Did We Do Right By Bombing Iran?

What’s your opinion about the United States bombing three nuclear sites in Iran? Did we have a national security or moral obligation to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities and try to disrupt its potential nuclear bomb making capabilities? Was there an ulterior underlining motive? To address those, and other questions, we need to take a brief look back at the history of Iran and its relationship with the United States.

In 1953, the Prime Minister of Iran, Mohammad Mosaddegh, was overthrown via a CIA orchestrated coup (with the help of British Intelligence, MI6), under the direction of Kermit Roosevelt Jr, a intelligence officer with the CIA's Office of Policy Coordination, and grandson of President Theodore Roosevelt.   

Roosevelt had previously helped orchestrate the 1952 coup in Egypt with the Free Officers Movement to topple King Farouk. The movement was led by a small cadre of Egyptian and Sudanese officers and was led by Abdel Moneim Abdel Raouf, and included such future notables Gamal Abdul Nasser (who became close friends with Kermit Roosevelt), Salah Nasr, and Abdel Hakim Amer.

Mohammad Mosaddegh had been appointed prime minister by the democratically elected Iranian Parliament (the “Majlis”). He had also co- founded the National Front, a Left leaning pro-democracy, secular, and Iranian nationalistic political party. They also implemented a number of land and tax reforms aimed at helping the lower class.

Amid a period of political unrest, assassination, and emerging religious extremism, Mossadegh sought to maintain power and improve Iran’s economic stability by nationalizing its burgeoning oil and gas industry, beginning with the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company.

Eventually, following a series of constitutional crisis events, which included the Shah fleeing to Italy out of concerns for his safety, Mossadegh was forced to align himself with pro-Soviet factions (despite strongly disliking the Communists). This was all the CIA and MI6 needed. The result was an overthrow of his government (and future suppression of the National Front) under “Operation Ajax”.

The result was the installation of a much more pro-Western government under the direction of  CIA recommended General Fazlullah Zahedi as the new Prime Minister. Among the many changes implemented by Zahedi was ending nationalized oil and gas production and returning control to British, French, and American oil companies.

The CIA also organized guerrilla groups to disrupt pro-Communist groups. In addition, the CIA also directed Major General Norman Schwarzkopf Sr. (father of “Stormin Norman” of Gulf War fame) to Italy and “encourage” the Shah to return to Iran. He also helped organize and train Iran’s new security service, SAVAK, in order to help the Shah maintain power (in time the SAVAK would develop a reputation similar to Stalin’s NKVD which eventually became the KGB).   

All went well between the West and Iran until 1979 when Shah Reza Mohammed Pahlavi was overthrown by a small group of religious extremists led by the exiled cleric, Ruhollah Khomeini (incidentally, who was also named Time magazine’s “Man of the Year” in 1979) and was described as the “face of Shia Islam”.  He was later to be named the supreme leader in Iran and given the title of “Ayatollah ”, an honorific title of the “Twelver” Shia sect which was to become Iran’s official state religion (95% of the world’s Muslim population is Sunni, however, Iran is 95% Shia). He was also credited with labeling the U.S. as the “Great Satan” and Israel as the “Little Satan”.

Although the U.S. wasn’t happy that their man had been thrown out of power and forced to flee the country (he was given asylum in the U.S. for health reasons), what really irked the U.S. government was the seizure of 66 Americans, which included diplomats, civilian personnel, and a small security detail U.S. Marines, along with the U.S. Embassy itself in a series of assaults by the Muslim Student Followers of  the Iman’s Line, not to mention instigating hostilities with the CIA’s man in Iraq, Saddam Hussein which ultimately led to the Iran-Iraqi War.

The Iranian Hostage Crisis lasted from November 4, 1979 until January 18, 1981. During that time, then President Jimmy Carter made numerous unsuccessful attempts to resolve the situation. In October 1980, Carter authorized a rescue operation (euphemistically named “Operation Eagle Claw”) which was an all-around disaster and national embarrassment, representing a political, military, and intelligence blunder. Eight servicemen were killed and four were injured amid several mechanic failures and crashes.  

