To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
We
live in a country in economic distress. Millions are out of work and
cutbacks in public services are pervasive at the city and state levels.
The 'great recession' is deep and could go deeper. Most families are
tightening their belts and in some cases at the breaking point because
their benefits have run out and money is so hard for many to find.
We
live in a country in economic distress. Millions are out of work and
cutbacks in public services are pervasive at the city and state levels.
The 'great recession' is deep and could go deeper. Most families are
tightening their belts and in some cases at the breaking point because
their benefits have run out and money is so hard for many to find.
Hard
to find, perhaps, for the people, but, curiously, not for their
political representatives, their nominal public servants. Despite the
fact that popularity for politicians, especially members of Congress, is
at an all time low, campaign contributions are at an all time high. (A
recent poll showed a majority of Americans want to toss out all
incumbents)
The Washington Post reports, "House and Senate candidates have already shattered fundraising records for a midterm election and are on their way to surpassing $2 billion in spending for the first time, according to new campaign finance data.
To put it another way: That's the equivalent of about $4 million for every congressional seat up for grabs this year."
Think
of that number, think of all the pressing needs in this country, and
the world, and weep. But also think about why politics is so associated
with, and seemingly dependent, on big bucks.
Some critics seem to believe there is no way to stop these practices because "the beast" must be fed.
"Candidates
are raising more money in 2010 than ever before, and spending it at a
much quicker pace than 2008," said David Donnelly, director of the,
Public Campaign Action Fund's Campaign Money Watch project. "With all
the attack ads, candidates have to spend more time dialing for dollars
and less time talking with voters. They have to feed the beast - the
endless raising and spending for campaigns - that is devouring our
democracy."
"Devouring" is a term often associated with beasts.
Donnelly adds, "Regardless of the outcome next Tuesday, the winners will be the big donors.
There
has been a big debate this year about the role corporations and to a
lesser degree; unions have played in financing campaigns. The recent
Citizen United Supreme Court decision makes it legal not to disclose
where the money is coming from.
Its' been said that business is taking over politics. As Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics which tracks political money, writes:
"When
tens or hundreds of millions of dollars are targeting these midterm
elections and our votes, but their origin is unknowable, one has to
wonder whether someone isn't trying to pull a fast one on us.OK,
so we get a disclaimer naming the coalition that runs an ad. Maybe that
disclaimer names a group with some vague, innocuous-sounding moniker.
Or it's a group signaling that it has many "citizens" or "Americans"
behind it. However, these groups often have no publicly known members,
donors or contact info."
Many
are up in arms about the latest wave of "secret money," some perhaps
from overseas--including charges in one race in Washington State that the
Saudis are involved. The group Climate Action Network Europe
released a new report revealing the effects of Big Business -- all the
way across the ocean -- trying to weaken US environmental laws by backing
climate change denialists.
They reported in part:
"Big
European emitters Lafarge GDF-Suez, EON, BP, BASF, BAYER, Solvay and
Arcelor-Mittal supported climate change deniers in the US Senate in 2010
for $107,200. Their total support for senators blocking climate change
legislation in the US amounts to $240,200, which is almost 80% of their
total spending in the 2010 Senate race. This is why those funds are seen
as systemic. This amount is higher than the same type of spending of
the most notorious U.S. climate denier and Tea Party funder: Koch
Industries ($217,000)."
Overlooked
in all the hoopla is the fact that American politics has itself become a
business with a vast network of professional fundraising companies,
consultants, advisors and ad agencies profiting from the services they
provide in the competitive business at the center of all this. These
people run permanent campaigns throwing fundraisers, parties and
creating "giving" opportunities.
The
politicians don't just hire others. They spent much of their own time
"dialing for dollars" as one Congressman I know well told me, in small
rooms in the basement of the Congress where phone banks exist to call
prospective donors from vast lists.
"Sometimes
I just want to quit," said my college friend." I didn't come to
Washington to become a begger, but that's what I do, harassing people I
don't know and don't know me to give. Every Member does it because we
all live in fear of the other party funding a primary race or buying ads
to discredit us. We have to be ready to fight back.
