Over here, a doper trotted out the claim that “corporations and their owners” support the Republican Party with big money donations. In fact, corporations support both the Democratic and Republican parties with big money donations. I offered twolinks on the matter. The first looks at donations to the governors associations in the 2010 cycle. The two parties both got similar amounts of money from top donors. The Republicans got a slightly larger percentage of their money from corporations (70% vs 59%), but the Democrats are obviously not hesitant about receiving from corporations. The second link looks at total business contributions for the past five cycles. Democrats got the most money from business in two of those five cycles; Republicans in the other three.
If we instead look at individual donors, we find that the two top donors in the past cycle were Tom Steyer and Michael Bloomberg, both billionaires. Bloomberg gave 95% of his money to Democratic candidates. Not to be outdone, Steyer gave 100% of his contributions to Democrats. George Soros, another financial zillionaire, is on the list as well. He’s famous for his 8-figure contributions to groups such as moveon.org. The list of the top 100 donors splits exactly evenly between those favoring Democrats and Republicans. Leaders of the Democratic Party are not shy about raking in cash. Barack Obama famously shattered fundraising records in 2008, then did it again in 2012. Last fall, as he attacked Republicans for taking money from the rich, he also held a fundraiser at the home of a Wall Street billionaire named Rich Richman. Cost of attendance at this event was $32,000; costs for other Obama fundraisers have been even higher.
So there’s plainly no reason to believe that corporations and the super-rich overwhelming prefer Republicans. What’s odd is that those who make their careers whining about big money in politics only seem to mention the big money that goes to Republicans. The Koch brothers are frequent targets, while Thomas Friedman had a whole column last week railing against Sheldon Adelson, the latest of many. Oddly, I don’t recall ever seeing Friedman go on the attack against Steyer or Bloomberg or anyone else who donates big to the Democrats.
One might almost suspect that Friedman and his ilk are not generally upset about big money in politics. They’re upset when big money goes to the Republican Party and conservative causes. When big money goes to the Democratic Party and liberal causes, they’re instead quite sanguine.
Of course everyone is going to be more upset with money going to the other side, but people who want to remove big money from politics want to remove it from BOTH sides.
Yes. It even seems that you’re aware of this, since there’s evidence right in your post, but you failed to clearly state a more nuanced point for debate in it.
There’s an organization called Wolf-PAC that opposes big money in politics. I believe they are sincere about this (full disclosure: I’m a member):
So far, four states have passed resolutions calling for a constitutional convention to address the corrupting influence of money in politics. Vermont, California, Illinois, and New Jersey. They need 34 to reach their goal.
I have to guess that ITR Champion was not informed properly by his sources about who is opposing big money in politics, and that is most of the American people.
Dem pols accepting the big money does not mean they’re not against it. After all, they have to play the game as it is now, and are not obliged to unilaterally disarm.
I would ask OP: In recent decades do you think the GOP has moved to the right or to the left?
In recent decades do you think the Democrats have moved to the right or to the left?
If you answer correctly (“right”, “right”) you may get a clue why rationalists oppose money-dominated politics.
I can find any number of sources who complain about big money, but whose complaints are directed at just one side. The New York Times only blasts big donations to the Republicans, while the National Review prefers to attack big donations to the Democrats. I’m unaware of any pundit who actually seems equally concerned about the corrupting influence of big money on both parties. It’s easy to make blanket condemnations of big money, while quietly ignoring the big money that goes to the side one likes best.
People like to say that, but it’s ridiculous. Romney had a less conservative background as a Republican than RR had, and yet he was able to overcome that and get the nomination. Be that as it may, you can’t prove something based on a hypothetical.
And what does it mean to be “elected by the Republican Party” apart from being nominated?
What proof will you accept? The question demands hypotheticals and guessing.
We can see, as I listed, that democrats have abandoned distinctly liberal positions and moved right.
As far as Ronald Reagan getting elected here is some support for that idea (unfortunately it is a miserably formatted site that makes you click to change pages unnecessarily):
How about the fact that a Republican president once proposed health care reform much like the ACA? How about the fact that a Republican president once established important federal agencies of exactly the kind the today’s Republicans like to rail against and try to disband? Are you seriously trying to suggest that American politics has not moved far to the right over the past decades? I think Bill Maher said it best: in recent decades Democrats have moved far to the right, Republicans have moved into the mental hospital.
I remember 1976 very clearly: many of us were uncomfortable with Jimmy Carter as a candidate because he was too conservative. Really, the current crop of republicans do not even deserve to be called “conservative”, they are so far to the right of that (on average) that they would be likely to call a genuine conservative a damn socialist commie.
Well, me and others have piled evidence on our side of the ledger suggesting the political climate has gotten more conservative. Also that is within my lifetime so seems fair game.
Seems to me you need to provide some counter-evidence that the political climate of the last several decades has gotten more liberal or, at the least, stayed about the same.
Briefly, there are three basic problems with the assertions the OP is trying to make.
First, by his own data, Republicans get more corporate funding. Further, the problem is much larger than those sanitized figures suggest because Republicans are overwhelmingly the preferred party of corporations and the wealthy and this support is reflected in myriad different ways.
Second, the fact that Democrats also receive corporate funding is not an exoneration but another symptom of the same problem. It’s been observed that Congress as a whole tends to support corporate interests regardless of party. I wonder why? Republicans are just more flagrant and extreme about it.
Third, the problem of big money is much bigger than direct political contributions. The problem is what might be called the “Koch brothers syndrome” after its most ruthless practitioners: a vast and mostly secretive network of PR organizations, front groups, and all other manner of propagandizing relentlessly shaping public opinion towards the interests of those doing the propagandizing.
Those two factors together – ownership of the political process and influential control over public opinion – are together the reason some have suggested that America is no longer a functional democracy at all. Whether that’s fully accurate may be debatable, but to try to argue in these circumstances that money in politics isn’t a problem at all strikes me as the height of ridiculousness.