behavior with countless livelihoods at stake. While polls showed that the public strongly opposed the bailout of the auto companies, Rom Emanuel said a Chrysler shutdown and economic fallout would have political consequences across the Midwest, and he began reeling off the names of congressmen who had Chrysler plants in their districts. Others, like Axelrod, offered comments about what the president’s actions meant to people in trouble and equally to those watching from the sidelines.
“The president wasn’t elected to be competent and pragmatic in managing policy debates with economists, who won’t ever admit what they’re doing, is often guesswork, with a data sheet attached,” Bloom later said, reflecting on the meeting. “He was elected to act decisively in a way that makes Americans—especially the American worker, who’s been left behind for decades—feels something they haven’t felt in awhile, which is hope. Hope, because someone, finally, is fighting for them.”
With that one line, Gibbs had stumbled on a larger set of questions than prospective corporate behavior or gaming the financial system. Whose failure posed a greater threat to the nation: a Wall Street bank or the American worker? And when given a choice, shouldn’t the government side with the powerless?
Obama had heard enough. “I’ve decided. I’m prepared to support Chrysler if we can get the Fiat alliance done on terms that make sense to us.” Then, nodding to the Wall Streeters and market-oriented economists in the Oval Office, he added, “I want you to be tough, and I want you to be commercial.” (228-30) And the investment paid off.
Made In The USA: Saving The American Brand
by NPR Staff
Eastman Kodak Co. headquarters is shown in Rochester, N.Y. Kodak once employed 60,000 people there, but recently filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection amid foreign competition.
January 28, 2012
A majestic building still dominates the skyline of Rochester, N.Y., the word "Kodak" shining brightly from the top. It's the legacy of George Eastman — the founder of the Eastman Kodak Co. — a company that helped Rochester thrive and gave it the nickname "Kodak Town."
Saving American Autos
General Motors, headquartered in Detroit, recovered from near disaster after a financial bailout from the federal government.
Before the auto industry bailout, many people in the U.S. and around the world assumed that the age of the American car manufacturer was over. And yet, one need only visit an auto show, like the Washington Auto Show that opened this weekend in Washington, D.C., to see how confident American automakers have become.
GM and Chrysler are now expected to show their best performance since the auto crisis. On Friday, Ford posted its biggest profit in years. http://www.npr.org/2012/01/28/146033135/made-in-the-usa-saving-the-american-brand
A LESSON FOR BARACK OBAMA
Baratunde Thurston Explains 'How To Be Black'
Baratunde Thurston is an American comedian and the digital director of The Onion. He co-founded the black political blog Jack & Jill Politics. He is also a prolific tweeter
February 1, 2012
It's no coincidence that Baratunde Thurston's new memoir and satirical self-help book How to Be Black was slated for release on the first day of Black History Month.
A LESSON FOR US ALL
Occupy Movement Uses Colder Months To Unite
February 1, 2012 from WNYC
The Occupy Wall Street movement seized the world's attention after a group in New York claimed a small slice of land in the financial district. The movement rapidly spread to other cities, sparking a national discussion on income inequality and other issues. Things are quieter in New York, but the movement still has big plans.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
David Biddle
jmac1949
Snowden
libbyliberalnyc
skypixie0
Jimmy Zuma
Salon.com
Comments