Largely forgotten today, there was also an attempted attack on the U.S. embassy in Pakistan by over 1000 pro-Iranians protestors and an aborted attempt to seize the Soviet Union’s embassy for its “Marxist and anti-god beliefs”.  Some U.S. embassy personnel were able to evade capture and hide in a Canadian embassy before being able to escape through an ingenious CIA ruse popularly called “The Canadian Caper” (a 2012 movie entitled “Argo” details this secret rescue operation).

Meanwhile, the Iranians made numerous threats about the imminent execution of the hostages unless the U.S. agreed to a number of demands (essentially blackmail), including the return of the Shah to face trial and probable execution (which was refused). The Iranians ransacked the American embassy, revealing great many political, diplomatic, and intelligence secrets. Finally, after 444 days, and the election of Ronald Reagan, the hostages were released (this was seen as a calculated insult directed at Carter for the attempted rescue operation).

Ever since, The U.S. military and intelligence community has been looking for a way to overthrow Iran’s theocratic regime. Accordingly, Iran has been ostracized, boycotted, and even had billions of its dollars held in U.S. bank accounts frozen, The result had little effect on Iran’s ruling elite although, as usual, the average Iranian felt the brunt of the embargos. Much of the money was ultimately returned. President Obama approved releasing $400 million in August 2016 and President Joe Biden released $6 million in September 2023 for "humanitarian purposes".

 Meanwhile the Iranian government helped organized, train, and finance numerous terrorist organizations whose sole intent was the destabilization of the West (especially the U.S. and Israel) as well as specific Asian nations by any means possible with the ultimate goals being creation of a global caliphate under their version of extreme Islam.

Key among these groups was Hamas, responsible for the October 7^th attack on Israel which resulted in the butcher of over 1,139 men, women, and children. as well as seizing 251 hostages. They are also responsible for keeping the Gazans living in a state of terror. Hezbollah is another such group, which routinely launches missiles into Israel from Southern Lebanon.

 Boko Haram, who are known for their raids on African villages to capture women and girls to sell as slaves and butchering non-Muslims. The Houthi, who operate in Yemen, regularly launches missiles into Israel and is active in destabilizing the region. Of course, there is also ISIS, Al Qaeda, and Talban, who received support from the Iranians.

It’s believed that Iran has sponsored establishing sleeper terrorist cells in Europe, Canada, South America, and the United States, and is responsible for the hoard of immigrants into Europe (conquest through numbers?).  It’s been often noted that many of these so-called “migrants” are very fit, aggressive military age males, which isn’t typical of the average refugee (also notable is the lack of women, children and seniors accompanying them).

It should be mentioned that starting with the Ayatollah Khomeini, they have repeatedly promised to “wipe Israel off the map” by every means available, including the use of nuclear weapons, even if it meant their own total destruction. They have been responsible, directly or indirectly for attacks in Paris, Berlin, Tel Aviv,  and “lone wolf” operations in the United States and elsewhere as well as dozens of so-called “self-radicalizations” terrorists.

However, resistance has been growing, especially in Iran where women, long denied basic rights to education, employment, choice of marriage, physical mutilation of their genitalia, political suffrage, have been becoming more militant to their suppression, even to the point of risking death. It’s common for resisters to be blinded in one eye, tortured, suffer broken bones, face mutilation such has having their tongue, nose or ears cut off, or have acid thrown in their faces, and so forth. As an aside, this is, in part, those who back the Iranian regime or radical Islam are supporting.

Despite U.S. and Israeli warnings, Iran has been engaged in the development of a nuclear infrastructure, which they claim is for "energy purposes" only (and yet they sit on some of the world’s richest oil and gas reserves). Taking Iran’s threats seriously, Israel has done everything it could to deter Iran’s efforts overtly and covertly (I’m particularly impressed with the massive computer virus and the exploding cell phones of Iranian nuclear scientists. Bravo Israel! Very clever).

