How to buy Congress and influence People (or are politicians cheaper by the dozen?)

Last week I provided you with the names and a little background information about of the "Big Six" mega-corporations which control 90%+ of all media outlets, and thus, our opinion as to what's happening in the world. These same six corporations also affect out entertainment, and not just the news. We touched on how this impacted our opinion of events and of the media itself, which we broke down along age demographics. I think many of you were surprised at the hold a relatively small group of individuals have on what we see, hear, and read. These six corporations decided what's news, how it will be presented, and how to spin it for any agenda they're a pushing at a given moment. They also control how we relax, be it video games, sports, or some show on television. In this issue, we're going to look at the top corporate political campaign givers.

Given that two Supreme Court misrulings, Citizens United and the McCutcheon's cases have completely altered the political landscape by declaring corporations are "people" and money as "free speech", it's important to know who the average Joe and Jane Public are competing against (given the corporations can contribute what it want while ordinary "flesh and blood types" citizens are still capped). We will start with the premise that money brings with it not just power, but also access to power and influence. For the majority of Americans, seeking public office is simply out of their reach because of the high cost of elections. It's no wonder that Congress is referred to as the "Millionaires Club". So, without further ado, let's take a look at some of the top Fortune 500 corporations.

AT&T, the telecommunications giant based in Texas raised $3,022,815 dollars. Of this, Republicans received 38.9% while Democrats got 60%. The Bank of America, located in North Carolina, pooled $2,931,246. Democrats got 41.4% compared to Republicans who got 57.9%. The Las Vegas Sands Hotel and Casino in Nevada pooled their earnings totaling $2,885,417 and gambled 62% of it on Republicans and 36.6% on Democrats. DISH Network, based in California, donated 42.8% of its $2,604,920 on the GOP and 55.4% on Democrats. Chicago based Boeing Industries contributed 55.4% and 43.8% of its $2,805,418 on Democrats and Republicans respectively. IBM, based in New York, raised $2,598,586. The Republicans got 29.7% whereas the Democrats took 68.9%.

Lockheed Martin, the aerospace giant based in Maryland, contributed 54.7% of its $2,364,432 to Republicans and 43.7% to Democrats. The New York based telecommunications corporation Version raised $2,532,495. Democrats pocketed 67.2% of it; Republicans just 32.7%. The California based social media platform, Facebook, contributed 91.3% of its $2150,277 to Democrats. Republicans got a paltry 7%. Exxon Mobil, the Texas based oil and gas conglomerate, donated 63% of its $2,134,633 to Republicans. Democrats got only 36%. Another Texas based oil and gas giant, Western Refining, directed 63.4% of its $2,148,865 to Republicans while Democrats saw 35.3%. The Chicago located energy company, Exelon gave 60.6% of $2,106,413 to Republicans. Democrats saw just 38.8%.

The New Jersey pharmaceutical company, Johnson & Johnson, had total donations of $1,981,003. Democrats got 52.2% compared to Republicans who got 45.4%. Pfizer, another monster sided pharmaceutical giant raised $1,943,348 and then donated 64.8% to Democrats and 34.8% to Republicans. General Electric, based in Boston, gave Democrats 56% of its $1,753,871 political finds. Republicans got just 43.2%. California located Intel, a technology corporation, put together $1,690,486. Republicans saw 25.4% of it while the Democrats saw 73.2%. Version, another high tech corporation, gave Democrats 67.3% and Republicans 32.7% respectively of its $2,253,405. Wells Fargo Bank, based in California with it $3,212,918 in available funds, donated 54.2% to Democrats and 44.7% to the GOP.

