Login Here
David Sirota has done us all a great service by naming some names: who's on the side of the people and who's on the side of the DC/KStreet Elites, or what he calls, the "Money Party?"
David has catchier names for part of what I discussed in this preelection post about our country's three party system. I think my description of how American politics actually works is more accurate, but David's has the benefit of being simpler and easier to explain to people. What he calls the "People Party," I call the "Grassroots Progressives." His "Money Party" corresponds to my "DC/K Street Elites." He does not include in his dialectic the Grassroots Theocrats I mention in some detail.
But David has done a real service in naming names and, by offering rationales for his choices, has helped us further define the metrics and standards that define membership in either of his groups. That's stellar work.
David opens with:
The fact that our nation's politics is divided not between Democrats and Republicans but between the People Party and the Money Party is obvious to anyone who looks at the political system honestly (which is to say, not most journalists or Washington political hacks). Calls for "bipartisanship" and faux "centrism" that has nothing to do with the actual center of American public opinion are most often moves to prevent the political debate from analyzing the People vs. Money divide that actually fuels our politics. We already have plenty of "bipartisanship" - Republicans and a faction of Democrats who regularly join hands to screw over the vast majority of Americans.Many people ask me who? Who are the leading members of both sides of the actual divide? The answer is that there is no official list because no one is forced to formally declare their allegiance to the People Party or the Money Party. But it is fairly obvious which lawmakers in the new majority have specifically defined themselves on economic justice issues. Though this is by no means a comprehensive list, here are the ones to watch in the coming Congress:
Where do the big name Dems shake out (or shake down)? Obama? Hillary? Schumer, Emanuel, Tauscher? Feingold? Tester? Kerry? Hoyer? Lieberman? Webb? Others? As the kids say, go read the whole thing. Then come back and tell us what you think. People may quibble with some marginal choices here or there, but this is a real help to moving the discussion forward. David Sirota deserves great thanks.
Share This 
Spotlight
0?
Steve @
1
You got it!
Congrats, Steve, on #1. And thanks to Sirota for the great information.
I think I have an inkling on who the good guys and gals are. And versa visa. But I shall await the final verdict.
Going to read Sirota’s whole thing, back in a bit.
Off topic, but still a valid question, IMHO: has anyone here read Thomas Malthus?
Anyone else think that his theories are being really put to the test by this administration?
The bad Demos are those who do not want to save lives and money by not closing down Iraq. It is not complicated.
I think Sirota is a bit soft on Obama, who I liked a great deal at first, but has sold out each time it’s counted. Show me some anti-money cajones, then we’ll talk, otherwise I’m not interested.
petedownunder @ 8
on which votes has Obama sold out?
lina @ 9
If you go and read the article Pach linked to there is quite a list, and none where he took what I thought was a pricipled stand against big biz.
Hillary is Money party, and always has been.
1. NAFTA - don’t recall her speaking out against it.
2. Bankruptcy Bill - Voted for it.
3. Sat on the board of Wal Mart.
4. Rose Law Firm - “We represent management in all forms of state and federal litigation involving claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the American with Disabilities Act, and the Family and Medical Leave Act. We practice before governmental agencies, including, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the National Labor Relations Board, the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, the Mine and Safety Health Administration, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and other Department of Labor agencies. We also advise clients on union avoidance, organizing campaigns and union representation elections.”
When you read the rest of the firm’s bona fides,
http://www.roselawfirm.com/
she clearly represented moneyed interests against the public.
Damien @
6
Dickens created Scrooge after finishing Malthus’s “An Essay on the Principle of Population.”
Diogenes at 11, I agree. I know of no example where HRC voted against the money and for the peeps. There may be some, but I can’t think of one.
Sirota is great, although he could be a bit more critical of Obama, Senator of Money and not of Illinois. DHinMI of DailyKos in a fit of jealousy attacks Sirota, as did other mindless orange football players. Tauscher should be primaried, and anyone affiliated with the DLC and NDC should not receive any netroots support, and this includes Karen Carter, a DLC shill the netroots now champions. We ignore Sirota’s article at our own peril.
lina @ 9
Looks like Obama is smokin’ a certain NY DINO right-wing Senator out of her Hill. And for that I am grateful. My impression is Obama would look good on the Demo ticket.
