Skip to main content

View Diary: democratic party and the corporados (24 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Marcy Winograd -- CA-36 Clean Campaign! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jlb1972, thethinveil

    She won't take corporate money, as does her opponent, Jane Harman (her top five contributors are military-industrial complex).   Check out Marcy's website and support her for the June 8th primary against Blue Dog corporate Jane.

    (I'm her spouse)

    "The true revolutionary is guided by a great feeling of love."

    by Budlawman on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 02:39:52 PM PST

    •  my applause, but sadly (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      the reality is that nobody gets elected or stays in office long without corporate cash.  Nobody. The entire field is covered with the shit, and it is simply impossible to play the game without getting the field all over you.  Pick a shining progressive, any one -- Sanders, Feingold, Weiner--any of them, and you'll find that their hands are not clean either. They can't be.  Whether we like it or not, money decides elections--and since the corporados have all the money, that decides the issue.

      If the impression you are getting is that the source of the problem is that individual reps are greedy or sell-outs, and all we need is to elect better reps who are more honest and won't sell themselves out, then you are taking away EXACTLY the wrong lesson.  The problem is SYSTEMIC, not individual. If we elected tomorrow a Congress that consisted entirely of the purest-hearted kindly greedless people who donate food to starving puppies and help little old ladies cross the street, nothing would change. Even kind-hearted greedless people have to pay for TV ads, and since a typical Senate campaign costs somewhere in the middle 8-figures, that means they either hold an awful lot of bake sales to raise the money, or they get it from the only place they CAN get it--from the people who HAVE it. People without money, don't win elections.  We may prefer it to be otherwise, but that is the reality. Even Obama's much-vaunted "small donor army" raised less than 40% of his contributions -- only 15 points higher than Dubya got from HIS small donors. Obama was awash in corporate cash. He wouldn't have won without it.

      So alas, "electing better people" is not the answer.  The people, are not the problem.  The system that forces everyone to act the same way whether they want to or not, IS the problem.

      The ONLY way to change anything is to simply GET THE MONEY OUT OF POLITICS.  Until that happens, nothing else will happen.  Ever.  The monied interests will always win in the end.

      Unfrotunately, the sad fact is that neither party wants to give up the gravy train, so neither party will ever make substantial changes in election financing.  Why should they?--*both parties benefit tremendously from the current system*. It gives them far more money than they could ever have without it, and money wins elections. They have no interest in changing it (despite the occasional lip service that both sides give to the idea).

      It is utterly impossible to meaningfully remove the money from a system that is already utterly dominated by money. It's like asking mafia dons to enforce laws on themselves. They'll think about it if it's in their interests.  If it's not in their interests, you can't force them--they own the system, not you. To even BEGIN to change the electoral system, you first have to beat the money that already owns it. And that is impossible by working from within that system.

      The ONLY way to change it is to go outside that system, the way our grandfathers did in the 60's and our great-grandfathers did in the 30's.

      Editor, Red and Black Publishers, http://RedandBlackPublishers.Com

      by Lenny Flank on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 02:57:53 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  And the once somewhat-public-interest- (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        minded information media are no longer invested in early 20th century Progressive virtues such as good government (even then, some of that was opportunistic reaction against big-city Democratic Party machines). The media are the intermediate recipients of all that campaign expense in addition to catapulting their neoliberal propaganda as no propaganda has ever been catapulted before. We really have a vicious circle (vicious for 99% of us) that will be very hard to break, particularly given how big money has outgrown any truly symbiotic relationship with its nation-state of origin.

        Then let us learn our range: we are something but we are not everything - Pascal

        by jlb1972 on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 03:31:56 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  the media myth (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          HeyMikey, jlb1972

          It does seem to be a common myth among DKosers that the "mainstream media" (and especially the TV Cable industry) are solidly Republican.

          They are not.

          The numbers:

          Sector: Entertainment Industry as a Whole (TV, Movies, Music, Publishing)

          1994 Elections (Dems in power)
          percentage to Dems   71
          percentage to Repugs   29

          2004 elections (Repugs in power)
          percentage to Dems   69
          percentage to Repugs   30

          2010 elections (Dems in power)
          percentage to Dems   75
          percentage to Repugs   24

          Sector:  Cable TV/Satellite industry
          1994 Elections (Dems in power)
          percentage to Dems   45
          percentage to Repugs   55

          2004 elections (Repugs in power)
          percentage to Dems   56
          percentage to Repugs   44

          2010 elections (Dems in power)
          percentage to Dems   68
          percentage to Repugs   32

          Sector:  Commercial Radio/TV stations
          1994 Elections (Dems in power)
          percentage to Dems   59
          percentage to Repugs   41

          2004 elections (Repugs in power)
          percentage to Dems   42
          percentage to Repugs   57

          2010 elections (Dems in power)
          percentage to Dems   52
          percentage to Repugs   48

          Sector:  Television Production Companies
          1994 Elections (Dems in power)
          percentage to Dems   79
          percentage to Repugs   20

          2004 elections (Repugs in power)
          percentage to Dems   82
          percentage to Repugs   17

          2010 elections (Dems in power)
          percentage to Dems   80
          percentage to Repugs   20

          The entire media industry, as a whole, bucks the general corporate trend, and, as I pointed out earlier for the Hollywood movie industry, consistently supports Democrats every election.

          But there are some interesting sub-stories here.

          In newspaper/book publishing, the largest contributor, News Corp (Rupert Murdoch's company), gave over three times as much as the second-largest contributor, but split its donations almost evenly, with 54% to the Dems and 46% to the Repugs. All the rest of the top ten contributors, however, were fiercely partisan, with seven of them giving at least 70% of their money to Dems (and four of those giving 100% of their money to Dems), and the remaining 2 giving 93-100% of their money to Repugs. Of the top 20 Congressmen to receive money from the newspaper/book publishing industry, 19 were Democrats.

          In cable/satellite industry, 4 of the top 5 companies all split their donations, with Dems getting between 57 and 67%. Time-Warner, number four on the list, split 57-43 for the Dems. News Corp, Rupert Murdoch's company, ranked 14th on the list, and split its donations 55-45 for the Dems. Yes, that's right--the company that owns Fox News gave over half its political contributions in 2009-2010, to Democrats.

          Of the top 10 Congressional recipients of cable/satellite industry contributions, 8 are Dems; of the top 20, 13 are Dems.

          So, while lots of Kossacks like to yell about the "conservative manistream media", the fact remains that where it really matters--in the bank account--the media are solidly Democratic.

          Editor, Red and Black Publishers, http://RedandBlackPublishers.Com

          by Lenny Flank on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 04:21:41 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (120)
  • Community (56)
  • Elections (23)
  • Civil Rights (22)
  • Media (22)
  • Law (21)
  • Environment (21)
  • Culture (21)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (21)
  • Josh Duggar (20)
  • Science (19)
  • Labor (18)
  • Marriage Equality (16)
  • Ireland (16)
  • Economy (16)
  • 2016 (15)
  • Bernie Sanders (15)
  • Climate Change (15)
  • Hillary Clinton (15)
  • Health Care (14)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site