Our Election Day "PSA" For Voters Everywhere!

 

Election day (May 19^th) is fast approaching, and it seems that the airwaves and social media are full of “vote for me” commercials, not to mention the usual political entertainment, “mudslinging”. Along with the commercials, there’s the usual ubiquitous endorsements which are in truth nothing more than character references for the public.

Some endorsements are quite obvious. They’re from groups, individuals, or industries looking for “buying immediate access” which is shorthand for controlling or at least manipulation legislation as it pertains to them or the industry.

Some endorsements are less sinister. They aren’t necessarily looking for tax breaks or less government oversight. They’re really looking to improve child education, better healthcare, fresh water, or reduce pollution. To achieve these goals, they need an advocate in Congress. But these groups often have little or no money to donate. What money they have, which often comes from membership dues, are used to fund their project or to keep their doors open. However, money is the life blood of politics and influence typically goes to the highest bidder.

For instance, did you know that the average incumbent in the House has to raise $2900 every day (including weekends)? A challenger for the House has to raise around $3300 a day. Meanwhile, a U.S. senator has to come up with $15,300 per day. 75% of the average elected official’s time goes to fundraising for themselves or their party.

 It’s not unusual that these groups, despite their ultraistic objectives, are ignored by elected officials while Big Business continues unabated with their ownership of not just Congress, but the legal system, presidency, and even the government bureaucracy.

 So, what about the media and their candidate endorsements? Practically all media outlets, newspapers, TV, radio, and so forth have a specific political agenda. In fact, 98+ of all media is owned by just five corporations. It’s natural then that their endorsements are in line with their owners political interests, which don’t always (or even usually) coincide with the interests of the public. 

On occasion, they may give a reluctant halfhearted endorsement of a candidate on the opposing side provided they support at some of their side’s agenda. Besides, it keeps up the illusion of impartiality. Nevertheless, should the media be making endorsements in the first place?

The role of the media should be to provide accurate and balanced news so that we can make informed decisions. That means the news media needs to be non-partisan in their reporting. At election time the media (particularly newspapers) like to make their endorsements and urge you---the voter---support their agenda, yet their agendas don't necessarily represent our best interest.

Therefore, it’s best for you to do own research, which is easily found on the internet There are a host of non-partisan and unbiased sites available online (I’ve provided some links below). Armed with this information, you need to vote your conscience. Don't vote to be "anti" anything. Forget about party. We don't need any more negativity in the world. Instead, make your vote count "for" something you truly believe in. 

P.S.: Our apologies for the odd format. That appears to be an error on Blogger, our site's platform.  

Congressspends more than half their time dialing for dollars.

An insidelook at Congressional fundraising

 

How MoneyShapes Pathways to Power in Congress

Open Secrets

Your Voter’sGuide

Ballotpedia

See What’sOn Your Ballot

 Decide Whoto Vote For

 

 

Reforming Kentucky's Broken Primary System

For Independents, open primaries has been seen as essential. Afterall, we're force to pay for partisan primaries through our taxes, and yet in Kentucky and 13 other states, we're prohibited from participating. Our Founding Fathers, who opposed the notion of political parties ("cliques" as they called them) would have referred to this as an example of taxation without representation.

Joining with Let Us Vote, a nationally Independent organization, we have a terrific opportunity to do something about being locked out of primaries in Kentucky (this also affects third parties as well). Join us on March 18th for a Zoom conference call as we explore ways to break through the door erected by the Status Quo to keep Kentuckians out and protect their usurped power.

We've been working hard over many years---decades---to reform Kentucky's election process. We have been successful in reforming the Louisville Metro Council to create a non-partisan ballot so we can focus on voting for the most qualified candidate. Not the best of the worst. Now, as we join with Let Us Vote, we will have the tools and resources to make it happen. Will you join with us? Together we can make a more fair election system for all Kentuckians!

To learn more and where to sign up, check out this link:  https://kentucky.letusvote.org

Thanks to all!

Paul Hosse for Independent Kentucky;

Editor/Publisher of the top ranked Independent Op/Ed blog, Another Opinion AnotherOpinionblog.com

Can We Restore Our Republic?

 

The Ancient Romans had an expression which said that “time was fleeting’. The "Eternal Empire" as Rome was called existed little more than the proverbial blink of an eye in retrospect despite lasting well over a thousand years. One thing for sure is that time is fluid. It has a nasty habit of becoming the past before we've had the opportunity to reflect on its present. 

Perhaps America's fate will be similar to Ancient Rome's. It too was ruled by two powerful political blocs --- the Optimates and the Populates --- which were the approximate equivalent of the Republicans and Democrats respectively, and in turn were dominated by Rome's powerful and wealthy elites. But, after 482 years, the Republic fell and Rome became a dictatorship although the facade of a Republic was allowed to continue for a few more decades. 

What happened to Rome (and indeed, to most of History's republics) was not so much the result of an external threat, although that also happened, be it in the form of "illegal migration" or the near perpetual wars Rome fought throughout its history. Rome's fatal weakness , however, was internal. It was the corruption, greed, arrogance and incompetence of its ruling class, which by definition, shouldn't have existed in a Republic had it functioned properly as ours once did. 

It was partly the diversion of resources to serve the needs of the wealthy rather than the poor. It was the undermining of Rome's middle class, the backbone of the Republic, through over taxation. It was Rome's slowly decaying infrastructure as its attention focused on putting out fires throughout the edges of its empire. Even Rome's social safety net became too great of a burden. Rome also suffered under the weight of slavery while we bear the weight of a different form of slavery --- economic debt. 

