Did Google Just Bribe Devin Nunes? Business As Usual For Google And Nunes

California’s 22nd congressional district is one of the dwindling 7 still left in Republican hands-- and likely one of the next to fall. The relatively compact Central Valley district, starts up in the northern and eastern parts of the city of Fresno, includes Clovis, Reedley, Dinuba, Visalia, Exeter, Lindsay and Tulare. The district is primarily rural and includes parts of two counties, Fresno and Tulare. The PVI is R+8, the least red of the districts still held by a Republican in the state. There are only 3 California congressional districts with Republican PVIs held by Democrats-- CA-45 (R+3, Katie Porter), CA-48 (R+4, Harley Rouda) and CA-49 (R+1, Mike Levin).

By the numbers, it’s nearly impossible for a Democrat to win an R+8 district. There are just too many Republican voters and too few Democrats. CA-22, however could break the mold because of the controversial nature of the incumbent, crackpot and Trump patsy Devin Nunes. The district gave Obama (both times) and Hillary around 42% of its vote, but McCain took 55%, Romney got 56.6% but Trump just 52.1%. It’s not especially popular in the district.

Last cycle, the DCCC couldn’t have found a worse candidate-- a worthless, anti-charismatic conservative who is barely a Democrat, Andrew Janz, someone, had he won, may have joined Jeff Van Drew in jumping ship-- yes, another DCCC pile of garbage. The reasons he got any votes at all was:

• 2018’s anti-red wave
• The insane pro-Putin incumbent
• an obscene $9,064,633, entirely raised against Nunes

The Central Valley has been largely ignored by a Democratic Party controlled by coastal elites, both state-wise and nationally. Hispanics have not been registered and political organizing has been minimal and decidedly not progressive. The area needs a lot of help, the kind of work Kim Williams is doing in the blue 16th district, a Blue Dog stronghold where voters are just becoming aware of what the difference between a Democrat and a Republican even is. The DCCC found themselves a clone of Janz for 2020-- actually Janz recommended him-- Phil Arballo, a guy who is never going to beat Nunes unless someone finds a hi-def video of Nunes raping that cow he sued. So far this cycle Nunes has raised $5,678,450. The 3 Democrats taking him on are lucky to have raised a tenth of that combined:

Phil Arballo (DCCC conservative)- $380,762
Bobby Bliatout (moderate liberal)- $204,599
Dary Rezvani (progressive)- $76,886

Arballo is running an identity politics campaign on Republican-lite platform that is word-for-word all the pablum the DCCC feeds it’s dumb-bell candidates who can’t write their own pablum. Bobby Bliatout’s isn’t as bad, but isn’t that much better either-- just garden variety Democrat. Day Rezvani’s priorities page is the only one that could actually generate any of the kind of enthusiasm needed to win this kind of district by inspiring young people and non-voters.

Monday morning, Popular Information, Judd Legum’s popular newsletter, published a piece called Google’s Holiday Gift To Devin Nunes, about the pernicious impact of how corporations buy American politicians. “In November,” wrote Legum, “Congressman Devin Nunes (R-CA) was in the spotlight— the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, which was leading the impeachment inquiry into President Trump. He used his star turn to push "fantastical conspiracy theories" about Democrats. Nunes falsely accused Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA) of trying to obtain nude photos of Trump. He promoted the discredited notion, advanced by Trump but rejected by the intelligence community, that Ukraine took significant steps to meddle in the 2016 election. The debunked contention is part of a broader Russian propaganda effort to absolve itself from hacking the DNC servers by pinning the blame on Ukraine. Nunes was warned during the hearings by Fiona Hill, a former member of the National Security Council, that he was legitimizing a Russian disinformation campaign. ‘I refuse to be part of an effort to legitimize an alternate narrative that the Ukrainian government is a U.S. adversary, and that Ukraine-- not Russia-- attacked us in 2016,’ Hill said. ‘In the course of this investigation, I would ask that you please not promote politically driven falsehoods that so clearly advance Russian interests.’ Nunes was undeterred.”