The
Post reports that Congressman is in the forefront of this effort to
keep their jobs and influence. It's not just about their salaries but
their potential to supplement what the government pays them with outside
donations.
"As
of last week, House and Senate campaigns reported taking in more than
$1.5 billion, exceeding the total collected by congressional candidates
in 2006 and in 2008, Federal Election Commission data show. Most of that
money already has been put toward advertising and other expenses.
The
Public Campaign Action Fund, a watchdog group, will release a study
Tuesday predicting that House candidates alone could spend nearly $1.5
billion by the time the dust settles on Election Day. The calculation is
based on previous elections in which about half of a campaign's money
was spent in the final month of the contest"
These
candidates also have to kick back portions of their largesse to fund
their own parties, helpers and bureaucracies. Many seem to see the
campaign trail as a fundraising trail, speaking for fees and generating
media visibility that they then can monetize with direct mail
solicitations. In
some cases their donors and their lobbyists and well-funded think tanks
even do their legislative work that in many by helping draft bills and
orchestrate the political agenda. These "donations" of time are not
considered contributions and also not reported making the cost of
maintaining the political establishment much higher than funds raised in
political contributions.
The
political elite spends a disproportionate amount of their time insuring
that they remain the political elite. This focus on raising money often
undermines time spent on raising awareness. It in turn leads to their
reliance on being guided by polls, not convictions.
No
wonder this has been called "the best election money can buy." Donors
and the recipients of their largesse are not naive. They know that when a
politician takes money, there is an expectation of some quid pro quo.
This money may not buy the politicians outright, but only rent them for a
key vote or two.
Politics
is about the never-ending fight over the allocation of resources,
deciding what gets funded in the federal budget and then who gets the
contracts. It is far more about serving interests than ideology or
constituents. Millions of jobs are at stake in federal allocations and
most companies have separate divisions, with plenty of former
politicians on the payroll to help them win contracts through what is
euphemistically called "public affairs."
All
want to be insiders, but, to achieve that status, they need access to
politicians to do their bidding, to set up meetings, make key
introductions and win business that is always rationalized in terms of
the jobs, never the profits, that are generated.
On
the day the latest report on new records being set in political
donations was published, there were reports of Afghan president Hamid
Karzai admitting he has received "bundles of cash" from Iran.
The story seemed so crude, so "third World", so... corrupt.
Until,
that is, you look closely at politics as an industry in the USA where
checks and electronic transfers are routine and make it easier to move
money around so you don't need paper bags and shady bagmen to carry
them.
In
the case of Afghanistan, a few days after this disclosure made news,
another reported that $18 billion in US reconstruction aid to American
companies--the stuff of endless hours of lobbying--can now not be
accounted for. That's first world corruption with a capital C.
Common Dreams is powered by optimists who believe in the power of informed and engaged citizens to ignite and enact change to make the world a better place. We're hundreds of thousands strong, but every single supporter makes the difference. Your contribution supports this bold media model—free, independent, and dedicated to reporting the facts every day. Stand with us in the fight for economic equality, social justice, human rights, and a more sustainable future. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover the issues the corporate media never will. Join with us today! |
We
live in a country in economic distress. Millions are out of work and
cutbacks in public services are pervasive at the city and state levels.
The 'great recession' is deep and could go deeper. Most families are
tightening their belts and in some cases at the breaking point because
their benefits have run out and money is so hard for many to find.
Hard
to find, perhaps, for the people, but, curiously, not for their
political representatives, their nominal public servants. Despite the
fact that popularity for politicians, especially members of Congress, is
at an all time low, campaign contributions are at an all time high. (A
recent poll showed a majority of Americans want to toss out all
incumbents)
The Washington Post reports, "House and Senate candidates have already shattered fundraising records for a midterm election and are on their way to surpassing $2 billion in spending for the first time, according to new campaign finance data.
To put it another way: That's the equivalent of about $4 million for every congressional seat up for grabs this year."
Think
of that number, think of all the pressing needs in this country, and
the world, and weep. But also think about why politics is so associated
with, and seemingly dependent, on big bucks.
