Halitics this week: The election is just around the corner and Hal Ginsberg says it is as close as it is because of failed Democratic policies. I think Kamala should be 50 points ahead of the mentally disturbed former president, but the race appears too close to call.
If you happen to be the richest person in the world, and your name is Elon Musk, and your net worth is about $250 billion, you can use as much of your money as you’d like to help your favorite presidential candidate win and nobody needs to know about it.
One of the little-known secrets of American politics is that in some cases there is no limit on how much any one person can spend to support their favorite presidential candidate. That’s right, no limit. The Supreme Court, in their 2010 Citizens United and SpeechNow.org decisions, decided that anyone, except foreign nationals and federal contractors can, in effect, spend unlimited amounts of money to help their favorite candidates. It’s actually much worse than that, as we will see shortly.
Sure, there is a nominal spending limit for giving to presidential candidates– the Federal Election Commission this year set the individual limit at $3,300 per person.https://www.fec.gov/updates/fec-announces-2023-2024-campaign-cycle-contribution-limits/ Most Americans would consider that amount to be fair and reasonable–the Supreme Court thinks otherwise.
The Supreme Court, in its ultra-conservative wisdom, ruled that there shouldn’t be any spending limit at all, as long as the money goes through certain kinds of Political Action Committees (PACs) and is not directly coordinated with candidates.
In the United States, a political action committee (PAC) is a tax-exempt organization that pools campaign contributions from members and donates those funds to candidates or legislation. There are special rules and restrictions for the various kinds of PACs, which represent business, labor or ideological interests.
The most egregious of these, “Super PACs,” (not considered a political action committees at all), are legally known as Independent Expenditures Only Committees (IEOCs). What makes them special is they can accept unlimited contributions and spend an unlimited amount of money. What makes them especially diabolical is that Super PACs are able to use “dark,” i.e. anonymous, money. https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-a-super-pac-3367928
Sorry, you don’t get to know who these “dark money” donors are. Super PACs are theoretically required to reveal their backers, but they can hide their true source of funding by reporting a non-disclosing nonprofit or shell company as the donor. Individuals can mask their identities and their contributions by giving funds to outside groups which then give the money to a Super PAC. Yes, it is a form of laundering money, with no donation limits and total anonymity.
Our 39th president, Jimmy Carter, understands where we are now.. “It [Citizens United] violates the essence of what made America a great country in its political system. Now it’s just an oligarchy, with unlimited political bribery being the essence of getting the nominations for president or to elect the president. https://hartmannreport.com/p/trump-is-a-whisker-away-from-the-55c
The Brennon Center for Justice, a New York University of Law nonprofit law and public policy institute, alleges “big money dominates U.S. political campaigns to a degree not seen in decades” and is “drowning out the voices of ordinary Americans.”https://www.brennancenter.org/search/?q=Drowning%20out&langcode=en&
And while Super PACs are most visible in federal elections, their influence also extends to state and local races.
If Elon Musk wants Donald Trump to be elected president this November, who will stop him from surreptitiously spending $50 billion or more to help make that happen? The answer: nobody. Certainly not the Supreme Court.
You see, the real “dirty little secret” of American democracy is that we don’t have a democracy. Mirriam Webster defines democracy as “a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections.” Some people prefer the term “republic,” often described as a “representative democracy.” Regardless, we are nowhere close to being a representative democracy
Americans have always believed we have elections to decide our government, because that is what democracies do. In this country the presidential candidate with the most votes should win, right? However, our constitutionally antiquated electoral system, decided otherwise in five previous American elections, including for two of our past three presidents (George W. Bush in 2000 and Donald Trump in 2016). https://www.history.com/news/presidents-electoral-college-popular-vot In those elections the winner of the Electoral College was in fact the loser of the popular vote.
What would be a better description of our political system? Plutocracy (government by the wealthy) would be one, aristocracy (government by the few) would be another.
If most Americans understood how far we are from a real democracy they would be even more upset than they are now. Fundamental, comprehensive change is in order. If we don’t make significant changes that give more clout to ordinary, regular people, we will be stuck with a continuation of the dysfunctional and deteriorating political system we have now. That should be unacceptable.
