Once the Republican party finishes it’s grueling primary it is likely that Mitt Romney will be the GOP’s Presidential nominee. And while he may try to etch left and sketch right – one thing will not change…his campaign will be mostly funded by very wealthy and powerful interests – hedge fund managers, CEO’s and billionaires. Right now – Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum are trying to prove who is the most conservative candidate.
Both Romney and Santorum are trying to prove who will increase defense spending the most, give the largest tax cuts for the wealthy, slash government services i.e. Medicare, Medicaid, investments in education etc. to their smallest possible budgets. In return – they want the finacial support of America’s wealthiest; it’s a race to the bottom. What we have seen in the primary is nothing compared to what we’re going to see when all of these billionaires coalesce together with one common goal…to unseat President Obama. Of course – there is a word for this: Plutocracy – a government by, for and of the wealthy. There is one ray of light hidden in all of this darkness – it’s called Van Hollen vs. the FEC and the court just ruled two days ago.
Politico showcases just how concentrated the wealth is:
Just 17 million dollar-plus donors have shelled out about half of more than $81 million that already has flooded into super PACs supporting Republican presidential hopefuls this election cycle. The vast majority of the big super PAC spenders have remained loyal to a single candidate, according to a POLITICO analysis of the most recent campaign filings. Still, “we all know that once there’s a nominee, it’s amazing how we’re all coalescing around the winner, because everybody wants to be with the winner,” said Bocskor, who is now a fundraising professor at George Washington University
The Sunlight Foundation explains Van Hollen vs. the FEC:
The FEC decided to split the baby, requiring corporations and labor unions to disclose donations, but only when they were “made for the purpose of furthering electioneering communications.” While reasonable-sounding, this regulation in effect has been a disaster for disclosure and undermined BCRA. Why not require corporations who make these expenditures to report all donors? (The law permits corporations to set up a special “segregated” fund from which funds can be drawn so they don’t have to disclose all donations to the general treasury.) How can you tell what a corporation’s “purpose” is? The FEC’s swiss-cheese standard leaves plenty of room to circumvent Congress’s intent.
Videos and graphs in the link.
Source