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

How the American Voters Have Become Political Orphans

You don’t need a crystal ball to tell you that America is more divided than at any time in its history. More so than the decade leading up to the American Revolution. More than the decade preceding the Civil War. More than during Great Depression or the turbulent 1960's.

In fact, the division today may be so deep and the gulf so wide that it may never be bridged. We have become a nation of diverging ideals.  The recent elections (such as in New York City and Virginia as well as events in places like Dearborn Michigan) have served only to highlight our division. What have we've become?

One ideal our nation was founded on was the belief in a small or limited federal government. Low taxes, a level economic playing field, and government out of our private lives. However, now there are those who believed that government should be our primary source of our social and economic salvation. While our Founders believed that one succeeds or fails by their own efforts, we have those who think that government and by extension, society, “owes” for them simply for existing.

There are those who believe in entitlements, where all aren't just equal in the government's eyes, but some are more equal than others and should be given special consideration for some historical slight or another. Another group believe success comes from a good education and hard work, be it white collar, blue collar, pink collar or any other collar; that teachers are there to impart the skills one needs to succeed in society.

Meanwhile, others believe in downgrading the quality of education so that everyone "succeeds" or is a “winner”. As a result, society has to become a mediocrity. Meritocracy, where people are hired based on their skill and compatibility, is proclaimed “unfair” or “racist”. Successful people somehow "owe" those less successful because they spent their time skipping school or goofing off or thought that playing sports  was more important than studying English, math, science, or history; that they are owed a job just in the name of diversity or equity instead of knowledge or ability.

Our Founding Fathers envisioned a nation of "Yeoman farmers" and local merchants. We're a long way from that. They believed in the right to petition their elected representatives meant the right to question them, and if necessary, to recall them. They believed in transparency in government. They believed that no matter how well intended, government had no business in our private affairs. Individual privacy was essential as was freedom of speech, press, and association. With just five corporations controlling 96% of everything we watch, hear, or read, including the news, we no longer have those freedoms. We have a propaganda machine.

They believed America should look after America first and no “foreign entanglements”. Indeed, our Founders were ardent nationalists. They truly believed in "America First". They believed in the right to own arms. Not just for hunting or self-defense, but because recent events had proven to them that their mistrust government was justified. They understood that power, once obtained, is seldom willingly given up. They also knew, long before Lord Acton famously said it, that power corrupts and absolute power corrupted absolutely.

An armed citizenry was much harder to intimidate than an unarmed one (just look at England now). Most importantly, they believed in a small federal government with little taxation power because they knew they the way to destroy freedom can come from just as easily from the ability to tax as it can from the barrel of gun. Power should rest primarily in the hands of the States. Local control was the best control.

Most of our Founders opposed the creation of political parties as “cliques” who would, in time, seized power from ordinary citizens and use it to push their own agenda. They would be horrified by the control Big Business has over government.

Forty-three percent of registered voters now identify as Independent, and that doesn’t include members of third parties like the Libertarians or the Greens. That makes them the largest political bloc in the country. That also means that both of the two corporate owned parties, the Democrats and the Republicans, are in fact minority political parties. That also means that the majority of Americans are sick and tired of being sick and tired of the petty partisan bickering pushing their own agendas without public input or approval.

Our Founders also supported the concept of the “citizen legislator”, where a citizens would serve one or two terms in office and then return home and allow another citizen to do the same; a form of term limits. In this way, legislation would also stay relevant and reduce the chances of corruption.

What that absolutely disapproved of was notion of a “professional” politician, which was seen as little better than leach living off their fellow citizens. As an aside, these “citizen legislators” were only to be reimbursed for out of pocket expenses and not given a salary. Serving in government was seen as the civil duty of each citizen.

Personally, I believe that once a newly elected politician raises their hand to take the oath of office, they automatically end any political allegiance. They aren’t there to represent the agenda of some political  party or corporate clique. They are there to solely represent the American People and those of their district. Nothing more and nothing less.

We elect individuals to go to Washington, to our state capitols, or to City Hall and to work together to solve problems, but all too often those problems are the result of backroom dealing making or making unnecessary laws while We the People are left dealing with the mess and picking up the tab on something we had no say in.

