![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
luzribeiro.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsHey, the monthly subject is money in politics, right? OK then...
Newt Gingrich and Super PACs. Discuss.
Kidding... Well, I think THE Newt has something like a guardian angel of some sorts. In the form of a rich tycoon named Sheldon Adelson who for some reason adores The Newt. See, our angel owns several casinos in Vegas. And he's such a big fan of The Newt that he keeps opening his wallet again and again, and splashing millions to prop up his fave Newtster. Like last week when he dug up $10 million and donated it to Newt's super-PAC (which he does not collaborate with in any way whatsoever, huh huh). In fact Newt would've probably dropped out of the race a looong time ago if it wasn't for his wealthy guardian angel. Just look at his record: he only won 2 states, one of them his own home state Georgia. Virtually everywhere else he's come way behind the frontrunners. Curiously, Mr Richy-Angel has said himself that he's against wealthy people tilting the election in one way or another, but he also added that he'll keep doing that same thing, as long as it's allowed by law. And there's the catch. "It's wrong but it's allowed, so I'm in!" Very convenient.
Of course the US election law says that individuals and corporations cannot donate more than $2000 to a politician's campaign - at least not directly. And here's the catch. Because, you see, actually Adelson ain't giving the money directly to Newt, nah... he's just funding a group called Winning Our Future, which happens to be what we now call a super political action committee (super-PAC). A brand new species in the political zoo.
As many may know, the law that regulates how much can be donated to politicians dates back to the 70s, just after Watergate. The idea was that money corrupts and big contributions could be seen as a form of bribery. Which is why foreigners cannot donate to US politicians btw. And that makes sense of course. But some smart-heads who are magicians in the law-twisting and law-crafting biz were sure to find loopholes in that law pretty soon, as is always their job. For instance they figured they could create political committees that were dedicated to a single topic or purpose, or maybe two at the most. And of course that was OK with the freedom of speech.
In 2004 these groups got in the focus when the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth made a huge campaign (including negative ads) againt Kerry, questioning his own account on his participation in Vietnam. It worked pretty well, Kerry quickly lost a lot of his popularity and eventually, the election too. Subsequently one of those groups was sued for alleged crimes against the election law. The verdict was that it was fined by then the case reached as high as the SCOTUS. And the SCOTUS eventually allowed this kind of support. But they didn't just stop there. In reality they gave any individual, company or union the right to finance these new super-PACs, provided they didn't "coordinate directly" in their activities with the politician they were supporting. An indirect form of support, so to speak.
Even then there were dire warnings about the implications from such a decision. Obama was against too, and lots of Democrats resisted the new law. The GOP was mostly in favor, because they regarded the super-PACs a chance to counter the Dems' ability of harnessing contributions in other ways (through small contributions from the general public which the GOP had difficulties with). In 2008 when he was running for Prez, Obama was among the first to reject government campaign contributions during elections. That sort of supports the limits on how much money could be used. If you renounce support, that means there are no limits.
So in a weird way Obama opened the flood gates, and that combined with SCOTUS's decision, to bring a grotesque result. The result is not pretty at all now, and it's exactly what many had feared. A large chunk of the support now comes from a tiny clique of super-wealthy donors. In fact Newt is not the only one being in the pockets of the richy-rich. Peter Thiel, the co-founder of PayPal has quietly donated $ 2.5 million to a Ron Paul super-PAC called Endorse Liberty; Santorum's super-PAC Red White & Blue Found has received $ 1 mill from Foster Friess (the latter once joked that "You shouldn't tell my wife how much I've given him, she's gonna kill me"; well, he also dropped some other jokes about women and pills which weren't as enjoyable and even backfired a bit on Santorum himself, but Santorum copped out by saying Friess wasn't directly involved with his campaign, so yeah)...
