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. 

Buying the Vote: 12 Facts About Super PACs That Will Blow Your Mind

Source: Activist Post
Michael Snyder

In American politics, it takes an enormous amount of money to win campaigns, and the rise of the "Super PACs" is allowing the wealthy to exert even more influence over the political process than they did before.  When you examine the results of federal elections over the past several decades, you quickly discover that the candidate that raises the most money almost always wins.

Wealthy individuals are limited by law as to how much money they can give directly to a political campaign, but there are no limits on how much money they can give to Super PACs.  During the 2012 election season, some of these Super PACs actually have more money than the campaigns of the candidates that they support do.  Buying the vote is not illegal in America, and these Super PACs are buying huge amounts of advertising in key states.  Unfortunately, most Americans have never learned to think for themselves.  Instead, they let the television do much of their thinking for them.  If their trusted friend, the television, tells them to vote a certain way, then that is what they are likely to do.  Super PACs are much more likely to run negative ads than the actual candidates are, and we have already seen very negative ads dramatically move the poll numbers in some of the states.  Sadly, as long as very negative ads keep working people are going to keep using them.

Super PACs are supposed to be completely and totally "independent" of the campaigns that they support, but the reality is that many of these Super PACs are run and staffed by former top aides of the candidates.

Some of the candidates are relying on the Super PACs to be the "attack dogs," while they sit back and try to maintain a more "positive" image.  If a Super PAC goes too far, a candidate can simply claim that he does not have any control over that Super PAC.

If money did not influence elections, then people would stop giving so much of it to the campaigns and to the Super PACs.  The truth is that money does influence elections, and when wealthy individuals and big corporations are allowed to pour millions upon millions of dollars into these Super PACs it gives them a much, much larger say in the outcome of our elections than you and I have.