Citizens United v. Fed'l Elections Comm: Campaign Finance

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
Re: Okay, now the US is a fascist state


With restrictions gone, '1 percenters'
dish millions, alter race for White House​



McClatchy Newspapers
By Greg Gordon
Wednesday, February 1, 2012


WASHINGTON — Forget about the poor, the unemployed and the sinking middle class participating in the democratic process.

The race for the presidency is increasingly being bankrolled by "1 percenters" — those among the richest of Americans.

Year-end campaign finance reports show that many of the nation's wealthiest individuals and their companies have written huge checks to Republican and Democratic "super committees" that are exempt from the usual $5,000 campaign donation limits.

Texas businessman Harold Simmons and his Contran Corp. have donated $7.5 million to two GOP committees. Las Vegas hotel casino owner Sheldon Adelson and his family have poured more than $10 million into a so-called super political action committee backing Newt Gingrich. Filmmaker Steven Spielberg gave $100,000 to one of several committees aiding Obama.

Partly as a result of the Supreme Court's 2010 ruling that even corporations enjoy the right to free political speech, a 2002 congressional overhaul that was supposed to rid big money from national politics is fast becoming a distant memory. Not only are wealthy Americans serving as financial angels to presidential candidates, but companies also have begun to write multimillion-dollar checks, and some may be doing so secretly.

American Crossroads, a conservative super PAC founded by former Bush White House political guru Karl Rove, has raised $51 million to date, including $33 million garnered by a nonprofit arm that isn't required to disclose its donors. The groups have set a goal of collecting another $200 million to raise Republican prospects in next year's presidential and congressional elections.

Anthony Corrado, a campaign finance expert at Colby College in Maine, says high-dollar donors have gotten active earlier than ever this year and are playing a bigger role — and that may not be an accident.

"If you think about the way the president is beginning to frame the campaign, presenting this as a campaign of the 99 percent against the 1 percent, that in some ways is adding fuel to the fire to keep these donors involved," he said.

Corrado also noted that outside groups have had a disproportionate impact this year because so many candidates, including Gingrich, have lacked "presidential-level money."

Gingrich's campaign raised $9.8 million and closed the year with $2.1 million in cash and $1.2 million in debt. Rep. Ron Paul of Texas raised $13.3 million in the fourth quarter and ended the year with $1.9 million in cash, while former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum's campaign raised $920,000 in the quarter and closed with $279,000 in cash.

"This has actually been a race where a large gift from an individual donor can fund an advertising campaign greater than a candidate's own campaign can muster," Corrado said of the super PACs' clout.

Restore Our Future, the super PAC raising unlimited donations to support Republican frontrunner Mitt Romney, brought in nearly $18 million last year — none from donors of under $200.

Donors to the pro-Romney group included a cross-section of conservative businessmen, top executives of the private equity firm Bain Capital that Romney founded and used to make his fortune, and other investment houses, including Goldman Sachs.

Four companies founded by Frank VanderSloot, Romney's national finance co-chairman who has held fundraisers at his Idaho Falls ranch during both of Romney's presidential runs, each gave $250,000 to the PAC. Melaleuca Inc. and its affiliates sell vitamins and household products nationwide.

Others who underwrote the shadow campaign committee included Dallas businessman Harlan Crow and his Crow Holdings, who donated $150,000; billionaire Bill Koch of West Palm Beach, Fla., who along with his Oxbow Carbon Corp. dropped $1 million; major Republican fundraiser Paul Singer, a principal in Elliott Management Corp., who also donated $1 million, and Sam Zell, former owner of the bankrupt Tribune Co., who gave $50,000.

In the first four GOP contests, the super PACs have spent much of their money serving as attack dogs, independently blitzing the airwaves with negative ads that seem in perfect sync with the candidates' campaigns. In addition, wealthy backers are acting as "bundlers," using their connections to raise tens of millions of dollars for President Barack Obama and Romney.

Tuesday night's unveiling of the identities of donors to super PACs came hours after polls closed in the key Florida primary, meaning that voters had no idea who bankrolled more than $10 million in broadcast ads by Restore Our Future.

