Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
- 37 Percent of People Completely Lost
- An Open Challenge to Michelle Rhee and the Corporate Education Zombies
- If Corporations Don’t Pay Taxes, Why Should You?
- Introduced Constitutional Amendment says: 'Democracy for People, Not Corporations'
- Which Members of Congress Are Standing Up for Economic Decency – And Which “Progressives” Aren’t
Popular content
Today's Top News
Secret Cash: The Worst Political Scandal of All
Sometimes I feel like Gus, the father in "My Big Fat Greek Wedding" -- you know, the guy who thinks you can cure all maladies with a spritz of Windex and declares, "Give me a word, any word, and I show you that the root of that word is Greek."
Only in my case, it's give me a scandal, any scandal, and I'll show you how the corrosive influence of money on politics is at its root and makes what's bad even worse (okay, maybe not in the case of Anthony Weiner -- yet). It's not an especially effective party trick, I know, unless you're at a really dreary policy wonk picnic, but you work with what you've got.
John Edwards' illegitimate child? The legal case being built against the freshly indicted, former presidential candidate isn't about paternity or custody or any of that kind of stuff, but revolves around felony campaign finance charges; whether or not two wealthy backers -- his now deceased fundraising chair Frederick Baron and 100-year-old heiress Rachel "Bunny" Mellon -- provided hundreds of thousands in contributions that in reality paid for the hiding of Edwards' mistress, Rielle Hunter, and their baby.
Newt Gingrich and his wife Callista's big fat, revolving, no interest credit account at Tiffany's? It might be tin-eared and wrong for someone who purports to be a fiscal conservative and a man of the people to throw around big bucks for expensive bling, but that ain't necessarily the scandal. Look a little deeper. On May 24, Jeff Stein of The Washington Post blog "Spy Talk" reported, "At the same time Tiffany & Co. was extending Callista (Bisek) Gingrich a virtual interest-free loan of tens of thousands of dollars, the diamond and silverware firm was spending big bucks to influence mining policy in Congress and in agencies over which the House Agriculture Committee -- where she worked -- had jurisdiction, official records show."
Until 2006, Ms. Gingrich was chief clerk at the committee. During the years between 2005 and 2009, Tiffany's annual lobbying costs shot up from around $100,000 to $360,000, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.
The jewelry giant strongly denies any connection: "We had no reason to lobby the Agriculture Committee and we did not... Our focus has been on the Natural Resources Committee." The company also said it had never spoken with Newt or Callista Gingrich about federal mining policy.
But hang on, there's more. Tim Carney of The Washington Examiner reports, "Christy Evans, formerly a top staffer to then-whip Newt Gingrich, is a registered lobbyist for Tiffany's, the high-end jeweler where Gingrich and his wife enjoy an extraordinary line of credit. Evans, former floor assistant to Gingrich and now a lobbyist at the legendary K Street firm Cassidy & Associates, has represented Tiffany's on mining issues since 2000, according to lobbying filings."
The revolving door between government and corporate interests, revolving credit... the saga of Newt "Holly Golightly" Gingrich spins on. The whole affair is reminiscent of the preferential loan treatment now-collapsed subprime mortgage giant Countrywide Financial Corporation reportedly gave a few years ago to Fannie Mae CEO Jim Johnson (he resigned as a result), North Dakota Senator Kent Conrad (chair of the Senate Budget Committee), former Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd (who served as chair of the Senate Banking Committee), and former cabinet secretaries Alphonso Jackson and Donna Shalala.
Yet all this greed and venality pales against the dark heart of the worst political scandal of all, the continuing nightmare caused by Citizens United and other court decisions that have unleashed a monster of unlimited and frequently anonymous private and corporate campaign cash against a nearly defenseless citizenry.
The recent disclosure that the conservative, "grass roots" advocacy organization American Action Network received first year revenues of $2.75 million from fewer than a dozen unnamed, wealthy donors (and 82% of the money from only three of them) led Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethic in Washington, to cite AAN as just one example of how "very few people are having a disproportionate impact on our country's elections."
