Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Democracy and Elections

Big Business Is Making Sure It Wins the Presidency

By Matt Taibbi, RollingStone.com. Posted August 9, 2008.


It's the same old story: Money talks, and bullshit walks. And don't be surprised if we're the ones still walking after November.
Advertisement

Remember the total, hideous, inexcusable absence of oversight that has been the great hallmark of George Bush's America for almost eight years now? Well, now we're getting to see that same regulatory malfeasance applied to yet another cornerstone of our political system. The Federal Election Commission -- the body that supposedly enforces campaign-finance laws in this country -- has been out of business for more than six months. That's because Congress was dragging its feet over confirmation hearings for new FEC commissioners, leaving the agency without a quorum. The commission just started work again for the first time on July 10th under its new chairman, Donald McGahn, a classic Republican Party yahoo whose chief qualifications include representing Tom DeLay, the corrupt ex-speaker of the House, in matters of campaign finance.

Apart from the obvious absurdity of not having a functioning election-policing mechanism in an election year in the world's richest democracy, the late start by the FEC makes it almost impossible for the agency to do its job. The commission has a long-standing reluctance to take action in the last months before a vote, a policy designed to help prevent federal regulators from influencing election outcomes. Normally, the FEC tries to root out infractions and loopholes -- fining campaigns for incomplete reporting, or for taking shortcuts around spending limits -- in the early months of a campaign season. But that ship sailed way too long ago to take the stink off the 2008 race.

"The time for setting the ground rules was earlier," says Craig Holman, a lobbyist with the watchdog group Public Citizen. "There isn't time to do much now."

That's especially true given the magnitude of what we're dealing with here: the biggest pile of political contributions in the history of free elections, nearly a billion dollars given to presidential candidates in this season alone. Because the FEC has been dead in the water for so long, it's likely that we'll still be in the dark about a large chunk of this record manure pile of campaign contributions when we go to vote in November.

But that doesn't mean that a little sifting through campaign records doesn't tell us quite a lot about who's backing whom in these races. The truth is that the campaigns of both Barack Obama and John McCain are being inundated with cash from more or less exactly the same gorgons of the corporate scene. From Wall Street to the Big Oil powerhouses to the military-industrial complex, America's fat-cat business leaders know that the Animal House-style party of the last eight years that made almost all of them rich with bonuses, government contracts and bubble profits is about to come to an end, and someone is going to have to pay to clean up the mess. They want that someone to be you, not them, and they've spared no expense to make sure both presidential candidates will be there to bail them out next year.

They're succeeding. Both would-be presidents have already sold us out. They've taken the money and run -- completing the cyclical transformation of the American political narrative from one of monopolistic Republican iniquity to an even more depressing tale about the overweening power of corporate money and the essentially fictitious nature of our two-party system.

In layman's terms, we've gone from being screwed to being fucked. Who knows -- maybe Barack Obama will surprise us if he wins the election. But if you look at the money, it doesn't look good.

Thanks in part to the dormant FEC, corporate America has had even easier access to the candidates than usual in its effort to buy off the next government before the crash. In fact, this election has seen some excellent new innovations in the area of campaign-fundraising atrocities. Chief among them is the rise of so-called "joint committees."

It used to be that campaigns could raise a maximum of $2,300 from each individual. Now, both candidates -- but especially McCain, who far outstrips Obama in this area -- routinely hold fundraisers in which individuals can give far more to a joint committee. Technically, the candidate still pockets only $2,300 in contributions. The bulk of the money raised -- in McCain's case, a whopping $70,100, or 30 times the previous limit -- goes to the state and national arms of the candidate's party, which can then spend the unprecedented haul on behalf of the candidate. "This allows CEOs to walk in the door and drop $70,100," says Holman. "It basically allows campaigns to exceed the spending limits."

McCain has raised more than $63 million via these joint committees, thanks to more than 1,000 "megadonors" who have each given at least $25,000 to his campaign effort. Obama, by contrast, has some 471 megadonors -- and a close examination of their backgrounds underscores some of the differences in corporate America's attitudes toward the two candidates.

One of McCain's chief sources of corporate money is the private-equity firm Kohlberg Kravis Roberts, memorialized for its takeover of RJR Nabisco in the movie Barbarians at the Gate. Through the pretext of joint committees, 10 KKR executives have given McCain $285,000, and it's not hard to figure out why. Two of McCain's key campaign proposals -- lowering the corporate tax rate to 25 percent and making purchases of industrial equipment fully deductible -- would save a single KKR subsidiary, Energy Future Holdings, $49 million.