"This level of disclosure isn't just inadequate. It's laughable," Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer of New York told reporters. "The voters deserve to know the ugly truth of who is behind these super PACs."

Schumer said Tuesday's disclosures are "focusing the public's attention on the rotten state of campaign finance," noting that 70 percent of the $18 million raised by Rove's American Crossroads came from donors of $1 million or more.

Joined by Democratic Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island and Al Franken of Minnesota, Schumer called on Congress to at least pass legislation requiring better disclosure. He said that the Senate Rules Committee will take testimony later this month from people affiliated with super PACs, as well as donors.

In 2010, Senate Democrats twice came within one vote of passing a bill to require all groups engaging in political spending to reveal donors of $1,000 or more and to require top officers of outside groups, as well as their leading donors, to appear on camera in any television ads vouching their approval.

In winning the White House in 2008, Obama rode a tide of small donations as his campaign raised $662 million.

Corrado said that, in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling, "what we're seeing in 2012 is a test of whether the development of broader financial participation in elections — the rise of small donors in elections — is going to continue to be encouraged, or if big money will once again become a central feature of the election."

If Romney wins the nomination, he predicted that his shadow super PAC would play a leading role in the general election.

(Dan Popkey of the Idaho Statesman contributed.)

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/


 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
Re: Okay, now the US is a fascist state


Rep. Keith Ellison pushes back on Citizens United
and rips attacks from Rep. Allen West



Rep.%20Keith%20Ellison-400.jpg

Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., with other members of the Congressional
Progressive Caucus. Check out: Black, Muslim & Elected to Congresshttp://www.bgol.us/board/showthread.php?t=139261&highlight=ellison




The Root
By: Cynthia Gordy
April 24, 2012


In the two years since the Supreme Court's Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling that corporate and union political contributions have First Amendment protection, there's also been a steadily growing, although somewhat ragtag, movement to overturn it. The controversial 2010 decision unleashed a flood of now unlimited corporate money in elections. Super PACs (political action committees) have subsequently (and unprecedentedly) raised almost $160 million, and spent close to $90 million, in this election cycle alone.

Pushing back on the decision, 20 members of Congress have since introduced constitutional amendments to reverse Citizens United; and 21 state legislatures, along with more than 147 cities, have proposed resolutions to roll it back (measures that passed in New Mexico, Hawaii and Vermont). And even though 80 percent of Americans oppose the ruling, this growing counterforce hasn't gained much notice outside of liberal political circles. A new coalition of federal, state and local lawmakers, as well as grassroots activists around the country, are now trying to change that.

Last week representatives of the coalition, under the banner of United for the People, assembled on Capitol Hill to announce and sign a "declaration for democracy," which pledges support for an amendment to the Constitution to overturn Citizens United. Merging their collective power, hundreds of legislators and organizations have signed on, calling for elected officials across the nation to add their names. The group also highlighted the Resolutions Week initiative, which seeks to pass more than 100 local resolutions against Citizens United en masse during the week of June 11.

Among the members of Congress who signed on to the declaration is Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus; all 77 other members of the group also signed it. Ellison spoke with The Root about the movement's goals, why he favors mass action over "academic discussion" on the issue and his thoughts on those "communist" accusations against his caucus from Rep. Allen West (R-Fla.).


The Root: What inspired the Progressive Caucus, and other political groups, to start this movement now?

Keith Ellison: There is a whole grassroots movement of nonprofit organizations that has been focusing on this move to amend. What's happening now is a consolidation of the movement. There were about 13 different constitutional amendments offered by various members -- myself, Ted Deutch, Donna Edwards, John Conyers, Bernie Sanders, a whole bunch of people. Everybody liked their little approach, which is fine -- that's democracy. But what we decided to do, rather than have all these disparate things, was get together on the essential issue and work with the community to come up with a declaration.

TR: If the declaration doesn't hinge on a specific amendment or tactic for overturning Citizens United, what does it do exactly?

KE: The declaration would not be the language offered as the constitutional amendment. What the declaration says is, "We declare our support for amending the Constitution of the United States to restore the rights of the American people, undermined by Citizens United and related cases, to protect the integrity of elections and limit the corrosive influence of money in our democratic process."