Eventually, even the old maxim attributed to the poet Juvenal about keeping the populace occupied with "bread and circuses" to avoid civil revolt could no longer hold the empire together (Emperor Trajan exiled Juvenal for his comment. Apparently speaking truth to power was just as dangerous then as now). The idea was to keep the masses fed and pre-occupied in order to maintain power. 

Of course, our modern equivalent of "bread and circuses" being entertainment (includes sports, video games, movies, the internet, etc.) and consumerism with just enough media propaganda to keep the masses frustrated and confused. We’ve been transformed from citizens into consumers whose “loyalties” are to products. 

For the average Roman, there was no sudden "thud" as the Republic collapsed. The fall of nations are rarely sudden or dramatic except in time of war or some unexpected economic implosion (unexpected to all but those paying attention). The fall is typically gradual with growing peaks and valleys. Roads or bridges aren't repaired timely, or the repairs are of inferior quality. 

The quality of education becomes worse. In place of innovation, a mentality of "good enough" develops. Goods seem often shoddy quality. Crime is increasingly out of control. Taxes seem to spiral ever upward but with less and less to show for it. The last thing to be affected, however, is almost always the military. Even when Soviet Russia imploded, its military remained strong to the last. 

Ironically, the last to experience the collapse are those at the top. They're so insulated from reality they have little concept of the seismic political shift occurring under their feet. They believe that the same old platitudes and appeasements will keep working (ie: "let them eat cake") and allow them weather out the storms. They construct structures to protect them and to keep power in their hands while we’re left feigning for ourselves. 

America is no longer a Republic. Like ancient Rome, the myth is still being perpetuated by the elites to keep the masses pacified. They believe that if the illusion is allowed to continued, they can hang onto power (and wealth) a little longer. They know intuitively that at some point the masses will wake up to the scam being played out under their noses, but hope they'll be long gone or fully insulated by then. 

Unlike Rome which, after a series of social upheavals, transformed from a Republic into a militaristic dictatorship under a single powerful leader, America has turned into an Oligarchy pretty peacefully. But to be more specific, we've become a Corporatocracy, which I suspect is a term that some of you have never heard of before (unless you’re regular readers of A/O). 

A Corporatocracy is quite simply a form of government controlled by either corporations or corporate interests, which, in turn, is a type of plutocracy or rule by the wealthy. Who in their right mind can deny that Washington, as well as every state capitol or local city hall isn't dominate by a wealthy few? Money buys power. Power makes money. 

Washington has near 15,000 lobbyists representing corporate interests. These lobbyists provide the money (and perks) needed to make elections happen. They ensure that those who cooperate remain in office and those who don't are defeated. These same lobbyists "help" write legislation either directly or through so-called experts they retain. In a nutshell we actually have are two political cliques who are beholden to competing corporate interests (think of it as Coke vs Pepsi arrangement but cooperate to keep out any competitors). 

Under a Corporatocracy, which literally owns both parties, political outsiders such as third parties or Independents (who, by the way, are the country's largest political bloc) are keep out of any debates and off ballots whenever possible. They also use the media, which they own, to degrade, humiliate, or simply ignore any challenger. Thus, voters are virtually forced to pick between one of two pre-determined and pre-approved choices. 

The goal of a Corporatocracy is to remove any and all barriers which interfere with corporate profits. Through their control of government which includes not just those selected (err, I mean "elected") but also the governmental bureaucracy itself via appointments and the judicial system to provide the appearance of legitimacy. They  use "think tanks" to direct domestic and foreign policy and the media to manipulate public opinion. 

Domestically, the only acceptable form of chaos is the one which is managed. Take for example what's currently happening here in States. In addition to the COVID virus, we're witnessing BLM and Antifa running amuck. We're subtly being encouraged to be "afraid". 

The COVID virus was sold as some amorphous death cloud lingering around the next corner while neo-Marxist BLM and Antifa anarchists are planning to impose Communism (or worse, “socialism”) on unsuspecting Americans. Meanwhile, Trump and his supporters are nothing more than better dressed versions of Nazis and Fascist! 

The truth of matter is that both BLM and Antifa has used high profile incidents which should never have happened and turned them into political events. It's also true that BLM has a strong racist bent to it and Antifa behaves more like the old Nazi "Brownshirts" they allegedly opposed (as an aside, the Communists of that era had their own group of thugs known as the "Red Front". They fought the Brownshirts blow for blow). 

Social order is a precondition for capitalism and democracy to function properly, and that includes Corporate capitalism. Normally, the type of chaos we experienced from Antifa and BLM would have the ruling class quaking in their Gucci's, but it's not and I'll tell you why. 

First, there will be no "socialism" or "Communism" takeover despite what political front groups tell us on social media. Neither are conducive to the neo-fascist environment that a Corporatocracy needs to operate in. Both Communism and socialism require total government ownership of everything, and that ain't gonna happen. 

The elites will never willingly surrender their wealth or control over government and the economy, but they will use the fear of these political system as a bogeymen to scare the people into demanding that the government "do something" to protect them. Historically, people have always been willing to sacrifice freedom for security. 