America just needs to wake TFU. We, the Dems, need to stop making nice with K Street and the stupid corporatists.
period.
I firmly believe we need MAJOR and COMPREHENSIVE campaign reform; I believe that we need to do away with donations except directly from individuals, and I believe we need to look at public financing. As long as we need them, I’ll continue to give to PAC’s, but PAC’s are used to compete with money that corporate PAC’s donate.
Let’s look at Obama’s Top 20 Contributors in 2006; what does this data tell you that his voting record might not tell you?
1 Kirkland & Ellis $140,638
2 University of Chicago $139,554
3 Sidley Austin LLP $100,432
4 Henry Crown & Co $79,500
5 Sonnenschein, Nath & Rosenthal $73,250
6 Exelon Corp $71,850
7 Northwestern University $70,430
8 Mayer, Brown et al $65,850
9 Jenner & Block $62,710
10 Soros Fund Management $61,605
11 Goldman Sachs $61,000
12 Clifford Law Offices $59,550
13 Simmons Cooper LLC $58,500
14 Tejas Securities $56,250
15 Ariel Capital Management $55,150
16 JP Morgan Chase & Co $54,300
17 Skadden, Arps et al $51,971
18 Winston & Strawn $51,450
19 Piper Rudnick LLP $45,600
20 Holland Capital Management $41,250
source: OpenSecrets.org
Oklahoma kiddo @ 15
And that is all it is, an impression. Perhaps wait for the debates before forming opinions about the candidates. Unless, of course, you are simply voting on image and not on substance.
angie @ 16
Like she said!
diogenes @ 11
Gee. You’re good!
Maybe I read through this post too fast and remain eager to learn where David found Barbara Boxer in this equation - he clearly ranks DiFi in the money party and no surprise there.
If Sirota ranks BB in the people party, you can’t take him seriously.
Louisiana Girl @ 17
I can assure anyone, I am not going to vote on “image”. No Bulls’t.
newspaperbrat @
20
Sirota’s list is rather incomplete, isn’t it….
Ed*ard Teller @ 23
One cannot expect him to rank each and every single Democrat in one article. But he does provide two analytical categories with which we can operate. Perhaps you can place Boxer in one of Sirota’s categories and explain why you do so.
If real Demos want to root out the problem(s) within the Democratic party, may I respectfully suggest starting with the DLC?
Oklahoma kiddo @ 25
Yes, but also consider their Congressional offshoot, the NDC, or “New Democrat Coalition.”
I think Sirota has a point, but calling them parties is confusing. I think - at least from this post - that he is talking about power, in whose interests that power is used, and the degree to which those in power have been corrupted.
The idea of a “people party” doesn’t make sense to me because it overlooks the huge range of views and values within the population of any country.
I think the old dualities of left/right, liberal/conservative may have outlived their usefulness as well - though I have no idea what could replace them.
Ugh. I’m stuck in mod again. Must be switching IP’s in the same network that does it.
Anyhow, here’s HRC’s Top 20 Donors in 2006. Again, does this list say things that her voting record doesn’t?
1 Citigroup Inc $215,810
2 Goldman Sachs $177,090
3 Metropolitan Life $154,350
4 Corning Inc $133,900
5 Time Warner $130,870
6 JP Morgan Chase & Co $121,075
7 Morgan Stanley $116,060
8 Skadden, Arps et al $99,030
9 Ernst & Young $89,450
10 International Profit Assoc $88,400
11 Viacom Inc $86,980
12 New York Life Insurance $86,250
13 Sullivan & Cromwell $84,350
14 Cablevision Systems $82,800
15 Cendant Corp $75,300
16 Kirkland & Ellis $73,350
17 Akin, Gump et al $66,250
18 Patton Boggs LLP $63,138
19 Lehman Brothers $60,390
20 News Corp $58,775
source: OpenSecrets.org
So ….. is someone in the People Party NEVER supposed to cast a vote that is business-friendly? What if a corporation that employs hundreds or thousands of people in his/her district gets helped by a particular law? Does that vote get him re-labled?
