Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
To worry about these consequences of extreme inequality has nothing to do with being envious of the rich and everything to do with the fear that rapidly growing top incomes are a threat to the wellbeing of everyone else.
Gerrymandering along with our maturing oligarchy supported by the Citizen's United decision have corrupted our election process. We need to address both, hopefully including a provision for publicly financed elections.
Just curious, in response to the question being raised in regards to large donor influence, a common response is to point out how many millionaires are in each party.
I'm wondering why this is a pertinent question, as many on this board no doubt also have a million dollars in assets.
Why is that an important response to the question of donor influence?
Just curious, in response to the question being raised in regards to large donor influence, a common response is to point out how many millionaires are in each party.
How did you determine it is a common response?
Also with all the other content provided why did you select only this one point to focus upon?
Your post as to the number of millionaires in the Democratic congress was a common response, in my opinion, simply due to the fact I've seen it more times than I can count in response to a critique of donor influence. I've asked this same question to others, without a response.
And, as to your second question, I am unfortunately occupied this evening and don't have time for a more full response. But the Kochs plan to spend $1billion on the election. Seems to me, that is somewhat a challenging figure to defend within this argument...and this is before even mentioning the corporate dollars.
And finally, sifting through the detritus on IBD this evening would take more time than I have to devote.
Your post as to the number of millionaires in the Democratic congress was a common response, in my opinion, simply due to the fact I've seen it more times than I can count in response to a critique of donor influence. I've asked this same question to others, without a response.
And, as to your second question, I am unfortunately occupied this evening and don't have time for a more full response.
"I've seen it more times than I can count in" That is probably because the same information is repeated in other articles. That does not mean it is common.
"don't have time for a more full response" This site is open all night - take your time.
"with all the other content provided why did you select only this one point to focus upon?" Not addressed - Why? But, you did write some sort of an answer - curious.
OK, so there are a lot of millionaires who are Democrats, and a lot who are Republicans, and presumably even maybe a lot who are neither. So what? The substance of the original poster's articles deals with WHERE THE MONEY IS ACTUALLY COMING FROM in the ongoing and ever-increasing attempt to buy the US government. And guess what folks: it ain't either Democrats or "neither".
"Democrats represent a majority of the richest congressional districts, and the party’s elected officials are more responsive to the policy agenda of the well-to-do than to average voters. The party and its candidates have come to rely on the elite 0.01 percent of the voting age population for a quarter of their financial backing and on large donors for another quarter."
Because the image isn't dollar-weighted, it isn't all that meaningful.
It's like saying that the average fund ER is 1.19% (by counting all funds, or in the picture above, all boxes, equally). What is meaningful for fund investors is how much the average dollar being invested is charged: 0.64%.
Likewise, the image above should have been scaled according to the dollars they represent. If the 138 families on the left contributed less than the 20 families on the right, that would have been nice to know.
That isn't the case, but you'd never know it from the graphic. Instead, you have to dig into the text of the article to find that the "vast majority of [the money]" contributed by the top 358 families went to "supporting Republicans".
No breakdown is given of the top 158 families, though. One is left to extrapolate.
@ Dex and David, The problem with any analysis is what is known as "dark money" in politics. If say the Koch Brothers decide to give $10 million to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to smear Clinton or George Soros gives $10 million to the Sierra Club to smear Trump, those organizations can keep their donors secret. So this idea that Democrats or Republicans are getting more from billionaires is hard to quantify. Click here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_money And here: nybooks.com/articles/archives/2015/jun/04/how-money-runs-our-politics/ Still, exposing that one side or the other gets more is beside the point. There is too much money in politics from private sources and if giving money is now equivalent to free speech as Citizens United claims, then clearly billionaires get to speak a lot louder now than ordinary citizens like you and I can. It's created an uneven system that threatens our democracy, regardless which political party you belong to.