Granted, the campaigns also collect money in the old-fashioned way - whoever is able to persuade large numbers of people to donate, and not everyone is. And granted, a lot of that money is needed to run the technical part of the campaign: like staff salaries, traveling expenses, hotel rents and of course TV ads. All that deserves to be transparent to the public. And there's of course the condition that the respective candidate should say "I am X and I approve of this message" at the end of every ad. But what about the super-PAC ads? That condition doesn't exist there. A candidate doesn't have to identify themselves with such an ad, after all it's completely "independent", right? And that's what has allowed some pretty nasty ads to appear under the hat of those super-PACs. Because they can afford to be more negative. I wouldn't hasten to judge on this campaign and whether it's been the most negative one in history, because I don't have so much info myself. So I'll leave this on you to judge. But from a foreigner's standpoint, it does come across as extremely, even ridiculously negative, sometimes juvenile and grotesque. And I'm saying it as someone whose country is not exempt of political shit-slinging and hits under the belt, either. But I'd at least argue that super-PACs having their hands almost completely untied by the lack of restrictions of association, has contributed to this tendency. Not that people are that stupid as to not figure out who's who, and who's connected with whom, but still something tells me they're enjoying all this circus.
WashPo recently concluded that the present campaign will be much tougher than the one the GOP had in 2008. Back then 6% of the ads were negative between the Republicans. Now that per cent is near 50%, Romney and his Restore Our Future super-PAC being the most blatant side in this respect. When Gingrich took the lead for a while in December (around the Iowa polls), the mud-slinging commenced instantaneously, and ROF super-PAC was the primary gun doing the firing.
Ron Paul's super-PAC was sure to follow suit too, it practically did some nice job for Romney for quite a while, and this provoked Newt to start firing back because the negative campaign from all sides was quickly sinking him. Then the GOP talking heads (many of them using FOX) ran a ruler across his knuckles saying that he was unnecessarily eroding the Republican discourse - how funny, isn't it? In result of all that, Santorum was the big winner and from an obscure candidate he started climbing up and now he's Romney's primary rival. But he wasn't spared the mud slinging either, as soon as he raised his head a bit in the polls.
All of this is justly making the Republicans very concerned about their candidates tearing each other apart (but we also remember the fight between Obama and Hillary that got dirty towards the end). Gingrich's Winning Our Future super-PAC has said there was initially a lot of enthusiasm in the GOP but by the time Romney has finished his rivals there won't be anyone left to fight Obama because everyone will be deadly bruised and tired.
On the other hand, there's the argument that this fighting will toughen the nominee for the general election, and Obama might not be fully aware of what's coming at him. I don't know really, I'm split on this.
But the super-PACs turning the campaign into a huge mud slinging contest is not the only problem. Realistically, all the money and all those ads make it possible for Newt to stay in the competition way beyond his capabilities, his capacities and actual popularity. The weird rules about the distribution of delegates were also re-made for this election and it's another reason for the candidates keeping on with the fighting as long as they have the cash resources, regardless of the actual poll results. The possible result could be that this year's GOP nomination might not be decided until the Tampa convention, a thing that hasn't happened in a while.
And on a side note, an open convention could mean that anyone could run for nomination, including some weird birds like one very (inf)famous Grizzly Momma from Alaska (lol, I sooo much hope she will just for the lulz!)
And that's just the primaries, folks. The real big battle is in autumn. The real thing. And guess what? Obama, who at first was firmly against the super-PACs and the SCOTUS decision, has now changed his mind and said he'd be "compelled" to accept a super-PAC kind of support, if he's to keep up with his contender in the big race at all. He'll have to play by the dirty rules if he's to survive, that's his argument. How very convenient, right? And we do know that there's no shortage of super-wealthy Democrats, either. So we're headed towards a super-PAC mega-war between both sides.
So the scene is already arranged for a very dirty campaign with lots of shady money in it, money whose donors will be sure to rub it into the faces of their respective chosen puppets, and to remind them of it later and ask for big favors. It's like betting on horses and hoping for return. Of course it has always been like that, but now it'll be brought to unseen heights (lows?) That's the nice price that'll have to be paid for this sacred cow that's the Freedom of Speech that always serves as a mantra and an excuse for everything. Well, at least according to the SCOTUS and all those happy wealthy chaps sitting in their offices and rubbing their hands in delight in wait of the big circus. And meanwhile, the common folk will still be living in the sweet delusion that they're having a "Democracy".