However, despite their best efforts not to provoke an all out war, Israel had little realistic options remaining except to go after Iran’s reactors. It’s noteworthy at how many countries, including those inside the United States, who turned on the Israeli government following the barbaric attack by Hamas on Israel or Hamas’s use of private homes, schools and hospitals to launch their missiles, store weapons, and hide some of the hostages it taken on October 7^th (including a tunnel system under a EU hospital!).  

 Hamas has repeatedly attacked or hijacked relief columns of food, fresh water, and medicine, often selling it on the black market for either more weapons or to fund expensive vacations for Hamas leadership. Europe, especially Germany, long been an allies of Israel, now accuse the IDF of doing what Hamas is guilty of. Turkey, an EU and NATO member, even hinted at a possible direct intervention in Gaza. How would that affect NATO's mutual defense clause? Would that plunge NATO into war? 

Finally, this brings us to the bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities by U.S. bombers. Did we have a moral or political obligation to attack those sites? Every U.S. military intervention in the Middle East, from Lebanon, Kuwait, Syria, Afghanistan, and Iraq, regardless of the officially stated reason, has had the secondary goal of bringing us a little closer to Iran.  Was this then just an opportunity to strike Iran after all these years or was it, as President Trump said, an opportunity to make the world a little safer?

According to polls, most Americans opposed the bombings. A poll by The Hill showed that 56% of Americans in general disapproved of the bombings although 82% of Republicans were in favor. However, 60% of Independents (America’s political majority) weren’t happy with the bombings along with 88% of Democrats. 78% of Americans were concerned we will get drawn into a war with Iran.

Additionally, 71% of Democrats said they didn’t trust Trump to make the right decisions on behalf of the United States when it came to Iran.  62% of Independents said they had little or no confidence in Trump's decision ability. On the other hand, 51% of Republicans confirmed that they had a great deal of faith in Trump while 37% said they had a moderate amount of confidence in the president.

 It bears mentioning that prior to the current ceasefire, 59% of Americans in general thought that our attack on Iran actually made it more of a threat to the U.S. and the world. Many were concerned that our attacks might provoke Iran to launch more attacks on Israel either directly or through its many surrogates as well as possibly activate imbedded terrorist cells in Europe, Canada, or the United States.

Finally, there’s Israel itself. Aside from being the only democracy in the Middle East, it is also an important trading partner and a vital source of intelligence information in the region. It also provides a key strategic position for U.S. and allied operations in the Middle East and Africa. Iran has made it crystal clear that it intends to wipe Israel off the map even at its own destruction and there's no reason not to take them at their word. 

Such a fallout would trigger a dire humanitarian crisis regionally as well as globally. Israel’s beef with Iran is direct and personal. The outcome of Iran’s boast would have a severe impact on the rest of the world, not to mention on Humanity as well, which Iran and its cohorts abhor. A nuclear Iran is not just a threat of the survival of Israel. It’s a threat to the survival of Mankind too.

 

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. 

 Free Officers movement (Egypt)

Kermit Roosevelt Jr.

Iran hostage crisis

October 7 Attacks

The Canadian Caper

56 percent disapprove of U.S. strike on Iran: Survey

Voters 51 – 42 Percent Oppose U.S. Joining Israel inMilitary Strike…

Islam in Iran

Nuclear facilities in Iran

The "Gospel" of Partisan Politics

I am a frequent and often requested respondent on the site "Quora". Over the past 5 or so years, I've had somewhere in the neighbor of 10 million viewers and have my answers included in a number of dedicated spaces which are similar to encyclopedia entries. My specialties are history (especially military history and WWII in particular), economics, theology, humanities, community organizing and activism, management/employee relations, sociology, and of course, politics. 

Recently I was asked a rather unusual political question. The individual wanted to know which of the two corporate controlled parties (the Democrats or the Republicans) considered their particular brand of political dogma to be "gospel", which I took to mean as not based on their professed "ideal", but on their reality. Below is my answer. How would you have answered?  Does either party govern the way they claim to do? 

