The latest Rolling Stone has an interesting if not depressing article by Matt Taibbi.
He postulates that both candidates have been bought and paid for, and that it may be we, the average American, stuck with the bill.
The truth is that the campaigns of both Barack Obama and John McCain are being inundated with cash from more or less exactly the same gorgons of the corporate scene. From Wall Street to the Big Oil powerhouses to the military-industrial complex, America's fat-cat business leaders know that the Animal House-style party of the last eight years that made almost all of them rich with bonuses, government contracts and bubble profits is about to come to an end, and someone is going to have to pay to clean up the mess.
We all have read about McCain's fundraising problems and questionable practices, so if you want more of that feel free to read the article in full.
For my purposes, I'll be taking a peek at Obama's part in all of this.
Overall, Obama is flat-out kicking McCain's ass when it comes to Wall Street contributions, raking in nearly $9 million from securities and investment executives, compared to $6.2 million for McCain. Obama has received more contributions from Goldman Sachs than from any other employer — more than $627,000 at this writing — not to mention $398,021 from JP Morgan Chase, $353,922 from Lehman Brothers and $291,388 from Morgan Stanley.
Taibbi asks the obvious question, namely, why would huge corporations like the above throw money into Obama's coffers when he has promised to remove billions in tax breaks from them?
Sadly, the answer to that question increasingly appears to be that Obama is, well, full of shit.
Depressing, but by no means certain. Much of Taibbi's predictions or points are based on guesstimates, which are based on how business is usually done in politics. It's all speculation, but the speculation is backed by billions of dollars of investments that corporations have made into our politicians.
Now, I'm by NO MEANS saying that Taibbi is right and Obama is going to sell us out. He still has around 45% of his donations coming from people who gave under $200, and no one can deny his popularity or the intensity of his supporters' enthusiasm.
But as much as the campaign may want to emphasize the "small donor" aspect of the campaign while simultaneously de-emphasizing the amount of "big donors" they have, they cannot fully distance themselves from the millions raked in from the Usual Suspects of big businesses and corporations.
As I said above (and as Taibbi allowed a couple of times), these big businesses are obviously hedging their bets, trying to buy influence from both candidates. It's the smart thing for them to do, by the way.
Think about it: in the past 8 years, businesses have seen record tax breaks, record profits and record deregulations from Bushco. This allowed them to, as Warren Gunnels, a senior policy adviser to Sen. Bernie Sanders, said:
"In financial terms, they were playing blackjack at tables where they themselves were the dealers, in casinos they themselves owned."
A pretty sweet deal while it lasted, but unfortunately for them, the good times are over. People are pissed, Bush is on his way out, and all indications are that we'll be cheering as President Obama gives what will no doubt be an amazing inaugural address.
Why the hell wouldn't they try and buy some favor right now? It's the smart thing to do, and Obama has hired several folks who have pretty strong ties to big businesses (including two former Fannie Mae chairmen) which seems to indicate that their money has pushed him into the direction they want.
But none of this is certain, and I think it would be irresponsible to speculate that Obama will bail out big businesses and give cushy, gentle reforms, allowing them to reap the benefits of all that they've done while removing the likelihood of punishment.
If we truly are a reality based community, we have to understand and allow that Obama will hire and come into contact with these sorts of people, the Bottom Line Bunch. It's unavoidable that he will take their money, it's a near certainty that there will be advisors with such ties.
So I'm not as distressed or pessimistic about this as Taibbi is. I fully expect Obama's policies to benefits those who need them, not the corporate fat cats.
But whether or not you accept Taibbi's pessimism as likely or even as possible, one cannot help but agree with his words here:
For all the excitement that Barack Obama has garnered, and all the talk about a new day in Washington, it would be tragic if the real legacy of his election victory was to finally expose the essentially unchanging, oligarchic nature of our political system.
Indeed, it would be a tragedy. It would have the power to disillusion millions of voters, the power to grind a movement to a screeching halt. As unlikely as it is for Obama to flip so abruptly and completely (I would go as far as to say it's damn impossible), we also have to remember that humans make mistakes, and no one is more human than a politician.
We should remind Obama that we are here and expect to be heard, that we expect our seat at the table to be one FAR more important than that of the corporations who have been fucking us over without any consequences for the past 8 years.
We have to remind him with donations, with support, with our words and with votes.
And, most important of all, with our passion.