This is language that all of us agree to, that all of us can galvanize behind -- members of Congress, members of city councils, community activists from groups like Move to Amend, Public Citizen, People for the American Way and others. We said, "Why waste time arguing about the fine points of what the language of a constitutional amendment should be, when we don't even have a public movement to drive it?" We need to get the wind behind our back first, and then, once we have a Congress who can move it, and states that would be willing to do it, then we can fight over exactly where the periods and the commas go. But right now we need a mass action.

TR: Are there individual reforms that you would like to see made to campaign financing, besides reversing Citizens United? After all, before that ruling, there was already plenty of money in politics.

KE: There are tons of things I'd like to see. I wish we could publicly finance every campaign. I wish we had ranked-choice voting. I wish we had a limit on how long election season can go so that we don't have to inundate voters with this stuff for three years in advance of a presidential election. So there's no shortage [of ideas] -- we got that.

What we lack is a mass movement that the average citizen can connect to and therefore make demands on their public leaders. The missing piece of the puzzle is that you've got a middle-class family that wants access to a doctor; you've got somebody with credit companies hounding them for student debt they acquired 20 years ago; you've got somebody who can't find a consumer advocate to help them understand their mortgage. The source of all these problems is money in politics.

People with money can populate Congress with people who are favorable to them through campaign donations, through independent expenditures. Once they get the people they want there, they can pay to lobby Congress to make sure that the people they put there do what they want them to do. And where are the American people's voices in all of that? They're lost.

TR: There's an argument that unions have profited from Citizens United, too.

KE: A lot of people make this big debate about "What about the unions?" You know, unions have to have votes on the political positions that they take, and if their members don't like it, they can even get a refund. That's not the case with a corporation.

If I work for Target Corporation, and they want to fund a candidate who hates gays or something like that, I don't get any money back on that. I don't even have any part of the decision, even if I'm a shareholder. There's something wrong with that.

TR: Although President Obama has expressed support for a repeal of Citizens United, in February he also signed off on his campaign's decision to get more donors for pro-Obama super PACs. What are your thoughts on that?

KE: People can take legitimate points in favor of, and opposed to, the president's decision to set up a super PAC. When I mention the corrosive role that Citizens United plays, I mean that it corrupts everybody, but the president has a legitimate point of view when he says that he cannot "unilaterally disarm." If I'm trying to make reform, I cannot put myself in a position where I cannot be a competitor in this race. Otherwise, by not participating in this new system, I end up ceding the election to Mitt Romney, and there is no hope. We've got to fight back.

If the president takes that position, you won't hear me criticize him for that. Again, I am pragmatic about this thing. I'm not taking an academic approach to this. We've got to get rid of Citizens United now. Immediately.


ON THE ALLEN WEST ATTACKS:


TR: In other news, last week Rep. Allen West doubled down on his view that progressive members in Congress are, in fact, communists. As a co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, have you spoken to Rep. West about his allegations?

KE: Here's all I got to say about that. The more effective the Progressive Caucus is, the more we should expect unprincipled, untrue attacks on our character and everything else. If we were not doing anything, we wouldn't be the subject of anybody's attacks.

But because we are out there -- aggressively arguing for a greener America, a more equal and inclusive America, economic justice for working and middle-class people, peace -- then people who want to support polluters; who want to support racial, economic and religious division; and who want to funnel more money to the rich, they're going to be mad at us.​

Cynthia Gordy is The Root's senior political correspondent.




