Ending The Corporate Takeover of Politics: No Money For Taxes But Plenty For Donations?

We are going to continue with our series in examining the ongoing corruption of the American political system, which began with our March 28th article entitled  “Has the Season ofMAGA Finally Arrived? Democrats Struggle for Relevance”. I should point out that I’m hesitant to say “our” political system since, as most of our readers already know, it stopped being “our” political system many years ago. Certainly, since the 2010 Citizens United folly by the Supreme Court when it defaulted to Wall Street.

Any vestiges of a Republic “of, by, and for the people” as President Lincoln famously proclaimed, ceased at that point since it placed elections in the hands of the highest bidder and effectively removed any competition between Wall Street and unions, but between the wealthy elite  and ordinary citizens.

We’ve also taken a look at partisan gerrymandering and unlimited term limits which has virtually ensured that the two corporate owned parties---the Democrats and Republicans---maintain a lock of the system. Partisan gerrymandering as allowed them to redraw congressional districts to their advantage (and basically permitting them to “choose” their voters instead of the other way around).

Unlimited term limits gives them a virtual unhindered lock on their seat in Congress regardless of how low their approval rating is (the same can be said for federally appointed judges, including the Supreme Court). Approval ratings for Congress are often in the low 30% range (it’s been as low as 9%), and yet Congress still has a 97% reelection rate.

Can you imagine bombing every employee evaluation by your boss, consistently getting customer reviews, routinely going over budget, and keeping your job? How about even allowing you to decide on your own pay raises?  Well, in Congress you can.  

We also just covered allowing unequal ballot access. Both of the two corporate parties (which also happen to minority parties when it comes to voter registration) are free to write (and pass) legislation giving them the advantage at the ballot box and effectively restricting competition by making it inordinately harder to get on the ballot.

One tool used is requiring 10x more signatures on ballot application or limiting the timeframe to obtain the signatures, as well as indirectly collude with the media to keep them out of debates (especially at the federal level), limiting “equal time” public access, and the perpetual belittling of third party and Independent candidates.  

Finally, adding salt to the wound, is legislation mandating that all taxpayers pay for the primaries of the Democrats and Republicans, irrespective of their registration, but despite paying,  you aren’t permitted the opportunity to participate. Imagine going out to eat. But, before you can order, you’re required to buy two dinners for someone else, and you don’t have any say in it. Why? Because that’s the restaurant rules, which, by the way, were written by the people whose dinners you’re paying for.  Is that fair? Of course not! In politics, it’s called taxation without representation and that’s what you have in closed primary states.  

Now, let’s say you’re a registered member of the Libertarian or Green party (the third and fourth largest political parties respectively in the U.S.). Despite belonging to an official party,  you are still obligated to pay for the primary of the Democrat and Republican parties. However, nothing goes to your party. Not a dime.

In fact, to keep your party going, you have to pay out of pocket if you want to support it.  Finally, if you’re a registered Independent (the nation’s largest political bloc), you face the same problem.  Not only are you prohibited from participating, you are being forced to financially support  your political opponents!  

So, we’ve obviously covered quite a bit since the kickoff on our political system corruption series. So, let’s take a look at another topic near and dear to our hearts----taxes (sarcasm intended). Actually, we’re going to look at corporate taxes and how it impacts politics.

Everyone is familiar with Tesla, thanks to Elon Musk, the current head of DOGE—the Department of Government Efficiency---whose job is to snoop around and file government “bad actors” and financial malfeasance of taxpayer’s money. But did you know that Tesla, which is valued at $41 trillion dollars, reported earning $2.3 billion dollars in 2024, paid zero dollars in federal taxes? That’s right. Nada.   As an aside, the average American family pays roughly 14% of their income on taxes.

Over the past three years, the auto manufacturer earned  $10.8 billion dollars and yet managed to pay just $48 million in federal taxes. That works out to be a corporate tax rate of 0.4% (the statutory corporate tax rate is 21%). But it was more than just clever accounting involved. Congress actually passed legislation giving Tesla a tax break which saved them some $2.4 billion dollars.