American democracy’s “Dirty Little Secret” needs to die off in order to make room for the emergence of real democracy.
This election may be America’s last stand against this country becoming, like Hungary and Russia, a full-on oligarchy run of, by, and for the morbidly rich…
“The evil man is a source of fascination; ordinary persons wonder what impels such extremes of conduct. A lust for wealth? A common motive, undoubtedly. A craving for power? Revenge against society? Let us grant these as well. But when wealth has been gained, power achieved and society brought down to a state of groveling submission, what then? Why does he continue? The response must be: the love of evil for its own sake.” — Unspiek, Baron Bodissey
Donald Trump has been found by a jury of his peers to have raped a woman. He’s a traitor who’s embraced foreign dictators, particularly Vladimir Putin, who just sentenced an American to prison while actively bombing a democratic American ally. He’s a convicted criminal who stole money from a children’s cancer charity and scammed students out of millions of dollars. He tried to end American democracy by force. Like Hitler justifying the Holocaust, he claimed some Americans are genetically inferior. And he’s a whisker away from the presidency.
Ever since Citizens United legalized literally unlimited contributions to the new category of political action committees it created (SuperPACs), just in the 15 months from January 2023 to April of 2024 over $8.6 billion was raised for this year’s federal campaigns with over 65% of that money — $5.6 billion — running through PACs.
“It [Citizens United] violates the essence of what made America a great country in its political system. Now it’s just an oligarchy, with unlimited political bribery being the essence of getting the nominations for president or to elect the president. … So now we’ve just seen a complete subversion of our political system as a payoff to major contributors, who want and expect and sometimes get favors for themselves after the election’s over.”
He’s right. But it’s even worse than Carter imagined. Dark money — billions from the morbidly rich and giant corporations, often untraceable — has taken over the entire GOP and is the main weapon being used today against members of the Democratic Party.
It’s also badly distorting public policy.
For example, remember when Donald Trump was outspoken about banning TikTok from America because the app is owned by Chinese billionaires beholden to that nation’s communist government? In August of 2020, he signed an Executive Order that said, in part:
“This data collection [by TikTok] threatens to allow the Chinese Communist Party access to Americans’ personal and proprietary information — potentially allowing China to track the locations of Federal employees and contractors, build dossiers of personal information for blackmail, and conduct corporate espionage.”
Proving the old adage that even a broken clock is right twice a day, Trump was right about TikTok and its owner, ByteDance. Federal lawsuits blocked his ban so it never went into effect, but in the meantime a fellow most Americans have never heard of — Jeffrey Yass — either flew down to Mar-a-Lago and spent time with Trump or met him backstage at an Elon Musk event (media reports conflict).
Yass — the world’s 64th richest person worth an estimated $40 billion — owns Susquehanna International Group, a trading company that owned large blocks of stock in both ByteDance (TikTok’s parent) and Digital World Acquisition Corporation, the company that merged back in March with Trump Media & Technology Group just as that company was desperately running out of cash.
Reportedly, the merger not only prevented Trump’s Truth Social app from going bankrupt but also let Trump take the combined company public, putting an estimated 3 billion dollars in his own personal pocket.
Even more interesting, given Yass’ holding $15 billion in ByteDance stock — the largest holding outside China, representing 7% of the company’s stock — after the Trump/Yass meeting the former President suddenly reversed his opposition to TikTok. As ABC News reported at the time:
“[T]he former president has been rebuilding his relationship with a GOP megadonor who reportedly has a major financial stake in the popular social media platform.”
And that megadonor has been busy.
While Pennsylvania-based Yass’ entire donation portfolio to Republican politicians was reported as a mere $78,000 in 2012, this year he’s the nation’s second largest political donor, reportedly having dropped more than $80,000,000 in support of Republicans over the past few months. He’s spent more in Pennsylvania than the top 10 corporate PACs combined, according to the All Eyes on Yasscampaign.
You and I have one vote each, and are limited to giving a maximum of $3,300 to any one political candidate. Pretty much every penny after that falls into the simple category of dark money, or potential dark money.
And America’s billionaires and corporations are pouring billions of that dark money into PACs and SuperPACs that are, right now, flooding the nation’s airways with attack ads against Democrats.