SOURCE



 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
Re: Okay, now the US is a fascist state


How Chief Justice John Roberts orchestrated
the Citizens United decision



<IFRAME SRC="http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/05/21/120521fa_fact_toobin" WIDTH=760 HEIGHT=1500>
<A HREF="http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/05/21/120521fa_fact_toobin">link</A>

</IFRAME>
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
Re: Okay, now the US is a fascist state

<param name="FlashVars" value="launch=47657624&amp;width=420&amp;height=245" /><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="wmode" value="transparent" /><embed name="msnbc164bc4" src="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640" width="420" height="245" FlashVars="launch=47657624&amp;width=420&amp;height=245" allowscriptaccess="always" allowFullScreen="true" wmode="transparent" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.adobe.com/shockwave/download/download.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash"></embed></object><p style="font-size:11px; font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; color: #999; margin-top: 5px; background: transparent; text-align: center; width: 420px;">Visit msnbc.com for <a style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;" href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com">breaking news</a>, <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032507" style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;">world news</a>, and <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032072" style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;">news about the economy</a></p>


MSNBC's Melissa Harris-Perry and her guests tackled the relationship
between American politics and big money, particularly in terms of fun-
draising for the November election, in which, as one guest put it,
"money is speech." With Republicans and Democrats -- and the super
PACs -- in a tight campaign-fundraising race, what are the challenges
they face and how do they overshadow the issues?


 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
Re: Okay, now the US is a fascist state


Constitutional Myth
Corporations Have the Same
Free-Speech Rights as Individuals​


The problem isn't "corporate personhood";
it's simple-minded interpretation that refuses to
take note of the real function of the First Amendment



scourt2_corr2-thumb-600x336-55201.jpg



On June 16, Judge James C. Cacheris of the Eastern District of Virginia ordered charges dismissed against two criminal defendants charged with violating federal election laws. The defendants allegedly allowed corporate employees to attend Hillary Clinton campaign fundraisers, then reimbursed them for the cost out of funds of their corporation, Galen Capital Group. If the allegations (as yet unproved) are true, this was a direct violation of 2 U.S.C. 441(b), which forbids corporations from contributing to federal election campaigns.

Judge Cacheris contemptuously brushed the statute aside as a restriction on the corporation's free speech rights. The Supreme Court has never held the statute unconstitutional, but the judge did it for them, relying on their latest campaign finance ruling, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.

The Court in Citizens United went out of its way to say it was not invalidating contribution limits, but Judge Cacheris explained they couldn't be serious:

Taken seriously, Citizens United requires that corporations and individuals be afforded equal rights to political speech, unqualified. . . . Thus, following Citizens United, individuals and corporations must have equal rights to engage in both independent expenditures and direct contributions. They must have the same rights to both the "apple" and the "orange."


Judge Cacheris's opinion is a prime example of right-wing judicial aggressiveness and simple-minded constitutional mythology. Like levees on the Mississippi, the extremely modest restrictions on corporate domination of American politics are being deliberately breached; the result, as in New Orleans in 2005, is a man-made disaster, a flood of corporate money that is distorting, and indeed threatens to destroy, American democracy.

Almost every literate American knows that in 2009, the United States Supreme Court held that corporations must be given the same free-speech rights under the Constitution as ordinary Americans to fund advertising advocating the election or defeat of political candidates. (The Court did explain that its opinion applied only to independent expenditures, not to direct contributions, but Judge Cacheris apparently saw them winking at him when they delivered that part of the opinion.) The Court gutted the McCain-Feingold Act, the first significant (even if timid) attempt at campaign finance reform since the laws passed in the wake of the Watergate scandals. What that means, of course, is that corporations, with their enormous financial resources, could flood the airwaves with ads from deceptively titled "issue groups" with names like "Americans for Prosperity" and "American Future Funds." This is precisely what happened in the 2010 campaign, when these anonymous funds swamped Democratic and progressive candidates with semi-anonymous attack ads in the days before the election. Perhaps coincidentally, those elections produced a radical shift to the right in the membership of both the House and the Senate.

To hear the right discuss it, though, anyone who questions Citizens United is spitting on James Madison's grave. "Any proponent of free speech should applaud this decision. Citizens United is and will be a First Amendment triumph of enduring significance," Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), who is to campaign finance laws what Darth Vader was to Alderaan, crowed on the Senate floor after the decision. Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) also explained that "the Court has taken important steps toward restoring to the American people their First Amendment rights. This decision is a victory on behalf of those who cherish the fundamental freedoms protected by the First Amendment." Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) told the New York Times that "I can't think of a more fundamental First Amendment issue." He also noted that, by a bizarre coincidence, the decision would "open up resources that have not previously been available" to the Republicans.