Some critics seem to believe there is no way to stop these practices because "the beast" must be fed.
"Candidates
are raising more money in 2010 than ever before, and spending it at a
much quicker pace than 2008," said David Donnelly, director of the,
Public Campaign Action Fund's Campaign Money Watch project. "With all
the attack ads, candidates have to spend more time dialing for dollars
and less time talking with voters. They have to feed the beast - the
endless raising and spending for campaigns - that is devouring our
democracy."
"Devouring" is a term often associated with beasts.
Donnelly adds, "Regardless of the outcome next Tuesday, the winners will be the big donors.
There
has been a big debate this year about the role corporations and to a
lesser degree; unions have played in financing campaigns. The recent
Citizen United Supreme Court decision makes it legal not to disclose
where the money is coming from.
Its' been said that business is taking over politics. As Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics which tracks political money, writes:
"When
tens or hundreds of millions of dollars are targeting these midterm
elections and our votes, but their origin is unknowable, one has to
wonder whether someone isn't trying to pull a fast one on us.OK,
so we get a disclaimer naming the coalition that runs an ad. Maybe that
disclaimer names a group with some vague, innocuous-sounding moniker.
Or it's a group signaling that it has many "citizens" or "Americans"
behind it. However, these groups often have no publicly known members,
donors or contact info."
Many
are up in arms about the latest wave of "secret money," some perhaps
from overseas--including charges in one race in Washington State that the
Saudis are involved. The group Climate Action Network Europe
released a new report revealing the effects of Big Business -- all the
way across the ocean -- trying to weaken US environmental laws by backing
climate change denialists.
They reported in part:
"Big
European emitters Lafarge GDF-Suez, EON, BP, BASF, BAYER, Solvay and
Arcelor-Mittal supported climate change deniers in the US Senate in 2010
for $107,200. Their total support for senators blocking climate change
legislation in the US amounts to $240,200, which is almost 80% of their
total spending in the 2010 Senate race. This is why those funds are seen
as systemic. This amount is higher than the same type of spending of
the most notorious U.S. climate denier and Tea Party funder: Koch
Industries ($217,000)."
Overlooked
in all the hoopla is the fact that American politics has itself become a
business with a vast network of professional fundraising companies,
consultants, advisors and ad agencies profiting from the services they
provide in the competitive business at the center of all this. These
people run permanent campaigns throwing fundraisers, parties and
creating "giving" opportunities.
The
politicians don't just hire others. They spent much of their own time
"dialing for dollars" as one Congressman I know well told me, in small
rooms in the basement of the Congress where phone banks exist to call
prospective donors from vast lists.
"Sometimes
I just want to quit," said my college friend." I didn't come to
Washington to become a begger, but that's what I do, harassing people I
don't know and don't know me to give. Every Member does it because we
all live in fear of the other party funding a primary race or buying ads
to discredit us. We have to be ready to fight back.
The
Post reports that Congressman is in the forefront of this effort to
keep their jobs and influence. It's not just about their salaries but
their potential to supplement what the government pays them with outside
donations.
"As
of last week, House and Senate campaigns reported taking in more than
$1.5 billion, exceeding the total collected by congressional candidates
in 2006 and in 2008, Federal Election Commission data show. Most of that
money already has been put toward advertising and other expenses.
The
Public Campaign Action Fund, a watchdog group, will release a study
Tuesday predicting that House candidates alone could spend nearly $1.5
billion by the time the dust settles on Election Day. The calculation is
based on previous elections in which about half of a campaign's money
was spent in the final month of the contest"
These
candidates also have to kick back portions of their largesse to fund
their own parties, helpers and bureaucracies. Many seem to see the
campaign trail as a fundraising trail, speaking for fees and generating
media visibility that they then can monetize with direct mail
solicitations. In
some cases their donors and their lobbyists and well-funded think tanks
even do their legislative work that in many by helping draft bills and
orchestrate the political agenda. These "donations" of time are not
considered contributions and also not reported making the cost of
maintaining the political establishment much higher than funds raised in
political contributions.
