U.S. Elections: Candidates Are Bought As Wars Are Sold

Source: Global Times
Christopher Williams

US democracy up for grabs by moneybags under new laws

People got rich because of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Now, swords are being sharpened for Iran. How many players in the Middle East and elsewhere are interested in seeing this happen? All they need to do is pick up the phone or write a check, and it gets closer every day.

The story begins in 1886, with an obscure court case in California, Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific Railroad. In that Supreme Court decision, a corporation was deemed to have the same legal protections under state law as any individual would have. It was originally intended to be used for enforcing a real-estate contract. But fast-forward to 2010. The Supreme Court decided in a new case, Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission, that corporations had the right to make unlimited financial contributions for political purposes, just as a person does. 

Corporations and individuals are still limited to $2,500 in direct contributions to a political campaign for federal office. But they may give unlimited funds to a Political Action Committee (PAC), as long as that PAC is not “officially” part of the campaign which they support. 

In reality, it means that the PAC can spend whatever it wants as long as they maintain the fiction that they are acting independently. So now we have a Republican presidential primary in full swing, with vast amounts of corporate money being poured into the PACs which support the major candidates. Some of that money is publicly disclosed. But there are also non-profit 501(c) organizations that do not have to say where the money came from. 

Why should you care? It means that candidates are no longer being elected, even in the limited sense that they were before. They are being hired, bought and paid for by their supporters whose interests do not in any way reflect the concerns of average citizens. They are supported by energy companies, drug companies, media companies, insurance companies, arms merchants, and bankers. 

Romney and Gingrich Vent Disinformation as They Compete for Israeli Lobby Support

Source: PressTV

In last night's Republican "debate", establishment candidates Romney and Gingrich vent disinformation to demean the people of Palestine as they vie for Israeli lobby favoritism.

Creating American Terrorists

Source: Council of the National Interest
Philip Giraldi

Defenders of the recently passed National Defense Authorization Act, which declares the entire world to be a “battlefield” against terrorism and authorizes the U.S. military to detain indefinitely anyone suspected of being a terrorism supporter, have claimed that the White House will only use its new power carefully and with due process. Opponents note that the White House has never hesitated to use any new authority, no matter how outrageous, and that the trend of law enforcement and security agencies is to expand on powers granted, not to rein them in or limit them.

The track record of the Obama administration on civil liberties is particularly bad, as it has broadened its definition of war powers, reneged on its promise to close Guantanamo Prison, and supported numerous dubious terrorism prosecutions. It has also become adept at silencing critics through the repeated exploitation of the state-secrets privilege, which effectively dismisses any case accusing the government of abuse or malfeasance.

So let us accept that the government now has the power to send a team of military police to anyone’s home in any state in the Union and can demand that that person surrender without any recourse to a lawyer or judicial due process. The military can then detain the individual incommunicado for any length of time and can presumably send him to Guantanamo for special confinement, claiming that the reason for the detention is support of terrorism, which can be almost anything, including a letter to the editor of the local paper complaining about the goonery of the Transportation Security Administration. Once in detention, the suspect only has such options as are granted to him by the military. He cannot see a lawyer, cannot invoke habeas corpus or other constitutional privileges, cannot confront any witnesses against him, and cannot challenge any information prejudicial to him even if it is hearsay or fabricated. In other words, the accused can be arrested for no reason and held indefinitely without any protections that enable him to push back against being detained. Most people would consider a criminal justice system that permits such detention ipso facto a police state.

Romney and Obama Battle For Israel Lobby

Source: Information Clearing House
Phillip Weiss

In Saturday night's Republican debate, Mitt Romney gave a defiant statement about Iran: he will stop it from getting nukes by any means, Obama won't. Yesterday Obama sought to parry Romney, saying that he is taking no option off the table. 

Are we witnessing a primary between Romney and Obama right now, for the support of the Israel lobby? 

I think so. Romney's braintrust includes neocons like Robert Kagan and Dan Senor, while David Brooks, David Frum and Bill Kristol have all said good things about Romney. Dennis Ross and Stuart Levey have both left the Obama administration, hurting his standing in the Israel lobby. Don't forget, the lobby defected from Bush to Clinton in '91 over settlements; and its fundraising abilities helped assure Clinton's election over the incumbent (as Max Blumenthal's post at AlAkhbar today points out).

Jews are sure to vote by a majority for Obama; but as a Forward package this week shows, Obama's polling numbers are sliding among Jews-- from 83 percent approval in early '09 to 54 percent in September. (Compared to overall #s going from 66 to 41.)

Neocons call on hawkish Jews, who tend to be older (p. 3 of that poll: overwhelmingly opposing a Palestinian state), and therefore wealthier.  The fundraising question is crucial. Slate's editor David Plotz has questioned the loyalty of Jewish donors. So have the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times, talking about "Jewish donors--a major fundraising constituency for the president." The Hill said that Obama's big Wall Street fundraisers were turning to Romney, and I pointed out that most of the donors named by the Hill care about Israel.

New York Magazine's John Heilemann echoes the point:

[A]mong the high-dollar Jewish donors who were essential to fueling the great Obama money machine last time around, stories of dismay and disaffection are legion. “There’s no question,” says one of the president’s most prolific fund-raisers. “We have a big-time Jewish problem.”

So again I ask, isn't this what the dogfight over Iran policy is? Obama and Romney are squaring off in an Israel lobby primary, to try and gain Jewish financial support, anticipating the big race ahead. The neoconservatives and J Street are arguing over who can deliver that support. Politics never stays in the same place, but somehow I fear that hawkish voices will dominate my community once again.

Corbett Report Interviews Wayne Madson

Source: Corbett Report
James Corbett

Today we talk to investigative journalist Wayne Madsen of WayneMadsenReport.com about his new article, “War Clouds Form over Iran,” detailing the latest indications that Washington is heading to open confrontation with Iran at the behest of Israel. We discuss the signs that a war with Iran is being prepared, talk about Israel’s interest in confronting Iran and explore how the Israeli lobby is attempting to stop any opposition to the strike.