Plutocrats Bankrolling Republican Candidates

Mattea Gold has an interesting look at the financing to date of the Republican and Democratic candidates for president in today's once great Washington Post Bezos Bugle, in a dog- bites- man kind of way.  Here's a snapshot (click on image to enlarge):

We're shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!

We've already heard the big dick-swinging plutocrat Koch brothers, Foster Friesses and Sheldon Adelsons of the gilded class say they're going to pony up mega-millions to get their ultra-right puppets candidates elected in 2016.  But for every one in the spotlight, there are dozens more sugar daddies in the shadows making significant, unlimited contributions to super PACs coordinating with the Republican/ New Confederate/ Stupid Party. The big money flowing to Republican super PACs contrasts with what's going on with the Democratic candidates:

Nearly $4 out of every $5 raised so far on behalf of GOP White House contenders has gone to independent groups rather than the official campaigns.

Outside groups have already amassed more than $235 million — more than three times the $67 million raised collectively by the Republican field through June 30, according to reports filed Wednesday with the Federal Election Commission.

So far, the dynamic is different on the Democratic side, with 80 percent of the more than $80 million raised so far to support Hillary Rodham Clinton and her competitors flowing to their campaigns.

Clinton boasted the biggest campaign haul of any candidate, $47 million, driven by a largely female donor base. Contributions less than $200 made up nearly 17 percent of her total. That was in sharp contrast with Republican Jeb Bush: Just 3 percent of the $11.4 million he raised came from such low-dollar donations.

The lopsided war chests on the right underscore how the financing of political campaigns has been fundamentally rewired in the five years since federal courts loosened restrictions on political spending by corporations and rich individuals. Those decisions triggered a rush of big donations and political operatives to independent groups that can accept unlimited donations, a trend that has dramatically accelerated this year. This election cycle has already seen bolder collaboration between super PACs and campaigns than previous races, as well as a proliferation of nonprofit groups aligned with individual candidates.  (our emphasis)

But, not to worry!  As Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy told us in his Citizens United decision, "... [I]ndependent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption."  But he didn't say they wouldn't give rise to a right-wing plutocracy, now did he?

Today's Number

$249 million.  That's just the downpayment, too.

At their most recent retreat in Southern California two weeks ago, the billionaire industrialists Charles and David Koch and 450 of their donor-allies announced plans to spend $889 million over the next two years to influence state and federal elections and shape the national discourse... That eye-popping, nine-figure goal made national headlines, but what wasn't reported was that the Kochs and their allies were already well on their way to banking that huge amount of money. 

Donors at the [Rancho Mirage] Palm Springs confab pledged $249 million toward funding the Koch brothers' grand plan, according to two sources with knowledge of the fundraising haul.  (our emphasis)

Of course, as with "Justice" Anthony Kennedy, "We now conclude that independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption" (Citizens United).  No, not at all.

George Will Must Think Most Americans Are Extremists, Too

In the latest addition to the bulging "George F. Will is an asshole" file, guess who Will thinks are "extremists"?  ISIS?  "Sovereign citizens"?  Occupy Wall Streeters?

In his column today, "The Man With No Mirrors" names 48 of them, all Democratic Senators.  Why (other than the fact that he's deranged) does Will think they're extremists?  Because they're sponsoring legislation to amend the Constitution's Bill of Rights to prohibit corporations and plutocrats from making limitless political contributions, an obscenity ushered in by the Republican Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United.  Will would like us to believe corporations are "people, my friend," so corporate/ plutocrat campaign contributions to continue to flow freely into Republican coffers, while at the same time suppressing Democratic voting and the ability of unions to organize and prosper.

Oh, by the way, there are a whole lot more than 48 Democratic Senators who think, unlike Will, that Citizens United was a very bad decision:  like 80 percent of the American people (that's "people", Will, not "corporations").

(Photo:  "The Man With No Mirrors" is keeping an eye on those/ us "extremists.")

Be Careful What You Wish For - Citizens United Edition

The Supreme Court's decision in the Citizens United v. FEC case was assumed to be an unalloyed victory for the forces of the far right, who would overwhelm progressives with campaign and voter suppression spending by shadowy corporate- and plutocrat-funded groups =cough=Koch brothers= cough=.   Well, it seems for now anyway that all that money sloshing around may end up swamping some high-profile Republican boats:

The jabs at Mitch McConnell have been coming on the air and in the mail, accusing the Senate Republican leader of helping President Obama and letting down Kentucky voters. 

The attacks are not the work of McConnell’s conservative primary challenger. Instead, they are coming from independent groups that want to unseat him and are benefitting from a new system of unlimited contributions ushered in by the Supreme Court in its 2010 Citizens United v. FEC ruling. 

Conservatives cheered that decision, described at the time by McConnell as a “First Amendment triumph.” But, as McConnell’s experience now illustrates, the loosened rules are causing political headaches for the GOP — allowing tea party groups to bring more financial firepower to challenges against Republican incumbents.  (our emphasis)

Can we get an "amen," or at least a "hee-haw!"