(The group, affiliated with Karl Rove's American Crossroads political action committee, raised another $24 million in the four months before the 2010 midterms, funding attack ads against Democratic Senate candidates in Wisconsin, Florida, Washington State and Florida described by progressive watchdog Media Matters as "bogus," "deceptive" and "stripped of the facts.")
This revelation follows superb investigative reporting by a Bloomberg News team last month headlined "Secret Donors Multiply in U.S. Election Spending." They found that outside, or non-party organizations, including "trade groups, unions and non-profits started by political operatives that raise and spend money for advertising" spent $305 million on the 2010 elections, four times more than similar groups spent four years ago. They plan to raise even more money for the 2012 campaign. Contrary to law, five of those groups have failed to report to the Federal Election Commission (FEC) more than $4 million spent on attack ads in last year's races.
"The organizations face little scrutiny from the FEC, where split votes between Republican and Democratic commissioners have stymied enforcement in case after case for almost three years," Bloomberg reported. "As a result, voters may find themselves choosing the next U.S. president knowing less about those trying to shape their views of the candidates than they have since secret money helped finance the Watergate burglary and re-elect President Richard Nixon in 1972."
The journalists quoted Donald Simon, a director of pro-disclosure organization Democracy 21: "The amounts of corporate money involved in Watergate will look quaint by the standards of secret corporate funding that will take place in 2012."
Republicans and many Democrats oppose all new attempts at campaign finance reform, including a proposed White House executive order requiring corporations seeking government contracts to reveal their political contributions. On May 26, a federal district court in Alexandria, Virginia, ruled that a long-standing ban on corporate contributions to federal candidates is unconstitutional. Unless the composition of the Supreme Court shifts in a new direction, a constitutional amendment that reverses Citizens United and other federal rulings may be our only prayer, the solitary hope we have to prevent the total usurpation of representative government by big businesses with bottomless pockets.
The Greeks had a word for it -- "oligarchy" -- political clout based on economic dominance. It is, in the words of economist Simon Johnson, "an antithesis to democracy... a small group with a lot of wealth and a lot of power. They pull the strings. They have the influence. They call the shots."
No accountability, no scruples, no shame. It's the biggest scandal of all: a republic struck down by a possibly fatal malady that even Gus the Greek's magic bottle of Windex can't cure.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
28 Comments so far
Show AllIF your on the right political corruption is just the way things work
for a politician on the right anything gos as long as you keep your pants up
just a short look at the right will make it painfully clear that for people on the right
morals and ethics are exclusively about sex
the sadist part of this story is that the information in general ( but not in detail ) is widely known but only the details are news
The rich have learned from our corporations that there is no requirement to pay taxes on your income or your profits. It does, however, pay to invest in politicians, including their menials. Consider how much cash that frees up to pay into Obama's campaign.
Obama's "menials" must be salivating, but most of the cash is going to Repugs
"Tim Carney of The Washington Examiner reports, "Christy Evans, formerly a top staffer to then-whip Newt Gingrich, is a registered lobbyist for Tiffany's, the high-end jeweler where Gingrich and his wife enjoy an extraordinary line of credit. Evans, former floor assistant to Gingrich and now a lobbyist at the legendary K Street firm Cassidy & Associates, has represented Tiffany's on mining issues since 2000, according to lobbying filings.""
This sort of thing makes the Teapot Dome Scandal look like small potatos. And this is just small stuff. It's no wonder we are in the mess we are.
The Edwards prosecution is a show trial, pushed by the Obama regime to warn all 2012 candidates---we'll be watching you and all your finances. The timing is no accident. Reelection is the Obama priority. The rule of law and justice mean nothing to this group.
Are liberals this gullible?
HIGGS: I think you're onto something. Nice analysis.
I agree that the Edwards Prosecution is for political gain - but often it is for the gain of those prosecutors involved. The Martha Stewart case is another one. What motivates individual prosecutors is usually more personal and local than national political goals.
I agree that the Rule of Law means very little in the Court System. Seems like everybody in the system has an agenda and it has nothing to do with truth and justice.
Your comment reminds me of something I say all too frequently, that life itself these days has become a scam. There is no way anyone can actually obey all the rules and regulations and survive. It is little wonder that respect for the government is waning or gone. Blaming ordinary workers and poor people and giving more control to the rich filth that got us into this mess, and who are trying hard to make it messier, is the biggest scam of all. This is conservatism in a nutshell.