"Just in his tax policies alone, McCain is saving corporate America $175 billion a year," says James Kvaal, who analyzed McCain's tax policy for the nonprofit Center for American Progress.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: barack obama, john mccain, money & politics

Matt Taibbi is a writer for Rolling Stone.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Democracy and Elections! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
set the example now
Posted by: hayduke1 on Aug 9, 2008 12:10 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
IMPEACH


let the truth prevail

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: set the example now Posted by: weathered
» RE: set the example now Posted by: LOVELYT.
Matt hits the nail on the head
Posted by: mmckinl on Aug 9, 2008 12:22 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Both would-be presidents have already sold us out. They've taken the money and run -- completing the cyclical transformation of the American political narrative from one of monopolistic Republican iniquity to an even more depressing tale about the overweening power of corporate money and the essentially fictitious nature of our two-party system."

What we have is a duopoly. At best the democrats will leave a few more crumbs on the table.

We still haven't hit the bottom of the hole folks ... cause we haven't even stopped digging.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I'll take the crumbs Posted by: Sushi
» RE: I'll take the crumbs Posted by: CatDad
» RE: I'll take the crumbs Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: Matt hits the nail on the head Posted by: Jack Canuck
Change you can bellieve in
Posted by: ankhet on Aug 9, 2008 2:08 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So - Obama stands for change - now we have an explanation of what he means by "change". Change - and tons of it, lots and lots of change, truckloads of smelly, stinky change.

There ya go - exactly as predicted by the "cynical old fogeys", who are pretty familiar with the smell of rotten fish.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» yep Posted by: dudelette
» RE: Change you can bellieve in Posted by: Jack Canuck
Business as Usual
Posted by: nochicagoboys on Aug 9, 2008 2:16 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yet another amazing article by Rolling Stone's Matt Taibbi. This is investigative journalism at its best. Why can't the mainstream media be so forthcoming and divulge these incredibly revealing details? (We all know the answer to that, don't we?)

As I've been posting, on this very forum, for at least the last year. Obama is no different than McCain; McCain is no different than Obama. The Democratic Party is no different than they Republican Party; the G.O.P. is no different than the Democratic Party. They're just two separate wings of the same party -- the Corporatist Party; the truly unitary party system that dominates America today.

C'mon folks, use your brain, and rid yourselves of those delusional ideas that, "Life's going to be great again, if only Senator Obama can win the presidency! You'll see!" If this article doesn't finally lay it out for you, in black-and-white, than you're beyond hope. Why people -- average people, middle-class people, working class people, living paycheck-to paycheck people, continue to place their bets on Senator Obama, is beyond me. Unfortunately, enough won't read Mr. Taibbi's article, and certainly, enough won't read the article to make a difference.

It's time to rethink this whole process, folks, if you haven't already. It's time to start thinking, seriously, about leaving both wings of the Corporatist Party behind, and finding a party (or person) that stands-up for you. Because, the way it is now, it certainly does not. The way it is now, it's business as usual.

Good luck.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Business as Usual Posted by: beautifulady2003
» RE: Business as Usual Posted by: Steve Adair
» RE: Business as Usual Posted by: Razst
» RE: Business as Usual Posted by: nochicagoboys
» RE: Business as Usual Posted by: weenie
» Yellow is right . . . Posted by: dustdevil
» President of Nothing Posted by: edgar1
» RE: Yellow is right . . . Posted by: nochicagoboys
» RE: Yellow is right . . . Posted by: dustdevil
» Slave's rights????? Posted by: kimbari
» Important Addendum Posted by: pdxjoe
» RE: Why Barr? Posted by: oregoncharles
» RE: Why Barr? Posted by: Joe
» RE: With what guns? Posted by: oregoncharles
» RE: Reply to Razst Posted by: oregoncharles
» RE: Business as Usual Posted by: suzdav2
» RE: Business as Usual Posted by: Jack Canuck
» RE: Business as Usual Posted by: lamac66
» RE: Business as Usual Posted by: nochicagoboys
GO OBAMA!
Posted by: HughScott on Aug 9, 2008 3:03 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I hope Barrack raises a billion bucks and I don't give a damn where it comes from as long as he beats Unfit McCain, America's NUMBER ONE NEOCON.