We constantly hear how it's always the “other side” who won't cooperate. It's more like how one corporate clique wants more of our tax dollars. Playground antics and high school bullying instead of trying finding common ground is the rule in politics today and not the exception. They play economic chicken with the welfare of the people they were elected to serve. Anything goes as long as their master---big business--- profits.

Who is the "big business"? They are the ones who bankroll both political parties and pull their strings. They are the ones you rarely see at the national conventions. They are the ones who draft the laws with loopholes so they can make more money while avoiding taxes (or better yet, passing those taxes on to us). They are the ones who walk through the revolving doors of Wall Street boardrooms into cushy government appointments and back again. They are the corporate lobbyists and Beltway insiders.

They're the new and improved global military-industrial-technological complex President Eisenhower tried to warn us about. They are the exploiters of people and resources. Their goal is nothing less that control, be it of assets, market access, natural resources, and, of course, of us.

They know no national loyalties and are restricted by national boundaries. They have turned us from self-sufficient producers and proud citizens to mere global consumers “loyal” to one toilet paper brand, detergent or another product. If you carefully watch their programming, you’ll see just how interchangeable we're made to feel. We’ve become indentured economic serfs, hostages to credit ratings, manipulative consumption, and built in obsolescence.

They are the ultimate users and corruptors. We are artificially divided as every turn. We are pitted against each other in some way, be it work, entertainment, sports, and of course, gender, race, religion, and politics. As long as we’re divided, we aren’t focused on the real villains of our collective misery.

So, what are we to do? Can we mend this manufactured divide or is it too late? Frankly, I don't know. But this I do know. The system as envisioned by our Founding Fathers no longer exist. Returning to our constitutional republican government will require more mere tweaking.

Many already recognize this. Given the dominance of Independent voters, it’s obvious that many are finally waking up. Some, however, may never. They prefer to remain blissfully naive, while others couldn't care less as long as they're getting theirs and someone else is picking up the tab.

Lady Liberty has been prostituted out by Wall Street. Our freedoms, once guaranteed, are being usurped and sold to the highest bidder.  Uncle Sam is on life support while his two incompetent physicians, the Democrat and Republican parties, have their hands on the plug as they argue over the treatment for the disease they caused. Meanwhile, you and I are soon to become orphans. The only real question my dear readers, is what will you do? One thing is for certain. Inaction is not a choice. 

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! 

11 Reasons Why the American Middle Class is Doomed


11 Graphs that Allegedly Prove That the West Is Doomed


Does the US have a bubble economy and doomed to fail?

 

Louisville’s Continuing Love Affair With Political Mediocrity

As those who follow Another Opinion know, I typically write about global and national issues. However, recently I’ve had a number of people ask me about Louisville Mayor, Craig Greenberg. Most of those asking about Greenberg were interested in his political experience prior to his election as Metro Mayor in 2022. So, here it goes.

Craig Greenberg was born on August 22, 1973 in Commack, New York, which is a small upper middle class hamlet (comprising 12.23 square miles) on Long Island. It’s claim to fame is a Methodist church built in 1789 and the National Jewish Sports Hall of Fame and Museum which is located in the Suffolk Jewish Community Center.

His family moved to Louisville in 1980 where he attended Ballard High School in Louisville. From there, he obtained a Bachelor of Science degree, majoring in political science and government, from the University of Michigan. He was the student government president and Phi Beta Kappa.

It’s worth mentioning that Phi Beta kappa is one of America’s oldest and most prestigious  academic honor societies, having been founded in 1776. It’s members have included 17 presidents, 42 U.S. Supreme Court Justices, and 136 Nobel Prize recipients.  After graduating in 1995, Greenberg went on to attend Harvard University’s School of Law where he graduated cum laude with a Juris Doctorate in 1998.

In 2000, Greenberg cofounded the Venture Capital Fund and Technology Consulting Company I-Visionary in Lexington, Kentucky, where he served as the Chief Operating Officer and the company’s general council. That same year, he was named one of Business First’s “Top 40 Under 40”. In 2001, Ballard High School named him “Alumni of the Year”.