There's another way to look at it. In his dissent in Citizens United, Justice John Paul Stevens--a moderate-conservative Republican--spoke for many citizens when he said, "While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this Court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics."

The problem is not that corporations are "persons" under the law. That's been the law for more than a century. And the problem is not the mere idea that corporate "persons" have free speech rights. Of course they do; otherwise the government could prohibit the New York Times Co. or MSNBC from engaging in news coverage.

The problem is the kind of simple-minded interpretation of the Constitution I have discussed elsewhere. The current Court in Citizens United claimed to be choosing between a system in which corporations would have no free-speech rights and one in which corporate "persons" must have precisely the same free-speech rights as natural persons do. There surely is a middle position. In fact, our laws treat many kinds of "persons" differently for various purposes--citizens differently from non-citizens, minors differently from adults, members of professions differently from non-members. Each group's rights--even important rights like free speech--are treated differently for some purposes. High-school students do not have the right to criticize their school administrations; college students do. Minors do not have the right to purchase sexually explicit entertainment; adults do. Non-citizens cannot contribute to federal political campaigns; citizens can.

That a corporation is a "person" does not mean that its participation in politics has to be completely free of regulation. Any sane system of laws would take into account the facts that corporations control vastly more money than individuals; that they never "die," and thus can influence events indefinitely; and that, by law, they must (and do) concern themselves with one thing and one thing only--making profits for their shareholders.

Over the past generation, the conservative majorities on the Court have systematically destroyed any idea that the First Amendment relates to democratic self-government, or civic equality. Earlier this year, when the Court considered Arizona's Clean Elections Act, Chief Justice Roberts asked the lawyer for Arizona this remarkable question:

I checked the Citizens' Clean Elections Commission website this morning, and it says that this act was passed to, quote, "level the playing field" when it comes to running for office. Why isn't that clear evidence that it's unconstitutional?

The First Amendment exists, in the new logic, only to protect the right of those with money to drown out those without. This is such an obtuse reading of the Constitution that anyone can be forgiven for thinking it was a self-interested, overtly partisan decision by a five-Justice majority of conservative Republican appointees deeply disappointed that their party had been roundly defeated in the 2006 and 2008 decisions.

Having said that, Barack Obama and the Democratic Party bear their share of the blame for this sorry mess. By wrecking the public-finance system in the presidential election of 2008, the Democrats did a lot to convince reasonable people that their concern about money in politics was as self-serving as the Republicans' concern for corporate "liberty."

The proper vision of corporate "personhood" would consider the meaning of the First Amendment not as a simple on-off switch but as a provision that protects a key ingredient in democratic self-government--speech to and about politics by ordinary people.

As Judge Cacheris's decision demonstrates, the rot has progressed almost to the terminal stage. But remember the worlds of Miracle Max in The Princess Bride: "It just so happens that your friend here is only mostly dead. There's a big difference between mostly dead and all dead."

Equality and self-government, as ideas in the law, are mostly dead--but not all dead. The battle is not over. Sustained popular pressure may force right-wing courts and activist groups to back off from their continuing demands for special political rights for corporations and the rich.​


SOURCE


 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
<IFRAME SRC="http://www.propublica.org/article/from-citizens-united-to-super-pacs-a-campaign-finance-reading-guide" WIDTH=760 HEIGHT=2000>
<A HREF="http://www.propublica.org/article/from-citizens-united-to-super-pacs-a-campaign-finance-reading-guide">link</A>

</IFRAME>
 

COINTELPRO

Transnational Member
Registered
Citizens United v FEC

This Supreme Court decision has radically impacted elections in the United States. Campaign contributions for elections are deemed free speech rights that can not restricted by the State.

Many voters are locked into an ideology or political party, they are unaffected by any attempts to change their votes. However, the infrequent voters and independents can alter a win or loss for a political candidate.

The Supreme Court relied on the ability of the voters to parse through the barrage of campaign ads and political shows altered by the ad buys on their network. This may be true, however, it is the behavior of a politician after election that is heavily altered.
Or like two trees that are planted in the ground with one being given water, exposure to light, and proper soil, the other one is neglected and dies. The donations and favorable coverage preselect politicians favorable to a viewpoint. In effect, voters are picking people that have been chosen by somebody else.