Not surprising to me, Matt Taibbi never talked about the greatest threat to his own personal liberty -- the 225 subversive PNAC members (signatories), including Unfit McCain, who influence the federal government and U.S. military-industrial complex.

I spent two years researching Bill Kristol's rightwing extremist organization and know the fascist bastards like my brother. PNAC is the Bush administration's evil-minded Wizard of Oz and it will continue in that role under a McCain administation.

A small example of PNAC power is the Carlyle Group, mentioned in Taibbi's article.

In the run-up to our invasion of Iraq, which PNAC began promoting in 1998, the private investment fund was managed by PNAC signatory Frank Carlucci, former Reagan Secretary of Defense.

Not coincidentally during the late 1990s and well into the Bush 43 administration, the Carlyle Group made humongus profits on no-bid DOD contracts, of which George H.W. Bush, a Carlyle partner, got a lion's share -- to be inherited by his no-talent first son.

By the way, PNAC's Web site is not longer active because someone didn't pay the hosting fees. But that won't stop you from learning about the treasonous organization, if you click on: PNAC

With love,

*Hugh E. Scott, 73, Vietnam vet, lifelong registered Republican and rabid neocon-hater.
Seven Reasons to Vote Against Unfit McCain

*For the benefit of first-time AlterNet visitors.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: GO OBAMA! Posted by: beautifulady2003
» RE: GO OBAMA! Posted by: nochicagoboys
» RE: Thanks, Hugh. Posted by: oregoncharles
» RE: Bill Clinton Posted by: oregoncharles
» Have to disagree . . . Posted by: dustdevil
» RE: GO OBAMA! Posted by: cwilsondrum
» RE: GO OBAMA! Posted by: LOVELYT.
» RE: GO OBAMA! Posted by: suzdav2
» posthaste Posted by: posthaste
Turn back the Tide by taking back The White House!
Posted by: williameon on Aug 9, 2008 5:12 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Kick the Corpirates out.
Go grass roots.
Circumvent the Evil Ratschild Plague
All the Talking Heads
And
Dark Mercenary Armies
Can never sell the people into
Slavery again.
Go local.
Cut out the corpirate middleman.
Kick Oil
The Fossil Fuel Age will die with
The Zio-whore gas bags
Bush/Chainey
May the door hit them in the ass and
Children slap them in the face.

Barter
Create
Go GREEN
Go organic
Survive
and
Prosper.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Typical LIMITED HANGOUT Fluff
Posted by: Mister_PsyOps on Aug 9, 2008 6:02 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Taibbi picks the easiest possible target in skin-deep election year "corruption" and doesn't bother to mention the fact both "candidates" Obama and McCain are owned and operated by a de facto ruling class that runs the private Ponzi scheme "Federal Reserve" Corp (not federal, zero reserves) and thus the economy along with Washington, the MSM, etc, ad nauseam.

In other words, the entire system is a sham FASCIST state that poses at "democracy" and "capitalism" where neither has existed for generations.

This was made transparently clear on a particular tuesday 9/11 that ranks as the most grotesque and proven criminal coverup in modern history for its equally ugly 9/11 "war on terror" genocide monster. An event Taibbi and other well-paid MSM drones never questioned as they continue to promote the official DC travesty coverup and denounced anyone who dare point out the sham of the century.

In other words, it isn't "Big Business" that owns the "presidency" and a Washington-MSM axis but “The Owners” behind one monopoly FASCIST corporate crime state.

Of course, you'd never learn that from the likes of the Rolling Stone, the pretend counter-culture touchstone. No, it's just a random collection of "Big Business" suits that occasionally go off the reservation. That's the post 9/11 comic book worldview we get sold from one year to the next.