I’m just asking….. Because we are so free with this branding, that I’m wondering if anyone ever scratches the surface on these votes — and does a cost/benefit analysis in the district/state.
lina 30 — if we remove corporate money from campaign financing, then a representative’s votes can be construed as business-friendly.
If there’s substantially more business money lining the campaign coffers, it’s hard to say that a rep’s record is anything but bought and paid for.
“New Democrat Coalition.”
OMG. Who are these people? Linky? Is this another insidious group to fight?
Ed*ard Teller @ 12
Didn’t know that, but makes sense. On the other hand, I have been reading him recently; mainly skimming it, but I wanted to ask some other libs about a few things.
Seeing as how pretty much all problems in the world stem from overpopulation, why do we fight so hard against the various wars, famines and diseases of the world?
Aside from the obvious moral reasons, of course.
I’m seriously asking.
Has anyone noticed how quiet Mr. Conyers has been the past few weeks? I find it … brilliant.
lina @
30
I do…every two years when I cast my ballot…although the methodology might be subject to scrutiny.
Louisiana Girl @
25
Barbara Boxer is money party. She supported Joe Lieberman.
As long as Hillary Clinton does not change her mind on the Middle East I will do everything I can possibly do to stop her from getting the Democratic nomination for the presidency in 2008. Period.
I guess the list is just for Democrats. No sense in clogging the toobs with all them Repug names.
We have Clark, Gore, Edwards, Feingold, Obama and Dodd. Then; we have Hillary. Clinton is trying to run out the clock. Are we going to let the Senator from NY do this?
Crazy Horse @ 34
He may be up to something.
Rayne @ 29
with a $2,000 limit on individual contributions and a $5,000 limit on PAC contributions and corporate checks per se being prohibited, how exactly are they lining campaign coffers?
I seriously want to know how they are skirting the existing law — because I have no idea.
Oklahoma kiddo @
32
Not to be confused with the New Democratic Network
I don’t know a lot about them, except that Simon Rosenberg had a good presentation at the Ca. Democratic Convention last Spring about new media and how that’s the future for getting your message out
Scroll down to The New Media - The Next Frontier of Progressive Blogosphere
New Democrat Coalition
Here are the incoming members of the NDC, which is an offshoot of the DLC:
- Gabby Giffords (AZ-8)
- Michael Arcuri (NY-24)
- Ed Perlmutter (CO-07)
- Joe Courtney (CT-02)
- Ron Klein (FL-22)
- Tim Mahoney (FL-16)
- Joe Sestak (PA-07)
- Heath Shuler (NC-11)
- Bruce Braley (IA-01)
- Chris Carney (PA-10)
- Nick Lampson (TX-22)
- Jason Altmire (PA-04)
- Kirstin Gillibrand (NY-20)
- Baron Hill (IN-09)
- Chris Murphy (CT-5)
- Patrick Murphy (PA-8)
And here is the complete list of members:
NDC Membership
Ellen Tauscher (CA), Chair
Ron Kind (WI), Co-Chair
Artur Davis (AL), Co-Chair
Adam Smith (WA), PAC Chair
Joseph Crowley (NY), Whip
Brian Baird (WA)
John Barrow (GA)
Melissa Bean (IL)
Shelley Berkeley (NV)
Lois Capps (CA)
Russ Carnahan (MO)
Ed Case (HI)
Ben Chandler (KY)
Henry Cuellar (TX)
Jim Davis (FL)
Susan Davis (CA)
Rahm Emanuel (IL)
Eliot Engel (NY)
Bob Etheridge (NC)
Harold Ford (TN)
Charles Gonzalez (TX)
Jane Harman (CA)
Stephanie Herseth (SD)
Brian Higgins (NY)
Rush Holt (NJ)
Darlene Hooley (OR)
Jay Inslee (WA)
Steve Israel (NY)
Rick Larsen (WA)
John Larson (CT)
Carolyn McCarthy (NY)
Mike McIntyre (NC)
Kendrick Meek (FL)
Gregory Meeks (NY)
Charlie Melancon (LA)
Juanita Millender-McDonald (CA)
Dennis Moore (KS)
Jim Moran (VA)
David Price (NC)
Loretta Sanchez (CA)
Adam Schiff (CA)
Allyson Schwartz (PA)
David Scott (GA)
Vic Snyder (AR)
Tom Udall (NM)
Debbie Wasserman Schultz (FL)
David Wu (OR)
And here is the DLC’s acknowledgement of its affiliation with the NDC, which is its Congressional offshoot.