Meanwhile, according to CBS, Elon Musk donated $277 million dollars to the Trump campaign in 2024 through his political action committee, “America PAC”.  He also donated $10 million to the Senate Leadership Fund, which backs Republican Senators. He also gave $3 million dollars to MAHA Alliance PAC, which is associated with Robert F. Kennedy Jr.  I’d say that’s not a bad return on his investment.

In addition, 3M and Airbnb paid zero federal income taxes in 2024. Cisco, a high technology specializing in AI infrastructure, and networking company (reputedly also the second most valuable company in America) paid nothing in federal taxes either despite $2.7 billion dollars in profit in 2024. In fact, 10% of the S&P 500 companies paid nothing in federal taxes.

Top executives at Cisco contributed $2,301,092 to candidates, political action committees and other political organizations in 2024. The candidate who got the most was Kamala Harris. She received $588,525 while $63, 977 went to Donald Trump.  The DNC Services Corporation received the second largest amount at $244,261.

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee got $62,543 while the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee picked up $50,973 in donations. The National  Republican Senatorial Committee was given $42,947 (it should be noted that between this and Trump, all other leading donations went to Democratic candidates or causes)

Cisco lobbying ranks 197^th out of 9,200 company’s who employ lobbying firms. Their lobbyists spent $3,270,000 in 2024, which is up from 2023’s $2,790,000. 32 of their 43 lobbyists were previously government employees. That’s 74.42%. In 2023, they employed 34 lobbyists. 84.29% were former government employees (elected, appointed, or hired).  

When it comes to donations from 3M, the same hold true about top executives donating. 64.40% of all donations went to Democratic candidates, organizations, or causes. Republicans got 35.60%. Interestingly, 74.86% of incumbents were supported compared to just 25.14% of challengers. Kamala Harris was the top dollar among candidate, picking up 105,639 dollars.  Donald Trump received just over $21,000 while the conservative oriented “Never Back Down, Inc” received $150,000 in donations.

Airbnb’s top executive donors gave Kamala Harris the most. $224,995 went to her campaign with only Maryland’s Future, a conservative outfit, picking any money for the right of center crowd. They received $25,000. Of note, $43,050 went to the Libertarian Party’s National Committee . 93.92% of all donations went to candidates compared to just 6.08% that went to political action committees.

As an aside, Airbnb co-founder, Joe Gebbia, joined Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency (“DOGE”), which is headed by Elon Musk.  Gebbia stepped down from his executive role at Airbnb in 2022 but remains active on the board of directors. 

In terms of lobbying, Airbnb spent $940,000 in 2024, which is down from $1,030,000 in 2023. They employed 22 lobbyists in 2024, of which 68.19% held government jobs previously (elected, appointed, or hired).

General Electric earned close to $7 billion dollars in 2023 and not only didn’t pay any federal taxes, they actually got a refund of $423 million dollars! T-Mobile paid 0.4% in federal taxes yet bought back $13 billion dollars of its own stock back in 2023, giving its shareholders a hefty profit on their investment.

Top executives at GE gave Kamala Harris $159, 351. Trump received $43,987. The DNC Services Corporation got $43,342 while the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee picked up $32,369. The National Republican Senatorial Committee got $20,527. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee took in $19,931 in donations from GE executives.

The overall total donated for the 2024 election cycle was $1,139,136. GE lobbyists “invested” $3.570,000 in 2024. 44 of their 68 lobbyists (64.71%) previously held a government job as note above.  In 2023, it was 71.23% of the 73 lobbyists they employed.

Meta (which owns Facebook) spent $20 billion dollars on stock buyback in 2023, which was four times more than they paid in federal taxes. General Motors spent $11 billion dollars on stock buybacks, which was 40 times more than they paid in federal taxes.

In 2024, Meta spent $24.4 million on lobbying efforts while key executives at Meta donated over $5.5 million to candidates, PACs, and other organizations. Kamala Harris received the most at $1,657,461.  It’s worth mentioning that 53 of their 65 lobbyists previously held government jobs. That’s 81.54%.