How did it come to this?
In 2010, five corrupt Republicans on the Supreme Court made it super easy for billionaires to give lavish gifts and support to Supreme Court justices and members of Congress. Their Citizens United decision blew open the doors to a bizarre new era of dark money-driven oligarchy in America.
A report from Americans for Tax Fairness details the damage these democracy-destroying decisions, made by SCOTUS members who, themselves, were at the time being groomed by billionaires, have done to our political system.
This is the brave new world Clarence Thomas’ tie-breaking vote brought America when the Supreme Court, in their 2010 Citizens United decision, legalized both political bribery and massive intervention in elections by corporations and billionaires.
Prior to Thomas’ vote on that decision, Harlan Crow — who helped financethe original Swift Boat attacks on John Kerry in 2004 — and other billionaires had lavished millions on him and his family.
Crow gave the group that Thomas’ wife, Ginni, started a half million dollars; he bought Thomas’ mother’s home and others in the neighborhood so she could live rent-free for the rest of her life; he put Thomas’ nephew through an expensive prep school. Another billionaire bought Thomas a quarter-million-dollar luxury RV.
It was a remarkably successful investment for Crow, his family, and his billionaire buddies. Just his own family’s political contributions went from an average of a few hundred thousand dollars a year during the decade preceding 2010 to multiple millions every year after Thomas’ vote. Americans for Tax Fairness calculated it at an 862% increase just for the Crow family.
In 2010, the year of the Citizens Uniteddecision, all of America’s billionaires together spent a mere $31 million on elections: There were still substantial limits on dark money in American politics.
That number jumped to $231 million in the 2012 and 2014 elections, and over $600 million for both 2016 and 2018.
The dark money blowout came in 2020, when Trump was running for re-election and there was a very real chance the billionaires could seize complete control of our federal government.
They spent a total of $2,362,000,000 in that election, with $1.2 billion of it going to elect conventional politicians who would then be beholden to their patrons.
“The report finds that almost 40% of all billionaire campaign contributions made since 1990 occurred during the 2020 season. Billionaires had a lot more money to give politicians and political causes in 2020 as their collective wealth jumped by nearly a third, or over $900 billion, to $3.9 trillion between the March beginning of the pandemic and a month before Election Day.
“Billionaire fortunes have continued to climb since: as of October 2021, billionaires were worth $5.1 trillion, more than a 20-fold increase in their collective fortune since 1990, when it stood at $240 billion, adjusted for inflation.
“These campaign donations are a profitable investment: they buy access to politicians and influence over tax and other policies that can save tycoons billions of dollars. While that $1.2 billion ‘investment’ in 2020 was massive, it totaled less than 0.1% of billionaire wealth (and less than one day’s worth of their pandemic wealth growth), leaving almost unlimited room for future growth in billionaire campaign spending.”
And this year will be far worse, once the dark money numbers come in this winter. As NBC News tells us:
“Political ad spending is projected to reach new heights by the end of the 2024 election cycle, eclipsing $10 billion in what would amount to the most expensive two years in political history.”
While Thomas Jefferson was still the US envoy to France and living in Paris, just after the Constitution had been written but a year before it would be ratified, John Adams wrote him on December 6, 1778 arguing that Jefferson’s fear of a strongman president wasn’t as big a concern as Adams’ fear of rich people corrupting American politics:
“You are afraid of the one — I, of the few. We agree perfectly that the many should have a full fair and perfect Representation. — You are Apprehensive of Monarchy; I, of Aristocracy.”
Today, if Trump is reelected, we will have both.
Kamala Harris has made it clear that if she’s elected her first order of business will be to pass the For The People Act, which will overturn large parts of Citizens United and again regulate dark money in politics.
That’s probably why our airwaves are currently saturated with hit-piece ads against Harris and other Democrats — paid for by shady dark money PACs — that make GHW Bush’s Willie Horton ads seem tame.
Rightwing billionaires are nearly in control of our government — and easily control the Republicans on the Supreme Court and in Congress — but now they want all of it. And they sure as hell don’t want to have to cough up the taxes to pay for our government.