Additionally, they heavily influence what decisions are made if this person is elected since the decisions in office will heavily influence their ability to fundraise in the future for reelection or their political party chances. After a politicians says all the right things to voters and gets elected, this person turns around and does the following in secret due to campaign donations:

1. Not pursue breaking up 'Too Big to Fail' banks and other monopolies.

2. The awarding of wasteful government contracts. Giving startup capital or loans to donor companies (Solyndra)

3. Pursuing trade polices that enrich transnational corporation at the expense of jobs domestically.

4. Deregulation of Wall Street that leads to short term profits at the expense of long term growth and prosperity.

5. Inaction on policies that are favorable to renewable energy, due to entrenched fossil fuel interests.

6. Bailing out companies at the taxpayer expense.

7. Inaction or support of minimum wage laws or Unionization.

8. Staging Coups with democratically elected government to extract resources more cheaply.

9. Borrowing money, rather than raising taxes on wealthy donors.

With a 85% incumbency rate, many politicians are thinking about their decision impact on fund raising, rather than the interest of the voters.

Fundraising to campaign the people is an essential part of a democratic process. Giving this power to the government or elites undermines the integrity of elections. What I propose is giving every eligible voter in a specially designated account an equal sum of money, that can be used to fund any political candidate of their choosing at the primary and election. Additionally, a political candidate can also receive a limited sum from other entities such as corporations or rich donors. This concept is similar to the House of Representative, Senate concept that has been implemented. One entity is based on population, the other provides equal power to every state, no matter the size. Right now, we only have a House of Representative in terms of our fundraising, with the most populous states having all the power.


<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/SAqJfFatVwI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

The current system due to globalization will lead to disastrous results, that will allow significant foreign influence. It will also lead to more wealth disparity that will harm the middle class and jobs. It will cause exploding deficits that will lead to bankruptcy and a military industrial state.


Congress could pass a law setting this up, that is in compliance with Supreme Court ruling by allowing unlimited campaign donations. However, the government will aggregate this amount, and setup public financing of elections that will distribute 60-70% of this amount.


A billion is raised through rich donors, the government will step in and provide 2.3 billion in public financing that candidates will have to accept. Your 'free' speech rights won't impeded. Populist candidates that don't attract donors will have the ability to raise significant sums of money from the public.
 
Last edited:

COINTELPRO

Transnational Member
Registered
Why is the federal government tilted heavily toward the military industrial complex and not social programs?

The effects of our disastrous financing of elections results in politicians always looking to maximize expenditures on military industrial complex that will gin up rich donors to give money during the elections. The will also target cuts to social programs to prevent tax increases for the rich.


Unfortunately, people on welfare and social security do not donate that much money to political candidate; however, they do vote which is the only thing that saves them from being cutoff from any aid.
 

COINTELPRO

Transnational Member
Registered
http://www.dailytech.com/Snowden+Le...imes+as+Much+as+a+Bureaucrat/article33277.htm

While the document has plenty of interesting revelations, perhaps the most revealing graphic as to why the NSA and other organizations are so keen on spying on millions of law abiding Americans can be found on page 79 of the "top secret" classified Budget Summary for Fiscal 2013:

Intelligence_Employees_Contractors_v_Govt_Wide.png


The graphic above shows that about 18 percent of the intelligence workforce -- or roughly one in five contractors -- is from the private sector ("civilian" workers represent non-military government personnel, i.e. staff at CIA or NSA offices or counterterrorism "Fusion" Centers).

While contractors represent fewer than 20 percent of the workforce, 70 percent of the intelligence budget goes to them, according to a figure from the U.S. Director of National Intelligence Agency (DNI) at a Colorado sponsored by the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA). While it's possible that this number is a few percentage points more or less today, that rare peek behind the veil is likely still relatively accurate.