While these are some pretty impressive numbers, they're still chump change compared to the big spenders. Take Morgan Stanley for instance. This New York bases financial services company donated 54.9% of its $5,362,033 to the Republicans. Democrats got 44.1%. Another New York financial services and banking company, JP Morgan+Chase, contributed 54.5% of its allotted $6,173,244 to Democrats, while Republicans got 49.9%. Microsoft, the Washington base tech giant, had $7,222,345 to donate, and Democrats got 80.2% of it. Meanwhile, Republicans got 18.6%. Topping the list is Goldman Sachs. This New York based financial services corporation had $11,457,248 to donate. Hedging their political portfolio, they invested 52.2% in Republicans and 47% in Democrats. Now, if you think these numbers are mind boggling in both their size along with the amount of political favors and legislation they'll buy, sit tight. You haven't read anything just yet.

Did you know that just 2/3 of all individual campaign contributions come just 1/4 of 1 percent of voters? According to a CNBC article from April 2018, 30% of that money went directly to the candidate. The rest, called "soft money" contributions, went to groups who spent the money indirectly on behalf of the candidate or issue. So how much money are we talking about? Try $154 million dollars (and just the top 100 individual contributors). Of this, the majority leans Right or Conservative to the tune of $83 million dollars. $65 million leans Left toward Liberal candidates and causes.

Everyone has heard of the Koch Brothers, who are usually portrayed as the evil incarnate by the politically slanted media, however, they are far from the biggest contributors. They give just under a million dollars ($997,000) to Republicans, whereas fellow conservative Geoff Palmer, owner of GH Palmer Associates, donated $2,403,172 to Republicans. Robert Mercer of Renaissance Technologies gave $3.7 million to conservative causes and candidates. Steven Cohen of Point 72 Asset Management has given Republicans and conservative causes $3.4 million. Another partner from that same firm is Henry Laufer. He's not shy about spending money either. He donated $2.5 million to Democrats (I've got to get a job there!).

Now don't feel left out Democrats. You've got some big money behind you too. James Simons of the same corporations as Mercer, donated $3.2 million dollars to Democrats. The "evil villain" according to the political Right, George Soros, has given Democrats $1.4 million dollars. Now, compare those numbers with Donald Sussman of Paloma Partners who gave Democrats $6.1 million dollars. Barnard Marcus of the Marcus Foundation gave Republicans $5.5 million dollars while Fred Eyechaner of Newsweb donated $4.6 million to Democrats. George Marcus of Marcus & Millichap had $4.2 million for Liberals, and so the story goes. However, the two largest contributors haven't even been mentioned yet, so let's get to it!

Thomas F. Steyer of Fehr LLC is the top Democrat and liberal issues contributor. Steyer, who was born in 1957, is a hedge fund manager whose net worth is around $2 billion dollars. Steyer consider himself to be an environmentalist, philanthropist, and a liberal issues activist and fundraiser. His current political project is a campaign to impeach President Trump (of which he's donated some $10 million dollars thus far). But perhaps his biggest claim to fame is that he's the single largest contributor to Democrats and liberal causes in the amount of $16 million dollars. Obviously, that adds a whole to dimension to the old term "Limousine Liberal" doesn't it? However, as impressive at Steyer may be, he pales compared to the single largest private donor, Richard E. Uihlein. Uihlein is the owner of Uline, Inc, which is shipping supply distribution company, was born in 1945. Uihlein is a active contributor to Republicans and other conservative causes (he also has close friendship with Republican Senator Ted Cruz of Texas). So, how much as Uihlein given? A cool $21.1 million dollars.

This is just a sampling of the ruling Oligarchs in this country. They are part of the elite one percent. Thanks to their wealth they can and do buy the kind of political access that the ordinary American voter can't even begin to comprehend. Not only do they have the instant and full attention of anyone and everyone in Washington, they are able to influence legislation. Through their lobbyists and friends in Washington, they can create or kill bills at the snap of their fingers. There's a reason that Congress is called the "Millionaire's Club".