These are just a smattering of companies who pay little or no federal taxes. JP Morgan Chase for instance had an effective federal tax rate of 5.9% in 2021 despite earnings of $48 billion. Microsoft ‘s effective tax rate was 9.7 although its earning were $33.7 billion. Chevron’s was 1.8% but earned profits of $9.5 billion, and the list goes on.  

Of course, they take full advantage of whatever deductions are available based on existing federal laws, and who can blame them? However, it is noteworthy that many of key officers for these corporations have also made substantial political contributions. In addition, many of their top executives have received compensation greater than the amount of federal tax their corporation pays.

What can we do? Frankly nothing as long as Citizens United remains in place. However, Congress could mandate a minimum tax based on anticipated profits by independent auditors. They could also direct that no donations can be made to candidates who have a direct relationship with their industry or that all donations over $5000 per person must be directed to a blind trust, to be dispersed by the party along with a percentage to be donated to a fund available to third party and Independent candidates.

Additionally, the cap of $3,500 an individual can donate per campaign should be eliminated. Afterall, people should be entitled to the same “free speech” as corporations, who are nothing but legal fictions. Of course, partisan gerrymandering must end, and term limits must be imposed. Lobbyists should no longer write legislation and all interaction between election or appointed officials, their staff, and lobbyists should be transparent and made public. 

Rank choice voting would also be a good step for more fair elections as would equal ballot access. Lastly, parties should be responsible for funding their own primaries. Until then, the corporate takeover of  elections will continue.

 

Thank you for reading "Another Opinion", the Op/Ed blog page for the "militant middle".  Here at "A/O" we truly value our readers. At A/O we seek the facts as they exist, not partisan talking points.  We hope you find our articles informative and engaging. Comments are welcome, provided they are not vulgar, insulting or demeaning.  Another Opinion is offered without charge and is directed toward all independent and free-thinking individuals. We ask, however, that you "like" us on whatever platform you found us on in order to keep our articles available for free to others. Lastly, in order to keep costs down, we depend on passive marketing, and therefore, depend on our readers to please forward our posts along. Below you will find links to the sources we used in writing this article. Thank you. 

 

Elon Musk spent $277 million to back Trump and Republicancandidates

Telsa Reported Zero Federal Income Taxes on $2 Billion ofU.S. Income in 2024

Big Corporations Paid Shockingly Little Taxes Last Year

 

Nearly 10% Of S&P 500 Companies Paid No Tax----Including Telsa

FEC: Contribution Limits

These 19 Fortune 100 Companies Paid next To Nothing---or Nothing at All---in Taxes in 2021

Who Pays and Doesn’t Pay Federal Income Taxes in the U.S.?

 

 

 

How companies like Amazon, Nike, and FedEx avoid paying federaltaxes

 

The Rise of the Independent

Independents have long been the largest voting bloc in America.  According to a November 30, 2020 poll, those numbers are expected to continue to increase. It's expected that by 2035, nearly 3/4 of all registered voters will be Independent.  Polls shows that Independents, who've been a majority for about 20 years, are holding firm at 36% while the Democrats are 34% and Republicans are at 29%. Along with the change in registration, the poll predicted new election laws such as Open Primaries and Ranked Choice Voting.

In several states, which have had a historical preference for one corporate party or the other, such as North Carolina,  Alaska, Iowa, New Mexico, Colorado, and Oregon, those changes are already underfoot. Within the next 14 years (or sooner), those states will have Independent majorities. Other states following closely on the same track include Florida, New Jersey, and the upper Northeastern states of Maine, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut.

While some pollsters and pundits like to pretend that Independents are merely "homeless" voters or individuals who are uncertain about which party they should to belong, choosing instead to be Independent while leaning to the Republicans or Democrats. This couldn't be further from the truth.

In fact, they come to those questionable conclusions based on biased worded questions designed to create a false positive answer toward one or the other party; taking the lazy approach of lumping them in with one party or the other instead of treating Independents as the separate political demographic that they are.  

So,  just what is an Independent? Many Independents are former moderates/centrists who were purged out of one or the other corporate owned party by the extremists within that particular party. Independents are, by nature, not extremists. They also can't be pigeonholed, which frustrates the Status Quo. 