Nunes' antics during the impeachment hearings capped a year when he filed six defamation lawsuits, seeking hundreds of millions in damages from Twitter, a GOP political operative, media companies, a retired farmer, and a fictional cow. The suits were all filed by an attorney, Steven Biss, whose law license was suspended twice by the state of Virginia.

In response, Google quietly rewarded Nunes' behavior with a check for $5000 to help him get reelected. The donation was revealed in a little-noticed FEC report that was filed on December 20.

Google says its "mission is to make sure that information serves everyone." But it is supporting a Congressman who has emerged as one of the most powerful sources of disinformation in the country.

It is a vivid example of a much broader problem that Popular Information has documented extensively. There is a yawning gap between the publicly stated values of powerful corporations and their political activities. A paper published by Harvard Business School (HBS) this month concludes that corporations have "funded, perpetuated, and profited from political dysfunction."

Corporations have a massive influence on the electoral process. In 2018, corporate spending on federal elections was around $2.8 billion. At the state level, "public companies were the largest source of funding supporting partisan groups in state-level races, such as the Republican Governors Association and its Democratic counterpart."

One chapter of the Harvard paper surveyed HBS alumni and found a shocking level of ignorance about the influence of the corporations they work for on the political system.

When asked whether their own companies’ election spending distorted the democratic process, just 4% said yes, while 30% disagreed (27% strongly disagreed). A remarkable 61% responded to this question with “Not applicable” or “Don’t know.” 

The authors said the responses from HBS alumni "suggests either that many business leaders have little knowledge of their companies’ political involvement...or that alumni are unwilling or uncomfortable disclosing their companies’ involvement in elections."

But when asked about corporate involvement in politics generally, most HBS alumni agree that corporate political donations are deleterious and warp democracy.

[A]mong HBS alumni who were asked not about their own company but about business as a whole, 60% responded that companies should not have corporate PACs as a vehicle for employees to contribute to candidates the company supports. And 71% of these same alumni believed that the overall business community’s election spending distorted the democratic process.

In other words, HBS alumni believe that corporate political donations are a big problem-- but the company they work for is an exception.

Political donations are part of a corporate "playbook" of political activity that includes lobbying, spending on ballot initiatives, and hiring former government officials. Overall, HBS alumni view their own company's political involvement as largely positive while viewing the activities of all the other companies' political involvement negatively.

Notably, 62% of HBS alumni surveyed say that the business community overall "worsens the political system by advancing policies benefiting special interests," but just 21% are willing to say the same thing about their company.

While corporate influence campaigns are effectively securing tactical political victories that increase businesses' immediate bottom line, the Harvard study suggests that this strategy is backfiring over the long run. 

Based on our research, we believe that much of today’s business involvement in politics may actually be working against business’s longer-term interests. It is not enhancing our nation’s productivity and competitiveness, failing to put business’s weight behind sound public policies to enhance the U.S. business environment, advance shared prosperity among citizens, and improve the communities on which business depends.

This makes sense. Ingratiating yourself with people like Devin Nunes, for example, may help you preserve a valuable tax loophole for another year. After all, he has a vote. It's unlikely, however, that Nunes and his ilk will have any interest in creating a functional social, economic and regulatory environment.

Toward a new meaning of corporate responsibility

Nearly all corporations seek a positive public image, including demonstrating a commitment to creating social good. Up to this point, these efforts have "been in areas like reducing greenhouse gas emissions, improving employee health, and, more recently, paying a living wage and improving training and career development for lower-income workers." Politics has been separate. There is little effort to harmonize corporate political activities with commitments to public responsibility.

The Harvard study found a surprising willingness among HBS alumni to change the corporate political playbook. A strong majority of HBS alumni believe corporations should end political donations, spend less on lobbying, and stop trying to buy outcomes in ballot initiatives.

This circles back to a dynamic discussed earlier: most corporate employees are unaware (or unwilling to acknowledge) their own company's complicity in the problem. How many Google employees, for example, know their company gave Devin Nunes $5000 last month? Without that knowledge, an abstract willingness to change corporate practices overall will not translate to internal pressure for things to change at a particular company.