In 1933, it was the Reichstag fire which Hitler used to push through the "Enabling Act" which ultimately gave him near absolute power in Germany. But before that it took a volatile economy, a political climate where the use of scapegoats were plausible, a series of assassinations, a high crime rate, mounting external threats and finally the fire itself to make the Enabling Act possible (not to mention the subsequent trial of three Bulgarian communists and a 24 year old Jewish Dutch Communist willing to admit to setting the fire to bring it to a head). They each played their part of (to borrow from Lenin) "useful idiots" just as BLM , Antifa, and their supporters are now playing their part. 

America is being transformed. There is absolutely no doubt about it. That transformation is as profound as Rome's was from a Republic to a militaristic dictatorship. There will be no socialism or Communism in our future nor a return of our cherish democratic and Constitutional Republic, at least not in the near term, and not as long as the Oligarchy remains in power. Our best hope is to demand changes which transfers the balance of power back to the people. 

How? I talking about term limits; a level political playing field that allows all parties and individuals the same ballot access and inclusion in debates; ending Citizens United and taking unlimited corporate money out of politics; ending corporate participation in writing legislation; allowing nationwide voter referendums; ranked choice voting; equal ballot access; mandating the former government officials not be allowed to engage in lobbying directly or indirectly for a minimum of ten years after they leave office; voter approval for tax, fee, rate, or salary increases of elected officials. 

Lastly, require that all elected officials resign from whatever party they're a member of once they are sworn in. The only loyalty should be to the people they were elected to represent. Only then can we restore America back to the People.

If you want to know more about this article's topic, please check out the links below. If you enjoyed the article, please consider passing it along to others and don't forget to subscribe. It's free! Lastly please be sure to "like" us on whatever platform you use to read anotheropinionblog.com. It helps with the algorithms and keeps our articles in circulation. Thank you! 

Corporatocracy


The U.S. is an Oligarchy? The Research, Explained


Lobbying Data Summary


The 20 companies and groups that spent the most money to influence lawmakers

 

 

Freedom and Democracy: How Do They Stack Up Globally?

We’ve all heard that America is the home of democracy. The land of free and home of the brave. We hear it every time our National Anthem is sung. There’s few things which make us feel more secure and proud than watching Old Glory gently blowing in the breeze on a sunny day or watching a military parade rolls down the street. While there’s no questioning our military strength or the dedication of our men and women in uniform, have you ever wondered just how free we really are?

America was founded on the concept of individual freedom. We took on the world’s greatest superpower of the time over freedom and the notion of issues like taxation without proper representation, and yet here we are, some 250 years, and our Founding Fathers wouldn’t recognize the nation they fought to hard to create.

Most of our freedoms, even the most basic ones likes speech, expression, or right to bear arms are challenged on a daily basis And what about taxation without representation, the core reason we fought the British? How often do you get to vote on a tax or rate increase? Many of these are decided by some appointed committee, not by anyone you voted for. Some have built-in increases that don’t even require public debate.

 Partisan political primaries are taxpayer funded by state legislation. But what if you don’t belong to one of the two corporate owned and controlled political parties? Well, too bad.  Independents, who are the nation’s largest political bloc, and people who’ve joined a third party for whatever reason, are still required to pay for the Democratic and Republican primaries, and it gets worse.

While they are involuntarily taxed, they are legally prohibited from participating in their primaries (as an aside third party primaries are strictly self-funded. No taxpayer support)  Fair? No. Legal? Questionable. Democratic? Hardly. In keeping with the founding tradition of “no taxation without representation”? Hell no! So, I can almost hear you ask “well, if you don’t like it, why don’t you just vote them out?”. That’s a great question. Very logical, but the answer is, sadly, not quite so clear cut.

The reason is that both parties, in the spirit of bipartisanship (some might call it “collusion”) have made it nearly impossible for them to be voted out of office. Briefly, the 2010 Citizens United and the 2014 McCutcheon rulings, declared that corporations, which are actually artificial legal fictions, are now “people” with the same rights as ordinary flesh and blood humans, with one key exception, and that concerns “free speech”.

According to the (un)Supreme Court, declared that money is now the same as “free speech”.  And while we are free to voice our opinions via donations to political campaigns, we are capped in what we can give. Corporations, on the other hand, are not. Apparently they have more “free speech” than you or me, and that means more influence.  They can give essentially as much as they want (not that we have a spare $10 million laying around to give to some candidate). As a result, they finance not just campaigns and political parties but also fund so-called “leadership funds” (which are basically political “slush funds”), and through various legal loopholes run commercials and ads on behalf of a candidate or issue supported by that candidate. Independents and third parties typically don’t get a dime.

Through state legislation, unequal ballot access is the norm. That means there are one set of rules and requirements for Independents and third parties and another set for the two corporate owned parties. They don’t even have their own election representative to protect their interests! As a rule, they are lumped in with whichever party has the smallest voter numbers and forgotten.

Other issues, such a partisan gerrymandering all but guarantees control of a district by the majority party. It allows districts to be drawn to ensure they retain control of it. It’s a case of a party choosing the voters instead of voters choosing their representatives. This is why gerrymandered districts have reelection rates in the high 90% range.

Also, despite approval ratings in the upper 20% or low 30% range (and occasionally as low as 9%), Congress has a reelection rate of 97%. Do you think that’s by coincidence?  Corporate lobbyists help write (or write altogether) legislation as well as review bills, provide summaries, and so forth. Do you think any of this is for our benefit? Don’t bet on it.  So, I will again ask you, do you think we are free? How do compare with the rest of the world?