The use of the word “donation” in this context would be laughable – if we were not talking about how decisions in the Beltway are made. Can we cut through the B.S. and call it what it is: bribery of public officials and corruption of the political process. Yes the bribery and corruption is legal. A law can make anything legal -- that doesn’t change the nature of what is happening. Legislators and presidents make public policy decisions overwhelmingly based on money coming their way, or in expectation of money coming their way. – Or to their backers. Using corporate-speak, policy-makers interests are aligned with the monied class, and not aligned with any else’s, other than on some throw-away social issues, which give the appearance that we have a two-party system.
Which millionaires ( & billionaires) are bribing which party is equivalent to debating which deck chairs on the Titanic looked prettier, the blue or the red. In a non-partisan spirit, I note that Harry Truman (D) left the Oval Office essentially broke. As did Nixon (R) . Later, SCOTUS decided that political spending = political speech. In doing so, they constitutionally-sanctioned bribery and corruption, and have condemned the Republic to a crippled, dysfunctional governmental system. That is where we crossed the Rubicon. Any of you own a car? What makes it “your” car? – You PAID for it, correct? If someone else is paying for your Congressman, your Senators, your President, its delusional to think they are “yours”.
I’d like to be optimistic. I’d like to say there is a solution. But I cannot see it. Though the first step to any solution is to stop blaming “the OTHER party”, acknowledge this is an American problem, and candidly start talking candidly about our political system as endemically corrupt. The air of legitimacy imbued in our rulers (calling them our "representatives" is inaccurate, my Congressman, Senators, President, they don't represent my interest - Does Obama "represent your interest"? Did Bush? ) must be broken, until then nothing will happen. – A slave will never try to break his chains if he deludes himself into thinking he is already free.
@msf, I took the article to be more about the people / families than the dollars and percentages and averages. Not hiding anything or trying to mislead. It's like pointing out Vanguard's success (sort of). Not a dollar breakdown; opensecrets and others do that pretty well, no? See also this: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/election-2016-campaign-money-race.html . And you did read down, into the parsing and 'granularization' by family and source and also the family listings, yes?
>> bribery of public officials and corruption of the political process. Yes the bribery and corruption is legal. ... Legislators and presidents make public policy decisions overwhelmingly based on money coming their way, or in expectation of money coming their way. – Or to their backers. Using corporate-speak, policy-makers interests are aligned with the monied class, and not aligned with any else’s, other than on some throw-away social issues, which give the appearance that we have a two-party system.
Wow, would that it were so! This is not only astonishingly cynical even by today's standards but demonstrably off the mark. Do you honestly believe the rightwingers do not believe what they say about abortion? That Obama pushed for the conservative-founded ACA because of money? That there is no belief system or ideology at work here, rightly or wrongly? That no one believes what he or she says about guns, or defense, the death penalty, or gov social benefits, that they are ticking up their calculations of donations? Seriously? Man, life would be a lot of easier if your dark fantasy were the case.
This has been a problem for decades. Citizens United simply amplified the problem by saying that corporations (and any other entities) have the same rights of speech as individuals.
Buckley offered a fig leaf by maintaining limits on direct contributions. Quoting from Citizens United: "The Buckley Court explained that the potential for quid pro quo corruption distinguished direct contributions to candidates from independent expenditures."
It wasn't until McCutcheon (2014) that this final restriction was removed - the court said in effect that the only limitation allowed was on literal quid pro quo, effectively explicit bribery. Of course that was extremely naive (to be generous), as Edmond points out in his lead paragraph above.
I disagree with Ms. Drew's brief critique of Buckley (one of your references). She asserts that Buckley did not say money equals speech, because "it [] upheld limits on contributions to candidates." All that says is that freedom of speech is not absolute; it does not refute the assertion that money is tantamount to speech.
@davidmoran It seemed to me that OJ offered the graph as evidence that most of the money was going to Republicans. The graph did not support that thesis. Something may be true, but if the evidence presented is only circumstantial, that should be recognized.