Knowledge is only part of the problem. Corporate insiders are often reluctant to speak out, believing that doing so could cost them their jobs.

The author of the Harvard study is proposing a "set of voluntary standards, which we believe every company should adopt when dealing with politics and government." But with so much money at stake, most corporations will not reorient their political activities without a fight. Change, if it does occur, will need to be a product of external and internal pressure.

Congress Should Change The Name Of The House Financial Services Committee To The Neoliberalism Committee

This is propaganda

Members of Congress mostly sign up for the Financial Services Committee because it's the easiest committee in Congress to sell your vote for big bucks. There are a lot of really corrupt committees, but Financial Services is numero uno. Every now and then a Democrat or two will manage to get on the committee with the express purpose of reforming it. They rarely last long. The out-going chair, Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) is leaving Congress just in time to see control of the committee which from Republicans to Democrats. His legacy is having taken immense amounts of money from the banksters in return for destroying as many regulations on their behavior as he could. These are the bribes he earned-- and how the amount stacked up to other members of the House who were busy taking bribes last year:

• Financial Sector as a whole- $7,905,748 (2nd most)
• Stock brokers and the Investment Industry- $1,536,111 (12th most)
• Finance/Credit companies- $738,104 (#1)
• Hedge Funds- $107,350
• Mortgage Banking- $251,555 (2nd most)
• Payday Lenders- $202,000 (2nd most)
• Commercial Banking- $1,459,388 (the most)
• Savings and Loans- $85,903 (2nd most)

Well now he's gone and the new chair, Maxine Waters (D-CA), doesn't spend her life gobbling up bribes on a level Hensarling did. Hensarling isn't the only Republican who is leaving Congress from the committee. No more payoffs will be flowing to these criminals, in order of seniority and including how much they've taken from the Finance Sector:

• Ed Royce (R-CA)- $7,593,842
• Stevan Pearce (R-NM)- $2,015,512
• Randy Hultgren (R-IL)- $2,368,537
• Dennis Ross (R-FL)- $1,983,567

• Robert Pittenger (R-NC)- $1,367,745
• Keith Rothfus (R-PA)- $2,252,763
• Luke Messer (R-IN)- $1,828,341
• Bruce Poliquin (R-ME)- $2,357,049
• Mia Love (R-UT)- $1,812,806
• Dave Trott (R-MI)- $577,765
• Tom MacArthur (R-NJ)- $1,308,469
• Claudia Tenney (R-NY)- $984,180

• Mike Capuano (D-MA)- $2,686,760
• Keith Ellison (D-MN)- $914,294
• John Delaney (New Dem-MD)- $2,537,077
• Kyrsten Sinema (Blue Dog-AZ)- $4,208,505

I don't know who McCarthy has decided to anoint as the GOP ranking member this year but the three with the most seniority on the committee are Peter King (R-NY- $3,092,721) Frank Lucas (R-OK- $2,483,427) and Patrick McHenry (R-NC- $5,586,542) and it will presumably one of them. McHenry is the most corrupt and I'd bet hell get the job.

OK, while I was researching this I noticed something else. If you want to power-goose the bribes, the subcommittee to be on is Capital Markets, Securities and Investment. OMG! Do these crooks just roll in the cash-- more than anyone else, short of leadership positions. I can't wait to watch which crooked freshmen gravitate towards this one, The chairman was Bill Huizenga (R-MI) and he managed to grab $2,801,450 and the new chair is an incredibly corrupt NYC Democrat, Carolyn Maloney who has taken a startling $6,327,421 from the Finance sector. The Democrats should be ashamed to appoint this crook to chair the subcommittee. But they're not.