"As a result, voters may find themselves choosing the next U.S. president knowing less about those trying to shape their views of the candidates than they have since secret money helped finance the Watergate burglary and re-elect President Richard Nixon in 1972."
Then why have Presidents in the first place?
Direct democracy
Whenever I hear someone plump for 'direct democracy' I think of 5th century BCE Athens and their treatment of the Melians - among other things. The Athenians had direct democracy then, probably the only experiment in relatively large-scale direct democracy ever tried. Fearing the growth of the Athenian empire, the Melians no longer wanted to be Athenian allies. The Athenians were swayed by glib demogogues, the kind of political creature every 'democratic' nation produces, and 'the people' voted to kill all the Melian men and enslave all the Melian women and children for no other reason than they didn't want to be participants in the Athenian empire. People aren't reliable enough or rational enough for a working direct democracy.
"People aren't reliable enough or rational enough for a working direct democracy."
And bought and paid for politicians are?
Check out a direct democracy that has lasted 200 years with no wars despite being surrounded by warring nations, no boom and bust, no WOD and few drug problems, few immigration problems, the best education and healthcare and one of the highest per capita incomes in the world despite having few natural resources:
http://direct-democracy.geschichte-schweiz.ch/
And see how it can be done in America and in other countries:
http://ni4d.us/
Bought and paid for politicians are people, hence unreliable and irrational.
Direct democracy is improbable if not impossible in large masses of people. The real question is what do you do with the 50% - 1 of the voters who disagree with the 50% + 1 of the voters? To the losers, majority rule is just as much a tyranny as any monarchy or oligarchy.
Check out the National Initiative for Democracy to see how
You trust the wisdom of your fellow citizens? The same people who, without going very far into the past, brought you our corrupt and incompetent government and wholeheartedly support the national security state? The same people who first supported Bush II's invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan shouting "we're #1" like war is a sport, then ratified Bush II's wars by re-electing him? The same people that gloated over the murder of Bin Laden - whatever the circumstances? The same people that excuse what is laughingly called 'collateral damage' in the name of 'defense'? The same people who believe that a rising tide lifts all boats, that our current government is here to help you; that giving the rich more will help everybody? The same people who support the Patriot Act and indescriminate torture? Who believe the military should be the primary interface with other nations? The same people who elected Mister Obama, Mister Clinton, Mister Reagan, and the two Mister Bushs - all authentic war-criminals if their acts were ever assessed in the light of reality? The same people who, despite the evidence and testimony of professionals - not cranky malcontents with an ax to grind - still believe 9/11 was an inside job? The same people who deny that global climate change - whatever the source and whether abetted by human activity or not - is a reality? The same people who believe that everybody should be armed with concealed weapons to protect themselves from their neighbors? That it's okay to kill brown people because they're somehow worth less than white people? The same people that believe Mister Obama's birth certificate is a fraud? Who support the American empire and tyranny around the world - just to have cheap gas and electronic gadgets? The same people who believe that the the big god in the sky will fix everything because we're so special? Who deny evolution - from wherever it came; who believe in a real heaven and hell - not as metaphor but as real places. The same people who fear aliens, bigfoot, bird-flu, gays, the devil, a national health plan, and foreigners? Who glory in pseudo-science and deny hard science? The same fearful bunch of turnips who believe the US has a divine role to play in history? You can trust them if you like, but I don't trust them to decide for me; not as far as I can comfortably spit the pentagon.
Yes this was a terrible action, but think also on the
Mytilenean revolt. The assembly voted to kill 1,000 members of this city. After self congratulations, and I am sure much wine, the morning saw the citizens of Athens wake to doubt and second thoughts. The assembly was recalled and the proclamation ordering the massacre was rescinded.
The correct lesson to learn is not that bad things happened under the Athenian democracy, therefore even democracy is bad. It seems the lesson is that democracy is the only choice for poor people. The only time I can think of when a terrible order like this one was rescinded.