According to the 2024 “Freedom Index”, published by the CATO Institute, the freest country in the world in terms of personal and economic freedom, is Switzerland, followed by New Zealand and Denmark. The next three are Luxembourg, Ireland, and Finland. Seventh place is a three way tie between Australia, Iceland, and Sweden. Then comes Estonia, Canada, and Japan. Rounding out the top 15 economically and personally freest nations are Norway, Germany, and the Czech Republic.

Did you notice anything particular here? Who is missing? That’s right, the United States. We are not only not in the top five, we’re not in the top ten or even the top 15! What the hell? If we’re supposed to be the “home of the free”, why is nobody at home? Where are we?

Before getting to the U.S., I’d like to mention that according to the Freedom Index, of the top 15 freest country, the index points out that 13 of those 15 countries have seen a decline in their ratings. Just two saw improvements. The nation which has seen the greatest loss of personal and economic freedom was the Czech Republic with Finland and Canada close behind. Only Japan and Denmark have both experienced slight improvements at 0.07 and 0.02 respectively in personal and economic freedom.

As for the United States, we ranked 17^th of the 165 countries on the Freedom Index. For the record, Mexico was 94^th overall. India was 110^th. Russia was 139^th. Taiwan was 19^th. Brazil was 70^th, South Korea was 32^nd, and China was 150^th. The freest regions were North America, Western Europe, and Oceania. The least freest was the Middle East, Northern and Sub Saharan Africa, and South Asia. In terms of freedom for women, the top regions were North America, Western Europe, and East Asia. The worst areas for women were the Middle East, Northern and Sub Saharan  Africa, and South Asia.

When it comes to democracy, representative governments, political participation, civil liberties, and electoral pluralism, we need to turn to the Democracy Index compiled by the Economic Intelligence Unit of The Economist publication. They looked at various factors, such as to those just mentioned,  to determine just how effective the political system is in a given country. Countries were ranked as “Full Democracies” (10.00 – 8.99), “Flawed Democracies” (7.99 – 6.99), “Mixed” (5.99 – 4.99) and “Authoritarian” (3.99 - .99).

The chart rates each of the 165 countries surveyed on a scale of 0 to 10 with zero being the most authoritarian and ten being the most democratic. At the top of the list are Norway (9.81), New Zealand (9.61), Sweden (9.39), Iceland (9.38). and Switzerland (9.32) rounding out the top five democratic countries in the world.

These were followed by Finland (9.3), Ireland (9.19), Netherlands (9.0), Luxembourg (8.98), and Australia (8.85) finishing the top ten. Honorable mention goes to Taiwan (8.78), Germany (8.73), Canada (8.69), and finally Uruguay (8.67).  

As for the United States, we are ranked 28^th of the 165 surveyed with a democracy rating 7.85. Again, not a real good selling point as the “home of the free”. In fact, the U.S. is actually listed as a “flawed democracy” and may be teetering on becoming a failing democracy.  Some of the main reasons for why are mentioned at the beginning of this article.

In fact, countries like Costa Rica (8.29), Mauritius (8.23), Estonia (8.13), and Malta (7.93) are more democratic than the United States. As if that’s not bad enough, we barely beat out Chile (7.83) and Slovenia (7.82). That’s not good people. Of course, there’s nothing wrong or negative about these countries. In fact, good on them for doing a great job representing their people. However, the United States can and should be doing a much better job serving the people and not on Wall Street executives.

Out of curiosity, I wanted to know what the least democratic nations on the planet were so that I could go ahead and mark them off any future itineraries should the occasion arise. Liberia was 5.57. Mexico was 5.32.  Palestine (West Bank) has a rating of 3.44, while Nepal was 4.6 (so much for Buddhist enlightenment). The North African nations of Morocco,  Tunisia, and Algeria  were 4.97, 4.71, and 3.55 respectively. Egypt was 2.79. The Democratic Republic of the Congo was 1.78, making it sound neither democratic or a republic.  

Saudi Arabia, a Sunni monarchy, was only 2.08. Yemen, home of the Houthi which keeps attacking Israel amid its claims of Israeli brutality in Gaza, has a 1.95 on the Democracy Index. Syria, which is still dealing with a civil war, was 1.32. Iran, an Islamic theocracy, was 1.96. Iraq was only a little better at 2.8. Jordan, another Sunni kingdom, was 3.28. Kuwait, also a Sunni monarchy, where we fought a war to liberate Kuwaiti oil under the guise of “restoring democracy”, has democracy rating of 2.78. South Africa was 7.16 and India was 7.29.

 Turkey, whose government is secular despite a 98% majority Muslim population, was a notable 4.6. The highest rated nation in the region was, not unexpectedly, Israel, the only parliamentarian democracy in the region. It’s democracy rating was 7.8 (remember, America’s was just 7.85). Russia was 2.03 while China was 2.11. Ukraine was 4.9 and Belarus was 1.99.  However, the worst places to be if you’re looking a democratic government were the Central African Republic (1.18), North Korea (1.08), Myanmar (0.96) and Afghanistan (0.25).

Finally, in terms of regions, Africa was 3.92 overall. Asia was 4.06. North America was 5.64. South America was 6.01. Europe was 7.41 and Oceania was rated 7.46. The Middle East as a region wasn’t specifically mentioned, but averaging the numbers would be approximately 2.11 (excluding Israel) on the Democracy Index.

