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