Yes even direct democracy can lead to terrible events, under the stresses of war and class struggle. If you read Aristotle, you can see that the Greeks thought that democracy was the suitable form of government for the hoi polloi, and that democracy included more (and less) than simply voting in the assembly, as Euripides said, in 'The Suppliants', the free city was a place where citizens ruled and were ruled in turn, where wealth did not grant you more. Where the Greeks true to this idea? Probably not, and it is well known that ancient democracy did not include women, or slaves, or even foreign born, but it is also well known that there will be no revolution without democracy.
As an amusing side note; Aristotle feared that democracy would lead to confiscation of the property of the wealthy, and the introduction of a dictatorship of the proletariat, for lack of a better phrase. This fear is what leads him to the myth of the mixed constitution, which of course leads to our modern idea of checks and balances. America was born from the reality of class struggle.
"...as Euripides said, in 'The Suppliants', the free city was a place where citizens ruled and were ruled in turn, where wealth did not grant you more. "
Of course this doesn't count the slaves, does it? Nobody ever counts the slaves. They didn't have a vote in the Athenian democracy. Only the vote of full citizens counted in Athens. The same principle applied in Sparta, but full citizens only included the spartiase, not the helots, and few consider ancient Sparta a democracy. If you restrict voting to only a part of the population, which all 'democracies' do and have done, where does democracy leave off and oligarchy begin? And if democracy is such a good form of government, why then haven't there been more of them in history?
I suppose my point is that people are by nature too emotional, too irrational, too easily manipulated by demogogues, and can't be trusted to govern themselves rationally. Which is why just laws are important. They can often transcend transitory human folly. But these just laws must be supported by the vast majority of the society as well. They too must be fairly applied - which seldom happens in the real world - otherwise they merely become, or are seen as, tools of the powerful. It is a mistake to believe that even if in full knowledge of the 'facts' people will reach reasonable decisions. They don't and won't. George Lakoff explains this fairly well, I think, in "The Political Mind".
The ACLU stands behind Citizens United as big money's right to "freedom of speech."
I dropped my membership long ago.
When the ACLU can't tell the difference between a building and a person, we know there's no hope for average American citizens to be protected under the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
The ACLU stands behind Citizens United as big money's right to "freedom of speech."
The same lack of full disclosure happens at ALL levels of government. In the last election, Washington State had several initiatives on the ballot, including 2 on divesting the State of hard liquor sales.
Now, you think of the initiative process as a local, citizen-driven process to overcome the politicians in the legislature. During the election, the Seattle Times reported that out of all these initiatives, only 1 had received most of its funding from the local citizenry (this was the one that wanted to start a State income tax on single wage earners over $250K). All the others were primarily funded by outside, and out-of-State, interests.
Until the overpowering influence of money is removed from our election process, we are being held in subservience to the corporations and wealthy.
MY HEDGE
As I read these endless articles about how far we've fallen from grace ( a place we never actually were but nevertheless we've declined lately) it brings me back to the huge Hedge of Ivy that has engulfed and swallowed my front fence. I've been fighting this creeping sprawling monster for yrs. and I've gotten nowhere! It has steadily out grown my every effort to try and cut it back, in fact my periodic trimmings of it have merely it seems strengthened it! So, the other day I decided ENOUGH! Now, I'm steadily with great resolve and increasing effort CUTTING this thing down and I'm going to, if my plan survives reality, eventually through enormous effort even replace whats left of my fence and then I will fight for yrs. to kill the remaining roots of this beast!
THE HEDGE of CORRUPTION
This is what we now have in DC friends, a huge and growing hedge of political Poison IVY ( corruption) and its grown to an immense proportion. We see it as a problem of money corrupting Gov't, but were wrong. Its both the Gov't itself and the business money it feeds off of that's the problem. The fence is the Constitution this all hangs on and it to is obsolete and needs a radical overall. Then, if we ever have the guts and fortitude its going to take to CUT and remove 250 yrs. of this corrupt growth we'll be needing to cut out the roots it grows from and start over with a new fence. Good luck to us. I'm a week into my removal and I have mos. of work ahead. Trimming won't work keep that in mind.
The ivy analogy is a good one- the ivy literally has to be REMOVED. All of it.