This election may be America’s last stand against this country becoming, like Hungary and Russia, a full-on oligarchy run of, by, and for a small, malevolent group of the morbidly rich. But, to paraphrase Jim Morrison’s 60’s protest anthem: They got the money, but we got the numbers.
And now we must turn out those numbers if our democracy is to survive this all-out assault by a handful of obscenely rich people who think, as does billionaire-funded Curtis Yarvin (JD Vance’s favorite philosopher) that we should just all “get over” our “dictator phobia.”
On Halitics today, Hal Ginsberg insists on voting for Jill Stein, insisting we need to give up on the Republican and Democratic parties. I say no, insisting that any votes for Stein would hurt Harris, and therefore help Trump. This country would never survive another Trump presidency. I’m hoping Harris would be even better than Biden, but there’s only one way to find out.
We discuss Israel and Pete Rose, too. Does Charlie Hustle deserve to be in the Hall of Fame?
I’m happy and not surprised with The NY Times endorsement. They surely weren’t going to endorse Trump. Hal is not happy and would prefer a 3rd party endorsement, like Jill Stein. My Tuesday appearance with Hal Ginsberg on Halitics also had discussion about the mess in the Mideast, and the VP debate that evening.
As usual, Hal condemns both candidates and I try to convince him that one of them would be an utter disaster. Not hard to guess whom. My weekly Monday appearance on Halitics produced the usual disagreements with host Hal Ginsberg. Hal continues his strong condemnation of Israel’s aggressive policy in Gaza, and now we see a new kind of high-tech warfare against Hezbollah. Yikes! Will it ever end?
The presidential election (with Trump, Harris, and Hal’s favorite, Jill Stein) is about 7 weeks away so the political world is in an upheaval. Hal Ginsberg and I talk about how Trump seems to be having a meltdown, and Taylor Swift and immigrants eating pets are big topics. Besides the election, Hal has no problem with Trump’s unwillingness to declare he wants Ukraine to defeat Russia. I take a different view.
Donald Trump unleashed new invective at superstar Taylor Swift after she endorsed VP Kamala Harris for president.
“I HATE TAYLOR SWIFT!” Trump posted Sunday morning on Truth Social in his trademark all-caps style, without context or elaboration.
Responding to Trump in a post on X (formerly Twitter), Liz Cheney — the Republican former congressional representative who is backing Harris — quoted his comment and wrote, “Says the smallest man who ever lived,” referencing a track from Swift’s most recent album, “The Tortured Poets Department.”
“I’m voting for @kamalaharris because she fights for the rights and causes I believe need a warrior to champion them,” Swift wrote in the IG post in part. “I think she is a steady-handed, gifted leader and I believe we can accomplish so much more in this country if we are led by calm and not chaos.”
Following Swift’s public backing of Harris, Trump claimed, “I was not a Taylor Swift fan” and said “she’ll probably pay a price for it in the marketplace.” During a call in to Fox News’ “Fox & Friends” show, the ex-president instead praised Brittany Mahomes, who is married to Kansas City Chiefs quarterback Patrick Mahomes. Patrick is friends and teammates with Swift’s boyfriend, Travis Kelce, and Swift and Brittany Mahomes were photographed hugging each other at the U.S. Open tennis tournament earlier this month in New York.
“Well I actually like Mrs. Mahomes much better. If you want to know the truth. She’s a big Trump fan. I was not a Taylor Swift fan,” Trump said, when asked about Swift’s endorsement for Harris. “It was only a matter of time. You couldn’t possibly endorse Biden. But she’s a very liberal person. She seems to always endorse a Democrat and she’ll probably pay a price for it in the marketplace. But I like Brittany. Brittany is great. She’s the one I like much better than Taylor Swift. Wife of the great quarterback. I think she’s terrific.”
One day before their one debate Hal Ginsberg and I talk about our choices in the coming presidential election. Hal, dissatisfied with the choices, is sticking with Green Party outsider Jill Stein. I like Kamala, considering if it isn’t her, Trump will be president again, and that would be a disaster. But I want the vice-president to be stronger, and distinguish herself from Joe Biden, especially by holding the Israeli government more accountable for civilian deaths in Gaza and make it more difficult for Netanyahu to continue his failed policies.
thebigpicturereport ™ 