Political parties really don't meant much to them, even though they may contribute to one party or cause over another. When you get down to it, they support those who can get things done for them, and that usually translates into making them more money or getting them access to resources somewhere. If it's a Democrat who can do that best for them, then they'll get with that individual. If it's a Republican, then that's where they'll go. Ultimately, it comes down to this---both political parties are part of a single corporate owned party with differing special interests groups each trying to get their agenda through. However, it matters not to which party holds the majority because money buys a lot of favors and it's doesn't care if you're "red" or "blue" (as an aside, red and blue make green, the color of money).

If the Democrats were truly the "People's Party" and meant everything they claim, there wouldn't be the first Republican in office anywhere in the country. If the Republicans were true to their dogma, then not a single Democrat would exist, certainly not in City Hall, our state capitols, and especially Washington. However, they do exist and they do hold office, and they do cooperate, especially on issues of mutual importance. That is to say, they cooperate on matters their corporate masters want to see accomplished. Now, don't get me wrong. I like money. It's pretty handy and has a lot of uses like paying bills and buying groceries. But, I don't like what it buys when it comes to government, especially when it's for the benefit of a tiny few.

American voters are capped by how much they can donate to political campaigns and issues. However, thanks to the Supreme Court's duel mistakes (Citizens United and McCutcheon), corporations have become "people" (I prefer to think of them as "Frankensteins") and money has become "free speech", I think voters have been locked out of the political process, especially when you consider that while we're limited in how much we can donate, these Frankensteins can donate however much they want. We can't begin to compete or offset the amount of money they can donate.

Of course, key players in Washington have made it clear that there will be no realistic campaign finance reform. Even if someone had the backbone to try, no committee chairman would dare let it pass out of their committee lest they face the wrath of their party's whip and leadership. Besides, the corporate lobbyists would ensure that the bill was rewritten or amended to their favor. I would imagine too that whoever tried to write a serious campaign finance reform bill would find their career blunted. They would likely get booted off all their committees, and find themselves with no money or help when it came time for reelection (and a good chance of facing a formidable opponent recruited by their own party).

So, just as real campaign finances reform would be good for America, so to would be an end to gerrymandering (rewriting district lines to the benefit of a specific political party to ensure reelection), reforming the tax code, imposing term limits, a balanced budget amendment, national single payer health coverage and stopping the Capital Hill/K Street revolving door (K Street is where most of the lobbying firms are located). I think requiring the politicians in Washington to be subject to the same laws they pass would be nice too, along with ending a lifelong salary with benefits after they leave office, security, and other high dollar perks. But none of this will ever happen as long a money dictates legislation and motives in Washington and elsewhere in politics.


The 30 Fortune 500 companies that have thrown the most money at Republicans and Democrats in the last decade

Here are the 2018 campaign's biggest donors... so far

Top Organization Contributors

When Enough is Enough?

With all the scandals which has rocked the Obama Regime, there's been a lot of talk about impeachment from the Right. But, as I recall, there was talk about impeaching George W Bush too, just as there's considerable chatter about the removal of Holder, Boehner, Pelosi, or whomever. That would be the logical thing to do, that is if we were dealing with an otherwise legitimate government. However, we're not. This is not the government bequest to us by our Founding Fathers. This is not the government guaranteed to us under the Constitution. It is not the form of government we celebrate the creation of on the 4th of July. It is not a government which represents the will of its citizens. It is, however, the type of government that our Founders warned us about. At present, our voices and our votes count for little. What matters apparently is money, for its money which the Supreme Court said represents free speech. It also money which equates to access, and with access comes power; something "We the People" are denied.

What should we do then? How should a people express their dissatisfaction with a government which no longer serves the People, but instead, bows to the will of artificial entities rather than flesh and blood? Our Constitution, while pandered to by those who go through the motions to serve, is still much in force by the People for whom it was written, gives us the answer. It tells us that if the government fails in its duties, then we have both the right and responsibility to modify or change that government.

