How The Billionaires Control American Elections-- A Guest Post From Eric Zuesse

-by Eric Zuesse

The great investigative journalist Glenn Greenwald gave an hour-long lecture on how America’s billionaires control the U.S. Government, and here is an edited summary of its opening twenty minutes (the best part of it), with key quotations and assertions from its opening-- and then its broader context will be discussed briefly:

The Intercept, 9 July 2020

2:45: There is “this huge cleavage between how members of Congress present themselves, their imagery and rhetoric and branding, what they present to the voters, on the one hand, and the reality of what they do in the bowels of Congress and the underbelly of Congressional proceedings, on the other. Most of the constituents back in their home districts have no idea what it is that the people they’ve voted for have been doing, and this gap between belief and reality is enormous.” Four crucial military-budget amendments were debated in the House just now, as follows:

1. to block Trump from withdrawing troops from Afghanistan.
2. to block Trump from withdrawing 10,000 troops from Germany
3. to limit U.S. assistance to the Sauds’ bombing of Yemen
4. to require Trump to explain why he wants to withdraw from the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty

On all four issues, the pro-imperialist position prevailed in nearly unanimous votes-- overwhelming in both Parties. Dick Cheney’s daughter, Republican Liz Cheney, dominated the debates, though the House of Representatives is now led by Democrats, not Republicans.

Greenwald (citing other investigators, which I shall link to below) documents that the U.S. news-media are in the business of deceiving the voters to believe that there are fundamental differences between the Parties. “The extent to which they clash is wildly exaggerated” by the press (in order to pump up the percentages of Americans who vote, so as to maintain, both domestically and internationally, the lie that America is a democracy-- actually represents the interests of the voters).

16:00: The Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee-- which writes the nearly $750B annual Pentagon budget-- is the veteran (23 years) House Democrat Adam Smith of Boeing’s Washington State. “The majority of his district are people of color.” He’s “clearly a pro-war hawk” a consistent neoconservative, voted to invade Iraq and all the rest. “This is whom Nancy Pelosi and House Democrats have chosen to head the House Armed Services Committee-- someone with this record.” He is “the single most influential member of Congress when it comes to shaping military spending.” He was primaried by a progressive Democrat, and the “defense industry opened up their coffers” and enabled Adam Smith to defeat the challenger.

That’s the opening.

Greenwald went on, after that, to discuss other key appointees by Nancy Pelosi who are almost as important as Adam Smith is, in shaping the Government’s military budget. They’re all corrupt (campaign-financed by the megacorporations that sell billions to the ‘Defense’ Department). And then he went, at further length, to describe the methods of deceiving the voters, such as how these very same Democrats who are actually agents of the billionaires who own the ‘defense’ contractors and the ‘news’ media etc., campaign for Democrats’ votes by emphasizing how evil the Republican Party is on the issues that Democratic Party voters care far more about than they do about America’s destructions of Iraq and Syria and Libya and Honduras and Ukraine, and imposing crushing economic blockades (sanctions) against the residents in Iran, Venezuela and many other lands that those billionaires also want to control. Democratic Party voters care lots about the injustices and the sufferings of American Blacks and other minorities, and of poor American women, etc., but are satisfied to vote for Senators and Representatives who actually represent ‘defense’ contractors and other profoundly corrupt corporations, instead of represent their own voters. This is how the most corrupt people in politics become re-elected, time and again-- by deceived voters. And-- as those nearly unanimous committee votes display-- almost every member of the U.S. Congress is profoundly corrupt.