The family data linked to in the NYTimes article did not give a breakdown of which families contributed to which party (and for some families, how much to each party).
>> The family data linked to in the NYTimes article did not give a breakdown of which families contributed to which party (and for some families, how much to each party).
@Edmond says it best. It's true, and it sucks. In my hippie days back in the '60s, we were going to transform the world. Until one by one, little by little, we settled for making a little money and getting by. Some figured out that there are ways to make so much money, it would be a full-time job just to keep track of it all. We become convinced that we need X or Y or Z. Choose your poison from this list. (No, it has to be from THIS LIST.) Orwell: "the people were easy to manage, with enough beer and football." Natalie Merchant and 10,000 Maniacs: "Candy Everybody Wants."
Sigh, North, South, East, West, Left, Right, Up, Down, On, Off,,,, No one really wants change except by their perspective of alignment of results. If people agree so much that a problem exists, why don't they harp on the problem and call for solutions with unity of purpose, while, at the same time shunning all attempts to divert attention to a direction chosen by which finger feels like doing a pointy today?
There was more unity of purpose for civil rights back in the day than there is for preservation of democracy today.
@ Dex and David, The problem with any analysis is what is known as "dark money" in politics.
The issue is that the Ds and Rs are really the same. Neither is working for the poor or the common good.
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority* discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy."
*updated to add the rich and influential for today's circumstances.
-------------
Those who get distracted the minor differences between the Rs and Ds really miss the big picture.
This issue in the article below is not about Obama. It is that cronies got the loan guarantees. And it would be foolish to believe that some of that money did not find its way back to the Ds. The Ds gives money to the cronies from the treasury and the cronies give some to the Ds.
>> the minor differences between the Rs and Ds really miss the big picture.
Man, oh man --- you really oughtta get out there and talk to unwealthy people about health insurance and ACA. Many of those people weep with relief.
BO really cannot catch a break with likes as you.
So what is that big picture? Are you still on about gov debt? Is that the worry now? Loan guarantees, really? What's your position on ExIm ? Washington Times, huh.
Your going on sometimes about the rich and plutocrats (not your term) and the poor, and the common good, make me think you have more in common with many posters here than you realize, maybe. But then off the rails your posts go.
>> the minor differences between the Rs and Ds really miss the big picture.
Man, oh man --- you really oughtta get out there and talk to unwealthy people about health insurance and ACA. Many of those people weep with relief.
BO really cannot catch a break with likes as you.
So what is that big picture? Are you still on about gov debt? Is that the worry now? Loan guarantees, really? What's your position on ExIm ? Washington Times, huh.
Your going on sometimes about the rich and plutocrats (not your term) and the poor, and the common good, make me think you have more in common with many posters here than you realize, maybe. But then off the rails your posts go.
Please find the quote where I previously said something negative about BO.
Sorry, you spoke of the minor diffs, your quote, b/w Ds and Rs. ACA is aka Obamacare. It is the man's signature achievement, along with the assassination of bin Laden and the steering of the country post-08 and a great many other things. (Whether one likes him or not, or wishes he were different or better or someone else or something other.) These are not 'minor differences'. But you now think I have misinterpreted you, and maybe so. I apologize for drawing an obvious inference. Withal, you are awfully good --- expert --- at going off point and hairsplitting and nitpicking just to be contrary and oppositional; we all know that. So let me take back my implication: BO can, you indicate, catch a break from you. See if sometime you can demonstrate that, or any similar point. This is all just so so tiresome. And again you did not respond to any of my substantive questions about your take on the big picture. Never mind, I'm not interested anymore.
I have to agree with David regarding ACA/Obamacare. It has improved the lives of many formerly uninsured people not to mention parents and their college-age children who used to get kicked off the family plan at age 18 before the new law. There are certainly differences between both parties but this does not mean that big money in politics is not a huge problem for both parties.