The NDC is comprised of members of Sirota’s Party of Money. They are out of touch with American values.
Until we publicly finance national elections, we force everyone to the trough.
I used to think I was smart. But I’m not. Why? ‘Cause I used to think that Hillary was smart. And she’s not.
John Casper @ 43
And therein lies the crux…
Other thread… Is Hillary smart? Yes. Is she bought? yes. does that negate the intelligence? Yes.
So what do we do?
Be very careful about Dodd … he has a history of presenting himself as a “liberal” while undercutting actual progressive positions - for example, in the 80s he seemed to be gearing up for a presidential move and played “The Liberal on Central America” - and got a ton of media play as “the liberal voice on El Salvador and Nicaragua” while at the same time in reality he supported very wishywashy improvements - so he was for cutting 50% of the funding to Salvadoran death squad allies rather than 100%. Watch him like a hawk - I’m afraid he may be making the same sort of move with his very good initiative on the Torture Bill.
Louisiana Girl @ 43
What is the goal of this outfit?
Canada had a people’s moment yesterday. Stephane Dion won the Liberal Party leadership race against a man (Michael Ignatieff) who was supported by Canada’s big money and was a virtual TNR clone (but nowhere near as smarmy as Lieberman). Dion had the least money, ran a low key campaign, and played his cards perfectly at the convention. Before going in he was generally considered the least, or the next least likely to win.
His victory came as big shock to the Canadian punditocracy,which unlike the American one can actually string two or three sentences together without balling the whole thing up. Ignatieff ran an American-style campaign, very much poll-driven. It’s not the same kind of country. The divisions, however, are similar, and this time the people’s party won one.
As to the Democrats, they need cash to win. That’s what drives them to big money. I do not think this country will ever have effective campaign finance reform as long as the Supreme Court thinks that a dollar is worth as much as a vote. As long as elections can be bought, we are going to have to pay the piper unless labour can make some headway organizing.
The NDC membership roster for the incoming freshmen is somewhat disturbing. Some of the folks on there, like Kirstin Gillibrand and Joe Sestak would most likely be “also rans” if it were not for the early attention they got not from the DLC-dems but the netroots. Hopefully they’ll break the code (and others will too) before too long.
On November 7th many Americans spoke about the state of “business as usual” in DC, and if they the “New Democrat Coalition” choose to ignore the message, then they’ll find themselves tossed into the shitcan along with others who put $$ over people.
Once upon a time they could get a few terms under their belts before anyone noticed their annoying pork-it-up Earmark-and-lobbyist lifestyle. No more.
Message to the NDC “Democrats” … We’re watching. And voting.
Siun @ 47
Hmmm. This IS cause to make me pause.
Fox with Tammy Bruce today was rather entertaining. I’m not a Hillary fan, but their comments about her were.. well.. enlightened as usual:
Tammy (sputtering): Hillary is the most dangerous woman in America!
Bubblehead: why?
Tammy (positively spraying spittle): Because leftists (that’s their epithet of the day, to describe people like us, properly articulated only with a snarl and look of insane rage) are chameleons (huh?). And because her husband is a sexual predator, who preyed on innocent people in the White House (Monica needed protecting?)…
Are the wingnuts normally so coherent in their arguments?
Oklahoma kiddo @ 48
According to the DLC, the “New Democrats in Congress have built a reputation as the “go-to” group in Congress on the critical issues of pro-growth, security and personal responsibility.”
And here is the NDC’s answer to your question:
John Casper @ 44
Yes.