Which party sees its dogma as political “gospel”? Simple. They both do. That’s why we have such a wide and deep partisan divide. Each believe they know what’s best for the country and the American People. Each has a nearly inflexible political dogma which has lead to intolerance for anyone who isn’t as “pure” as they are. Compromise, which used to be considered the hallmark of modern politics , is now viewed with contempt.

The only thing the two corporate owned parties seem to agree on is their opposition to third parties and Independents (who happen to the nation’s majority voters) because they represent a threat to their control and power. Independence of thought or the development of critical thinking skills are to be discouraged and ridiculed.

Secondly, both agree on pursuing every means of self-enrichment, primarily for the benefit of their controlling corporate clique. It’s not by chance that power doesn’t rest in the hands of the voters, but boardrooms. There’s a reason why we’ve transitioned from a Republic to a corporatocracy and why we’re led by an oligarchy of very wealthy individuals.

As long as we remain divided, we are easier to control and manipulate, which is why both parties have largely purged moderates/centrists for their ranks. It’s why money is “free speech”. It’s why corporations, those legal fictions, have not just the same rights as people, but in many cases, have rights that exceed flesh and blood citizens. So, which party sees its ideology as “gospel”? The answer is that both do, and their gospel was written on Wall Street and their prophets can be found on “K” Street. 

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. 

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

 

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

What Would Our Founding Fathers Think of Us Today?

What do you think our Founding Fathers would think about today’s political situation?  Did you know political parties weren’t around during the founding of our nation? They first arose in the United States in the early 1800’s. At the time we had the Democratic-Republican and Federalist parties which were based mainly on the notion of federalism and anti-federalism.

Those two concepts were political philosophies and centered on whether you believed in a large, mostly centralized, government with states having relatively weak authority or a small and primarily decentralized government with most of the power and taxing authority based in the individual states.  Federalist preferred the former and anti-federalist the latter.

Key federalists included individuals like Alexander Hamilton, Benjamin Franklin, John Jay, and John Madison (George Washington is sometimes lumped in with federalists). Anti-federalists included people like Patrick Henry, John Hancock, Thomas Paine, and George Mason.

Federalists were strict constitutionalists. Their base of support was centered mainly in urban centers and among larger types of businesses. They also supported commercial trade and renewed diplomatic relations with the British. Anti-federalist on the other hand, backed the Articles of Confederation. Much of their support came from rural areas and farmers.

Federalists tended to downplay or oppose the Bill of Rights whereas Anti-federalists strongly supported the Bill of Rights.  It was from these two groups that partisan political parties would later form.  The two parties would split into the Democratic and Whig parties by the 1820’s.

I should mention at this point that many of the early Founding Fathers opposed the notion of partisan political groups. In fact, in 1787, when they gathered in Philadelphia to hash out what would become our new government, political parties weren’t even mentioned. Why?

Because they had witnessed firsthand the destructive power political parties (or “factions” as they called them) could bring. Factions had nearly torn England apart in the form of civil wars and would do the same to France and elsewhere within their lifetimes in many cases.

George Washington, who opposed political parties, knew that his family was forced to flee England because of these partisan civil wars. Thomas Paine, the author of “Common Sense” and “The Rights of Man”, though these “factions” could destroy the nation or at the very least, make ordinary citizens vulnerable to the power of the wealthy elites.

When Washington left office in 1796, he warned the country of the dangers of political parties in his Farewell Address (not unlike President Eisenhower did in his 1960 Farwell Address). He warned of the dangers these “factions” would have on democracy when he said, “The common and continued mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it”.  

Alexander Hamilton, the first Secretary of the Treasury, said that political parties were the “most fatal of diseases” of a popular government. James Madison wrote in Federalist #10, that one of the duties of a “well-constructed union” should be to manage the “tendency to break and control the violence of faction”. In other words, to keep “factions” or political parties from becoming to powerful.