Meanwhile, it is organized Fascist reality on the ground that supposed maverick Taibbi and his MSM sellout choir will never acknowledge much less report.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This comment has been removed from the site due to non-compliance with AlterNet's community policies.
Hillary Wants Mac to win! You Working for Hill's '12 Run??
Posted by: Purple Girl on Aug 9, 2008 6:23 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
She made that very clear while campaigning. He's promised her Only One term- and has basically endorsed her too.
So WHO's big Donors and 'Advisors' Are these currnetly listed under Obama's campaign. Could they be the ones who HillaBilly 'released to Help Sen Obama'. Wouldn't the appearance of Corp influence work to Hillary's advantage too- undermining Sen Obama's 'Change ' message? Would that help solidify the 'Lefts' assistance in defenting this Dem candidate Again?
consider the fact Hillary could have had her machine work just as hard against Obama as the Neo Cons.thus giving her the opening in'12. Also consider if her machine was able to not only infiltrate, but kneecap Sen Obama's run from the inside, letting it be seen as a 'sell out'.
So Hillary has handed Obama an double edged sword- take my 'friends' or I'll have them work against You. I can only hope Obama has seen the treason of the Clintons against him, Party and the Country and is soaking them for all he can to Win and avoid Hillary's grab for power in'12.The Clintons ARE Corp Covert Operatives, It's taken this old supporter the last few years to stop accepting THEIR flavor of Koolaid.
That is why I am all in flavor of Obama proving Patriotism is color Blind and names Sen Check Hagel as his VP- Fuck the Corps who have infiltrated both parties

Obama/Hagel '08

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Obomba Posted by: edgar1
Why was this article made?
Posted by: Godfather89 on Aug 9, 2008 6:25 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I dont even know why this article was made. I mean if your on this website its because, mass media has kinda let you down and that you kinda already know that politicians care less than two shits about you and your family.

Look at it this way: When talk about prosperity, freedom, and security their really talking to the people in charge of creating the NWO and that you kinda are just in between them talking.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Not surprised
Posted by: GreyFoxThree on Aug 9, 2008 6:44 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Wow, why am I not surprised. Its always about Money lately and nothing else. Pretty sad. how much more will the Sheeple take?

JT
Ultimate Anonymity

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Best Democracy Money Can Buy
Posted by: chlamor on Aug 9, 2008 6:52 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
No need to focus on McCain here as everyone knows how corrupted and vulgar he is but still some have illusions about Obama.

Let’s see where this candidate gets his money to convince you to vote for him;

Barack Obama:

Goldman Sachs $421,763 Ubs Ag $296,670 Lehman Brothers $250,630 National Amusements Inc $245,843 JP Morgan Chase & Co $243,848 Sidley Austin LLP $226,491 Citigroup Inc $221,578 Exelon Corp $221,517 Skadden, Arps Et Al $196,420 Jones Day $181,996 Harvard University $172,324 Citadel Investment Group $171,798 Time Warner $155,383 Morgan Stanley $155,196 Google Inc $152,802 University of California $143,029 Jenner & Block $136,565 Kirkland & Ellis $134,738 Wilmerhale Llp $119,245 Credit Suisse Group $118,250


We hear it all the time: “Republicans are the party of big business and Democrats are the party of the people.” Court rulings have even endorsed the idea that spending cash in support of candidates is “free speech.” There sure is a ton of money being spent for something that is "free."

For more than 20 years now, polls of the American people repeatedly have shown that a majority of Americans believe their government is controlled by special interests. Can anyone honestly assert that there is no connection between campaign cash and the policies of the US Government? Does anyone truly believe this?

In his Super Tuesday speech, Mr. Obama asserted that he isn’t taking money from PAC’s during his presidential campaign. While this is true, he nevertheless has received huge amounts of campaign cash from individuals associated with certain industries.

Take a look at the information available OpenSecrets.org website.

Ask yourself these questions after reviewing the statistics:

1. Which party is the party of big business (hint: they both are)?

2. Do you believe campaign cash has a direct impact on legislation and policy?

3. Do you believe either McCain or Obama is free to act on behalf of the American people instead of catering to corporate America?

How can liberal Democrats decry the infusion of corporate cash into the political process when both Clinton and Obama have received more industry campaign cash than their Republican opponent? How can the Democratic Party be the “party of the people” when they, too, are funded by corporations and their lobbyists? If you're an advocate of "lesser of the evils" voting, understand that you're endorsing a corporate-funded agenda.

Big business likes things just the way they are. They get what they want in Washington at your expense. If you're hoping for change, voting for corporate-funded candidates is not the way. The rich will get richer while the poor get poorer. Corporations will prosper while the US Treasury goes bankrupt. Solutions to real problems like addiction to oil, global warming, decaying infrastructure, affordable healthcare, declining literacy rates, and a real social safety net cannot happen when government caters to profit-seeking corporations instead of the American people.

