It's stunning that such a language-oriented publication as the New York Times could publish an entire article emphasizing that only 158 families-- less people than could fit on one large passenger jet--have contributed nearly half the money funding the 2016 Presidential campaign, and that it could do so without once mentioning the word "oligarchy."
Full Definition of OLIGARCHY
1
: government by the few
2
: a government in which a small group exercises control especially for corrupt and selfish purposes; also : a group exercising such control
Perhaps the
Times is concerned the word (like its semantic kissing cousin,
"Plutocracy") has too many "negative" connotations or is likely to ruffle some feathers. After all it's the same terminology in vogue to describe the corrupt Billionaires that control the Putin's Russia. And we're nothing like that, right? Or perhaps they would consider it "editorializing" in an article that seems to deliberately shy away from exploring its own implications. Or maybe it's just the fact that these families' mega-mansions pictured in the article bear too close a resemblance to
Thomas Friedman's own residence.
Whatever the reason, it's a curious omission as the word seems to describe the country depicted by the (extremely well-researched) article with complete accuracy. I'm imagining that same jet flying overhead right now, its insanely well-heeled passengers looking down on all of us as they discuss new and improved ways to reap the benefits from their little bought-and-paid-for governments, brainstorming on how to rig the tax code to profit off the labor of the rest of us who can't afford to bend the political process to their whims:
Just 158 families, along with companies they own or control, contributed $176 million in the first phase of the campaign, a New York Times investigation found. Not since before Watergate have so few people and businesses provided so much early money in a campaign, most of it through channels legalized by the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision five years ago.
The overwhelming number of these families support Republicans and Republican policies:
[R]egardless of industry, the families investing the most in presidential politics overwhelmingly lean right, contributing tens of millions of dollars to support Republican candidates who have pledged to pare regulations; cut taxes on income, capital gains and inheritances; and shrink entitlement programs.
Eight of the families in the Houston area live in mansions within 3 square miles of each other. Their names (the full list, ironically, is only available behind the NYT paywall) include Hildebrand, Nau, Sarafim, McNair, Ansary, Kinder. Just imagine that. They walk out in their bathrobes every morning to pick the newspaper, chatting with their neighbor about which Congressman they think needs a little more "encouragement" on that pesky Labor legislation. They throw a block party that same night and discuss over a few beers their plans to eliminate regulation of carbon dioxide on the planet. The next day they all take the same Uber limo to the airport to get on that jet.
Here are some things the Times found out about these families:
* 138 of the families are backing Republican candidates, while only 20 are supporting Democrats. Experts say this disparity is helping counteract the natural demographic shift toward Democratic policies in the US.
* Each of these families has given more than $250,000 toward the election.
* One donor makes $68.5 million per month after taxes, which means his donation of $300,000 to Republican candidates is the equivalent of a $21 donation from an average American family.
* The few neighborhoods where most of these families live would fit within the city limits of New Orleans, have almost no black residents, and have a salary 4.5 times the national average.
* 64 of these families made their fortunes in finance, and another 17 made their money in the energy sector. Only 39 of the families inherited their wealth.
* The three families with the largest total donations are all supporting Ted Cruz.
While the latter point solidly confirms that wealth is no indicator of intelligence, it's the first point that provides the most devastating indictment of what this country has become under a corporate-friendly conservative Supreme Court Majority:
“The campaign finance system is now a countervailing force to the way the actual voters of the country are evolving and the policies they want,” said Ruy Teixeira, a political and demographic expert at the left-leaning Center for American Progress.
That statement, which finds itself buried in the ninth paragraph of the
Times article, pretty much says it all. As the article points out:
Two-thirds of Americans support higher taxes on those earning $1 million or more a year, according to a June New York Times/CBS News poll, while six in 10 favor more government intervention to reduce the gap between the rich and the poor. According to the Pew Research Center, nearly seven in 10 favor preserving Social Security and Medicare benefits as they are.
This is what Americans overhelmingly want--but those 158 families circling the globe in that jet have decided it's not in their interests to "allow" it. So they release their spigots of money to their compliant GOP Congressmen and the will of the American people is quickly drowned. And we wonder why we, the richest country in the world, can't have nice European things like high-speed rail, single-payer health care, paid family leave or even a higher minimum wage.
And the best part is that Americans will never know where all that money came from. Because the vast majority of these people "prefer to remain anonymous:"
Like most of the ultrawealthy, the new donor elite is deeply private. Very few of those contacted were willing to speak about their contributions or their political views. Many donations were made from business addresses or post office boxes, or wound through limited liability corporations or trusts, exploiting the new avenues opened up by Citizens United, which gave corporate entities far more leeway to spend money on behalf of candidates.
Again, the
Times invites us to fill in the blanks. Why would people motivated to spend such enormous amounts of money on the political process be afraid to speak publicly about it? Why do they take the enormous trouble of funneling their money through such opaque instruments to try to hide the transactions from the rest of us? What the hell are they afraid of?
They are also the beneficiaries of political and economic forces that are driving widening inequality: As the share of national wealth and income going to the middle class has shrunk, these families are among those whose share has grown.
Maybe they're afraid of what they'll find on the ground when that jet finally lands.