Voting in the Corporate State – Brief and To The Point

06 Tuesday Nov 2012

Posted by xraymike79 in Capitalism, Corporate State, Empire, Inequality, Wall Street Fraud

Tags

Corporate State, Corporatocracy, Empire, Financial Elite, Globalization, Gross Inequality, Inverted Totalitarianism, Mitt Romney, Neoliberal Capitalism, Obama, Obomney 2012, Police State, Poverty, Privatization, Regulatory Capture, Security and Surveillance State, The Elite 1%, Wall Street Fraud

(Source) (Source)

…So, with the most recent BLS data, 20% of the popular vote would be less than 48 million people. Of course, let’s be frank. Neither political party wants every American to vote. Voter suppression in both parties is as American as apple pie. The Republicans don’t want all of those people they have thrown under the bus to come to the polls. And, the Democrats don’t want all of those voters showing up that they endlessly lie to with empty promises. If one person-one vote democracy was really an intent under a system controlled by political parties, money couldn’t buy a politician, we would have a national voting day where everyone had the day off, we would have a system that truly educates people on issues rather than one of demagogy and lies, we would provide free public transportation to those unable to get to the polls themselves and numerous other incentives for people to vote. The smaller the turnout, the more the status quo benefits in a system of looting, pillaging, exploitation and corruption. Or so their perception goes… – link

One thing is certain – both corporate puppets support the system that is killing you:

Post Script:

An important point was brought up by Alex Smith of EcoShock Radio about the numbers in this post. The list of top campaign contributors by Opensecrets does not include the dark world of Super PACs and other tax-exempt groups which can shield the identity of their donors – a billion spent on the presidential race. See the comments section of this post for further details.

4 thoughts on “Voting in the Corporate State – Brief and To The Point”

witsendnj said:

November 6, 2012 at 6:37 pm

Ha, kind of bizarre that PWC is on Romney’s list when they just issued this report: http://www.guardian.co.uk/sustainable-business/blog/pwc-climate-change-reduction-business-investments

And what is a public university doing donating funds to a politician?

LikeLike
- xraymike79 said:
  
  November 6, 2012 at 7:16 pm
  
  That is bizarre, and that’s why I say we are ‘well and truly fucked’. The dog is biting and eating its own tail. A relative of mine had a dog that ate its own tail.
  
  As far as the University campaign donations:
  
  …”With the financial condition of all educational institutions in the state of California, why are we spending taxpayer funds on an election in any state? Is it legal to spend taxpayer funds to support a candidate, and if so, why?”
  
  The fine print at the bottom of the chart explains, to some extent: Money comes from employees and/or political action committees of the companies or organizations.
  
  What that means is that the University of California as an institution is not making contributions to, or spending taxpayer money on, any political candidate. It’s the UC professors, administrators and other staff members – and members of their immediate families – who are doing so individually or as members of a group.
  
  UC employees are active political donors. For the 2012 election, the University of California is President Obama’s largest contributor, giving $927,568 as of Oct. 21, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. The system has about 150,000 full-time employees.
  
  Is it legal, as Robinson asked, to spend taxpayer funds to support a candidate? No.
  
  The UC notes in legal guidance that “University funds (including University paid time and equipment) may not lawfully be used for campaign purposes.”
  
  But individual participation is allowed: “An employee does not give up his or her constitutional rights upon joining a public agency. With only limited exceptions, no restrictions may be placed on the private political activities of public employees.” – link
  
  LikeLike
Alex Smith said:

November 7, 2012 at 9:44 pm

I doubt this list is accurate. For example, Jon Stewart, or was it Bill Maher, claimed to have given the Obama campaign a check for one million dollars. Where is that in the list?

And none of this includes the many millions spent by third parties under Citizens United – like all those “oil and gas” are good for you (so vote for Romney ads).

If we add up the numbers in this list, it doesn’t come close to the more than 1 billion spend by each candidate.

LikeLike
- xraymike79 said:
  
  November 8, 2012 at 1:41 am
  
  Hello Alex, I enjoy your show. The latest one looks very interesting – Ravaging Tide or Renewable World?
  
  The problem with the Opensecrets data [Center for Responsive Politics] is that it does not include money from tax-exempt ‘outside groups’ who hide the identity of their donors, as you imply:
  
  …One locus of power is Americans for Prosperity, a Virginia-based free-market advocacy group backed by Charles and David Koch, brothers who made billions in chemicals, refining and other industries, and who are major patrons of conservative causes.
  
  AFP, which is on track to spend $180 million in the 2012 cycle, is set up as a tax-exempt social welfare organization that does not have to report its donors. The group, which works with allies such as 60 Plus and Concerned Women for America, is planning to train its resources on members of Congress during the looming budget showdown.
  
  “I do think this will be seen as a watershed year when parties were not as strong as they have been in previous cycles,” said AFP President Tim Phillips. “Now groups like AFP have significant financial resources and massive grass-roots networks that in many ways mirror the party…”
  
  …Another nexus of influence: the two Crossroads organizations, guided in part by veteran Republican strategist Karl Rove. Crossroads GPS plans to be active around the “fiscal cliff” debate over automatic tax increases and spending cuts slated to occur at year’s end. And if Mitt Romney wins the White House, it will help promote a “first 100 days” agenda. Meanwhile, American Crossroads is working on an initiative to better coordinate the resources of its allies, which include the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Americans for Job Security, a business-backed nonprofit.
  
  “The center of the strategic universe has shifted from the parties to the PACs,” said Mark McKinnon, who served with Rove as a top strategist for President George W. Bush. “It gives some of the smarter minds in politics, like Karl, a new laboratory to experiment outside and beyond the political committees.”
  
  The growing clout of pro-GOP groups has spurred a political arms race, with liberals scrambling to expand their own super PACs even as they decry the influence of big money in politics. Leaders of Democratic-allied groups said they still want to see the system reformed. But absent a change in the law, they plan to be even more active in the coming years…
  
  …Though outside organizations such as unions have long exerted influence in national politics, their role dramatically increased after a series of court rulings in 2010 led to the creation of super PACs. Those groups can pool unlimited amounts from donors, as long as they don’t coordinate with candidates or parties. At the same time, tax-exempt nonprofits stepped up their political activities, emboldened by the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, which allowed corporations to engage in campaigns directly and make unlimited political expenditures.
  
  Outside groups are emerging as “shadow political parties,” said Republican election law attorney Michael Toner. Some are even taking up the kind of get-out-the-vote organizing that has traditionally been the domain of the official party organizations…
  
  …As of Saturday, outside groups — many fueled by seven-figure donations from wealthy contributors — reported having pumped at least $675 million into political ads and other forms of voter outreach in 2012 federal elections. That’s more than double the amount outside groups spent in the 2008 cycle, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.
  
  And this cycle’s total doesn’t include tens of millions of dollars worth of “issue ads” that ran early in the campaign, paid for by tax-exempt groups that were not required to report them.
  
  The gusher of money has led to renewed calls — especially by conservatives — to abolish the contribution limits to political parties so they are not overshadowed by outside groups. –link
  
  LikeLike

Collapse of Industrial Civilization

~ Finding the Truth behind the American Hologram

Voting in the Corporate State – Brief and To The Point

4 thoughts on “Voting in the Corporate State – Brief and To The Point”

Share this:

Like this:

4 thoughts on “Voting in the Corporate State – Brief and To The Point”