In 2003, he attended Leadership Louisville and then was a 2005 Bingham Fellow graduate. He went on to serve Metro United Way’s board of directors, as well as the board of directors for Kentucky Museum of Art and Craft, the Jewish Community Center, and the University of Louisville’s Board of Trustees.

He was part of the development team for the Museum Plaza and Whiskey Row, and then with art investors, Steve Wilson and Laura Lee Brown, cofounded the 21C Museum Hotels chains. He served as president in 2012 and CEO in 2017 before stepping down in mid-2020.

Prior to his election, Greenberg was an attorney with Frost, Brown, and Todd, one of Louisville’s best known law firms. His job there was developing some of the firm’s ancillary business ventures, including an initiative to secure and “deploy” new market tax credit investments to lower tax liabilities for businesses. He helped to raise and invest roughly $100 million dollars in low income communities throughout Kentucky and elsewhere using the federal tax credit program.

Greenberg is also a cofounder with sports radio host, Matt Jones, of the Greenberg Group, which co-owns the Ohio Valley Wrestling,  holding a majority share of stock, where he served as CEO, president, and general counsel.  According to Gurufocus, Greenberg is also a director of Republic Bancorp and holds about 6,272 shares of Republic Bancorp stock.

Craig is married to Rachel, a public school teacher. Together they have two children, Daniel and Benjamin. His mother, Dr Ruth Greenberg, died at the end of January 2024 after what was described as a “brief illness”. Greenberg, like his mayoral predecessor, Jerry Abramson, is Jewish.

In April 2021, Greenberg announced his candidacy for mayor on the Democratic ticket seeking to replace outgoing  Mayor Greg Fischer (if mediocrity had a child, I think he would be a strong contender). Greenberg stated platform was public safety, universal pre-K, affordable housing, getting illegal guns off the streets, reducing crime, supporting abortion rights, and government transparency.

Ultimately, Greenberg was just one of seven running on the Democrat ticket, with 3^rd District Metro Council member and mayoral candidate, Shameka Parrish-Wright appearing to be the early favorite given her strong support among black voters (she won her seat in 2023 with 88% of the vote).  However, all that changed on February 14^th---Valentine’s Day---2022.

That was the day when 21 year old Quintez Brown walked into Greenberg’s campaign office in the Butchertown Market area on Story Avenue and fired several shots from his 9mm Glock semi-automatic at near point blank range at Greenberg, who was seated in his chair, miraculously only nicking his shirt and sweater.

Brown, who was a prominent spokesperson for the local Black Lives Matter movement and a professed “social justice advocate”. Interestingly, Brown himself was running for a seat on Metro Council. Brown then turned and ran as staff members immediately tried to barricade the door.

According to reports, Quintez Brown was arrested a few blocks away, still carrying his Glock. The police reported that he was also carrying nine fully load clips! Sounds like he was anticipating a showdown with someone. During questioning, Brown confessed that he went to Greenberg’s office with a single intent---to kill him.

He later admitted that he was wanted to be the “Equalizer”, a reference to the role portrayed by Denzel Washington who, as a former Marine, was something of a vigilante-like crusader out to rid his fictional city of criminals. Brown added that he expected the police would arrive before he had an opportunity to shoot Greenberg, and he would die at the hands of the local police.

According to the city prosecutors, Brown was miffed at Greenberg because of his support for the  West End Increment Financing (Greenberg helped draft the legislation). Brown believed that the proposal would result in the “gentrification” of the West End which would draw in wealthier individuals  and upscale businesses, thus forcing out existing low income residents  and neighborhood businesses.

Officers found images of Greenberg, portrayed as a “devil” engulfed in flames posted online allegedly by Brown. They also discovered that Brown belonged to a Black nationalist militia which self-identifies as “Black Jews” and God’s true “chosen people”.

The day following Brown’s arrest, the Black Lives Global Network Foundation and the Louisville Community Bail Foundation jointly posted $100,000 to cover Quantez's bail. Greenberg, as well as Democratic Senatorial candidate Charles Booker, and incumbent Republican Senator Mitch McConnell expressed utter dismay that (as Greenberg said) “someone can attempt murder on Monday and walk out of jail on Wednesday”.