What we’re left with is truly the best democracy money can buy. As we all know, or should know, that’s no democracy at all.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The Best Democracy Money Can Buy Posted by: nochicagoboys
FOLLOW THE MONEY
Posted by: chlamor on Aug 9, 2008 6:56 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama's presidential campaign has received nearly $5 million dollars from securities and investment firms and $866,000 from commercial banks through October of 2007. Obama's top contributor so far is Goldman Sachs (provider of $369,078 to Obama), identified by Center for Responsive Politics (CRP) investigators as "a major proponent of privatizing Social Security as well as legislation that would essentially deregulate the investment banking/securities industry." Eight of Obama's top twenty election investors are securities and investment firms: Goldman Sachs, Lehman Bros. (#2 at $229,090), J.P. Morgan Chase and Co. (# 4 at $216,759), Citadel Investment Group (#7 at 4166,608), UBS AG ($146,150), UBS-America ($106,680), Morgan Stanley ($104,421), and Credit Suisse Group ($92,300). The last two firms are also known to be leading privatization advocates.

Meanwhile, Obama's presidential run has been "assisted" by more than $2 million from the health care sector and nearly $400,000 from the insurance industry through October of 2007. Obama received $708,000 from medical and insurance interests between 2001 and 2006.

And Obama's sixth largest contributor is Exelon, the proud Chicago-based owner and operator of more nuclear power plants than any entity on earth.

Go figure.

As for his "lobbyist ban," last August the Los Angeles Times reported that Obama "raised more than $1 million in the first three months of his presidential campaign from law firms and companies that have major lobbying operations in the nation's capital." Campaign finance expert Stephen Weissman observed that this raised troubling questions about the practical relevance of Obama's much-ballyhooed pledge to turn down donations from "federal lobbyists."

Obama's rise to national prominence and presidential viability has in fact depended significantly on PAC and lobbyist money.

To give one example, Obama received $33,000 in the first quarter of 2007 from the Atlanta-based law firm Alston & Bird, which maintains a large lobbying division in Washington. Obama's $33,000 came bundled from a number of "consultants" employed by the firm.

Also deleted from Obama's "ban" are state lobbyists. Obama took $2000 from two Springfield, Illinois lobbyists for Exelon, which spent $500,000 to influence policy in Washington in 2006 and gave $160,000 directly to Obama.

An especially big dent in the armor of Obama's effort to sell himself as the noble repudiator of lobbyist, PAC, and special interest money generally was inflicted in early August of 2007. That's when the Boston Globe published a widely circulated article titled "PACs and Lobbyists Aided Obama's Rise: Data Contrast With His Theme." Globe reporter Scott Helman reviewed campaign finance records to find that a "more complicated truth" lurked "behind Obama's campaign rhetoric." Obama's rise to national prominence and presidential viability, Helman discovered, depended significantly on PAC and lobbyist money, including large sums from "defense contractors, law firms and the securities and insurance industries" to his own powerful PAC "Hopefund." Of special interest was Helman's determination that Obama was retaining close and lucrative funding relationships with leading Washington-based lobbyists and lobbying firms while technically avoiding direct contributions from those key campaign finance players.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: FOLLOW THE MONEY Posted by: nochicagoboys
» Posthaste Posted by: posthaste
» Try opensource.org & enjoy! Posted by: nochicagoboys
another beautifull irony!
Posted by: frankly1 on Aug 9, 2008 7:14 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Kurt Vonnegut once said that we are just irony collection devices and here we have one we can all place in our inventory along with so many others. The next president will probably be a attrative young laywer of mixed race with a cute young family, our "first" family.
Underneath just as corrupt, bought, paid for and controled by the same people as the other guy. But he looks good! He looks the way we want a president, the image of our nation, to look.
The man who was bottom of his class, thinks war is great, dropped bombs on people and is so obviosly immoral, corrupt, racist and ignorant will lose the "election" (another great irony - the greatest domocracy has none).
But does'nt he look more like the government he wants to lead?
Perhaps we should be carefull who we pretend to be!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Obsessive-Compulsive Ecocides
Posted by: Last Chance on Aug 9, 2008 7:15 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Big Business will win the Presidency and go right on devouring the financial and biological foundation of their own existence. They are totally insane.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Answer is SIMPLE
Posted by: bryangalt on Aug 9, 2008 8:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The answer to the campaign contribution/buy-a-politician issue is so simple its almost like reading a "see spot run" narrative.