Furthermore: Adam Smith’s opponent in the 2018 Democratic Party primary was Sarah Smith (no relation) and she tried to argue against Adam Smith’s neoconservative (pro-U.S.-imperialism) voting-record, but the press-coverage she received in her congressional district ignored that, in order to keep those voters in the dark about the key reality. Whereas Sarah Smith received some coverage from Greenwald and other reporters at The Intercept who mentioned that “Sarah Smith mounted her challenge largely in opposition to what she cast as his hawkish foreign policy approach,” and that she “routinely brought up his hawkish foreign policy views and campaign donations from defense contractors as central issues in the campaign,” only very few of the voters in that district followed such non-mainstream national news-media, far less knew that Adam Smith was in the pocket of ‘defense’ billionaires. And, so, the Pentagon’s big weapons-making firms defeated a progressive who, if elected, would have helped to re-orient federal spending away from selling bombs to be used by the Saudis to destroy Yemen, and instead toward providing better education and employment-prospects to Black, brown and other people, and to the poor, and everybody, in that congressional district, and all others. Moreover, since Adam Smith had a fairly good voting-record on the types of issues that Blacks and other minorities consider more important and more relevant than such things as his having voted for Bush to invade Iraq, Sarah Smith really had no other practical option than to criticize him regarding his hawkish voting-record, which that district’s voters barely even cared about. The billionaires actually had Sarah Smith trapped (just like, on a national level, they had Bernie Sanders trapped). (Furthermore, she campaigned against the billionaires, but many Democrats-- even lower-income ones who struggle to make ends meet-- respect billionaires and are not opposed to voting for billionaire-backed candidates; many of these people simply don’t even want to know how corrupt the system is. They want to believe that the only political problem is bigoted individuals-- not the entire crony economic system in which they are embedded and which provides them their ‘news’, and which systematically promotes all types of bigotry. So, campaigning against the system drives away more voters than it attracts.) (After all, the system itself is supremacist: it supports any type of supremacism.)



Of course, Greenwald’s audience is clearly Democratic Party voters, in order to inform them of how deceitful their own Party is, against themselves. However, the Republican Party operates in exactly the same way, though using different deceptions against its voters, because Republican Party voters have very different priorities than Democratic Party voters do, and so they ignore and allow different types of deceptions and atrocities than Democratic voters do. Each Party plays the “good cop, bad cop” routine against the other: “Vote for me because my opponent is so bad (on the things you really care about).”

Numerous polls (for examples, this and this and this) show that American voters (except for the minority of them that are Republican) want “bipartisan” government (Republicans are the exception: they tend to view their opponents as enemies that must be conquered instead of compromised with); but the reality in America is that this country actually already does have that: the U.S. Government is actually bipartisanly corrupt, and bipartisanly evil. (This is the reason why members of Congress, even of opposite Parties, get along very well together, amongst themselves: it’s “us against them” and the “them” is the voters, who need to be controlled; and the “us” are the rulers.) In fact, it’s almost unanimous, it is so bipartisan, in reality. That’s the way America’s Government actually functions, especially in the congressional votes that are nearly unanimous and that the ‘news’-media don’t publicize (except to fudge what the bill was actually about). However, since it lies so much, and its media (controlled also by its billionaires) do likewise, and since they systematically cover-up instead of expose the deepest rot, the public don’t even know about this bipartisanship. They don’t know the reality. They don’t know how corrupt and evil their Government actually is. They just vote and pay taxes. That’s the extent to which they actually ‘participate’ in ‘their’ Government. They tragically don’t know the reality. It’s hidden from them. It is censored-out, by the editors, producers, and other management, of the billionaires’ ‘news’-media. These are the truths that can’t pass through those executives’ filters. These are the truths that get filtered-out, instead of reported. No democracy can function this way-- and, of course, none does. But the voters can’t figure that out for themselves. And the media they receive don’t explain it to the public, because their owners require them to hide it from the public. In fact, this is what they require their media to hide above all else. And that’s why they hide this fact 100%, not only 99%, but actually 100%-- totally hide it, won’t even allow it to be discussed in their media. (Incidentally: this article is being submitted to virtually all English-language media for publication free of charge. If you don’t see it being published in places such as CNN, the New York Times, or The Atlantic, then you might want to watch the remainder of the complete presentation by Greenwald there, in order to understand in more depth how billionaires control America. Greenwald’s discussion focuses only on the imperialism issue, but in a recent article I explained the mechanism by which the billionaires police the censorship, on all issues.)