Nevertheless, Quintez Brown was rearrested a short time later on federal charges and sent to the Grayson County Detention Center in Leitchfield, Kentucky. In March 2022, a grand jury indicted Brown on state charges of attempted murder and four federal counts of wanton endangerment. Although his attorneys said they would consider an insanity plea, Brown confessed to the changes on July 2024 and earned himself a 17 year sentence.

As an aside, it was revealed during the trial that Brown had done an extensive online search in an attempt to find where Greenberg lived and like to hand out. Additionally, Brown was  interested in knowing the personal details of Republican mayoral candidate and popular former Jeffersontown mayor, Bill Dieruf as well (something which the media downplayed).

Following the murder attempt (and subsequent publicity), Craig Greenberg’s campaign jumped into high gear, picking up huge numbers of endorsements and massive amounts of donations, winning the Democratic Primary with 41.3% of vote, defeating Shamika Parrish-Wright, the former top contender, by 16, 848 votes.

The history of the mayoral race in Louisville is, to be polite, a bit lopsided. The last Republican candidate elected as mayor was Ken Schmied in 1965. Ever since it’s been a Democrat, no matter how things went in Louisville, it seemed that the Republicans didn’t have a chance (of course, part of that is the cliquish nature of the local GOP and its tendency toward being disorganized and not thinking out of the box).

However, the best chance to pick up the illusive seat seemed to be former Jeffersontown mayor, William “Bill” Dieruf.  A self-identified “centrist”, Dieruff was president of the Jefferson County League of Cities and served on the Kentuckiana Regional Planning and Development Agency, as well as Greater Louisville, Inc., and was the owner of Dieruf Hardware Store. He also had a history of working with all sides irrespective of party and given that Louisville is one of last Democrat bastions in Kentucky, that’s a good thing.

For those unfamiliar with Louisville and Jefferson County, Jeffersontown (aka “J-town”) is the second largest city in Jefferson County with a population of 29,388.  and, thanks to the Bluegrass Commerce Park, the third largest employer in the state. The Commerce Park alone has approximately 850 employers (Papa John Pizza is headquartered there).

Just 4.3% of the J-Town’s population live at or below the poverty line. Compare that to 15% of Louisville’s population or the fact that Louisville ranks 7^th among its peer cities in poverty and the 5^th highest poverty rate in the country. Not exactly something to write home about.

Dieruf was appointed to J-town’s City Council in 2000 and served until 2010 when he was elected mayor and would go on to serve 10 years as its mayor. Running on the platform of “Mayor for Everyone”, he promoted public safety, job creation, economic development, and improving the quality of Louisville’s and emphasizing “solutions with accountability”.

 But, facing a Democratic majority of 324,434 to 185,701, and with a history of strong turnouts, a local Republican party known for shooting itself in the foot, snubbing potential political allies, traditionally low Republican and conservative turnouts, a questionable media,  Dieruf had a tough row to hoe (not to mention the “free press” the attempted murder of Greenberg generated locally and nationally).

In the end, Craig Greenberg, a largely unknown candidate with no political experience won with 51.7% of the vote, defeating an individual with years of actual hands on political experience in running a city. In hard numbers, Greenberg received 143,799 votes to Bill Dieruf’s 128,690. As an aside, I can relate.  With over 25 years’ experience at the time, I ran for Metro Council against an unknown and lost in what was later deemed a “questionable race”.

Since Greenberg’s election, there’s been a lot of “buyer’s remorse” coming from the Democrats and the Left. Crime remains a serious problem and gang activity, once denied by the LMPD, is an undebatable fact. The city’s infrastructure continues to deteriorate, the quality of local schools haven’t improved (in 2024 the schools faced a disaster when the bus schedules were badly botched, leaving some without transportation), and of course, well-paying jobs remain elusive with taxes continuing to go up.