Additionally, did you know that there are only 25 “full democracies” in the world today? There are 46 “flawed democracies” (of which the U.S. is one), 36 so-called “hybrid” governments or that global democracy had been declining for 19 years straight?  Just 20% of the world lives in a “free country”. 42% live in a “partly free” nation, and 38% live under some form of authoritarianism, all according to the Freedom House.

It’s bears mentioning that most of the nations facing the worse influx from migration from countries with little or no tradition of freedom or democratic governments are the ones highest on both the Freedom Index and the Democracy Index lists. This begs the question of what happens when a country or region with a history of personal liberty and economic freedom is overrun by peoples with a history and culture based on oppression?

Well, historically speaking, the latter will almost always win out unless the former has the will to either enforce assimilation through regulation and legislation or expels the latte by whatever means necessary. If you’re looking to create a society of compliance and blind obedience, then you do exactly what the West is doing now. There is no middle ground.

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. 

 

Human Freedom Index

Democracy Index

Freedom House: Marking 50 Years in the Struggle ForDemocracy

Who Owns Your Political Party?

 

Some people act as if the Democrat Party and the Republican Party are somehow America’s de facto “official” parties and behave as if they’re an actual part of the government. One senses that to contradict that is somehow unpatriotic. The plain truth of the matter is that they are private corporations. Their internal party leadership, which these days are primarily the large corporate donors, determine the party platform which the elected candidates follow (note that each party pays for its own caucus).  

However, these days the two parties have come together to form a de facto duopoly under the direction and control of a relatively handful of deep pocket investors. For instance, did you know that in 2024, just 1.05% of U,S, population made 78.45% of all political contributions?

Most of that money isn’t coming from individuals like Koch, Soros, or even Musk. It’s coming from people with names like Yass, Adelson, Uihlien, Mellon, and Griffin. People that most of us have never heard of but with very deep pockets and all of whom having a very specific agenda. It's also coming from well financed political action committees, professional associations, financial fund managers, and corporate donors. Nevertheless, despite being literally “owned” by Wall Street, both parties receive taxpayer subsidies.

Yelp, you read that right. Despite receiving billions from Wall Street, both parties also receive money from taxpayers, irrespective of their political registration, in order to support their primaries. Can you imagine that? If you’re an Independent, like the majority of American voters, or a member of a third party like the Greens, Libertarians, or Constitutionalists, you still are compelled to pay for the Republican and Democrat partisan primary!

So, if you aren’t a member of either party, what do you care about who wins their primary? Well, the fact of the matter is that you likely don’t, and yet your tax dollars are involuntarily taken from you and given to them. To add insult to injury, none of the third parties (and certainly none of the Independent candidates) get a penny in taxpayer subsidies. In fact, they receive little or no money of any consequence from deep pocket corporate donors.

So, before we talk about how much money the two corporate owned parties get from deep pocket donors, let’s talk about Citizens United, the 2010 mistake by the Supreme Court which gave corporations “personhood” and declared that money was “free speech”, except that Big Business was entitled to now openly and freely give what they want while the average citizen was effectively locked out of politics.

As I said, Citizens United occurred in 2010 (Citizens United vs. FEC). Before that, corporations and their political action committees (“PACs”) had to go through a series of Byzantine steps to donate to candidates and parties, and even then, they were restricted in what they could donate. In fact, unions could keep up with most corporations. It was still possible of the average citizen to make a difference financially in elections, especially at the local and state levels.

Of course, the federal level was another matter. Even then, in pre-2010, Congress was largely a “Millionaire’s Club”, and if your weren’t going in, there was a pretty good chance you would be long before you retired. In 2008 for instance, the average cost of running for a seat in the House of Representatives was $1.73 million dollars while a Senate seat might cost you $8.53 million. Fast forward to 2012, just two years after Citizens United went into effect, that House seat would cost you an average of $1.57 million dollars, and that Senate seat would set you back a hefty $11.47 million.

By 2018, you were going to pay over $2 million for a seat in the House and $15.75 million for that Senate seat. In 2022, you’d pay an average of $2.79 million dollars for a job that paid about 170,000 a year. That Senate seat, which paid the same as the House, would cost you $26.53 million dollars. Prior to 2010, corporations and unions gave almost the same amount. Nowadays, it’s a 10:1 ratio in favor of Wall Street.

By the end of the 2022 election cycle, the average winner (which were nearly all incumbents) spent $26.5 million for the Senate seat and $2.8 million for their House seat. As an aside, the average loser for a House seat spent $803,773 while in the Senate, the average loser dropped $13,518,918.

Of course, winner or loser, most of this money was coming from Corporate America and you can bet they weren’t just trying to be “good” or “responsible” corporate citizens. This was investment dollars, and with all investments, you expect to get something back for your money.

So, if both parties---the Democrats and Republicans---are private corporations, and if they are funded by Wall Street, why are taxpayers required to help underwrite their primaries through their tax dollars? Lets look at this question another way. Taxpayer funding of primaries are the result of legislation at the state level. Who makes up state legislatures? Despite, being minority parties, most legislatures are comprised of Democrats and Republicans.

How is it then, with both parties being the minority (Democrats make up about 27% of all registered voters nationally while Republicans make up about 26%). Independents, however, comprise about 43%. In addition, the number of registered Democrats and Republicans has been dropping for years while the number of “Indies” has been booming.