In fact, the ACA illustrates that problem very nicely. There are two sides of the healthcare problem in the U.S.--the demand and the supply side. The law has helped fix part of the demand problem as many people who formerly needed healthcare and couldn't afford it or were denied access to it now can. But in order to get the law passed the Democrats had to make a devil's bargain with the supply side of the problem--the healthcare industry. So pharmaceutical and hospital companies not to mention doctors themselves--whom both sides of the political aisle somehow view as sacrosanct--are still allowed to gouge patients for whatever fees they feel are acceptable in many cases.
What you have with healthcare is a product where so-called "efficient markets" do not work because the demand is largely inelastic and will always exceed supply. The reasons for this are obvious: What wouldn't you pay to save your own life? Buying a life-saving surgery--especially in an emergency situation where there's no time to shop around--is not like buying a hand bag or TV. Most will pay anything they can to save their own or their loved ones lives. The suppliers of this "product" know this. Even worse, because there is no transparency as to pricing with hospitals, you often can't shop around even if you want to and have the time to do so. You walk into a hospital and you have no idea how much the bill will be when you leave.
And the reasons for this lack of transparency and the freedom to gouge those who are sick and least able to negotiate this market is political influence. And that influence can be measured in dollar terms. It impacts both parties so that even if the Democrats succeeded on the demand side, they will continue to fail on the supply without campaign finance reform.
Well, since you won't acknowledge them, I will. God bless those members of the Navy Seals who performed the mission with success. Sadly, the current occupant of the Oval Office took their accomplishment as his own.
Many of those who owned that night cannot respond as they have since gone to their maker. RIP.
Comments
http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/23954/could-the-market-crash-a-reminder-about-the-need-for-media-literacy#latest
The point is this - if your are a truth seeking, intelligent person, you keep an open mind.
As I said before - “Believe only half of what you see and nothing that you hear.”
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2011/04/unions-vs-rich-businessmen-who-funds-democrats
Mike crunched the data, and it turns out that as Democrats have become less dependent on unions, they've become ever-more-dependent on rich businessmen and corporations:
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/040214-695716-democrat-political-donations-outstrip-republicans.htm
Start with Congress itself. Who are the wealthiest members? Well, there are 269 millionaires among Congress' 535 members. And most of them are Democrats
Read More At Investor's Business Daily: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/040214-695716-democrat-political-donations-outstrip-republicans.htm#ixzz3oP3HKECd
Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook
The Real Party of the Rich: Democrats Have More Top Donors, Millionaires in Congress
http://www.ijreview.com/2014/02/116056-wall-street-bankers-top-donors-agree-democrat-party-new-party-rich/
I'm wondering why this is a pertinent question, as many on this board no doubt also have a million dollars in assets.
Why is that an important response to the question of donor influence?
Also with all the other content provided why did you select only this one point to focus upon?
And, as to your second question, I am unfortunately occupied this evening and don't have time for a more full response. But the Kochs plan to spend $1billion on the election. Seems to me, that is somewhat a challenging figure to defend within this argument...and this is before even mentioning the corporate dollars.
And finally, sifting through the detritus on IBD this evening would take more time than I have to devote.
"don't have time for a more full response" This site is open all night - take your time.
"with all the other content provided why did you select only this one point to focus upon?"
Not addressed - Why? But, you did write some sort of an answer - curious.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/07/opinion/how-did-the-democrats-become-favorites-of-the-rich.html
"Democrats represent a majority of the richest congressional districts, and the party’s elected officials are more responsive to the policy agenda of the well-to-do than to average voters. The party and its candidates have come to rely on the elite 0.01 percent of the voting age population for a quarter of their financial backing and on large donors for another quarter."
Graphic from that NY Times article: Republican pile on left (138 families), Democratic on right (20 families):
It's like saying that the average fund ER is 1.19% (by counting all funds, or in the picture above, all boxes, equally). What is meaningful for fund investors is how much the average dollar being invested is charged: 0.64%.