The
political elite spends a disproportionate amount of their time insuring
that they remain the political elite. This focus on raising money often
undermines time spent on raising awareness. It in turn leads to their
reliance on being guided by polls, not convictions.
No
wonder this has been called "the best election money can buy." Donors
and the recipients of their largesse are not naive. They know that when a
politician takes money, there is an expectation of some quid pro quo.
This money may not buy the politicians outright, but only rent them for a
key vote or two.
Politics
is about the never-ending fight over the allocation of resources,
deciding what gets funded in the federal budget and then who gets the
contracts. It is far more about serving interests than ideology or
constituents. Millions of jobs are at stake in federal allocations and
most companies have separate divisions, with plenty of former
politicians on the payroll to help them win contracts through what is
euphemistically called "public affairs."
All
want to be insiders, but, to achieve that status, they need access to
politicians to do their bidding, to set up meetings, make key
introductions and win business that is always rationalized in terms of
the jobs, never the profits, that are generated.
On
the day the latest report on new records being set in political
donations was published, there were reports of Afghan president Hamid
Karzai admitting he has received "bundles of cash" from Iran.
The story seemed so crude, so "third World", so... corrupt.
Until,
that is, you look closely at politics as an industry in the USA where
checks and electronic transfers are routine and make it easier to move
money around so you don't need paper bags and shady bagmen to carry
them.
In
the case of Afghanistan, a few days after this disclosure made news,
another reported that $18 billion in US reconstruction aid to American
companies--the stuff of endless hours of lobbying--can now not be
accounted for. That's first world corruption with a capital C.
We
live in a country in economic distress. Millions are out of work and
cutbacks in public services are pervasive at the city and state levels.
The 'great recession' is deep and could go deeper. Most families are
tightening their belts and in some cases at the breaking point because
their benefits have run out and money is so hard for many to find.
Hard
to find, perhaps, for the people, but, curiously, not for their
political representatives, their nominal public servants. Despite the
fact that popularity for politicians, especially members of Congress, is
at an all time low, campaign contributions are at an all time high. (A
recent poll showed a majority of Americans want to toss out all
incumbents)
The Washington Post reports, "House and Senate candidates have already shattered fundraising records for a midterm election and are on their way to surpassing $2 billion in spending for the first time, according to new campaign finance data.
To put it another way: That's the equivalent of about $4 million for every congressional seat up for grabs this year."
Think
of that number, think of all the pressing needs in this country, and
the world, and weep. But also think about why politics is so associated
with, and seemingly dependent, on big bucks.
Some critics seem to believe there is no way to stop these practices because "the beast" must be fed.
"Candidates
are raising more money in 2010 than ever before, and spending it at a
much quicker pace than 2008," said David Donnelly, director of the,
Public Campaign Action Fund's Campaign Money Watch project. "With all
the attack ads, candidates have to spend more time dialing for dollars
and less time talking with voters. They have to feed the beast - the
endless raising and spending for campaigns - that is devouring our
democracy."
"Devouring" is a term often associated with beasts.
Donnelly adds, "Regardless of the outcome next Tuesday, the winners will be the big donors.
There
has been a big debate this year about the role corporations and to a
lesser degree; unions have played in financing campaigns. The recent
Citizen United Supreme Court decision makes it legal not to disclose
where the money is coming from.
Its' been said that business is taking over politics. As Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics which tracks political money, writes:
"When
tens or hundreds of millions of dollars are targeting these midterm
elections and our votes, but their origin is unknowable, one has to
wonder whether someone isn't trying to pull a fast one on us.OK,
so we get a disclaimer naming the coalition that runs an ad. Maybe that
disclaimer names a group with some vague, innocuous-sounding moniker.
Or it's a group signaling that it has many "citizens" or "Americans"
behind it. However, these groups often have no publicly known members,
donors or contact info."
Many
are up in arms about the latest wave of "secret money," some perhaps
from overseas--including charges in one race in Washington State that the
Saudis are involved. The group Climate Action Network Europe
released a new report revealing the effects of Big Business -- all the
way across the ocean -- trying to weaken US environmental laws by backing
climate change denialists.