Louisville, once a major transportation and manufacturing center, could claim Nashville Tennessee, Indianapolis Indiana, St. Louis Missouri, and Cincinnati Ohio as peer cites. Sadly, those days are long gone. Louisville has become largely a warehouse hub filled with “McJobs”.  Carjackings, assaults, gangs, and until recently, years of low police moral, high turnover and a total lack of leadership, has become the norm. We depend on whiskey and a two minute horse race we milk for two weeks to keep our relevance.

The city has spent billions repeatedly trying to revive a downtown whose best days past in the 1960’s. Taxes increase proposals are rubber stamped. The infrastructure will continue to deteriorate until something tragic happens to force change. Residents in the county bemoan the choice they made when they approved a  grossly misrepresented city-county merger while talk of local succession grows.

Meanwhile, in just a couple of years, residents will go to the polls again. Will we buy the shiniest rotten apple in the bin? Probably. It seems to have become our most defining national trait.  A self-inflected wound we try to blame on the other side. It reminds me of Charlie Brown and Lucy at the start of every football season. But remember, there are alternatives. We just have to look up from our Smartphones and take a look around.

 

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. 

 

Craig Greenberg

MoxieTalk: Craig Greenberg

Craig Greenberg

Gurufocus: Craig Greenberg Net Worth and Insider Trader

Quintez Brown said he would be Equalizer on day he shot at CraigGreenberg, prosecutors claim

Metro United Way: Strong Households

William Dieruff

Dieruff for Metro Mayor

From J-town to downtown, Bill Dieruff touts his ‘centrist’  bona fides for Louisville mayor

Attorney, developer, runner: Craig Greenberg wants ‘bigchanges’ if he is Louisville mayor

 

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. 

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

Can Donald Trump Really 'Clean House' As Promised?

Donald Trump's thumping of Vice President Kamala Harris has sent shivers down the spines of not just the Democrats, but the Status Quo as well. Trump's election is seen by his supporters as four years of long overdue house cleaning; of ridding the government of corrupt oligarchs and wealthy insiders who've turned our Republic into a neo-fascist corporatocracy, albeit  with a thin veneer of democracy. The question facing Trump and the American People is whether he or anyone else can rid the nation of this virus and restore America?  

According to the 2024 World Population Review's publication of the world's oligarchies, there are twelve full fledge oligarchies plus several which are approaching the definition of oligarchy, but before we get to those countries, just what is a oligarchy?

The term comes from the Greek meaning "rule by the few" . An oligarchy  is sometimes referred  to as a plutocracy or a kleptocracy, which are actually subsets of an oligarchy.  A plutocracy is rule by the rich. So is a kleptocracy, which means rule by a few to steal their country's resources for their own benefit. A aristocracy or theocracy are types of oligarchy.

The ideal form of government for a oligarchy is authoritarian or feudal, although they can exist, at least for a while, in a democratic style Republic, be it a parliamentary system or a "winner-take-all" system like the U.S. has. They typically expand their reach through a process known as "gradualism". They advance a little here, maybe retreat slightly (and temporarily) there until they have ample influence to achieve their agenda.

Generally speaking, oligarchs are students of history and power. Since their bottom line is all about control,  they typically exert control over the media in order to control the flow and content of information.  Following Joseph Goebbels's dicta on propaganda, the public is feed just enough truth as to bury the lie without much notice. In most cases, the lie simply remains hidden behind euphemisms and red tape. Sometimes, there are no lies at all. The public is often seen as having achieve the occasional "victories" to keep them pacified just as they are kept entertained.

The elite monitors the population through surveillance, which is enforced through the law enforcement, intelligence agencies, secret courts and/or cooperative judges. Individuals who speak out to loudly or reveal their secrets (often falsely labeled as "national security") are accused of treason and dealt with accordingly (Julian Assange, Karen Silkwood, Daniel Ellsberg, Karen Kwaitkowski, and Edward Snowden come to mind). 

 Naturally, they control the nation's monetary policy  in a variety of ways, but most notably interest rates (which affects inflation) and taxation.  The military is used not just protecting the nation, but also as a club to enforce policies which, at their heart, are intended to open markets and access to resources (there is blurring of what's in their interests and the nation's).

