Got democracy?

So you think we still have a democracy? Well, I guess if you interpret the word democracy very loosely, we do. We get to vote for candidates who are selected by their party after we are inundated with fact-free campaign propaganda purchased by special interest groups with enormous amounts of money. Read the following items from The Nation by George Zornick on January 20, 2012, and tell me that money doesn’t own government.

·      

“The amount of independent expenditure and electioneering communication spending by outside groups has quadrupled since 2006. [Center for Responsive Politics]

·       The percentage of spending coming from groups that do not disclose their donors has risen from 1 percent to 47 percent since the 2006 mid-term elections. [Center for Responsive Politics]

·       Campaign receipts for members of the House of Representatives totaled $1.9 billion in 2010—up from $781 million in 1998. [Committee for Economic Development]

·       Outside groups spent more on political advertising in 2010 than party committees—for the first time in at least two decades. [Center for Responsive Politics]

·       A shocking 72 percent of political advertising by outside groups in 2010 came from sources that were prohibited from spending money in 2006. [Committee for Economic Development]

·       In 2004, 97.9 percent of outside groups disclosed their donors. In 2010, 34.0 percent did. [Committee for Economic Development]

·       In 2010, the US Chamber of Commerce spent $31,207,114 in electioneering communications. The contributions for which it disclosed the donors: $0. [Committee for Economic Development]

·       Only 26,783 Americans donated more than $10,000 to federal campaigns in 2010—or, about one in 10,000 Americans. Their donations accounted for 24.3 percent of total campaign donations. [Sunlight Foundation]

·       Average donation from that elite group was $28,913. (The median individual income in America is $26,364) [Sunlight Foundation]

·       Amount the Karl Rove–led Crossroads GPS says it will spend on the 2012 elections: $240 million. [On the Media]

·       Amount that President Obama has raised from the financial sector already for his 2012 re-election: $15.6 million [Washington Post]

When someone says my vote counts I think of going into an ice cream parlor and being told that I can choose any flavor I want, as long as it’s chocolate or vanilla. What about all those other flavors? Oh no, I’m told, they wouldn’t be good for you.

What we have is mega-rich people telling super-rich people to convince middle class people to blame our problems on poor people. I’ve never met a rich person who got that way from mismanaging his money. So the real question is, “why would mega-rich people spend so much to get their candidates elected?”

Do you think it’s just because they are so worried about the country? Or might it be that they support candidates who assure their wealth with favorable rules and minimal regs. Wait, don’t the rich create jobs? Well that’s what one segment of our society would like us to believe. But the facts are that the cash loaded corporations only create jobs when demand for their products or services exceeds their ability to supply at current employment levels.

I’m not arguing for taxing the rich unfairly. Nor am I arguing for re-distribution of  wealth by government fiat. I’m arguing for a return to sanity from the caverns of craziness that we seem to be living in today.

We ran two wars on our credit card while we enacted a tax break for the richest people for the last ten years. Now the same party that gave us this condition wants us to believe that more of the same will get different results. That’s just plain insanity.

Here’s the great question that never seems to be asked: If their economic policies worked, why would they spend so much to keep their candidates in office? If it still hasn’t sunk in, reread the above numbers.

Robert DeFilippis