Since our votes and Will count for little thanks to the misrulings of the Supreme Court vis-a-vis McCutcheon and Citizens United, and district gerrymandering by Congress and state legislatures, how about another tactic for your consideration? We as Citizens have the right (for the present) to protest. However, we are expected to do so within certain restrictions; restrictions designed in part to take the "sting" out of the our collective voices since all too often the representatives are either not there or fail to even notice us unless they happen to catch mention on one of the local news channels. Certainly not very effective, and since money is not only "free speech", but also access, what if we took it further still to make our point?

Specifically, what if we took our signs; our demands; our voices to the very street and indeed, in front of the homes where "our" so-called representative live? I'm sure there may be some sort of hoops to jump through, but would that get their attention? Would that make up for our lack of "free speech"? I just might be worth it. What if we expanded it to include the residences of their staffs? Do you think they'd make their boss aware our displeasure? If not, I have no doubt their neighbors would.

As for lobbyists, who are little more than errand boys and girls on behalf of the one percenters and corporations, perhaps they too should know our displeasure with plans to move jobs overseas, harm the planet, or get taxpayer based welfare. The names of their presidents and boards of directors are publically available. Use it. Make our displeasure felt not just at public parks, on street corners, or at memorials, but where they live...literally. When they get tired of having their dirty laundry paraded in front of their neighbors, they'll get the message.

Remember, we are no longer a democratic republic; the government given to us by our Founding Fathers, or as Abraham Lincoln once proclaimed, "of the people, by the people; and for the people". The government is an oligarchy. Officially. A government responsible to the top 1% wealthiest individuals and to a small clique of banking and corporate elites. In short, Washington no longer represents Mainstreet America. It represents Wallstreet.

In a land where the rule of people has been supplanted by the weight of the dollar, is this how America must act? Our Founding Fathers would have said yes. However, the decision is yours to make America, once you've decided enough is enough. Think about it.

America: Are We Really Free?

Are we free? Really free? We're taught from nearly day one of school that America is world's freest country; the "beacon of light" to the world; the home of the world's greatest democracy. With the Supreme Court's most recent decision ruling, McCutcheon v FEC, in a 5 to 4 ruling, corporations and the very rich can now donate as much as want to too any candidate, party, cause, or political action committee. They had previously ruled in 2010, in the Citizens v FEC case and another 5 to 4 decision, that free speech equated to money and that corporations had essentially the same rights as flesh and blood individuals; actually, more rights to be truthful since individuals remained capped in what they could donate.

With this recent ruling, the uber-rich and the supra-corporate elite have much more "freedom" that ordinary working class Americans, who are severely limited in the amount of "free speech" they are able to give. In effect, the one percenters can openly buy any candidate and any election they want too. Of course, they've been doing this for a long time already, but now they can come out from behind the curtain and out of the shadows and do it openly while the rest of America just stands and watches their Constitutional freedoms evaporate one by one. Chalk up another victory for the Oligarchy. This got me to thinking--just how free are we really? How do we compare with other nations?

Well, one would hope we're still number one; at least I was hoping. However, not only are we not number one, we're aren't even in the top ten freest countries. The freest country in the world is actually Hong Kong, followed by Singapore. Interestingly, both nations have a "open" or laissez faire economy (think "hands off" by the government or a libertarian style economy). That's something our Founders had planned for us but has long since vanished. So, where do we stand?

Actually, the US is 12th, between former Soviet client state of Estonia and the constitutional monarchy of Bahrain (known for being dictatorial with an ineffectual parliament and ineffective judiciary system as well as human rights violations, which Human Rights Watch calls "dismal"). For "leadership of the free world", that's not exactly good company (no offence to Estonia or Bahrain intended). Our neighbor to the north, Canada, came in sixth while our southern neighbor was ranked 55th, which might explain all the border troubles! If there's any good news here, it's that our friends across the pond, the UK, came in 14th place (and being part Irish, I have to point out to our English mates that Ireland was ranked 9th).