Those governments who cooperate, receive various forms of bribery such as ”favorite nation" status and with it, supplemented access to our markets, billions in financial aid and "loans" (which are usually "forgiven" in all or part), and product such as military equipment, grain, fertilizers, etc. (and yet they somehow stay poor and backwards). Many times, direct U.S. military presence is provided to officially protect them from mutual enemies when in truth, they're for propping up the regime and protecting our own investments.

Those who are hesitant or refuse to cooperate face the usual threats of implied force and slow build up of purgative  labels as "undemocratic", "oppressive", "terrorist", and so forth. Gradually, the heat is turned up until a "liberation" invasion is deployed. After which, a new regime and more cooperative regime is installed (historically these tend to be Far Right military juntas).  If any of this sounds familiar, it should.

So, who are these "oligarchic" nations mentioned by the World Population Review? Not surprisingly China is top on the list. Despite officially being a "people's republic", the party control everything. It can make the richest Chinese business person a peasant anytime it wants. The government maintains a significant presence in every business operation.

Russia is another oligarchy which tends to operate more like a kleptocracy. They control every aspect of elections, keenly heeding Stalin's old adage about it not being who voted that's important, but rather who counts the votes. They also have their hands in every aspect of the Russian economy, particularly its oil, gas, infrastructure (like construction) and military.

Iran too is an oligarchy. In this case, a authoritarian theocracy comprised of clerics.  These clerics control nearly every aspect of society, from the economy, parliament, military, education, and media to maintaining a "morality" police which enforces religious laws governing dress, music, food, and social life based on their strict brand of Islamic law. 

North Korea is not unexpectedly an oligarchy under the total control of Kim Jong Un, his immediate family, and the military.  Several Middle Eastern monarchies such as Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, and the United Arab Emirates function as oligarchies in varying degrees as well. So do other countries like Columbia, Venezuela, Indonesia, Chad, Laos, and the Congo (amusingly, many of these nations also call themselves "democracies" or "people's republics"). 

Finally, the United States. The U.S. as an oligarchy has been supported by data from various academic studies for several years, although officially it's a democratic Constitutional Republic. That really shouldn't come as a surprise if you know your history. Ancient Rome, which our system of government is modeled on, called itself a "Republic" long after coming under the rule of the Caesars in order to reassure the people while it firmly seized control of the empire. The imperial government functioned as a military junta.  The result of these studies have shown that America is dominated by a relatively small handful of immensely wealthy individuals and corporations.

According to Italian dictator and founder of modern fascism, Benito Mussolini, fascism is a hand-in-glove partnership between the central government and Big Business. He added that fascism was more accurately defined as "corporatism" since that is what it was. However, in his definition, the state was to be the dominate partner. Today, Wall Street is the senior partner. Fascism occupies the same point on the Right that Communism occupies on the Left.

Is Fascism Left or Right wing? We hear that question often these days, especially as WWII fades from our collective memories. Make no mistake, however, those who lived through it had no doubt that fascism was seen as a extreme form of conservatism. Fascism borrows from the Left and the Right to varying degrees based on the history, traditions, and values of a given nation.

Countries with strong religious ties tend to keep or enhance those ties under fascism for instance. Some instituted a racial or ethnic policy. Some didn't. That's why fascism in Italy differed from Germany's, which was different from that of Spain or Hungary, Argentina, Austria, or Romania.  As an example,  Oswald Mosley, a English fascist of the 1930's tried to introduce a brand of Nazism in England, which Hitler, while acknowledging it, disapproved of.

When asked why, Hitler said the National Socialism was organic. It was based on political, religious, and social elements which were uniquely German and therefore couldn't be transplanted elsewhere. Instead, individuals like Moseley or America's Fritz Kuhn, should develop their own unique form of fascism as Italy, Argentina, and Spain had done.

As an aside, many of the reforms which followed WWI and the Great Depression were considered "socialist" such as unemployment insurance, the FDIC, Social Security, and so forth. Not only did the United States enact these and other social programs, so did Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Spain, and other Right Wing governments (in fact, almost every country enacted some type of public programs).

