This
Shields & Brooks segment touched on the recent GOP presidential
candidates' "audition" to wealthy donors like the Kochs. Good ol' Mitt
"seriously considered" another White House run, but after getting the
cold shoulder from the deep pockets, he has decided against it. So
effectively, a handful of billionaires can seriously influence at least
half of the presidential ticket. Because if a prospective candidate
can't get the Kochs and Adelsons of the world behind them, then there's
no point to continue and compete against the guy who is getting their
money.
And that money comes with a lot of conditions and a short leash. There's no contract guarantees or mulligans. If candidate X takes Koch cash, wins, but isn't governing up to their expectations, Mr. X will get the boot in the next primary challenge from the new stooge that the Kochs hand-picked. So that sends a message that leaders really have to toe the line on the big business/1%ers agenda, or they will be fired. Under that shroud, it makes the possibility of compromise and moderation even less likely.
Many citizens of HK took to the streets for months because they didn't want Beijing telling them which short-list of pro-CCP candidates they could pick from. That wasn't self-determination. Much of the world condemned China's activities. But isn't the exact same thing happening here?
Sure, mega-rich
activists can't change what millions of Americans choose to do on
Election Day, but if they can pretty much dictate which names are on the
ballot, that is the next best thing. And of course this is completely
legal. Some say that money is speech, and therefore shouldn't be
restricted, but at least it should be out in the open (i.e. the public
has the right to know who is giving how much to who). But due to a
charity loophole, we don't know where half of the billions in indirect
campaign funding came from. So is that really "speech" if a person wants
to secretly donate huge sums for a covert agenda? Fine, influence
elections with your money, but have the courage to tell the world what
you stand for - and face the consequences for it. But no, they want to
have their cake and eat it too. Because they are special, elite, and
make their own rules.
And that money comes with a lot of conditions and a short leash. There's no contract guarantees or mulligans. If candidate X takes Koch cash, wins, but isn't governing up to their expectations, Mr. X will get the boot in the next primary challenge from the new stooge that the Kochs hand-picked. So that sends a message that leaders really have to toe the line on the big business/1%ers agenda, or they will be fired. Under that shroud, it makes the possibility of compromise and moderation even less likely.
Many citizens of HK took to the streets for months because they didn't want Beijing telling them which short-list of pro-CCP candidates they could pick from. That wasn't self-determination. Much of the world condemned China's activities. But isn't the exact same thing happening here?
No comments:
Post a Comment