Several of the Founders saw these “factions” as dangerous.  They would ultimately divide and strip citizens of their political influence leaving a handful of monied elites controlling the political system. What the Founders had hoped to do was to create a new system of government based on the concept of the “citizen legislator”. The last thing they wanted was a professional political class.

Nevertheless, political “factions” happened anyway. Apparently, we weren’t the “wise people” Washington had hoped we would be. By 1860, the two party “winner-take-all” system was firmly entrenched. Corporate influence was even then making itself felt. President Ulysses Grant’s administration in the 1870s was known for its corruption, mainly by banks, financiers, and railroad barons.

Corporate control peaked in 1896 when the robber barons, men like Rockefeller, Hearst, Fisk, Gould, Vanderbilt, and Mellon, brazenly “bought” the presidency for William McKinley, defeating reformer William Jennings Bryan. Ultimately their clout would be dismantled by President “Teddy” Roosevelt following McKinley’s assassination in 1901.  

Wounded though they be it, it was far from dead. By the 1920’s they were back in business, and they’ve never looked back, playing one political party off the other and using shell organizations and “straw men” to influence elections, laws, and policies.

They received a lot of corporate and union money, which was used to buy influence for certain pieces of legislation, direct government contracts their way, or impact policies, voters and communities could still count on their legislators. Party delegates had a say in establishing the party’s platform at conventions (with some having more clout than others) while locally political bosses, such as Tammany Hall, controlled state politics and graft.  

The 2010 “Citizens United v FEC” ruling by the Supreme Court changed all that. The ruling (or more accurately, “mistake”) gave corporations “personhood”. That is, these artificial legal fictions now had the same rights as any ordinary human being, but with one key difference.

The court decided that money was now the same thing as free speech. However, while you and I are capped in the amount of “free speech” we could give, corporations weren’t, and they could give millions. If fact, they could literally buy elections out in the open, they made the impact of ordinary voters almost worthless just as our Founders had warned. Wall Street, not the membership, established the party platform.

As an aside, it isn’t only money politicians receive from deep pocket corporations and the well-heeled. Corporate lobbyists also review bills and make recommendations on how to vote (at least to committee chairs and the party whip). They even help write (or actually write) legislation and chaperone them through the maze of committees. They write news releases and speeches, provide some very expensive junkets, and arranged for some very well paying speaking engagements ($2000 per speech isn’t uncommon).

Corporate influence extended to the media and how politics are reported too. Elections were no longer just reported with commentators making subtle innuendos one way or another. Now, with just six corporations controlling 96%+ of all media, they could be as open as they liked.

Instead of merely reporting the news as the media  had once done, buyouts and consolidations gave corporations unprecedented influence over what the public read, heard, and saw. Now they could manufacture the news and slant it however they wanted.

But that’s not the worst of it. With unlimited financial support, Congress has been to virtually isolated itself from voters (and thus, responsibility for their actions) when you consider that the absence of term limits an almost unlimited tenure in office (something many of the Founders opposed) with a 95% reelection percentage despite an approval rating consistently in the teens.

 Founding Father George Mason was a vocal proponent for “rotations” (as term limits were called then), referring to unrestricted terms in a democracy as “oppression”. In fact, term limits had originally been apart of the Articles Confederation, keeping them to no more than three terms over a six year period. 

The thinking was that legislators who weren't restricted by term limits were prone to become “inattentive to the public good, callous, selfish, and the fountain of corruption” as stated by anti-federalist, lawyer, merchant, and delegate to the Continental Congress, Melancton Smith in 1789.

In addition, partisan gerrymandering ensures that the party in control of the district stays in control of the district although gerrymandering itself was intended to give Congress a ”reflection” of the voter demographic for that area. As a result, partisan gerrymandering allows Congress to select its constituents instead of constituents selecting their representative.  