II. Obama's Donors are Cashing in on Pork-Barrel Spy Spending

Traditionally the lion's share of this money has gone to Northrop Grumman Corp. (NOC), Honeywell Int'l Inc. (HON) (via is Science Applications Int'l Corp. subsidiary), Raytheon Comp. (RTN), Lockheed Martin Corp. (LMT), and Edward Snowden's former firm Booz Allen Hamilton Holding Comp. (BAH).

Given that these companies were among President Barack Hussein Obama's (D) top donors, giving twice as much to him as his Republican rival, it seems unlikely that the agency chiefs would cut back funding to these "friends of the state".

The list of President Obama's top campaign donors reads like a who's who of the intelligence contracting industry including -- Booz Allen Hamilton ($176,000 + $281,700 USD to supporting PACs); Lockheed Martin ($285,600 + $854,300 USD to supporting PACs); Honeywell Int'l ($93,600 USD + ~$100,000 USD to supporting PACs); Raytheon ($155,800 + $522,300 USD to supporting PACs); and Northrop Grumman ($251,500 + $323,300 USD to supporting PACs).

Obama_Spying_Binoculars_Wide.jpg


Given that "generosity", it's possible that the percentage of the President's intelligence budgets that is being funneled to campaign donors-cum-private contractors may be well over 70 percent at present.

But let us assume the 70 percent figure for a second. So that figure indicates 70 cents out of every intelligence dollar goes in a private pocket.

One might assume that under the "free market" these contracts would deliver lowers costs. But in reality it appears they are dramatically higher. With the information from the latest leak (that contractors only comprise ~18 percent of the workforce), it can be estimated that the federal government pays ten times as much of your taxpayer dollars per private sector analyst as they do per government employees.

In other words in America's political system, the much villainized "desk job bureaucrats" (along with a small contingent of members of the military) are actually raking in much less than the private sector firms "competing" for that work.

Central_Bureaucracy_3010_Wide.jpg


This makes no sense from a capitalist perspective until you realize that this isn't capitalism at all and that the nation has devolved into a system in which both parties unilaterally take from the taxpayers and pay off large contractors, who consistently shower both supposed "sides" of America's two party ruling system with campaign cash.

III. Contracts Awarded For Payouts, Not Product

There's no transparency, and little competition to speak of, because contracts typically go to those who pay, not those who offer the best payout of results. For example Amazon.com, Inc.'s (AMZN) PAC in 2012 paid a roughly 56-74 split (D/R) of campaign cash to members of the House and 37-12 split (D/R) to members of the Senate, according to OpenSecret's numbers from its PAC. Lo and behold in each case money went to whatever party was in control of chamber and could pass spending legislation. According to the site's statistics Amazon claimed $2.5M USD in lobbying expenses in 2012 alone.

Congress_Bribes_Wide.jpg


Punch that into your old calculator with the numbers from a 2011 study by researchers Raquel Alexander and Susan Scholz of the University of Kansas School of Business which estimates that per $1 USD spent on lobbying a company gets back $220 USD, on average in contracts, tax breaks, grants, etc. and you get an estimated that Amazon's $2.5M USD contribution should theoretically earn it a $550M USD payoff.

Lo and behold Amazon reportedly received a $600M USD confidential contract recently to provide "data services" to the CIA.

Friendly_Bribe_Poltician_Wide.jpg


The answer is that the money is pocketed as corporate profits, which are distributed to shareholders via programs such as dividends, share buybacks, etc. Of course much of this money goes to America's top 0.01 percent -- the individuals who control the hedge funds, which in turn own much of the corporate IT industry and defense contracting industry's public stock. Essentially the corporations just act as one more layer in the food chain above the paid off politicians who scavenge on taxpayer dollars. At the top of food chain are the hedge fund owners, the great whites of the American budgetary sea.

Thus contracting -- the primary recipient of intelligence dollars -- is not only a corrupt closed-market system with artificially inflated prices -- its a system in which skilled professional at most earn a small cut of these ill-gotten gains. The leech-like construct ultimately funnels the lion's share of defense contracting dollars to a fortunate few, operating as a plutocracy.

In the 1980s most intelligence dollars went towards spying on the Communists and their allies. Today a large percentage of the money spent on spying goes towards collecting, storing, and even at times improperly analyzing the communications of citizens of the U.S. and ally states.

