Buying the election with foreign money

[xoxoxoBruce]

The striking thing about this election is the sheer volume of attack ads on TV. Ads that slam candidates, without mention of supporting their opponents, and are not approved by any candidate. The little blurb at the end is some obscure committee or organization. Most of us predicted the Supreme Court ruling in the Citizens United case, on January 21st, would lead to this.

Now, during the first election under the decision, Waldman says, "Citizens United has loosed a tide of massive—and alarmingly sneaky—spending. For all the Tea Party hubbub, this election's major factor could be cold, anonymous cash."

Much of that cash comes through front groups, cutouts, and nonprofits, without disclosing who is paying the bill. Money talks, but refuses to leave its name. Target routed its controversial funding [to an anti-gay group] through the blandly named MN Forward. In West Virginia, mining executives are setting up "527 groups" (which can delay disclosure until after November 2) to help elect coal-friendly candidates. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which does not disclose its backers, has pledged to spend $75 million in the midterm elections.

link

It seems some of the donations to the Chamber of Commerce partisan attack ads, are coming from overseas.

I think the Supreme Court ought to be summarily executed and replaced for this decision, and the Kelo v. City of New London decision.

[classicman]

Didn't this start in the last election when the R's were up in arms about Obama's fund-raising in small amounts from anonymous donors using untraceable prepaid credit cards?

I agree that the Supreme court decision has opened the proverbial floodgates and, like you, disagree with their decision.

[xoxoxoBruce]

It started in the 1780s, but it was always under the table till SCotUS made it OK.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

I think the Supreme Court ought to be summarily executed and replaced for this decision, and the Kelo v. City of New London decision.

Whichever party appointed the majority of the scotus should be shot, too.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Nah, when you pick a judge you know which way they lean, but you really can't be sure they won't be this fucking stupid.

Oh sure, I'm not a "Constitutional Scholar", or even a lawyer (he said proudly), but I've read the Constitution. I've also read enough about the people and their ideals, that created it, to know these two decisions fly in the face of a government "by the people", and the basic premise of private property.

[TheMercenary]

I am pretty sure that foreign money has been influencing or attempting to influence our elections for quite some time. The first time I remember it coming into the news was when Al Gore was found to have taken money from the Chinese. So I guess it is not too much of a new thing. But there is no doubt that the recent ruling allows them to shield the sources better.

[xoxoxoBruce]

From Salon.

It's beginning to penetrate the public consciousness that the 2010 elections are being purchased, mostly for Republicans, by a shadowy group of wealthy cowards. These anonymous buyers are pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into attack ads, mostly against Democrats, via organizations that launder their money into an increasingly corrupt political system.

There's not much anyone can do about it during this election cycle. The response time of the people being attacked has been slow, at best, while journalists have been in typical form, discovering the problem too late to matter. The campaign season is essentially over, and what was plainly going to be a big Republican gain could well become a rout, no small thanks to the opinion launderers and their paymasters.

That's what I said.

[TheMercenary]

"shadowy group of wealthy cowards."

Curious they would use this term when the Dems have the same people in their camp, oh well. What is good for the goose is good for the gander I guess...

[xoxoxoBruce]

How can you say "same people" when we don't know who the fuck they are?

[tw]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

I am pretty sure that foreign money has been influencing or attempting to influence our elections for quite some time.

Nonsense. By dollar, the US Chamber of Commerce has been the largest lobbying organization and is a Republican support organization. Restrictions have been removed on all campaign spending. We have no idea how much the USCC is now spending using secret names such as Policy for a Better America. They can now lie all they want. And never be held responsible.

Unlike people, corporate organizations can be created, lie overtly, spend massively to promote that lie, then dissolve without any consequences. The person or organization they represent is not accountable for the lies. During the short time that corporation exists, it has all the rights of any citizen without obtaining citizenship. And will dissolve before any charges can be filed. Often the public has no idea who that organization was fronting for.

Supreme Court said this was good. Alito even denied (during the State of the Union address) that this mess would happen. McCain said he wished one member of the bench had served in a political function - even as a Sherriff. They had no idea the mess they created. And it will get worse every two years as organizations now learn that overt lying (without any consequences) is now legal.

Politics is now about who can spend the most to promote lies. Representing people or interests of America, or promoting new ideas - no longer relevant.

[gvidas]

Underlying all your doom and gloom is the assumption that dollars will continue to directly translate into votes.

Maybe this deluge of attack ads will be the incentive for the american public, on the whole, to become media-literate and informed voters.

[xoxoxoBruce]

I think it will in two ways.
One, if you repeat a lie often enough, and loud enough, on TV, some people will fall for it. Especially people that get all their news from TV.

Two, the constant haranguing in these attack ads will turn people off, so they won't vote at all. That leaves the activists and cronies in control of the vote.

Remember, if only three people in the country vote, assuming the candidates vote for themselves, the third vote rules.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

How can you say "same people" when we don't know who the fuck they are?

Simple, shadow people on one side, are no less shadow people on another. The point is both sides are using it to their advantage. None of this should surprise you.

[gvidas]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Remember, if only three people in the country vote, assuming the candidates vote for themselves, the third vote rules.

Tangental to the thread, but just because I'm been neck deep in Infinite Jest again, like recreationally making myself crazy and depressed. Here's my man Dave Wallace circa 1999-primary-season:

If you are bored and disgusted by politics and don't bother to vote, you are in effect voting for the entrenched Establishments of the two major parties, who please rest assured are not dumb, and who are keenly aware that it is in their interests to keep you disgusted and bored and cynical and to give you every possible psychological reason to stay at home doing one-hitters and watching MTV on primary day. By all means stay home if you want, but don't bullshit yourself that you're not voting. In reality, there is no such thing as not voting: you either vote by voting, or you vote by staying home and tacitly doubling the value of some Diehard's vote.

From Up, Simba!

[SamIam]

It doesn't matter how you vote or if you vote. One politician is as corrupt as another. And in the unlikely chance that a few decent ones get voted in, do you really think they'll refuse the blandishments of the lobbiests, special interest groups, etc.? No. I don't think I could if someone waltzed into my office with the offer of a few million in an off-shore account.

I don't know. Its 2:30 in the morning here, and I can't sleep. Insomnia makes me even more fatalistic than I normally am.