Not Every Red District Is Susceptible To The Blue Wave-- But Blue Districts Are Susceptible To The Progressive Wave

After Blake Farenthold was forced out of Congress earlier in April for being a workplace perv, there was a vague hope Democrats could win his seat in a special election-- very vague. The DCCC gave the seat a thumbs down and refused to engage, especially after it was clear that the leading Democrat, Eric Holguin, is a progressive. The very gerrymandered district (TX-27) stretches along the Gulf from Corpus Christie and Port Aransas up through Victoria and Port Lavaca to Bay City and, incongruously, west through Shiner and Gonzales into the exurbs southeast of Austin. The PVI is R+13, very safely red, and Trump won the seat 60.1% to 36.5%.

In the 9-person jungle primary on Saturday, the winner was Michael Cloud, who was already primarying Farenthold when he resigned in disgrace.Saturday, Cloud won enough votes to avoid a runoff. He spent $326,449 compared to Holguin, who came in second, after spending $65,722. Virtually all the outside spending, around $700,000, was in support of Cloud. Neither the DCCC nor any other outside groups helped Holguin. All 3 Democrats combined didn't get to 40% Turnout was very low. Cloud, this time as an incumbent, will face Holguin again in November for a full two-year term. Every Beltway pundit rates TX-27 as "safe Republican."

Cloud has been endorsed by the far right-- Club for Growth and the Freedom Caucus, which he is expected to join. Like Holguin, Cloud came out against Trump's family separation policy. Holguin took a very strong stand against Trump's child abuse policies, making Cloud nervous. Holguin on election day: "The human rights violations that are occurring on our borders right now is reprehensible, inhumane, and against everything that we as Americans stand for today When our children and grandchildren look back on our history, they will be asking 'Why?' we terrorized children. Now is our opportunity to unite to speak out."

Holguin's issues page on his campaign website looks pretty progressive, especially for such a red district. He comes out for single-payer healthcare for example.

Eric is a real long shot for the November election. But he's been a long shot before. In the original March 6 primary, he just barely made it to the runoff with 23.31% of the vote, while the frontrunner, a perrenial candidate with plenty of name recognition, received 41.22%. Then came the May 22 runoff and Holguin went on to win with over 60% of the vote, putting him in position to become the first openly gay Latino congressman.

He's campaigning for the November general election already.

These long shot races are still long shots, "a venture," says the Merriam-Webster dictionary, "unlikely to succeed, an entry (as in a horse race) given little chance of winning, a bet in which the chances of winning are slight but the possible winnings great." When Alexandria asked for a Blue America endorsement I thought she was a long shot. In fact, I thought she had almost no chance to win. Blue America endorsed her because we hoped she would build up skill and name recognition and run again in 2020 and win then. We saw something special in her, worth investing in for the long game. She's a hard worker and a smart worker with a dedicated crew around her. We decided to do more than endorse her; we spent money in the campaign independently. There were only two outside groups that did-- the Sierra Club spent money-- albeit just a small symbolic amount-- on behalf of Crowley and the establishment they always suck up to. And Blue America put down our biggest investment of 2016 (so far) on behalf of the candidate we felt was working the hardest and earned our support... even if we didn't think she had a chance. Even as the votes started coming in on election night, the returns in her favor appeared to be to be errors that would soon be corrected by the Department of Elections. But that isn't what happened. The distance between her and Crowley continued to grow. I thought it was impossible and that maybe the early votes were from the Bronx where our I.E. had been concentrated and where she worked incredibly hard and where no one has ever heard of Crowley. But I was wrong again-- she was winning in Queens as well... by a lot. A long shot that paid off.