Thus America has unwittingly traded expensive bloated bureaucracy in the Cold War for an even more wasteful closed market plutocractic system in the "9/11 era". And in the process they're getting far less for its money, all while installing systems that could later lead to dangerous violations of citizens' civil liberties.

NSA spying
The bitter irony? We're paying for the weapons that could one day rob us of our Constitutional freedoms. [Image Source: Nation of Change]

You know you're in a nightmare when you're wishing that you could get your slightly-less-overpaid bureaucrats back. But that is where America finds itself. Welcome to the surveillance state.
 
Last edited:

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
Bro, I keep reminding you to please post the source of articles that you nail-up on this board. Your cooperation is appreciated.
 

COINTELPRO

Transnational Member
Registered
Bro, I keep reminding you to please post the source of articles that you nail-up on this board. Your cooperation is appreciated.

Link Posted....

It was a good article, the first I have seen connecting the dots between privatization and political donations. Our political funding system results in this pay for play system for some companies that the taxpayer ends up holding the bag.

A couple of billion dollars in publicly financed elections established at 70% managed by a couple of companies to create privacy; could save the taxpayer billions of dollars, maybe trillions, increase social spending on many programs such as education, and end corporate run government that is probably leading us to another war in the Middle East.

Everybody gets $200 dollars and pick an amount to send to a primary or election candidate, no matter if you are living on Skid Row or the Hamptons
 

Politic Negro

Rising Star
BGOL Investor

Mitch McConnell warns GOP senators they’ll face ‘incoming’ if they back Hawley bill to limit corporate giving in campaigns​



(CNN) - Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell bluntly warned Republican senators in a private meeting not to sign on to a bill from Sen. Josh Hawley aimed at limiting corporate money bankrolling high-powered outside groups, telling them that many of them won their seats thanks to the powerful super PAC the Kentucky Republican has long controlled.

According to multiple sources familiar with the Tuesday lunch meeting, McConnell warned GOP senators that they could face “incoming” from the “center-right” if they signed onto Hawley’s bill. He also read off a list of senators who won their races amid heavy financial support from the Senate Leadership Fund, an outside group tied to the GOP leader that spends big on TV ads in battleground Senate races. On that list of senators: Hawley himself, according to sources familiar with the matter.

McConnell has long been a chief opponent of tighter campaign finance restrictions. But there’s also no love lost between McConnell and Hawley, who has long criticized the GOP leader and has repeatedly called for new leadership atop their conference. Just on Tuesday, Hawley told CNN that it was “mistake” for McConnell to be “standing with” Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, a New York Democrat, in their push to tie Ukraine aid to an Israel funding package.




Hawley’s new bill, called the Ending Corporate Influence on Elections Act, is aimed at reversing the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision that loosened campaign finance laws – an effort that aligns the conservative Missouri Republican with many Democrats. Hawley’s bill would ban publicly traded corporations from making independent expenditures and political advertisements – and ban those publicly traded companies from giving money to super PACs.

In an interview, Hawley defended his bill and said that corporate influence should be limited in elections.

“I think that’s wrong,” Hawley told CNN. “I think it’s wrong as an original matter. I think it’s warping our politics, and I see no reason for conservatives to defend it. It’s wrong as a matter of the original meaning of the Constitution. It is bad for our elections. It’s bad for our voters. And I just think on principle, we ought to be concerned.”

According to a list of senators obtained by CNN, McConnell singled out a number of lawmakers who benefited from his outside group over the last three cycles: Mike Braun of Indiana, Kevin Cramer of North Dakota, Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee, Dan Sullivan of Alaska, Joni Ernst of Iowa, Roger Marshall of Kansas, Susan Collins of Maine, Steve Daines of Montana, Thom Tillis of North Carolina, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Katie Britt of Alabama, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Eric Schmitt of Missouri, Ted Budd of North Carolina, JD Vance of Ohio and Ron Johnson of Wisconsin.

In 2018, Hawley benefited from more than $20 million from McConnell’s group.

McConnell’s office declined to comment.
 
Top