Thanks to having a rigged electoral system (which if freely admitted by both parties), they are about to make it very difficult for any third party or non-partisan candidate to get on the ballot. First, partisan candidates typically need only three to five signatures to get on the ballot whereas third party candidates may need ten times that amount for the same office.

In some cases, they may be required to hundreds or thousands of signatures by petition, and you can bet that both parties will work together to eliminate as many of those signatures as being “invalid” as possible (often waiting as close to the filing deadline as possible to prevent them from getting additional signatures).

In Indiana for instance, an Independent needs to get 36,944 signatures to get on the ballot for a statewide election. In Texas, a third party candidate needs 81,000 signatures gathered over a 75 day period. In New York, it’s 45,000. Partisan candidates, however, generally only need three to five signatures. 

This is often called the "2% rule" where candidates other than a Democrat or Republican must get 2% of registered voters to sign a petition just to get on the ballot. Bear in mind too that only the two parties get automatic ballot access. Free and fair elections? Hardly.

Partisan gerrymandering of districts (which the Supreme Court has refused to rule on) is another way to keep voters from being represented. Districts are aligned to ensure that the presiding party will keep registered voters from that party in the majority in that district. The result is that 97% of incumbents are automatically reelected.

Lastly, money. No campaign can be run without money, and lots of it. Since both parties are in bed with Wall Street and some very wealthy donors, very little money goes to anyone else aside from the pre-approved partisan candidates. Of course, the corporate owned media does its party to ignore or belittle any third party or Indie candidate, treating them as if they were a sideshow amid claims of “wasting your vote” or “throwing away your vote”.

In addition, both state parties ensure that their party’s primary remains closed. That is, unless you’re a member of their clique, you can’t play in their sandbox. However, since the legislation doesn’t allow for any distinction between being a partisan voter or not, everyone is taxed equally to fund their sandbox.

So, that means that in the 13 states and the District of Columbia with closed primaries (which includes Kentucky, Florida, Delaware, New York, and Pennsylvania), some 23.5 million Independents voters and approximately 5.3 million third party voters were not just denied the opportunity to vote, they were forced to pay for those closed partisan primaries thanks to partisan legislation. Sound fair? Remember, that the American Revolution came about over the issue of “taxation without representation”.

It was that fact that the British Parliament was voting on matters without our input and then forcing us to pay for those decisions, again without our approval. Here we have partisan political primaries being conducted by two private corporations, and thanks to legislation passed by partisan legislators which also excluded voters in general, required everyone (to pay for their insider elections yet denying a large segment of voters the opportunity to participate in them!

It would be like two cliques from high school throwing a party that you’re not invited to, but you have to pay for it!  I think this would qualify as “taxation without representation” just as well, don’t you? Our Founding Fathers (who frowned on political parties to begin with) would be up in arms. As an aside, the pre-revolutionary “Sons of Liberty” were well known for tar and feathering tax collectors and others for doing less, not to mention hanging many an official of the Crown in effigy from Boston Common’s “Liberty Tree”.

So, where does that leave us? Interestingly, this demonstrates that we have a duopoly which does not represent the majority of Americans. Not even close. In order to maintain control, it’s necessary to rig the system to ensure that they and only they retain power. That means that each party caters to the extreme wings of their party, which is responsible, at least in part, to the great divide we are experiencing in this country while at the same time brainwashing us into believing they’re trying bridge that divide.

They force, through legislation, citizens to financially support them, giving the impression of popular support. They gerrymander districts to give themselves a near perpetual hold on districts. The absence of term limits allows them to hold office for as long as they want while corporate control over campaign finances virtually guarantees that there’s no serious challenge to the status quo while the media, pretending to be unbiased, ignores or ridicules anyone who has the audacity to resist or demand choice.  Kool-Aide anyone? 

In truth, neither Independents nor third party members actually want to participate in partisan primary elections. The fact they are Independent or member of a third party demonstrates that! What they want is either equal voting access if they’re to be taxed or not taxed and allowed to support their own candidates or party.  Ideally, each party should be fully responsible for funding their own primaries instead state legislatures effectively putting a gun to the head of voters and telling them we have “free and open elections”.   

Nether the Republican Party or the Democratic Party are the “official” parties of the United States. They are merely two of many, and they’re both minority parties at that! They do not have the right to prohibit people from voting or ballot access any more than they have the right to mandate support of their primary unless all primaries are equally supported, at least in my opinion. 

Campaign finance reform, term limits, rank choice voting, equal ballot access, non-partisan gerrymandering and nationwide citizen referendums are seriously required if we’re to have a mediocrem of freedom left for ourselves and future generations. If America is to reclaim the title of "Beacon of Freedom", wouldn't you think we should start with our own electoral process first?    

 

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. 

 

Election Trends

Corporatism

Taxpayer Funding: The Cost of Closed Primaries

Closed Primary States 2025

Closed Primary

Research Brief: Growing Cohort of Independent Voters BecomesCritical Segment of Electorate

Voters Who Identify As Independent Skyrockets As Democrats and Republicans Dwindle

How US states make it tough for third parties in elections

10 Ways to Fight the Corporatocracy

America's Political Divide: Exposing the Duopoly

America is a duopoly as everyone should know by now, but if not, let me briefly explain what a duopoly is.  A duopoly is simply rule by a two party political system, which our Founding Fathers never intended for America. In actuality, they never intended for the country to develop political parties at all!