In fact, in 1891, President Benjamin Harrison called partisan gerrymandering “political robbery”. He went on to say that its “overthrow of majority control by the suppression or perversion of the popular suffrage represented our chief national danger”.  Partisan gerrymandering represents a de facto “taxation with representation” no different than our “winner-take-all” system where voters on the losing side remained taxed without the benefit of being represented in office.

Even running for office is rigged. Shouldn't that, at least, be open to everyone equally? The nation’s largest political demographic, Independents, as well as third parties are required to jump through hoops the two minority parties---the Democrats and Republicans---don’t have to. Should this be legal? Probably not. Even public referendums, the right of voters to have a direct say, are prohibited in half of all states.

Such is the state of our partisan controlled political system. What would our Founder’s think of their little experiment? Bear in mind that our Founders weren’t entirely as benevolent as we were taught in high school. There were the elites of their day or that they feared direct democracy or “mob rule” as they called it, preferring that the citizenry elect their “betters” to govern the country which is how we arrived at a Republic instead of a democracy.  

And you dear reader, what do you think of our current political situation? Do you approve of corporate control of Congress, the Presidency, and the Judicial system? What about unlimited terms of office or partisan control of districts to ensure their complete control by one party or the other? What do you think about our “winner-take-all” system where if your side loses, you aren't represented for the duration of the term, but you still get taxed? Sound fair? 

Finally, shouldn’t the pollical playing field be level in order to allow everyone equal ballot access?  In the end, regardless of what the media or anyone tells you, it is us---the voters---who still have the final say about our nation….at least for now.

 

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. 

 

The Founding Fathers Feared Political Factions Would Tearthe Nation Apart

First Party System

James Madison and the Origins of Partisanship

 

Political Parties

 

How Big Money in Politics Bought a Presidential Election in1896

Here’s What the Founders Thought About Term Limits

History Frowns on Partisan Gerrymandering

Members of Congress Get What!?

A Promise From the Founder

Welcome to the New Reality: The Death of the Republic and Rise of the Corporatocracy

 

As most everyone knows, aside from their role as legislators, one of the key functions of Congress is to act as the keeper of the nation’s wallet. They are the ones who approve and allocate our tax dollars. As President Franklin D. Roosevelt once said, “It is the duty of the President to propose, and it is the privilege of Congress to dispose”, and indeed it is.

What happens when the government has a debit crisis or to use an accounting expression, when our “outflow exceeds our inflow”? In short, the government is spending more than we bringing in? No business can do that for long and stay afloat, and no ordinary household can survive for long before the bill collectors come calling. Government has no mandate like the rest of us to follow a strict budget. So what then? 

In the case of the United States Government, there is no one coming to bail us out.  The government's credit is based on nothing more than its "good faith", which is short for "trust us". Those who own our debt are mostly other countries like Japan ($1.1 trillion), the UK ($690 billion), and China ($749 billion); they're essentially stuck. They have no hard collateral like the Capital Building or Mt. Rushmore to foreclose on and sell off on the steps of the ICC to the highest bidder. The most they can do is ride out the financial storm or throw more money at the problem and hope “we” (that is, the President and Congress) can somehow work it out.

The usual answer is raising interest rates, which increases the cost of borrowing money from the Federal Reserve. This, in turn, typically means a hike in wholesale prices which means, as nearly always, ultimately gets passed on to you and me. As a result, we are the ones who ultimately take the hit for their bad policy decisions and mismanagement.    

Sometimes, war is used to artificially stimulate the economy and reduce high unemployment numbers. But as for Congress itself, there are no real consequences and yet, aren't they ultimately responsible for the problem itself? 

Well, yes, but Congress goes happily on their merry way without having to take responsibility for their actions (or in some cases, inactions).  For decades now, their approval rating has been in preverbal toilet, typically ranging from a low of 9% in 2019 to a high of 29% as of February 2025, but do you think they care? Nope. Not really. Have you ever wondered why that is?