They are interested in practical and rational solutions to problems, not lockstep dogma. In short, they like to think for themselves. I imagine most of us were the troublemakers who always asked questions you encountered from school all grown up now and still asking questions.

An Independent wants a realistic solution regardless of where that solution comes from. Those who follow partisan dogma will accept the "solution" offered by their party, no matter how outrageous that "solution" is. To make matters more complex, both parties are owned by corporate money, and thus, so is their solution.

There's no questioning that.  Their lobbyists "contribute" to legislation (which is obviously meant to benefit them). They "advise" legislators. They help get legislation passed. Those who go along are rewarded, financially and otherwise. Is it any wonder that the majority of former legislators work for lobbying firms?

Thus the "solutions" presented by partisan politicians are by definition designed to benefit corporate interests, not our interests. Independents, as a whole, reject this. They want solutions which benefit society first and foremost. Generally speaking, Independents prefer policies and laws which promote fiscal responsibility which protecting individual liberties.  They seek a balance.  

In terms of foreign policy,  the majority of Independents prefer diplomacy over military action. However, they will support the latter if all efforts at a peaceful resolution have been exhausted. As an aside, most Independents support global trade while protecting American jobs. They also believe in keeping our noses out of other country's internal affairs and wars over resources. 

Now, let's discuss Open Primaries, Ranked Choice Voting, and other changes which are likely come along with the rise of Independents. The majority of these are aimed to help make elections more fair (and honest) by creating a level playing field and giving everyone a voice.

Open Primaries and Ranked Choice Voting, now the bane of Republicans and Democrats bosses, will likely be a matter of fact in all 50 states. Currently, in 30 states, they are already a matter of law. 

Open Primaries allow anyone not registered as a Democrat, Republican, or to another party, to choice which, if any, partisan primary to vote in. Why would that happen? Simply this. Taxpayer dollars pay for Republican and Democrat primaries. Yelp, you read that right. Your tax dollars pay for both partisan primaries.

 If you're an Independent or member of a third party, that means your tax dollars go to a strictly partisan political event without either your consent or ability to participate in. Doesn't exactly sound like a "representative democracy" to me. Does it to you? Then again, we're not. We're a Corporatocracy led by Oligarchs.

Here's another thought for you. Even if you're registered with one or the other corporate owned political parties, under our current "winner take all" system, that means if your party loses, your political views aren't represented for the duration of that individuals terms the way it would in a parliamentary system, yet you get to continue paying taxes for policies and legislation you don't support.

To add salt to the wound, given the current use of political gerrymandering and in the absence of term limits, it means that the opposing party is likely to hold that seat for as long as they want (incumbents have a 98% reelection rate, which is higher than the Chinese Communist Central Committee and Politburo of 62%). As far as they are concerned, you can move; leave your home and your neighborhood. Not exactly fair is it?

Ranked Choice Voting (also called RCV or Instant Runoff Voting) allows you, the voter, to rank the individuals running for a specific office, regardless of party, by preference, thus eliminating the need for a partisan primary (and saving you money) and giving you more of a say in who wins. In some cases, the party isn't even shown on the ballot. Because there some variations, I've included a link below to help explain it in more detail.

Other changes coming to the political landscape (whether the party bosses and their corporate masters like it or not) could include term limits. Our Founding Fathers never intended on holding public office to be a lifetime job (in fact, they didn't even think they should be paid; it was considered to be a civil duty).

In a 2020 poll conducted by McLaughlin and Associates, a Republican polling firm, found that 82% of all Americans favored a Constitutional amendment setting a fixed term of office for elected office holders. 52% of Americans also thought that Supreme Court Justices should also have set tenure on the High Court.

Of course, politicians and the folks pulling their strings, strongly oppose any attempt to replace their puppets. They'll use every trick and lie they can come up with, and why not? Tenure means more power which means more money. It also means having someone who jump when they're told to jump. Do you think they're going to give that up willingly? No. But term limits benefits us. It reduces the opportunity for corruption. It also means we'll see more fresh new ideas. Innovation is something that we are woefully lacking in government.