Because of the pre-WWI  global political and economic power of Socialism, there was  serious concern among the ruling elites that a revised Socialist Left could potentially topple their capitalist empires. As a result, something called "conservative socialism" came about, albeit amid the gnashing  of teeth and a strong propaganda campaign opposing these "Anti-American" proposals such as wage and hour legislation, the right of workers to organize, the introduction of child labor laws, and workplace safety.

The goal of "conservative socialism" was to protect the capitalist state while introducing changes designed to pacify the people (and, of course, stimulate the economy. Starving or sick workers are useless). This became the bedrock of modern "gradualism" which sought to appease those who provided the labor while leaving the system essentially intact.

So, who are America's oligarchs? That's a hard question to answer since the exact definition is a matter of some disagreement among academics. Some consider those in the 10% or 5% income bracket to be the oligarchy. Many say the top 1%, while a few think it's more likely the 0.01%.

It's this sort integration into society which helps to insulate them from a direct public backlash similar to what befell their predecessors in 18th Century France for instance.  But one thing for certain, it's not the average U.S. taxpayer and voter who calls the shots. We're merely given the illusion. This is our "Matrix". Today's government  serves the interests of the wealthy, whether that be the top 5% or .01% at the exclusion of the bottom 99%.

Once, names like Rockefeller, Morgan, Mellon, Gould, Vanderbilt, Ford, Hearst, Rothschild, and Carnegie were synonymous with near absolute wealth and power. They bought presidents and prime ministers, congressmen and lords, judges and generals with the same ease as hiring anyone else who worked for them. Power was measured in railroad tracks, shipping, steel manufactured, newspapers sold, real estate, and of course, the control of money.

 Today, it's corporations such as Exxon, Bank of America, McDonald Douglas, Google, Apple, and Raytheon are among the small clique of entities who call the shots in Washington, but the end goal remains the same---the control of money and with it, the power it brings.  

While names like Musk, Bloomberg, Bezos, and Gates are familiar to us. Less known are names like Miriam Adelson, Ken C. Griffin, Cameron and Tyler Winkelvoss, Peter Thiel, Dick and Liz, Uihlien, Tim Mellon of the Mellon banking dynasty, and they like it that way. It gives them anonymity, which only enhances their power and personal security. In this past presidential election, they donated billions of dollars (Tim Mellon alone donated $100 million dollars), and you can bet it wasn't done out of patriotism.

Money is more than "free speech" and it buys more than just access. It buys power to a degree that the Czars, Emperors, and Sultans once welded. Consultants, advisors, and lobbyists in their employ, directly or indirectly, do far more that make suggestions when it comes to legislation. They help write bills. They review and recommend how to vote on legislation. They help move bills they're interested in through the maze of committees. They fund public pressure ("awareness") groups to promote issues of interest to them, including linking with legitimate groups.

They have a major impact on creating foreign and domestic policy. Of course, they compete with others elites. It's all part of the game of power, and we're a part of their game whether we like it or not. It creates the illusion of a competing political duopoly. As the famous Louisiana Governor, Huey Long, once said about the Democrats and Republicans, "one skins from the ankle up and the other from ear down.

That's the only real difference in the two parties. We are their pawns to be played and sacrificed with the ease of sipping a martini. In exchange, we're periodically given an incidental crumb from their thrones which are then hailed as some sort of victories for the public by the media they own.  

This is not the nation our Founding Fathers intended, but it is the nation we allowed to come into being. Whether Trump, his cabinet, or his mass of supporters can change this remains to be seen. Historically, those who get to close are bought off, co-opted, stalled, defeated and demoralized before being shuffled off History's stage, or simply removed from the game altogether.  Trump knows the game well. He's been a player all his life. Let's hope he can prevail. This may be the last time an outsider will ever have the opportunity again.

 

Thank you for reading Another Opinion! We hope you enjoyed this article and will pass it along. Please don't forget to subscribe. It's free! Lastly, please "like" us on whatever platform you use to read anotheropinionblog.com. It helps beat the algorithms and keeps our articles in circulation. Please find below the links we consulted in researching this article.

 

What countries have authoritarian governments

List of Whistleblowers

Oligarchy comes to America

Who has joined Trump's team so far?

 

Oligarchy countries 2024

 

Bourgeois socialism