Damien — you’re here, able to sit up, take nourishment, post a comment. How do you feel about the healthcare and safe food that supports your current status?
As for the issue of population itself: most of us as liberals believe in freedom of choice. War does not give its victims choice, nor does it give individuals in countries funding it choice (only in the aggregate). Disease does not give its victims choice, particularly among those most likely to fall prey.
But reproductive education and access to birth control affirm humans’ choice, while controlling birth rates, encouraging responsibility and improving mortality for women and infants (the fetal rights crowd forgets that pregnancy actually increases women’s mortality).
Where is the Upton Sinclair and the “Jungle” of the 21st century? Until the middle and lower- middle class White voters wake up to the fact that they are being fucked by the crooked politicians and corporations, sweeping change isn’t going to happen. As long as this group is willing to look at the bright-flashy thing of abortion,gays,Mexicans,and jeebus..nothing will change.
I am worried, however, that if or when this group wakes up, the reaction will be “American Populism”.
Blub @ 52
My upset w/Hill is only the Middle East. Otherwise I would most likely be in her corner.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 48
What is the goal of this outfit?
Here is the NDC’s answer to your question:
And according to the DLC, “New Democrats in Congress have built a reputation as the “go-to” group in Congress on the critical issues of pro-growth, security and personal responsibility.”
Jo Fish @ 50
I too am very disappointed. But then again, Rahm Emanuel ran the DCCC. I imagine pledging membership to his organization was a prerequisite for campaign support.
lina @ 40
Please see Open Secrets and their 527 page, among others.
I think that political pundits, including authors on this site, often tend to make things more complicated than they need to be. As in the case of this post, the author accuses of Sirota of not breaking things down far enough.
But this isn’t needed, in fact. The point of David’s ongoing efforts is to make one point; that money has corrupted our government system. As such, he continues to do so with this article on his blog.
There’s no need to break things down any further to get the point here.
It’s the money stupid!
Simon
Fresno, CA
Pach deserves a *whole lot* of credit for the much more nuanced piece he did on the THREE-party system: The Grass Roots Progressives, the Grass Roots Evangelicals, and the K Street Elites. Methinks many of the GRE’s might be boltin’ from the Money Party soon, but not in the direction of the People Party . . .
John Casper @ 43
Spot-on. This is much more insidious than the (also very disturbing) voting machine issues.
lina 40 — I posted some campaign finance data here in this thread for Obama and Clinton. To the best of my knowledge, all those figures are for legal donations.
What do you think of that? Should Citigroup’s PAC with its legal $215,000 donation have more access to and greater influence over a representative than an individual constituent in Clinton’s district, regardless of whether that constituent made a donation or not?
Knut Wicksell 49 — the problem is not just that money = free speech. The problem also includes how corporations are formulated in this country, as entities with virtually all the rights of a human voter except the right to vote, but with greater rights to free speech if it can buy the access it needs over and above that of a human voter.
This is why I believe that corporate money needs to be removed from the campaign finance equation. Every single shareholder and board member, if an eligible registered voter, already has all the rights and access they need to influence their representatives’ votes. They should not have additional rights above their inherent rights under the Constitution as individual citizens.
Where?
Important new post upstairs. . .
Sorry Pach, I shoulda said “Grassroots Theocrats” and GRT’s . . .
This talk about the people party and the money party has a name. It’s Dialectic Materialism. All news is politics, all politics is economics, all economics are resources and labor, and there has been a constant war for hundreds of years waged on the working class by the ruling class, seeking to hold onto their power in the age of enlightenment. This is why it is so important to study the works of Karl Marx, and the lives of V.I. Lenin and Leon Trotsky, as well as Fidel Castro, Che Guevera, and Hugo Chavez. You have all seen the unreliability of the consolidated media to provide the truth to you. Trusting the capitalist establishment to provide you with an unslanted view of Communism, Socialism, the ideas, and the struggle, is like trusting Bill O’Reilly to tell you the truth about.. well.. anything! TRUST ME! We, the left, must unite as a whole! We can disagree ideologically, and we SHOULD disagree ideologically, but as a union of brothers and sisters, we must recognize eachother as allies! It is PROPAGANDA that has split the American Left from the leftist movements abroad!