We should expect to see partisan gerrymandering ended. For those who don't know what that is, partisan gerrymandering allows a given party to redraw district lines to ensure that their party keeps a specific seat. It's how we get these unnatural looking districts whose neighborhoods and communities have little or nothing in common with each other except having the right number of partisan voters. It's why some neighborhoods get things done for them while other neighborhoods get squat.

Redistricting, however, is not all bad. Communities grow and change. That's why political representation should be allowed to change along with them. To do this, universities typically have political science and mathematical departments. Using data provided by the Census Bureau, along with computer models, would allow districts to be redrawn which reflect their natural growth. No longer would politicians try to force some neighborhoods in and others out in order to keep their political dominance.  Communities could stay and grow together.

The hardest change will be financial, and that includes Citizens United. Citizens United came about in 2010; the result of an ill considered Supreme Court decision. It decided that corporations were de facto "individuals" and thus, had the same rights as you and I. It further held that money was "free speech".  Thus, supporters declared it a First Amendment victory. However, it was anything but.

Corporations are artificial creations. A legal fiction. Those who are employed do not get a vote on where the money goes. That's done by the board of directors. Secondly, corporations aren't capped on the amount of money they give while you and I are. Naturally, corporations can donate millions compared to the insignificant amount working class individuals and small business donors can give.

Even unions can't compete. Typically, for every dollar a union gives a candidate or issue, a single corporation will give five dollars (not to mention there are far fewer unions than corporations). Thus, Citizens United not only distorted the intent of the First Amendment, it effectively eliminated citizens from having a voice.

Additionally, it made running for office so prohibitive expensive, only the wealthy need apply. It's worth noting that many legal scholars have acknowledged that Citizens United was a huge mistake since it all but removed ordinary citizens from the election process.

One suggestion to correct the "Supreme Error" is that all corporate money has to be donated to a common pool where it would be divided equally between eligible candidates directly. Another option is that the money would only buy equal public air time (and, I suppose, social media as well) on behalf of eligible candidates.  

It's doubtful that either option will be adopted. Even if it were, "dark money" would continue to filter in and "unofficially" back certain candidates. The only viable option is to remove corporate money---direct and indirect--- altogether from politics. Limiting all contributions to individual donors only, and then, capping the amount to keep billionaires and millionaires from buying candidates and elections as they do now.

Other likely changes will include eliminating ballot access restrictions. That means requiring the same number of signatures to get on a ballot. For instance, a Republican or Democrat might only need three, while an Independent or third party candidate might need hundreds...or thousands for the same seat!  Also, requiring that all candidates on the ballot be eligible to participate in public debates, which doesn't happen now.

Citizen initiatives or referendums are prohibited or restricted in a few, most backward, states (Kentucky comes to mind). I guess they're afraid of voters. Nevertheless, we, as citizens, have the right to express our opinion in the form of placing a question on the ballot for everyone to decide. We don't need the "permission" of legislators trying to protect their turf.

On a personal note, along those same lines, I think the voters should have the final say on tax, fee, or rate increases, as well as salary increases for anyone elected to office. Politicians have long shown they can't manage our money. We know what we can and can't afford. Damn few politicians have ever met a tax or rate increase they didn't like. It's our tax dollars, therefore, it should be our decision.

The continual rise of Independents is inevitable. The system and those who've run the system have failed us time and again. They pretend that their blunders are successes. Their corruption is for the common good. Well, the mask has slipped. We see exactly what's happening behind the curtain. They've done their best to lie and distract us, but you can only do that so many times.

They've tried to divide us at every turn in the hopes that our manufactured anger will be directed toward each other and because they believe they control all the levers of power, we can be controlled or distracted.  Independents are, by nature, not likely to be controlled or manipulated by anyone, especially out of touch millionaire politicians or the media.  We ask questions. We do our own research, and to the utter horror of the Status Quo, we think for ourselves. We speak our mind without worrying whose sacred silk slippers we step on.

 

How RCV Works

Ranked Choice Voting (RCV)

 

U.S. Term Limits

The share of independent voters is forecast to increasesteadily

Americans tend to be in favor of term limits for mostinstitutions, says pollster

Congressional stagnation in the United States

Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party