Newt Gingrich and Super PACs. Discuss.
Kidding... Well, I think THE Newt has something like a guardian angel of some sorts. In the form of a rich tycoon named Sheldon Adelson who for some reason adores The Newt. See, our angel owns several casinos in Vegas. And he's such a big fan of The Newt that he keeps opening his wallet again and again, and splashing millions to prop up his fave Newtster. Like last week when he dug up $10 million and donated it to Newt's super-PAC (which he does not collaborate with in any way whatsoever, huh huh). In fact Newt would've probably dropped out of the race a looong time ago if it wasn't for his wealthy guardian angel. Just look at his record: he only won 2 states, one of them his own home state Georgia. Virtually everywhere else he's come way behind the frontrunners. Curiously, Mr Richy-Angel has said himself that he's against wealthy people tilting the election in one way or another, but he also added that he'll keep doing that same thing, as long as it's allowed by law. And there's the catch. "It's wrong but it's allowed, so I'm in!" Very convenient.
Of course the US election law says that individuals and corporations cannot donate more than $2000 to a politician's campaign - at least not directly. And here's the catch. Because, you see, actually Adelson ain't giving the money directly to Newt, nah... he's just funding a group called Winning Our Future, which happens to be what we now call a super political action committee (super-PAC). A brand new species in the political zoo.
As many may know, the law that regulates how much can be donated to politicians dates back to the 70s, just after Watergate. The idea was that money corrupts and big contributions could be seen as a form of bribery. Which is why foreigners cannot donate to US politicians btw. And that makes sense of course. But some smart-heads who are magicians in the law-twisting and law-crafting biz were sure to find loopholes in that law pretty soon, as is always their job. For instance they figured they could create political committees that were dedicated to a single topic or purpose, or maybe two at the most. And of course that was OK with the freedom of speech.
In 2004 these groups got in the focus when the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth made a huge campaign (including negative ads) againt Kerry, questioning his own account on his participation in Vietnam. It worked pretty well, Kerry quickly lost a lot of his popularity and eventually, the election too. Subsequently one of those groups was sued for alleged crimes against the election law. The verdict was that it was fined by then the case reached as high as the SCOTUS. And the SCOTUS eventually allowed this kind of support. But they didn't just stop there. In reality they gave any individual, company or union the right to finance these new super-PACs, provided they didn't "coordinate directly" in their activities with the politician they were supporting. An indirect form of support, so to speak.
Even then there were dire warnings about the implications from such a decision. Obama was against too, and lots of Democrats resisted the new law. The GOP was mostly in favor, because they regarded the super-PACs a chance to counter the Dems' ability of harnessing contributions in other ways (through small contributions from the general public which the GOP had difficulties with). In 2008 when he was running for Prez, Obama was among the first to reject government campaign contributions during elections. That sort of supports the limits on how much money could be used. If you renounce support, that means there are no limits.
So in a weird way Obama opened the flood gates, and that combined with SCOTUS's decision, to bring a grotesque result. The result is not pretty at all now, and it's exactly what many had feared. A large chunk of the support now comes from a tiny clique of super-wealthy donors. In fact Newt is not the only one being in the pockets of the richy-rich. Peter Thiel, the co-founder of PayPal has quietly donated $ 2.5 million to a Ron Paul super-PAC called Endorse Liberty; Santorum's super-PAC Red White & Blue Found has received $ 1 mill from Foster Friess (the latter once joked that "You shouldn't tell my wife how much I've given him, she's gonna kill me"; well, he also dropped some other jokes about women and pills which weren't as enjoyable and even backfired a bit on Santorum himself, but Santorum copped out by saying Friess wasn't directly involved with his campaign, so yeah)...