Likewise, the image above should have been scaled according to the dollars they represent. If the 138 families on the left contributed less than the 20 families on the right, that would have been nice to know.
That isn't the case, but you'd never know it from the graphic. Instead, you have to dig into the text of the article to find that the "vast majority of [the money]" contributed by the top 358 families went to "supporting Republicans".
No breakdown is given of the top 158 families, though. One is left to extrapolate.
And here: nybooks.com/articles/archives/2015/jun/04/how-money-runs-our-politics/
Still, exposing that one side or the other gets more is beside the point. There is too much money in politics from private sources and if giving money is now equivalent to free speech as Citizens United claims, then clearly billionaires get to speak a lot louder now than ordinary citizens like you and I can. It's created an uneven system that threatens our democracy, regardless which political party you belong to.
Which millionaires ( & billionaires) are bribing which party is equivalent to debating which deck chairs on the Titanic looked prettier, the blue or the red. In a non-partisan spirit, I note that Harry Truman (D) left the Oval Office essentially broke. As did Nixon (R) . Later, SCOTUS decided that political spending = political speech. In doing so, they constitutionally-sanctioned bribery and corruption, and have condemned the Republic to a crippled, dysfunctional governmental system. That is where we crossed the Rubicon. Any of you own a car? What makes it “your” car? – You PAID for it, correct? If someone else is paying for your Congressman, your Senators, your President, its delusional to think they are “yours”.
I’d like to be optimistic. I’d like to say there is a solution. But I cannot see it. Though the first step to any solution is to stop blaming “the OTHER party”, acknowledge this is an American problem, and candidly start talking candidly about our political system as endemically corrupt. The air of legitimacy imbued in our rulers (calling them our "representatives" is inaccurate, my Congressman, Senators, President, they don't represent my interest - Does Obama "represent your interest"? Did Bush? ) must be broken, until then nothing will happen. – A slave will never try to break his chains if he deludes himself into thinking he is already free.
I took the article to be more about the people / families than the dollars and percentages and averages. Not hiding anything or trying to mislead. It's like pointing out Vanguard's success (sort of). Not a dollar breakdown; opensecrets and others do that pretty well, no? See also this: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/election-2016-campaign-money-race.html . And you did read down, into the parsing and 'granularization' by family and source and also the family listings, yes?
Wow, would that it were so! This is not only astonishingly cynical even by today's standards but demonstrably off the mark. Do you honestly believe the rightwingers do not believe what they say about abortion? That Obama pushed for the conservative-founded ACA because of money? That there is no belief system or ideology at work here, rightly or wrongly? That no one believes what he or she says about guns, or defense, the death penalty, or gov social benefits, that they are ticking up their calculations of donations? Seriously? Man, life would be a lot of easier if your dark fantasy were the case.
Agree with the problem statement (giving money too much free rein). But regarding money as speech, how soon people forget ...
"Buckley v. Valeo [424 U.S. 1 (1976)] is significant for having introduced the notion that spending money on behalf of a candidate or a political party is a form of protected speech."
Encyclopaedia Britannica http://www.britannica.com/event/Buckley-v-Valeo
This has been a problem for decades. Citizens United simply amplified the problem by saying that corporations (and any other entities) have the same rights of speech as individuals.
Buckley offered a fig leaf by maintaining limits on direct contributions. Quoting from Citizens United: "The Buckley Court explained that the potential for quid pro quo corruption distinguished direct contributions to candidates from independent expenditures."
It wasn't until McCutcheon (2014) that this final restriction was removed - the court said in effect that the only limitation allowed was on literal quid pro quo, effectively explicit bribery. Of course that was extremely naive (to be generous), as Edmond points out in his lead paragraph above.