All campaign donations should be discontinued-outlawed-stopped-kaput-period.

This law should apply to every level of government without exception.

A new law would govern the election runs in a simple and orderly manner and would go like this:

Primary Elections:

Any qualified candidate for an elected position shall be granted airtime in the local broadcast market covering the district/state where the primary is located for the period prior to the election day with the following formula:

Presidential candidates: 5 minutes per day/two weeks

Senate/Reps: 3 min day/two weeks

State Sen/Reps: 2 min day/1 week

Local races: 1 min day/ 1 week

General Election

Presidential Candidates: 5 min day/only 4 weeks prior to election

Sen/Reps: 4 min day/4 wks to election

State Sen/Reps: 3 min day/4 wks to election

Local: 2 min day/ 4 wks to election

This airtime would be provided by the TV stations/cable operations as a public service at no charge to the candidates.

Presidential candidates would be provided with government aircraft after they are selected as their parties candidate at no charge to them.

A fund of $500 Million would be used to pay for staff for all candidates in an election year from local to Presidential.

Donations to parties could remain legal, but those donations could not be used for advertising for a candidate.

If the blood supply is cut off to a tumor, the tumor dies and the patient lives.

Cut off the money to the corruption, and we all may just survive as well.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The Answer is SIMPLE Posted by: mercianomad
Cash at the Core
Posted by: Nicnic on Aug 9, 2008 8:42 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The last great freedom in this country is slowing slipping away from us and most people don’t have a clue what that is. Their ability to restrict your access to cash under any number of ruses is what keeps them alive. Money for nothing yet the fee keeps rising. Their goal is to eliminate it as soon as possible.

You think you have problems dealing with the bank over fees now just wait until cash is no longer valid. Anyone can then be forced from riches to rags with the flip of the switch once the economy is transacted entirely on an electronic basis. They’ll be able to remove you from society for any arbitrary reason of non-compliance and you’ll have no recourse.

This cashless day is soon upon us unless you start acting now. They are pushing for it as hard as they can. They are lying to you about the advantages of electronic commerce while they make phony rules and restrictions to combat money laundering and terrorism. You have no idea how every purchase, whether at the grocery store or the doctor's office is cataloged, categorized, analyzed and traded and used against you in any number of nefarious ways.

Everything that is wrong with this country stems from the increasingly stringent hold the financial reptiles have over YOUR money. You must start using cash as exclusively as possible. You must vote in the fair tax and before you believe the misinformation about it you’d better actually get the real facts and study it close. And you must decriminalize drugs and here again, you've got to get the real facts behind substance control and the true cost of it to you. Stop overbuying into the false notion that you can afford anything, which has withdrawal consequences as bad as drugs. Go for ownership, not enslavement. Pay everything off as soon as you can. Don't generate financial fees on their behalf because you're an inept consumer. Stop consuming on their behalf.

If you don’t do these things they will eventually end up with all our money and all our guns and we'll be nothing more than amoebas.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What's new about this?
Posted by: jeffrey7 on Aug 9, 2008 8:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Your Great Grand Parents and some of our Parents lived through 'The Great Depression' in the 1920's and 30's. Back then a deal was struck with American Industrialists and the Roosevelt Administration. Big Business would run the country and the government would pass the laws necessary to aide them in their work.
Since then Big Business has made sure the only people that ever get talked about are the ones the work for them. Being socially conscious is window dressing to give the appearence working in the best intrest of the people. Under the
cold hand of the American business model we've been given WW2,Korea,Vietman,Central America, Peru,Lebenon,Iran/Contra,support of the Tailban against the Russians in Afghanistan,yeah Bin Laden too,Desert Storm,the no fly zones,The Balkins,Iraq 2 and a dart toss at the World map for the next Big
Business sponsored insurection.
How do you think a candidate get a quarter of a billion dollars in contributions or for that
matter the DNC and the RNC getting Hundreds of millions of dollars in contributions.
Big Business is the real Terrorist. This is the real threat to World Peace and stability. The answer to this global as well as national threat is to put someone in office that owes Big Business nothing and is willing to take away their means of operating this game of Corporate Rulership. In short...someone who's willing to slap these jerks with a non-refundable,non-deductable high taxbracket. Without the power that having money gives them
they stop being a problem to the rest of the World.
Some folks may scream 'Job Losses!' but we have enough necessary environmental actions that need doing to replace any 'lost job'. We also have the inteligence to create new abd better jobs that don't support world domination but rather World Elevation. The only way we're going to get there is by eliminating the Big Business/Government connections for it is they who've sent you family off to die in an illegal and imoral vendetta strike in Iraq by the Bush Family Mafia.
Jeffrey7 for Prez '08