Speaking of human rights, the International Human Rights Ranking Indicator places America in 20th place, between France and Monaco. Not exactly comforting for the "leadership of the free world is it? Canada was ranked 10th while Mexico was 63rd. Who ranked highest for protection of human rights? That was Norway, followed by Sweden and Australia. In another ranking, this time compiled by the Maplecroft 2014 Human Rights Risk Atlas, the US ranked 139th out of 197 countries, making it a "moderate" human rights risk while the Scandinavian countries ranked at the top.

In comparing Hong Kong with the US, I found some remarkable results. In terms of business freedom; that is how much a business can operate without government interference, Hong Kong score nearly a perfect 100 which the US wound up with an 85%. Closely related, in terms of fiscal freedom, Hong Kong "very free" with a 95%. The US was rated as "moderately free" with a 65%. In looking at government spending, the US at 50%, which put it in the "mostly unfree category" while little Hong Kong again was ranked as "very free" with another 95%.

In terms of property freedom, both Hong Kong and the US ran equally at 90% until 2009, when the US dipped to 80%. Meanwhile, Hong Kong continued at 90%. In terms of freedom from governmental corruption, US ranked 72%, making it the 23rd in the world. As for Hong Kong, it came in 13th place at 82%. Any way you slice it, America didn't do so well, so I decided to see just how well respected we were. Surely, we were at least well respected.

Well, as it turns out, not so much. America was ranked paltry 22nd most respected country in the world, just ahead of Peru and just behind Brazil. According to the report, the reasons for our dismal showing was our perceived lack of an effective government and "appealing environment". In case you're wondering, Canada came in first, following by Sweden.

Clearly, we're a nation in trouble, at least from the perspective of the rest of the world, which seems to bear out what the overwhelming majority of Americans think. According to a recent Rasmussen Report, only 28% of Americans think we're headed in the right direction, and those numbers have remained fairly consistent. Congressional approval is currently around 13%, which is actually up from 9% in November. For the last three years, it's been 20% or under. Obama isn't doing much better. Gallup has his most recent job approval rating at 43%. And the Supreme Court? The last poll was taken before their recent decision, but even then, it was only 45%. I'm sure it's much lower now. In any other country, that would be called a "no confidence vote".

So what does all this mean? Well, obviously we're not the free country we think we are, and we haven't been for some time now. It means that not only does the world have its doubts about us, we do too. We're not happy with the nation we've become, and despite our objections, those elected to represent us either ignore us out of arrogance or self-interest, namely they're catering exclusively to those whose "free speech", as defined by the Supreme Court, they hear the clearest. In what has to be the clearest case of politics making strange bed fellows, those outside of conventional party politics on both the Left and Right, have more in common than not when it comes to defining who's to blame. What do I mean?

The non-aligned Left sees the transnational corporation's influence over governments as the key problem while the non-aligned Right see government as being too large and too invasive. Both see the power of government becoming to encompassing as the power of corporations over governments, even superseding governments, continues to grow. In any other country which valued freedom, both would have used this common cause to march together in the streets and in to the halls of power----Wall Street and K Street and maybe if they have time, Capitol Hill. In any other country which valued freedom, there would have been revolution to rid itself of the corruptors and abusers of our sovereignty, but America isn't any other country...or is it?


2014 Index of Economic Freedom
http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking

The World's Most Reputable Countries 2013
http://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/2013/06/27/the-worlds-most-reputable-countries-2013/

Right Direction or Wrong Direction?
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/right_direction_or_wrong_track

Barack Obama Presidential Approval
http://www.gallup.com/poll/116479/barack-obama-presidential-job-approval.aspx

Congress Job Approval Starts 2014 at 13%
http://www.gallup.com/poll/166838/congress-job-approval-starts-2014.aspx

International Human Rights Ranking Indicator
http://www.ihrri.com/index.php

Maplecroft 2014 Human Rights Risk Atlas
https://maplecroft.com/themes/hr/