I disagree with Ms. Drew's brief critique of Buckley (one of your references). She asserts that Buckley did not say money equals speech, because "it [] upheld limits on contributions to candidates." All that says is that freedom of speech is not absolute; it does not refute the assertion that money is tantamount to speech.
It seemed to me that OJ offered the graph as evidence that most of the money was going to Republicans. The graph did not support that thesis. Something may be true, but if the evidence presented is only circumstantial, that should be recognized.
The family data linked to in the NYTimes article did not give a breakdown of which families contributed to which party (and for some families, how much to each party).
@MSF- I know, I know. I was hoping that you wouldn't notice... I stuck that up there mostly just to bug another person.
?? --- http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/11/us/politics/wealthy-families-presidential-candidates.html
Sorry, not getting you, so based on past exchanges, I assume I must be missing something.
Orwell: "the people were easy to manage, with enough beer and football."
Natalie Merchant and 10,000 Maniacs: "Candy Everybody Wants."
There was more unity of purpose for civil rights back in the day than there is for preservation of democracy today.
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority* discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy."
*updated to add the rich and influential for today's circumstances.
-------------
Those who get distracted the minor differences between the Rs and Ds really miss the big picture.
This issue in the article below is not about Obama. It is that cronies got the loan guarantees. And it would be foolish to believe that some of that money did not find its way back to the Ds. The Ds gives money to the cronies from the treasury and the cronies give some to the Ds.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/27/obama-backed-green-energy-failures-leave-taxpayers/?page=all
Taxpayers are on the hook for more than $2.2 billion in expected costs from the federal government’s energy loan guarantee programs, according to a new audit Monday that suggests the controversial projects may not pay for themselves, as officials had promised.
>> the minor differences between the Rs and Ds really miss the big picture.
Man, oh man --- you really oughtta get out there and talk to unwealthy people about health insurance and ACA. Many of those people weep with relief.
BO really cannot catch a break with likes as you.
So what is that big picture? Are you still on about gov debt? Is that the worry now? Loan guarantees, really? What's your position on ExIm ? Washington Times, huh.
Your going on sometimes about the rich and plutocrats (not your term) and the poor, and the common good, make me think you have more in common with many posters here than you realize, maybe. But then off the rails your posts go.
Please, give credit where credit is due.
In fact, the ACA illustrates that problem very nicely. There are two sides of the healthcare problem in the U.S.--the demand and the supply side. The law has helped fix part of the demand problem as many people who formerly needed healthcare and couldn't afford it or were denied access to it now can. But in order to get the law passed the Democrats had to make a devil's bargain with the supply side of the problem--the healthcare industry. So pharmaceutical and hospital companies not to mention doctors themselves--whom both sides of the political aisle somehow view as sacrosanct--are still allowed to gouge patients for whatever fees they feel are acceptable in many cases.
What you have with healthcare is a product where so-called "efficient markets" do not work because the demand is largely inelastic and will always exceed supply. The reasons for this are obvious: What wouldn't you pay to save your own life? Buying a life-saving surgery--especially in an emergency situation where there's no time to shop around--is not like buying a hand bag or TV. Most will pay anything they can to save their own or their loved ones lives. The suppliers of this "product" know this. Even worse, because there is no transparency as to pricing with hospitals, you often can't shop around even if you want to and have the time to do so. You walk into a hospital and you have no idea how much the bill will be when you leave.
And the reasons for this lack of transparency and the freedom to gouge those who are sick and least able to negotiate this market is political influence. And that influence can be measured in dollar terms. It impacts both parties so that even if the Democrats succeeded on the demand side, they will continue to fail on the supply without campaign finance reform.
Oh, right, maybe it was some other commander in chief. Missed your snark, glad you chimed in with a shot here. So important.
Well, since you won't acknowledge them, I will. God bless those members of the Navy Seals who performed the mission with success. Sadly, the current occupant of the Oval Office took their accomplishment as his own.
Many of those who owned that night cannot respond as they have since gone to their maker. RIP.