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Paris Hilton "anti-McCain" ad proves Taibbi's thesis
Posted by: sausage on Aug 9, 2008 8:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ms Hilton spells out very clearly in her "commercial" what she, and by extension every member of her socioeconomic class, the upper one percent, the trust fund baby families of the USA, are willing to go along with when it comes to transitioning from a petroleum-based economy to an alternative-energy-based economy. Nothing too extreme, nothing that will too adversely effect the stock portfolio until new technologies, and investment opportunities, come online.

Face it, Paris Hilton's class--and let us not forget that the Kennedy clan is also a member in good standing of the trust fund babies set--dominates the economy, so whether we get a President Obama or President McCain next January, "her" energy plan well be the one we get.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Paris the Wise Posted by: edgar1
Follow the Money..$$$ -Keep Obama Honest..!
Posted by: TJColatrella on Aug 9, 2008 8:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama's absence in the Oil market speculator manipulation for me has been a huge source of frustration and disgust...

FISA was bad enough but had national security implications about which he is seen as vulnerable...

But remaining silent as to the criminal manipulation of the Futures and Commodities Market is not only abdicating his place as the head for the most part of the Democratic party but a betrayal of the working and average public suffering due to this the biggest swindle in history...

Now Goldman Sachs has given Obama through bundling over $622,000 and Morgan Stanley nearly $300,000 and they are amongst the biggest players in this insider trading on the Oil market...

Why is Obama taking money from these people he has supporters that believe in him as I believed in John Edwards, who would easily give him more than that if he only asked..!

Obama also took money from UBS which is under criminal investigation over the sub prime scandal and rip off..!

I'm glad Mike wrote this article and much of it I have known...

Obama could lose the election due to his being mute on these vital issues of energy and the Republican Deregulation of our markets..

He would be so much stronger without this tainted money...and could actually be a candidate for change which I never saw in him anyway..

Still he's got my vote just to stop McCain and the Republicans as the lessor evil...

Sorry but that's the best that I can do when it comes to this guy Obama..

If he was being straight with the American people over the issues speaking out hard and fighting as to the real reason for the high Gas and Oil Prices he be further ahead in the polls where he belongs..

Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley and UBS are millstones that are dragging him and his campaign down..not lifting it up..!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

gawker
Posted by: jbwestwood on Aug 9, 2008 8:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Taibbi's salty language provides an air of authenticity and allows self congratulatory reader back slapping but begs the ultimate question: What next?
Sadly, in the USA the only non-bloodshed answer is collective voter rebellion throwing ALL rascals out. Such highly unlikly action would, like impeachment, restore a belief in people power and wipe the slate clean. As an angry WWII/Korean vet I have little hope that the sheeple will shed a fascination with TV drivel and start shouting.
I grieve for my grandchildren! UGH, YUK, and PUKE!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

vote for the candidate who raises the least amount of money
Posted by: civilsociety on Aug 9, 2008 9:00 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Having received a fund raising letter from the DNC two days ago I sent it back with comments written in the margins in red pen including an attached bulleted letter explaining what I believed in (lifted from the mission statement from unitedprogressives.org) with some modifications and sent it along with a zero placed in the "other" column for donations.

I included a header that said when Obama decide to catch up to progressives he would then not need all this money. In the interim I am leaning heavily toward voting for a black woman (McKinney/Green) for president or possibly after 56 years not voting at all.

When the American public begins to vote for the candidate that raises the leas amount of money will we be able to take our form of government back into the people's hands. Until then all we are is voting for the lesser of two evils and supporting the multinational corporate stranglehold on our future.