While they recognized that a kind of ad hoc clique based issues would likely develop, they felt that the creation of fixed parties would ultimately grow into competing special interest groups which would come to usurp citizens of their political power. Of course, they were right.

Today, we've gone from the creation of a two primary political "cliques"  have evolved into the creation of a political class controlled by an artificial entity which didn't exist at the time of the Founding Fathers. I'm talking about corporations of course. Corporations are merely legal fictions which exist to serve a specific function and make money  for their shareholders.

Nowadays, these man-made legal fictions have been granted "personhood' just like you and me, but with one key exception thanks in part to a mistake made by the Supreme Court in 2010. That's when, in a 5 to 4 decision, they upheld Citizens United and in doing so, magically turned money into "free speech" as if they were some sort of legalistic alchemists. 

According to their decision, Corporations, which didn't represent the interests of its employees or even the majority of its stakeholders, could now  invest as much "free speech" as they wanted in any political election, party, or issue.  Thus politics became a commodity to acquire no different from any other. 

They could now legally and openly  "rent" or "invest" as much as they wanted in a candidate or issue of their choice short or long term like a commodity or share of stock.  Or, if they prefer, collectively just buy a controlling stake in the political party of their preference just as they would a subsidy, to hold as long as it remains profitable.  So far, I'd say they've gotten their money's worth wouldn't you?

So you could accurately equate the two dominate political cliques with being merely the public front for competing corporate cliques. I like to think of the blue donkey and red elephant as being on par with Quaker Oat's "Cap'n Crunch" or Post Cereal's "Sugar Bear".

While the two parties may disagree on certain facets or details concerning how our tax money is spent, much of the public disagreements you see on the evening news are superficial. In truth, they agree on certain core principals which centers on protecting and growing the interest of Big Business and the super wealthy (which naturally includes them).

This is done through the use of corporate money to not just underwrite the two parties and fund political campaigns but also by using corporate lobbyists to advise members of Congress and/or their staff about legislative issues, and by writing legislation which Congress will vote on. They also use the media to provide whatever spin is needed to manufacture the illusion of public support.

All of this helps to ensure that the cost of financing a political campaign to challenge the Status Quo is well beyond the reach of most average Americans. They also use their control of the election process to ensure that national and state election laws are written to make it as difficult as possible for Independents, third party candidates or certain reform related issues get on the ballot. Thus, the "common riff raff" are kept out and the running of government is left to our economic and social "betters" to fulfill their natural right to lead.

As an example, while a Democrat or Republican candidate may need as few as three to five signatures to get on a local election ballot, a Independent or third party candidate may be required to have 25 or more! In Nebraska, for instance, a partisan candidate needs only to pay a filing fee to get on the ballot for a federal office, which is quite doable. 

However, an Independent or third party candidate in Nebraska needs to obtain 4000 signatures on a petition to run for a federal office plus the filing fee. In Kentucky, they need 5000 signatures to get on the ballot! In Georgia it's 7,500 signatures. One set of rules for thee but not me.  What do you think, would you consider this biased or rigged?  

About half of the states prohibit voters from introducing a measure on the ballot. Some states require citizens to petition the state legislature in order to try and find a sponsor the potential ballot initiative. That's no guarantee they'll put any effort into getting  the measure through the labyrinth of committees in order to put it on the ballot.

Of course, it's imperative that any issue to be introduced on a ballot needs to be properly written to avoid any ambiguity or possible conflict with another law. It must also be constitutional. But assuming these can be properly addressed (perhaps through the use of a constitutional attorney or review by a state judge), is there any reason citizens should be prohibited from putting an issue on the ballot?

The two parties also use their control of key committees and government bureaucracy to limit or even exclude Independents and members of third parties from serving on committees and boards, even if that means leaving positions vacant.  Does that sound fair or unbiased to you? 

What about the fact that both parties have election officers to oversee voter registration and address election issues, and yet there is no one for Independents or the third parties. In most instances, the party with the least number of registered voters are assigned Independent and third parties voters "as if" they'll give them the same attention as they would their primary party.

When it comes to debates at the federal level, the Democrats and Republicans came together to form the Commission on Presidential Debates in 1987 (it had previously been handled by the League of Women Voters). It's worth nothing that some of its rules have been altered to all but prohibit third parties or Independents from participating. This came about following the 1992 debate which involved Independent candidate Ross Perot.

Ross Perot, for those too young to remember, was a very successful businessman who ran as a non-partisan candidate in 1992 against Democrat Bill Clinton and Republican George H.W. Bush. Needless to say, Perot kicked butt! If you get the chance to check the debates out, I urge you should do so (I've provided a link below). It wasn't  often that you saw Clinton or Bush flustered in a debate!

Nowadays, Independent and third party candidates are called as "spoilers" or treated as a circus sideshow. The reason? It's simply to psychologically influence voters into thinking they're "wasting their vote" or  not taking them seriously. It's all a mind game.  The candidacy of Donald Trump proved that. He wasn't a political insider. He also wasn't vetted by the powerbrokers. As a result, he couldn't be controlled and they knew it. That's why they went after him from day one and they're still going after him.

So, if you think our political system smells like a open dumpster at a daycare on a hot August day you'd be right (and for much the same reason). The average citizen has been essentially excluded from participating in election process. Congress caters to the wants of Wall Street, not to the needs of Main Street. That's tantamount to taxation without representation. Our Founders fought against that very notion, and yet here we are!  The single most important question is what are we going to do about it?