Doesn't the public own the airwaves in the first place? Don't we auction these off to private media companies with conditions as to the content they put on those airwaves? Well, then, lets just make them help us conduct an informed democracy, one where candidates of a certain standing (say, measured by number of small dollar donors), get free airtime, amounting to 1-2 hours, primetime, per week, for the six months leading up to an election, for the purpose of getting across their message. Our current system, where candidates have to prostitute themselves to big oil for the 'priviledge' of a 30 second spot to inform the public of their positions is just a massive giveaway to corporate America, and just look at what its done to our democracy! Time on airwaves to inform the public who they are is not a priviledge, its a right. And its not a right that attends to the candidates, but to the public, for the purpose of conducting an informed democracy.
The public has to just demand that we stop being charged to use our own airwaves for conducting an informed democracy. That's like a farmer being charged to use his own well water for irrigating a farm. These airwaves are OURS, they are OUR property. We shouldn't be asking 'pretty please' for conducting the most critical function in our lives.
You are spot on and so correct in what you say...These airwaves are public property and included in our commons. ..This is so vitally important to our Democracy-as vitally important as just about anything out there...Thanks ubrew12-This should be talked about and brought up much more often...
Where's the scandal if there is no shame. If all the politicians do it. If everyone in government who has a position of power and influence gets it by playing along. If there is no accountability legally or morally then this conduct is just business as usual. If there are parts of the public that want to hold these politicians to a higher standard, a standard of public service and accountability well, they are the ones who have the unreasonable expectations The rest of us know they hold office only to make life more comfortable for themselves and their cronies.
The public anger smolders like a volcano. For now the few eruptions of outrage we see flash out and then tamp down. But the day will come when the underlying pool of red hot rage will spill out of its caldera and its pyroclastic flow will envelop those who now live under its shadow and who think they can control it.
Who are these people?
John Edwards, 2004 and 2008 candidate with the expensive haircuts and the speechifying about democratic values, the high-priced criminal defense lawyer married to one of the most intelligent and graceful women I've ever seen on television, and he spends HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS to "hide" his mistress and their "love-child" daughter?
Newt Gingrich, professorial spokesman for the reactionary right and proponent of government "austerity," not only has affairs, including one while his wife is dying in a hospital, but has a six-figure interest-free revolving account at Tiffany's?
Frankly, I have problems with keeping up mowing the lawn and paying my utility bills, and these guys are juggling a host of secret relationships of the sexual, political, and financial kind. Obviously, they had to have assistants, and thanks to Mr. Winship (and others he quotes) we now have some idea who some of them were and what they did. Thus this snippet:
"...Tim Carney of The Washington Examiner reports, "Christy Evans, formerly a top staffer to then-whip Newt Gingrich, is a registered lobbyist for Tiffany's, the high-end jeweler where Gingrich and his wife enjoy an extraordinary line of credit. Evans, former floor assistant to Gingrich and now a lobbyist at the legendary K Street firm Cassidy & Associates, has represented Tiffany's on mining issues since 2000, according to lobbying filings." "
We now have some idea who John Edwards' "mistress" was (see wikipedia).
Christy Evans? A consultant to Newt on high-level investments while employed as a lobbyist by Tiffany's? Sex and diamonds. I would love to see a recent picture of Christy Evans.
Who are these people? Have they no shame? To what extent do they actually reflect on their actions versus merely "acting"?
What is it that drives men like Edwards and Gingrich to presidential ambition while carrying on secret affairs, of the sexual, political, and financial kind? One conclusion seems certain: it isn't Idealism.
Meanwhile, in the Edwards Show Trial, the government will have to prove intent, which may go to "tort," as in tortious.
Given Obama, is the new rule for presidential candidacy the issue of how many totally contradictory lies you can retain in your head while keeping a straight face and seeming possessed by gravitas when speaking from the bully pulpit?
What is the price of a stained blue dress these days? It was recently millions, but today I can't even recall her name. It'll come to me.
Who are these people? Where are the Wise Elders we need?
-30-
Corporate campaign cash against a nearly defenseless citizenry." I would say ignorant and cowardly more aptly describes the citizenry. We are not defenseless,better yet, senseless.