So who are you voting for?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: vote! Posted by: oregoncharles
» RE: vote! Posted by: nochicagoboys
If Obama wins, he'll be LBJ. If Mccain wins, he'll be Dubya !
Posted by: jwverez on Aug 9, 2008 9:10 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Beyond the money issue, it's important to realize that neither one of these two are going to get the US out of Iraq. Nope. As long as we gotta have our cars as well as all our products manufactured with crude oil and more cuts are being made to what's left of public transportation and renewable technologies, most of which are environmentally friendly, we are all going to have to face the ongoing collapse of the system in America. Sorry kiddies, but we're right now stuck without a choice but to SLOP up all that oil, coal, gas, and nuclear (even though nuclear is kind of renewable but dangerous and expensive) because if people want "cheap" shit, then "cheap" shit is what they'll get until they can be convinced that it's not really cheap but another artificial price fudging to stifle competition and screw us all.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Democrats were INEFFECTUAL even in Roosevelt's time !!
Posted by: maxpayne on Aug 9, 2008 9:17 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The reason Democrats are less credible is that even back in Roosevelt’s time, the “conservative” wing of the Democratic Party undermined liberalism to prevent it from getting much of a say in America. Remember Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms, etc ...? Yes, they were always corporate Democrats and never supported unions or diversity.

Over time, people were frustrated and beginning in the late 1960s or one could say 1980, more people thought “Well? We might as well be stuck with raw deal cons because we’ve had it with those “liberals” for not living up to their promises but instead letting the social/economic “conservatives” control the Democratic Party.” We need to elect REAL progressives and liberals who really are what they claim regardless of party. The two party duopoly is what’s killing America.

The Democrats were the ones who also joined the GOP in overtaxing Cannabis and then in 1970, allowed Nixon to create the taxpayer money choking DEA to keep it illegal despite its true benefits. The Democratic Party is way too dysfunctional to even get its own identity straight much less grow a backbone and fight back. At no time these past few decades did the liberals ever infiltrate the GOP although there were some civil libertarian minded Republicans even in the 1970s. The Obama hacks are just plain desperate to simply have Democrats in power and want us to forget that the party has been nothing but a kissup to the GOP and is working harder than ever to out GOP the GOP. The Democrats should vote for the people’s interests and not for the corporate interests. If they would ever try that, the party hacks wouldn’t have to beg people to simply vote Democrat because the Democrats would have been more appealing to the voters naturally than is the case. Sorry Obama hacks but like Gore and Kerry, people are sick and tired of being begged upon to accept artificial BULLSHIT. Either force your Democratic Party to come clean and quit letting the conservatives in the party have their say or just let the party die as we’re already stuck with a one party system that just so happens to have 2 names, Democrat and Republican !!

RALPH NADER FOR PRESIDENT !!!!

VOTENADER.ORG

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Don't Forget About Congress
Posted by: mgloraine on Aug 9, 2008 9:21 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is important to remember that Presidents do not make policy into law single-handedly. Every attack on the Constitution, every theft of public property during the past eight years has been APPROVED BY CONGRESS. The FISA scam, the offshore drilling swindle, all of the current plots against the American people are being made to happen by the very same mechanism which has corrupted the office of the President and the process of elections: corporate money handed out to greedy legislators.

Since Obama clearly sold out to the telecoms on FISA, and as he is presently selling out to the oil companies over offshore drilling, Democrats should begin to understand that their corporate candidate is as much a greedy, corrupt tool of the capitalists as McCain. But he is only one guy with one vote in the Senate. It took a lot more votes than one to pass FISA (and repeal the fourth amendment in the process). And it will take more than Obama's vote to capitulate to the oil companies and hand over the last wildlife preserve for them to obliterate for profit.

How many people in Congress voted for FISA? That's how many Congress-persons were paid off by the telecoms. How many will vote for offshore drilling? Likewise, that's how many have been bribed by Big Oil.

It is obvious to even the least sophisticated of voters that retroactive immunity for the telecoms and offshore drilling for the oil companies are NOT in the interest of ANYONE in this country except for the corporate execs receiving the handouts. And yet, Democratic legislators are in a daily competition to see who can sell out the quickest and to the uttermost extent. It's hard to pick a winner between Steny Hoyer, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Dianne Feinstein, Chuck Schumer, et al., scurrying to concoct a "compromise" (i.e., capitulation) whenever a corporate lobbyist waves a checkbook at them.

It is truly despicable for our Presidential candidates to be taking sides with the billionaires and against the ordinary citizens of this country. But it has been the greed and corruption of Congress which has brought about the downfall of the United States. Perhaps God will forgive them for destroying our country and our way of life, but I won't.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]