 

If you enjoyed the article, please consider passing it along to others and don't forget to subscribe. It's free! Lastly please be sure to "like" us on whatever platform you use to read anotheropinionblog.com. It helps with the algorithms and keeps our articles in circulation. Thank you!

 

Video: America's Two -Party Corporate Duopoly by Second Thought

Video: Bush, Clinton, Perot: The first 1992 Presidential Debate

Too Big To Fail? How Big Business Supplanted the American Voter

We've often talked about the rise of corporatocracy and the fall of our Republic. We have transformed from representative democracy, responsible to the citizens of this country, into one in which government, led by an elite oligarchy, serves the needs and interests of Big Business.

Members of Congress are nowadays dependent on corporations to finance their elections, to underwrite both political parties (as of the 2022, Big Business had given both parties $8.9 billion dollars with roughly 45% going to Democrats and 55% going to the GOP), and not only write  legislation, but to review existing bills and make "recommendations" on which ones to vote "yay" on and which ones to say "nay"on.

Perhaps that's not surprising when you consider that just over 50% of  Congressional members or individuals on their staff go on to become lobbyists, political consultants or advisors. They typically bring the expertise, connections, and, of course, the cash.  

In 2022, corporate lobbyists "donated" $4.1 billion dollars to members of Congress, and as of the first quarter of 2023, they had already given over $1 billion dollars.  As an aside, did you know that there are approximately 20 registered lobbyists for every member of Congress? Given that they can make over five times what they made in government, it's not a bad gig.  

Thanks to a politically naive (some would say incompetent) Supreme Court and pressure from Wall Street and Congress, the Citizens United ruling in 2010 by a 5 to 4 margin all but ensured that Big Business would dominate politics henceforth. It declared that corporations, while nothing more than legal fictions, were suddenly granted "personhood" and entitled to all the rights you and I have...with one essential exception.

The ruling declared that money (somehow magically it seems) was now the equivalent of free speech! Thus if you have $20 dollars and I have $100, under the Supreme Court's decision, my opinion is more important or valuable than yours. However, while mere mortals remained capped as to how much they can donate to political campaigns, these legal fictions were free to give what they want.

Obviously there's no way ordinary citizens can compete financially to what Big Business can give. Even unions are outspent more than $5 to $1. The result is that the 2010 Citizens United blunder removed you and I from politics. It made running for high office basically a sport for millionaires.

Coupled with partisan gerrymandering, the absence of term limits, unequal ballot access, lack of voter referendums, and unfair voter access, not to mention the control of a biased media by just five big corporations and "shadow blocking" online,  we're left on the sidelines as spectators watching a rigged horse race using a biased handicapping form  and leaving us with the illusion of having a chance to cash a winning ticket.

How bad is it? Pretty bad. Congress has made it clear on numerous occasions that it doesn't care one wit about what we think. Remember the bank bailouts of 2007/08? Despite the public's loud and very vocal disapproval, Congress did it anyway at a cost of $700 billion dollars of our money, with most going for executive incentivizes, bonuses, and vacations.

 In 2020, at the outset of the COVID pandemic, Congress spent $25 billion of our tax dollars to bailout the airline industry. Instead of using the money to save jobs, it was used for executive bonuses and salaries, not to mention tax breaks, low interest/forgiven loans, and other perks Congress gives its "business partners"   

Congress routinely uses our tax dollars for projects aimed to make them or their corporate friends millions (if not billions) in profits without either party having any fear of voter repercussions.   Despite having decades long disapproval ratings below 20%, Congress still has a reelection rate of 98%! That's higher than the reelection rate of the old Soviet Union's Politburo. We have to look to countries like North Korea or China to see similar reelection percentages.

In case you're wondering by the way, the Soviet Era Politburo had an average turnover rate of about 35% compared to our 2% and no member could serve more than three terms. Here, members of Congress can serve indefinitely. Also, the average age of a member of the Politburo was about 40. The average age of a member of Congress in 2023 is 46, down from a previous 52 years of age. And to think that we used to make fun of the Politburo as a "bunch of tired old men"! 

All this research led me to a informative and entertaining video by a guy who goes by the name of "Mr. Beat" (his real name is Matt Alan Beat. He's a high school history teacher, podcaster, video producer, and musician living in Kansas). Mr. Beat publishes quite a catalog of videos covering a variety of topics, although most appear to be historical or political (non-partisan).

This one, "The One Political Issue That Unites All of Us" is one I especially recommend. The video is 15:52 minutes long. As I said, it's informative as well as entertaining with some rather wry sense of humor. I'm providing a link below and urge you to check it out. I've also included some other links about our political situation that I think you'll find interesting.

 

Video: The One Political Issue That Unites Allof Us

If you enjoyed the article, please consider passing it along to others and don't forget to subscribe. It's free! Lastly please be sure to "like" us on whatever platform you use to read anotheropinionblog.com. It helps with the algorithms and keeps our articles in circulation. Thank you!

 

Open Secrets: Federal lobbying spending reaches $4.1 billionin 2022---the highest since 2010

Open Secrets: Federal lobbyist spending tops $1 billion infirst quarter of 2023

Timeline: Notable government bailout, relief programs in U.S. history

CNNMoney.com's bailout tracker

Bailout Lists: Banks, Auto Companies, and More

Which Party Receives More Corporate Donations?