According to Open Secrets, in 2024 Democrats received $1,163,550,563. Of that, $1,187,730 came from political action committees (“PACs”). $1,802,512,049 was from individuals. Republicans raised $637,855,365. PACs were responsible for $1,018,830 while individual contributions made up $581,463,551. The majority of the money came from corporate donors and very wealthy families, and we can thank the 2010 Citizens United ruling by the Supreme Court for that.

Elon Musk, owner of SpaceX and current satrap of DOGE (Department of Government Efficiency), for instance gave $291,482,587, all to the GOP.  Timothy Mellon gave $197,047,200 with the overwhelming majority going to the Republican Party as well. Miriam O. Adelson (owner of the Sands in Las Vegas and the Adelson Drug Clinic) donated $148,304,900, also to the Republicans.

Michael Bloomberg, the former Mayor of New York, gave $60,839,734 to the Democrats and a token $1 million to the Republicans. Dustin Moskovitz, owner of Asana, Inc, dropped $50,671,800 to the Democrats as well.

Steve Swartzman of Blackrock Group contributed $40,178,539 to the GOP while Bob Bigelow, owner of Bigelow Industries, gave them $34,990,500. Reid Garrett Hoffman, owner of LinkedIn, gave the Democrats $28,804,480 and a polite $400,000 to the Republicans.

When it came to corporate donors, SpaceX was again on top with $287,930,952 going to the Republicans. Another $767,131 went to the Democrats. The Fund for Policy Reform contributed $60,000,000 to the Democrats. Ripple, a software developer, gave $15,685,583 to the Democrats as well and $2,970,303 to the GOP.  Building America’s Future donated $33,470,000 to the Republican Party.

These are just a very small sample of the big dollars that went into the elections of 2024. In addition, most of these groups also donated money to smaller outside organizations. For instance, Citadel, Inc., a preeminent multinational hedge fund, amassed $108,669,316 in contributions (making it the fourth largest corporate donor) spent the bulk of its money on Republican groups which included Keystone Renewal PAC, American Patriots PAC, Fix Washington PAC, and the Senate Leadership Fund just to name a few.

Greylock Partners, one of the nation’s oldest venture capital firms, donated $35,900,577, ranking it the 26^th largest corporate donor, gave all of it to exclusively Democratic related groups that included WelcomePAC, American Bridge 21^st Century, Granite Committee, and Future Forward USA to name just four.

There were quite a number of PACs (some of which were self-funded by members such as the NRA and AARP) which made heavy political contributions as well. Many choose to hedge their bets by contributing to both parties. However, the lion’s share of their money went to incumbents irrespective of party.  The reason is because, thanks to partisan gerrymandering and the absence of term limits, 97% of Congressional incumbents were reelected in 2024. It was the same at the state level. 94% of state executives were reelected as were 92% of state judicial incumbents. Those are better percentage than even the old Soviet Politburo had!

Another reasons Congress couldn’t privately care less about voter opinion is that the majority are millionaires. They don’t need the job. This is basically about acquiring power and making connections, and if you can pick up a few extra million along the way, well so be it. Let’s take a look.

Republican Senator Rick Scott of Florida has a net worth of around $549.91 million dollars. Everyone’s favorite Democrat, Former Speaker of House, Democrat Nancy Pelosi of California is believed to have a net worth of $267.6 million dollars!  In 2023, she listed the value of her household assets at $92 million. Not bad for having a combined salary of $250,000 a year ($174,000 base plus leadership and committee bonuses).

As of 2024, there were 13,043 lobbyists operating in Washington, mostly along “K” Street, which employs roughly 100,000 researchers, analysist, public relations and media specialists, data entry, and others needed to support the influence industry while many of the lobbyists themselves are former legislators or senior staffers.

Despite that number, much of the business is handled by just 300 firms. Most represent corporations, trade associations, and unions.  In that same year---2024---they invested just over $4.43 billion dollars to get their message (and candidate) across the finish line.