That pay off is giving hope to candidates and campaigns across the country. Pelosi tried to tamp it down, calling it a fluke and an outlier (while working her knuckles to the bone to sabotage Kara Eastman who won her primary in Omaha and who Pelosi's DCCC absolutely refuses to assist. NE-02 was a must-win district when Pelosi was backing disgusting Blue Dog Brad Ashford but as soon as progressive Kara Eastman won, the district vanished as a DCCC priority. Pelosi will be pleading with Democrats to unite for November but that's a one way street for the lousy corrupt establishment. We have to united around their crap candidates while they work to crush ours.

I saw another Democratic Socialist, Kaniela Saito Ing in Hawaii, renew his efforts after after Ocasio gave him a shout out on Chris Hayes' show the day after the election. The establishment candidates, a bunch of establishment conservatives from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party, are ganging up against him, with the assistance of the establishment media. But Kaniela is flighting harder than ever now to win the crowded August 11 primary, which includes conservatives Ed Case, Doug Chin, Donna Mercado Kim and Beth Fukumoto. While the establishment freaks out at the thought of a Democratic Socialist representing Honolulu, Civil Beat featured him in an OpEd as The real progressive in the race. Before you read this, keep in mind that Hillary was endorsed by every single Democratic politician in Hawaii who endorsed at all except by two Kaniela and then Tulsi Gabbard. Bernie beat Hillary by a preposterous margin-- 69.8% to 30.0%. Hawaii was clearly ready for an alternative to the status quo the establishment was offering again. Last week:

For those inspired by Bernie Sanders’ mantra that we deserve better than career politicians who are bought and sold by corporations, we can now wrap our enthusiasm around Kaniela Ing, candidate for U.S. Congress-- the only real progressive in the race.

For so many of us, the Democratic Party’s charge to advocate for working families has been totally undermined by its refusal to directly challenge corporate power, enabling our current president to masquerade as a voice for working people.

Prior to and since that election, progressive candidates have risen up in record numbers offering a different kind of Democrat who will truly represent and look like America, by virtue of  gender, race, religion, profession, economic status-- and most importantly-- who represent people, not corporations.

We’re fortunate to have one such candidate running for Hawaii’s 1st District seat in Congress-- Kaniela Ing. When Kaniela, a Justice Democrat, and his fellow progressive legislators arrive in Congress, they will start on day one, united around an agenda focused on people, not profits, to enact policies that the majority of Americans support:

Ending the corruption of big money in politics, allowing everyone access to a Medicare-For-All single-payer system, providing free tuition for public colleges, creating a renewable energy revolution, enacting common sense gun legislation, fighting for women’s equality and our LGBTQ family, enacting comprehensive immigration reform, implementing a real infrastructure plan, and more.

Not all Democrats are the same. A Democrat who takes corporate money, who’s been a Republican just before they became a Democrat, who talks about being “for the people” but whose votes imply influence by special interests, are not in this fight for the benefit of Hawaii residents and the American people.

It’s only Kaniela who has demonstrated the political courage to turn his back on big corporate donors. It’s only Kaniela’s track record that is long and strong in fighting for working families. Kaniela is the only candidate who supported and aggressively championed marriage equality for Hawaii, while one of his opponents, who claims to be “revolutionary,” opposed marriage equality, and another opponent’s history includes homophobic rants.

Kaniela is a long shot worth gambling on. Blue America is-- and you can support his campaign by clicking on the 2018 congressional thermometer on the right. But, alas, not every candidate inspired by Bernie has an equal chance to win, nor is every one of them as smart and as hard a worker as Ocasio and Ing are. If deploying your limited resources wisely is a factor, it's probably better to concentrate them strategically. (If you have unlimited resources just go wild and write checks for every candidate endorsed by Blue America, Our Revolution, Justice Democrats, DFA, People For Bernie, PCCC, etc.)