Things Communism is not:
A totalitarian state
A Centralized government (A centralized government FLIES IN THE FACE of EVERYTHING MARX, ENGELS, AND LENIN WROTE AND FOUGHT FOR! It was the downfall of Russia. Stalin was able to take power because the White army (the former ruling class), backed by 14 major western countries, killed the finest and the brightest of Russia after the Bolshevik Revolution.)
A government which prohibits you from practicing religion (WRONG! In communism, religion must stay out of politics, big difference!)
An economy that cannot work (There is lower communism and higher communism, which Marx went into. Lower communism is essential socialism, where people are paid for their work, with the big difference being that people get paid ONLY for their labor, they cannot earn interest in the bank, for example. Think of how much the ruling class makes in interest and in investments. The investments of the ruling class are what makes capitalism, and the world, go round! From that point, then higher communism can be developed, because communism is a great progression, an evolution catalyzed by TECHNOLOGY (Think printing press.. now.. INTERNETS!! BING BING!).
Do you think I’m a fool? A man who claimed there would be a day when there were no kings was also called a fool, back in the days of old. The divine right of kings is an absurd proposition these days. So will be capitalism, my brothers and sisters, because the only thing that has us sticking up for the plutocrats exploiting us is the culture of capitalist brutality, violence, and exploitation which we are BORN into and take for granted, living in a culture where the dominant culture and worldview is created by the ruling class, in their own images. There will come a day when we have finally defeated the ruling class altogether, and taken that rule for our own. Wealth creates poverty. Slavemasters create slaves.
I CHALLENGE you to CHALLENGE the TABOO of Communism! Read! Study! Ask questions! Do not be slovenly in your research! And firedoglakers, please, consider the advantages of making yourself aware of the struggles and maneuverings of your lefty brothers and sisters outside of the country. Together we stand, divided those plutocratic bastards just make it harder for us to win our freedom.
So, for John Caspar and OK Kiddo and those of you in Cali, where the heck were teh People when the California Nurses tried to get “public financing of campaigns” adopted in Prop 89? We (yes, I work for CNA) went down to defeat in a very big way. Whussupwiddat?
Pachacutec @
65
“I think my description of how American politics actually works is more accurate” … “He does not include in his dialectic the Grassroots Theocrats I mention in some detail”.
There ya go…
Simon
Sage Kiesel, I’d be pretty happy with something more like Sweden, Finland, Norway; they much better infant mortality rates, less corruption, higher standards of living than the U.S.
A mixed economy would be just fine, with a much better mix than we have now. I don’t have a beef with capitalism and socialism working in concert, each providing what the other can’t; I do have a problem with rampant corporatism bordering on fascism.
If communism were an answer, I think by now we’d see a nation that had successfully adopted and maintained this system for at least a couple of generations, and we’d be seeing such systems lauded for better human outcomes.
Agh. Mod again. This time it’s not the IP addy, but the use of the word “soc*al*sm” since the 6 middle letters spell a certain lifestyle drug’s name.
Thanks for the assist, mods.
What a wonderful assemblage of code language:
“go-to” group: buyable power brokers
economic growth: pro-business
national security: pro-defense spending
personal responsibility: anti-union, You’re on your own, Jack.
technology development: pro-corporate media and dot com.
Observation, contrast. How you infer accusation is beyond me, actually. I’m praising Sirota’s work, not cutting on it. At all.
Rayne @ 64
Why does Citigroup’s PAC (or any PAC) get to exceed the legal limit? What’s the loophole they are using?
lina @
30
Well, let’s look at the influence of big firms on employment. In the `50s, the Fortune 500 employed over 20% of the workforce. Now, they employ 7%.
Wages against inflation have declined slightly for the middle class and more precipitously for the working poor.
Legislation in recent years has increasingly been for the benefit of corporations and the wealthy, and some notable Dems have signed onto that legislation–even when it meant deferring government debt to future generations to support tax cuts for the wealthy and for corporations.