 Unfortunately, those that represent ordinary working class Americans are few and far between. Corporate donors, on average, give close to ten dollars for every two unions contribute and, in an election related crunch, they’re quite capable of  ponying up a lot more, further dwarfing anything unions can come up with. 

Lastly, and I want to be clear about this, you can bet your house, your children, or whatever else you hold dear, that money of this magnitude isn't given to be "patriotic" or be seen as being a "responsible citizen". It's an investment like any other. They intend on getting their money's worth and then some from this "investment" and when it (or they) cease to be useful, they'll quickly move on and find another that is.  I suppose you could think of primaries as political search engine of sorts; a way to find the next compatible cog for the machine.  

Another reason voters get a yawn, as noted above, is due to partisan gerrymandering. President John Adams originally said that redistricting should provide an “exact portrait, a miniature” of the nation as whole.  He would be deeply disappointed to see what redistricting has become. Every ten years states are supposed to redraw their legislative and Congressional districts following the results of the census so that voter demographics are properly represented, but that’s not what has happened.

Nowadays, redistricting tends to happen along the lines of majority political party in power, meaning that if the Republicans for instance control the State Legislator, the districts will be redrawn accordingly. Same if the Democrats are in charge while the nation’s largest political demographic, Independents, as well as third parties, are ignored. Thus, you end up with districts which are intended to virtually ensure the dominant political party retains control of those districts. Hardly fair or balanced.

Attempts to reform redistricting has typically run into stone wall erected by both parties in order to protect “their” political turf. A case in point was the 2019 Supreme Court’s Rucho v. Common Cause decision is a great example. Although the Constitution and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 prohibit racial discrimination, the court decided that while partisan gerrymandering was “incompatible with democratic principles”, it could not be addressed at the federal level! That meant returning to the state which was responsible for the situation to begin with and leaving the matter unresolved.

A few states have taken the bold step of taking the power to gerrymander out of the hands of the state legislators and assigned them to non-partisan institutions such as universities and colleges on a rotating basis or independent commissions, but don’t expect to see this spread nationwide until voters stage a ballot box revolt and start automatically voting against the sitting party in that district.   

The absence of term limits is another main reason members of Congress (and the federal judiciary) doesn’t particularly care about voter opinions. Image having a job where no matter how crappy of a job you do, you won’t get fired. Well, that’s Congress and judiciary.  How’s that possible?

Well, thanks to a political system which has been corrupted to the point where vested interests financially underwrite the campaigns of those who are to regulate them, where they fill party coffers, write the legislation which affects them, where districts are redrawn to give one group a perpetual partisan majority over another, make decisions contrary to the interests of the people they’re supposed to represent, and then ensures that they can serve almost indefinitely.  

It bears mentioning that the majority of Americans want to see term limits. According to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 82% of Americans want term limits. Of this, 89% were Republicans,  83% were Independents, and 76% were Democrats. Obviously, there’s no ambiguity here.  

Americans want an end to a corrupt system which caps the President to two four year terms while giving Congress unlimited terms and the federal judiciary life appointments.  Even at the individual state level, voters want to see term limits. In Kentucky it’s 84%. In Maine it’s 75%. 84% in Montana. 75% in Utah. 80% in Georgia. 77% in Florida, and 78% in Alaska.

This is the political system we now have. It isn’t the Republic envisioned by the Founders of this country of a limited government or one run by and for “citizen legislators”.  This is the vision of  our new Founders, the ultra-wealthy Oligarchs, and the creation of a neo-fascist corporatocracy, leaving us with a “managed limited democracy” and a surveillance state. President Trump may try to restore the Republic, or what’s lefts of it, but the corruption has become institutionalized,  and both sides benefit from it. The only losers are those for whom the nation was created----its citizens. Welcome to our new reality.

 

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. 

 

Lobbying in the United States

Citizens United v. FEC

Lobbying Data Summary

Rucho v. Common Cause 18-422 588 U.S. 684 (2019)

Election results,2024: Incumbents wins by state

Tomboulides Testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee

Term Limits Polling Results