This is about the only (unintended) consequence of the Citizens United ruling that progressives can cheer about.  Every dollar spent by the likes of the Club for Growth or Americans for Plutocrat Prosperity to support a tea bagger challenge to an "establishment" Republican is a dollar that won't be used against a progressive candidate, or in a voter suppression effort.  Every ad put up by these groups attacking a Republican deemed to be "not- quite- crazy- enough" is an ad that intensifies the circular firing squad that has become the Republican/ New Confederate/ Stupid Party today.  It's an outcome they may not have seen coming, but it certainly is one they richly (no pun intended) deserve.

Letters We Wish We'd Written - Dark Money Edition

As we noted a while back, "dark money" (untraceable political contributions) has been exposed for the anti-democratic cancer that it is (again, thanks Roberts Court!).  To its credit the once great Washington Post Bezos Bugle had an editorial on January 13 (following up on reporting by Matea Gold) on the extraordinary lengths to which far right-wing plutocrats =cough=Koch brothers=cough= go to hide the obscene amounts of money sloshing around the world of right-wing politics.  Here's a letter on the subject which appeared in today's paper:

The Post’s Jan. 13 editorial “Dark money labyrinth” asked of the conservative groups flooding our electoral process with hundreds of millions of dollars: “What do they fear from disclosure of their political investments?” It may be that these groups and other Republicans favor secrecy because most Americans do not agree with their positions.

Even most Republicans favor raising the minimum wage and extending unemployment benefits. Most Americans favor a balanced approach to the deficit, rejected by Republicans, that includes new revenue from tax reform.

Those backing such groups also probably don’t want to advertise their support for a party that considers protecting the wealthy’s privileged tax breaks as its primary priority and that relegates the plight of the unemployed and the slow economic recovery to secondary status. From minimum wage to immigrationto extending unemployment insurance to voter suppression to assaults on union workers and women’s rights, Republicans have fixed their sights on regular, hard-working Americans. If I were supporting that party and those efforts, I would want secrecy, too.   [our emphasis]

Bill Conrad, Alexandria

Money is not free speech, and corporations aren't people, no matter what the plutocrats and their toadies would have us believe.  Not only does it have the potential to subvert the democratic process, it's (yes, Justice Kennedy) corrupting.  More light needs to be shed on the problem by the media, followed by heat from the electorate.

The Koch Brothers' Dark Money

The once great Washington Post Bezos Bugle has an in-depth investigative piece in today's edition examining the "dark money" being raised by a right-wing network led by the god-awful Koch brothers.  (To remind you of the Koch brothers' political pedigree, their father Fred was a founding member of the John Birch Society, so the nuts didn't fall far from the tree.)  Here's an intro into the lengths to which the Kochs and their minions go to shield their plutocrat donors from exposure:

Its funders remain largely unknown; the coalition was carefully constructed with extensive legal barriers to shield its donors.

But they have substantial firepower. Together, the 17 conservative groups that made up the network raised at least $407 million during the 2012 campaign, according to the analysis of tax returns by The Washington Post and the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan group that tracks money in politics.  [snip]

Lloyd Hitoshi Mayer, a University of Notre Dame Law School professor who studies the tax issues of politically active nonprofits, said he has never seen a network with a similar design in the tax-exempt world.

“It is a very sophisticated and complicated structure,” said Mayer, who examined some of the groups’ tax filings. “It’s designed to make it opaque as to where the money is coming from and where the money is going. No layperson thought this up. It would only be worth it if you were spending the kind of dollars the Koch brothers are, because this was not cheap.”

Having lost in their efforts to buy the 2012 election, the Kochs are funneling millions of dollars into sabotaging the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), as well as efforts to weaken or eliminate environmental regulations, gun control laws, and social safety net programs.  Their network includes allies such as the National Gun Manufacturers Rifle Association, the Club for Growth, Jim "Demented" DeMint's Heritage Foundation, and Grover Norquist's Americans for Tax Reform.  In other words just about every frothing fringe right-wing assortment of sociopaths extant.

For all of this and more, let's not forget to thank Chief "Justice" John Roberts and his merry band of anarchist right-wingers for their Citizens United ruling! (We have a feeling "Justice" Kennedy's permanent blinders would still cause him to find that such arrangements "do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption." )

"Citizens United" and Conservative Election Rigging

E.J. Dionne has this to say in today's Kaplan Daily on the corrosive impact of the Citizens United Supreme Court decision and on those who rendered it:

"[A]scribing an outrageous decision to naiveté is actually the most sympathetic way of looking at what the court did in Citizens United. A more troubling interpretation is that a conservative majority knew exactly what it was doing: that it set out to remake our political system by fiat in order to strengthen the hand of corporations and the wealthy. Seen this way, Citizens United was an attempt by five justices to push future electoral outcomes in a direction that would entrench their approach to governance.

"In fact, this decision should be seen as part of a larger initiative by moneyed conservatives to rig the electoral system against their opponents. How else to explain conservative legislation in state after state to obstruct access to the ballot by lower-income voters — particularly members of minority groups — though voter identification laws, shortened voting periods and restrictions on voter registration campaigns?

"Conservatives are strengthening the hand of the rich at one end of the system and weakening the voting power of the poor at the other."

Fortunately, at this admittedly early stage, (progressive) people power is winning over (conservative) money power (yay Saul Alinsky!). Still, there are an awful lot of low- and no-information voters, aren't there?! Not to mention voters who won't even get into the voting booth thanks to Rethuglican-instituted restrictions.