Any legislator who says that campaign contributions from corporations and the wealthy do not influence their votes is lying. That’s not the way human nature works–and, more importantly, that is the way legislation has been trending–especially in the last twenty-five years.
So, why shouldn’t one keep track of the general tendencies of legislators–of both parties–to seek out contributions from large business interests expecting to materially gain from same?
Those material gains have not been of benefit to the general working public and rather, have accrued to the investor class. In the `50s and early `60s, corporations contributed roughly a third of all federal revenues. By the late `70s, that share had been reduced to 24%. By the `90s, their share was down to 11%. Most recently, in 2004, that share was less than 8%, and in the most recent tax year, when figures become available, the expectations are that their share will be between 6% and 7%.
This does not include the increasing tendency of Congress to supply mature industries with tax credits and subsidies. If the trend continues, corporations–in a relatively short time–will be the recipients a net negative flow into the Treasury–they will be getting more in tax revenues than they are paying in.
None of those benefits have been accruing to workers, and either in current taxation or debt deferred until later, the tax burden is steadily being transferred to the working class, those least able to support it. And this is reflected in the effective transfer of wealth from the lower classes to the investor class through tax policy. Just in the last five years, the total income of the top 1% of income earners has increased 13%.
Answer your question?
Okay, you’re getting defensive. That’s okay. Perhaps the word “accuse” wasn’t the right word. Semantics.
My point was that people often make things more complicated than they need be. You “implied” that he wasn’t breaking things down far enough - as far as “you” have. Including that wasn’t necessary and seemed like an indictment of sorts to me, or a self-serving boast of your own academic works rather then simply recommending his post.
It’s not a big deal. I was just trying to make a point about something. What David’s point is, and how he does that just fine by defining what the issue is, and that’s money.
A further dissection isn’t needed to make the point he’s making.
I believe that most of the issues we face are much more simple than so many people want to make them out to be.
One of the most significant problems with our government system is how money corrupts it. Period. That’s David’s ongoing point, and in that, no further complication of the point needs to be made.
As another saying goes, keep it simply stupid.
Simon
The more the rightwingers sound off on Hillary, the more the people working 2 jobs and still not getting anywhere are going to like her.
Even if she doesn’t deserve it, she’ll have a populist public following.
Terrific post, pach - and I had missed Sirota’s piece, ’til now.
Margot @ 78
So who’s her #2 going to be?
i’ve been of the opinion since about 1999 that there were to be two parties: corporatists and anticorporatists. NAFTA made that pretty clear.
I think that was the appeal of nader (boo, hiss) in the 2000 election: progressives had a strong dislike of bush, and a mild dislike of gore because he was something of a known quaintity in the clinton administration. and they thought it would be great fun to send a message to washington.
and the rest is history: if you’re right on the wrong day or the wrong year, you’re just wrong and your kids end up going to iraq to die for no good reason. which is worse than wrong, it’s f*cked.
montag @ 76
Not really. You’ve explained how the rich have gotten richer and the poor have stayed poor, but I still don’t know how they’re getting around campaign finance laws.
I’m at a loss as to why this is a positive thing… it’s just more of the circular firing squad, isn’t it?
Democrats raise money because raising money helps win elections. I wish it weren’t so, but it is.
When raising money is criminal, only criminals will raise money.
Until then, don’t we want to win elections? Or is it better to ditch Evan Bayh and let a Republican take the seat?
Just asking.
lina @ 82
Umm, that wasn’t your question in the post I answered. That particular post of yours was about cost/benefit analysis, and broadly, I answered that.
As for how big corporations get around those financing limits, they do it the way they always have–by bundling contributions among employees, and by the new loophole introduced in McCain-Feingold, the 527. For instance, Alice Walton (one of the five main Walton family members owning 40% of WalMart stock) was able to contribute over $1 million to the 527 which was funding the Swift Boaters.
Cheers.
I’ll ask the same question
Why does Citigroup’s PAC (or any PAC) get to exceed the legal limit? What’s the loophole they are using?
montag @ 84
so the 527s can give unlimited funds to candidates? Until this moment I thought they raised money to buy advertising.
goldstone @ 83