They reported in part:
"Big
European emitters Lafarge GDF-Suez, EON, BP, BASF, BAYER, Solvay and
Arcelor-Mittal supported climate change deniers in the US Senate in 2010
for $107,200. Their total support for senators blocking climate change
legislation in the US amounts to $240,200, which is almost 80% of their
total spending in the 2010 Senate race. This is why those funds are seen
as systemic. This amount is higher than the same type of spending of
the most notorious U.S. climate denier and Tea Party funder: Koch
Industries ($217,000)."
Overlooked
in all the hoopla is the fact that American politics has itself become a
business with a vast network of professional fundraising companies,
consultants, advisors and ad agencies profiting from the services they
provide in the competitive business at the center of all this. These
people run permanent campaigns throwing fundraisers, parties and
creating "giving" opportunities.
The
politicians don't just hire others. They spent much of their own time
"dialing for dollars" as one Congressman I know well told me, in small
rooms in the basement of the Congress where phone banks exist to call
prospective donors from vast lists.
"Sometimes
I just want to quit," said my college friend." I didn't come to
Washington to become a begger, but that's what I do, harassing people I
don't know and don't know me to give. Every Member does it because we
all live in fear of the other party funding a primary race or buying ads
to discredit us. We have to be ready to fight back.
The
Post reports that Congressman is in the forefront of this effort to
keep their jobs and influence. It's not just about their salaries but
their potential to supplement what the government pays them with outside
donations.
"As
of last week, House and Senate campaigns reported taking in more than
$1.5 billion, exceeding the total collected by congressional candidates
in 2006 and in 2008, Federal Election Commission data show. Most of that
money already has been put toward advertising and other expenses.
The
Public Campaign Action Fund, a watchdog group, will release a study
Tuesday predicting that House candidates alone could spend nearly $1.5
billion by the time the dust settles on Election Day. The calculation is
based on previous elections in which about half of a campaign's money
was spent in the final month of the contest"
These
candidates also have to kick back portions of their largesse to fund
their own parties, helpers and bureaucracies. Many seem to see the
campaign trail as a fundraising trail, speaking for fees and generating
media visibility that they then can monetize with direct mail
solicitations. In
some cases their donors and their lobbyists and well-funded think tanks
even do their legislative work that in many by helping draft bills and
orchestrate the political agenda. These "donations" of time are not
considered contributions and also not reported making the cost of
maintaining the political establishment much higher than funds raised in
political contributions.
The
political elite spends a disproportionate amount of their time insuring
that they remain the political elite. This focus on raising money often
undermines time spent on raising awareness. It in turn leads to their
reliance on being guided by polls, not convictions.
No
wonder this has been called "the best election money can buy." Donors
and the recipients of their largesse are not naive. They know that when a
politician takes money, there is an expectation of some quid pro quo.
This money may not buy the politicians outright, but only rent them for a
key vote or two.
Politics
is about the never-ending fight over the allocation of resources,
deciding what gets funded in the federal budget and then who gets the
contracts. It is far more about serving interests than ideology or
constituents. Millions of jobs are at stake in federal allocations and
most companies have separate divisions, with plenty of former
politicians on the payroll to help them win contracts through what is
euphemistically called "public affairs."
All
want to be insiders, but, to achieve that status, they need access to
politicians to do their bidding, to set up meetings, make key
introductions and win business that is always rationalized in terms of
the jobs, never the profits, that are generated.
On
the day the latest report on new records being set in political
donations was published, there were reports of Afghan president Hamid
Karzai admitting he has received "bundles of cash" from Iran.
The story seemed so crude, so "third World", so... corrupt.
Until,
that is, you look closely at politics as an industry in the USA where
checks and electronic transfers are routine and make it easier to move
money around so you don't need paper bags and shady bagmen to carry
them.
In
the case of Afghanistan, a few days after this disclosure made news,
another reported that $18 billion in US reconstruction aid to American
companies--the stuff of endless hours of lobbying--can now not be
accounted for. That's first world corruption with a capital C.