Tuesday, June 09, 2015

Will The Billionaires Get To Pick The Next President?


Last week we looked at the History Channel's account of the pivotal election of 1896 ("Wall Street vs Main Street, 1896"), which pitted populist icon William Jennings Bryan (D-NE) against Wall Street shill William McKinley (R-OH). McKinley was hand-picked as the GOP nominee by the three most powerful oligarchs in America-- John D. Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie and J.P. Morgan-- along with plutocrat Ohio Senator Mark Hanna. They then endeavored, successfully, to steal the election for McKinley. (The self-styled aristocrats eventually got their comeuppance when McKinley was assassinated by an anarchist a few months into his second term and progressive that anti-trust reformer, Vice President Teddy Roosevelt, ascended to the presidency and unleashed the Justice Department on them.)

Today right-wing billionaires every bit as venal and self-absorbed as Rockefeller, Carnegie and Morgan are laying the groundwork to make sure a Wall Street-friendly president is elected again. Their nightmare, of course, would be to wake up November 9, 2016, and find that independent populist hero Bernie Sanders had been elected. Many of the richest men and women in the country have already decided to throw their support behind, not a Republican, but Hillary Clinton, another friend of Wall Street and Big Business. But the worst, most rapacious and sordid of the billionaires-- the Kochs and Adelsons, for example-- are sticking with their puppets on the far right, in the GOP.

Monday, NPR's Morning Edition took a look at who the billionaire class Bernie has been campaigning against is getting behind for 2016. In the era of the superPAC, there are several billionaires who have the ability to personally finance presidential campaigns. Sometimes skirting an already lax set of regulations and laws, Jeb Bush has lined up many of them-- but it's almost as if the more super-rich he enlisted to his banner, the more ordinary Republican voters abandoned him and looked towards alternative candidates. 

Every viable Republican-- and some less than viable Republicans (think Rick Santorum)-- has his own billionaire.
Jeb Bush was pleading for money. Late last month a fundraising email, sent in his name, asked donors for "$100, $50, $25, or anything you can spare right now." Bush said his political action committee still needed $5,674 to meet a monthly goal.

The same day his organization hit "send" on that email, Bush was talking about the big-donor fundraising for his superPAC-- $100 million so far, some of it solicited by Bush himself.

"We're going to completely adhere to the law for sure," the former Florida governor said on CBS's Face the Nation.

Ever since Bush began soliciting money this winter, he has defended the high-dollar fundraising with a three-point argument: The law keeps candidates from raising superPAC-level money. A superPAC is supposed to be independent of a candidate's campaign. But Bush is still not a candidate. When he becomes one, he said, "There'll be no coordination at all with any superPAC."

This presidential campaign is turning out to be "Billionaire or Bust," especially for Bush and other Republicans. The candidates need multimillion-dollar superPACs to help them win, while those superPACs need the candidates to recruit wealthy donors.

And so the hunt is on.

Bush has drawn on a vast donor network, built over decades through his own campaigns and those of his father and brother. The network comes with ready-made advantages. It's the envy of the field.

...[A]lmost every candidate wants a billionaire, or billionaires, close at hand to refuel a superPAC.

[Ted] Cruz is no different. His operation has a superPAC basically dedicated to hedge fund billionaire Robert Mercer, in addition to three other superPACs. Together, they've reportedly raised $37 million.

Florida Sen. Marco Rubio has Miami businessman Norman Braman on board. Braman said this of Rubio back in March, on Fox News: "I just believe in him. I've known him for eight years. And I'm not alone. We're gonna raise the money."

And Rick Santorum still has Idaho entrepreneur Foster Friess, who traveled with the candidate in 2012, simultaneously consulting with him and funding his superPAC.

Friess was interviewed by Bloomberg News late last month, saying, "I think I wanna be a little more low-profile, and the amount of money is kinda between myself, my family and Rick."

In less than six weeks, superPACs have to file their first disclose reports, listing names and dollar amounts for all but their smallest donors. Friess said he has ways around that.

"You'll find out my giving maybe if you work real hard," he said, "but I'm going to make it hard for you to find out where I'm giving and how I'm giving."

Not all of the candidates have friends like Friess. One is Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul. It was thought that Paul's libertarian stances would appeal to Silicon Valley entrepreneurs. But things haven't worked out that way. Paul has struggled to find a billionaire to call his own.

Craig Shirley, a campaign consultant turned Ronald Reagan historian, told NPR he used to think voters would have problems with billionaire-financed superPACs, but now, "everyone's become so inured to billionaires playing in national politics, that they've just kind of come to accept it."

It seems to be truer among Republicans than among Democrats.

On her first day campaigning in Iowa, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton pledged to fix the political money system "and get unaccountable money out of it once and for all, even if that takes a constitutional amendment."

But Clinton's operation is struggling to drum up wealthy liberals to support its own superPAC.

It's too early in the race for those donors, making her presidential superPAC look like it's caught in a re-run.

In 2012, the Democratic superPAC didn't really get rolling until August of that year, barely three months before Election Day.
Friess and Santorum may be a side show but the contemptible Kochs and vile Adelsons are not. The Kochs seem to have gotten behind a tried and proven puppet, Scott Walker and Adelson seems to have settled for Marco Rubio, who is likely to be Walker's running mate. Meanwhile, Bernie has no billionaires-- and doesn't want any. Would you consider stepping up to the plate instead? I have and many other entrust activists have-- our best chance, maybe for decades, to halt the weakening of democracy in this country. Here's our ActBlue page for Bernie's campaign.

Labels: , ,


At 4:05 PM, Blogger Eric Zuesse said...

He's been saying and fighting for the same things for decades -- all his life, really. Other than foreign policy, his program is clear and consistent. I forgive him foreign policy, because I know that he'd get clobbered if he didn't adhere to the norms on that. He is focused on achieving the basic changes that are desperately needed domestically in this nation. If he becomes President, he will be a great President, an FDR in our time. He's the only candidate worth fighting for. He's the real thing. He's nothing like Obama; he's the real thing. He's not at all like Nader; he's the real thing; he's running to win, not for ego, and he knows that he'll need the support of Democrats in order to be able to win the White House. That's why he has never insulted Democrats. He has been preparing for this for decades, but hoping it wouldn't be necessary for him to do it. He knows now that it is, that he is the only one who will do what is necessary in order to salvage democracy in America. Thank you, Bernie, for trying. I think you will win.

At 4:38 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

He reminds me of the glowing things the WWII generation of Democrats said about Adlai Stevenson. I echo the above: he's the real thing.

At 11:54 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To Eric Zuesse

Nothing of import will change domestically in the USA unless and until there is a massive change in its foreign policy.

What is so "unreal thing" about Nader?

John Puma


Post a Comment

<< Home