General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAmerican democracy belongs to the billionaires now
Long, but interesting read.
"...With three 2016 debates down and six more scheduled, the two fundraisers with the most surprising amount in common are Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. Neither has billionaire-infused super PACs, but for vastly different reasons. Bernie has made it clear billionaires wont ever hold sway in his court. While Trump... well, you know, hes not only a billionaire but has the knack for getting the sort of attention that even billions cant buy.
Regarding the rest of the field, each candidate is counting on the reliability of his or her own arsenal of billionaire sponsors and corporate nabobs when the you-know-what hits the fan. And at this point, believe it or not, thanks to the Supreme Courts Citizens United decision of 2010 and the super PACs that arose from it, all the billionaires arent even nailed down or faintly tapped out yet. In fact, some of them are already preparing to jump ship on their initial candidate of choice or reserving the really big bucks for closer to game time, when only two nominees will be duking it out for the White House.
Capturing this drama of the billionaires in new ways are TV networks eager to profit from the latest eyeball-gluing version of election politicking and the billions of dollars in ads that will flood onto screens nationwide between now and November 8th. As super PACs, billionaires, and behemoth companies press their influence on what used to be called our democracy, the modern debate system, now a 16-month food fight, has become the political equivalent of the NFL playoffs. In turn, soaring ratings numbers, scads of ads, and the party infighting that helps generate them now translate into billions of new dollars for media moguls.
For your amusement and mine, this being an all-fun-all-the-time election campaign, lets examine the relationships between our twenty-first-century plutocrats and the contenders who have raised $5 million or more in individual contributions or through super PACs and are at 5% or more in composite national polls. Ill refrain from using the politically correct phrases that feed into the illusion of distance between super PACs that allegedly support candidates causes and the candidates themselves, because in practice there is no distinction..."
The article continues with the list of candidates, and where their money comes from. Also, how much the networks are raking in from ad revenue.
http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/176097/tomgram%3A_nomi_prins%2C_the_big_money_and_what_it_means_in_election_2016/#more
SamKnause
(13,108 posts)hobbit709
(41,694 posts)Petrushka
(3,709 posts)RKP5637
(67,111 posts)imaginary wealth for themselves, and vote accordingly, still wondering where "their" pot of gold is to be found.