Granted, the campaigns also collect money in the old-fashioned way - whoever is able to persuade large numbers of people to donate, and not everyone is. And granted, a lot of that money is needed to run the technical part of the campaign: like staff salaries, traveling expenses, hotel rents and of course TV ads. All that deserves to be transparent to the public. And there's of course the condition that the respective candidate should say "I am X and I approve of this message" at the end of every ad. But what about the super-PAC ads? That condition doesn't exist there. A candidate doesn't have to identify themselves with such an ad, after all it's completely "independent", right? And that's what has allowed some pretty nasty ads to appear under the hat of those super-PACs. Because they can afford to be more negative. I wouldn't hasten to judge on this campaign and whether it's been the most negative one in history, because I don't have so much info myself. So I'll leave this on you to judge. But from a foreigner's standpoint, it does come across as extremely, even ridiculously negative, sometimes juvenile and grotesque. And I'm saying it as someone whose country is not exempt of political shit-slinging and hits under the belt, either. But I'd at least argue that super-PACs having their hands almost completely untied by the lack of restrictions of association, has contributed to this tendency. Not that people are that stupid as to not figure out who's who, and who's connected with whom, but still something tells me they're enjoying all this circus.
WashPo recently concluded that the present campaign will be much tougher than the one the GOP had in 2008. Back then 6% of the ads were negative between the Republicans. Now that per cent is near 50%, Romney and his Restore Our Future super-PAC being the most blatant side in this respect. When Gingrich took the lead for a while in December (around the Iowa polls), the mud-slinging commenced instantaneously, and ROF super-PAC was the primary gun doing the firing.
Ron Paul's super-PAC was sure to follow suit too, it practically did some nice job for Romney for quite a while, and this provoked Newt to start firing back because the negative campaign from all sides was quickly sinking him. Then the GOP talking heads (many of them using FOX) ran a ruler across his knuckles saying that he was unnecessarily eroding the Republican discourse - how funny, isn't it? In result of all that, Santorum was the big winner and from an obscure candidate he started climbing up and now he's Romney's primary rival. But he wasn't spared the mud slinging either, as soon as he raised his head a bit in the polls.
All of this is justly making the Republicans very concerned about their candidates tearing each other apart (but we also remember the fight between Obama and Hillary that got dirty towards the end). Gingrich's Winning Our Future super-PAC has said there was initially a lot of enthusiasm in the GOP but by the time Romney has finished his rivals there won't be anyone left to fight Obama because everyone will be deadly bruised and tired.
On the other hand, there's the argument that this fighting will toughen the nominee for the general election, and Obama might not be fully aware of what's coming at him. I don't know really, I'm split on this.
But the super-PACs turning the campaign into a huge mud slinging contest is not the only problem. Realistically, all the money and all those ads make it possible for Newt to stay in the competition way beyond his capabilities, his capacities and actual popularity. The weird rules about the distribution of delegates were also re-made for this election and it's another reason for the candidates keeping on with the fighting as long as they have the cash resources, regardless of the actual poll results. The possible result could be that this year's GOP nomination might not be decided until the Tampa convention, a thing that hasn't happened in a while.
And on a side note, an open convention could mean that anyone could run for nomination, including some weird birds like one very (inf)famous Grizzly Momma from Alaska (lol, I sooo much hope she will just for the lulz!)
And that's just the primaries, folks. The real big battle is in autumn. The real thing. And guess what? Obama, who at first was firmly against the super-PACs and the SCOTUS decision, has now changed his mind and said he'd be "compelled" to accept a super-PAC kind of support, if he's to keep up with his contender in the big race at all. He'll have to play by the dirty rules if he's to survive, that's his argument. How very convenient, right? And we do know that there's no shortage of super-wealthy Democrats, either. So we're headed towards a super-PAC mega-war between both sides.
So the scene is already arranged for a very dirty campaign with lots of shady money in it, money whose donors will be sure to rub it into the faces of their respective chosen puppets, and to remind them of it later and ask for big favors. It's like betting on horses and hoping for return. Of course it has always been like that, but now it'll be brought to unseen heights (lows?) That's the nice price that'll have to be paid for this sacred cow that's the Freedom of Speech that always serves as a mantra and an excuse for everything. Well, at least according to the SCOTUS and all those happy wealthy chaps sitting in their offices and rubbing their hands in delight in wait of the big circus. And meanwhile, the common folk will still be living in the sweet delusion that they're having a "Democracy".
(no subject)
Date: 14/3/12 06:50 (UTC)