I want to point to a low-key campaign in Washington state that I hadn't really looked into until this past weekend-- the primary in the 9th district, which is a heavily Democratic area in the southern and eastern Seattle Metro including Mercer Island, Kent, Bellevue and Renton. When Adam Smith, a conservative Democrat first won the seat in 1996, it was a more competitive district. Now the PVI is D+21. Hillary won 70.5% to 23.3% against Trump, even stronger than the 68% Obama got both times he ran. The district's minority make-up has grown tremendously and it is now just 50% white. A trajectory not unlike Crowley's 14th in New York, although not as developed... and Smith isn't as bad as Crowley. Bad not but as bad. There are a couple of Washington state Dems in Congress who are even worse than he is. Smith has a lousy voting record and ProgressivePunch rates him "F." He's a New Dem, a corporate tool and a stooge for the Military Industrial Complex. The district has outgrown him.

The only way to replace Smith is through a primary. No Republican is ever going to win that district. Adam Smith has raised $426,466 and Sarah Smith, his very progressive opponent, has raised $36,968. $37,000 isn't enough to let voters know who you are-- or even that you are. But there's still time. The local Fox channel (Q13) reputed on the race last week: Could progressive newcomer Sarah Smith upset 11-term incumbent in Washington primary?. She could like Ocasio:

Thirty-year-old Sarah Smith and a team of volunteers are hitting the pavement, knocking on door after door to spread the word: She's running for Congress and taking on 11-term Democratic incumbent Adam Smith in the primaries.

"I had to struggle to overcome this thought in my head of: I'm not from a political dynasty; I'm not supposed to go into politics; I'm working class; I haven't gone up the ladder; I haven't done it the right way; I haven't asked for permission," Sarah Smith said. "I had to really get out of that mindset because at the end of the day, we don't need to ask for permission to run to represent our neighbors."

Sarah Smith is a candidate under Brand New Congress and Justice Democrats, the same slates that supported New York's Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who just dealt a crushing defeat to 10-term Democratic Congressman Joe Crowley.

"I cried when she got elected. I'm a sucker," Sarah Smith said.

Both women are part of a push to elect progressives aligned with Sen. Bernie Sanders. In a state that caucused strong for Sanders in 2016, Sarah Smith's platform is gaining ground.

"I am for single-payer medicare for all; I am for debt-free education; I am for abolishing (Immigration and Customs Enforcement); I am for investing in our infrastructure; and I am for getting us out of, what is it, nine to 11 different military occupations we're in?"

Her opponent is on the House Armed Services Committee. Congressman Adam Smith has a long history in the 9th Congressional District. So who is Sarah Smith?

"I work full time," Sarah Smith said. "I manage a mechanic garage. I have student debt. I have a husband. I can't afford to have a kid. I'm every person in this district."

This political novice is putting the Democratic establishment on notice. The full-fledged progressive told Q13 News Correspondent Simone Del Rosario that compromise is a last resort.

"If you are elected to Congress you are not just representing the progressives in District 9, you will be representing everybody who lives in District 9. Are you prepared to do that?" Del Rosario asked.

"Absolutely I am," she replied. "I recognize that my platform is going to get me elected, so I want to commit to my platform as much as possible and as strongly as possible, because if I get elected it's because of my values and it's because of what I stand up for."

That's what she hopes to take to Congress.

Rep. Adam Smith has served in Congress for 22 years. Q13 News spoke to him over the phone to talk about the progressive movement, his opponent and the upcoming primary.

"For me, this is not about a national movement," Rep. Adam Smith said. "This is about the people who live around Sea-Tac Airport who deal with the noise problems. This is about helping the very large immigrant community that I have with immigration issues. This is about helping the education system in the city of Seattle and south King County.

"I've lived my entire life in the district; raised my children here; sent them to public schools in the district; and I have a very, very strong connection to the people there and I have been very, very effective in being their voice in Congress."

Again, Bernie won Adam Smith's district; Adam Smith was out of touch with his own voters. While Sarah Smith volunteered and then caucused for Bernie's campaign, Adam Smith endorsed Hillary and was a super-delegate for her. Ocasio didn't have a great deal of money-- around $300,000-- but it was enough to get her and her message out to the voters. Sarah is going to need more if she's going to square the circle in time for the August 7th primary.