These are the Capital Markets, Securities and Investment subcommittee members, the ones who aren't leaving the House (so I won't mention that Kyrsten Sinema, who's going to the Senate accepted $4,208,505 in bribes while serving on this subcommittee) who have taken over a million bucks each from the Finance Sector:

• Carolyn Maloney (D-NY)- $6,327,421

• Jim Himes (New Dem-CT)- $6,279,357
• Steve Stivers (R-OH)- $5,598,776
• Patrick McHenry (R-NC)- $5,586,542
• Brad Sherman (New Dem- CA)- $3,823,403
• Sean Duffy (R-WI)- $3,679,647
• Gregory Meeks (New Dem-NY)- $3,661,288
• David Scott (New Dem-GA)- $3,260,344
• Peter King (R-NY)- $3,092,721
• Ann Wagner (R-MO)- $3,041,599
• Josh Gottheimer (New Dem-NJ)- $2,967,427
• Bill Huizenga (R-MI)- $2,801,450
• Bill Foster (New Dem-IL)- $2,780,919
• French Hill (R-AR)- $2,386,049
• Stephen Lynch (D-MA)- $2,084,356
• Juan Vargas (New Dem-TX)- $1,706,965
• Tom Emmer (R-MN)- $1,333,623

So that leaves us with the freshmen who took the most money from the banksters-- over $700,000-- while they were running. I've never seen a freshman class entering Congress with this kind of a debt to the banksters. And notice-- not one of them is a Republican! These are the ones the banksters are counting on to allow them to go on cheating their customers and ripping off the country:

• Mikie Sherrill (New Dem-NJ)- $1,356,124
• Elissa Slotkin (New Dem-MI)- $1,079,022
• Antonio Delgado (D-NY)- $1,077,633
• Dan McCready (New Dem-NC)- $1,006,825
• Tom Malinowski (New Dem-NJ)- $949,192
• Josh Harder (New Dem-CA)- $946,554
• Susie Lee (New Dem-NV)- $907,303
• Jason Crow (New Dem-CO)- $894,376
• Abigail Spanberger (New Dem-VA)- $793,472
• Elaine Luria (New Dem-VA)- $775,938
• Debbie Mucarsel-Powell (New Dem-FL)- $756,569
• Max Rose (New Dem)- $746,093
• Kim Schrier (New Dem-WA)- $732,502
• Colin Allred (New Dem-TX)- $729,600
• Angie Craig (New Dem-MN)- $710,436
• Mike Levin (D-CA)- $710,273
• Katie Hill (New Dem-CA)- $710,109

17 freshmen who have already taken over $700K from the Finance Sector-- unheard of! And notice that 15 out of the 17 are New Dems, the caucus invented to sell their votes to Wall Street. Lookin' pretty miserable already. And that brings us to an interesting essay that Rainer Shea published on Sunday at the Ghion Journal-- Neoliberalism Is The Rationalization For Corporate Tyranny. It helps to explain the ideology behind the New Dems that even many of them don't fully grok themselves. "To understand the pathologies behind our paradigm of militarism, institutional racism, and extreme inequality," he began, "we should focus not so much on the attitudes of the elites but on the ideology that they use to advance their agendas."

When was the last time we had someone in Congress willing to say anything like this?

He makes the point that neoliberalism-- the extreme version of capitalism-- is the ideology "that the ruling class has made into conventional political thought. And neoliberalism is an exceptionally useful worldview for a power elite to propagate because it gives those who share their ideology the same mindset that the elites themselves have."

Like every dominant class throughout history, the plutocrats see those in the lower rungs of society as inferior. But neoliberalism causes this hostility towards the poor to spread among the broader population. Following in the philosophy of Ayn Rand, and propagated by right-wing pundits like Rush Limbaugh, an attitude has developed among many people that one’s economic position is always their own fault. Resentment towards perceived freeloaders is widespread, with even lower-class people often being suspicious that their economic peers are siphoning off society’s resources through welfare.

When this impulse to blame the country’s decay on laziness and “degeneracy” is fed by the dominant political forces, the ruling elite’s belief in the supreme moral value of wealth and the need for a corporate capitalist “free market” becomes the worldview of much of the rest of society. The super-rich believe that “freedom” means the ability to gain unlimited amounts of wealth without accountability, and this is essentially how most conventional political thinkers also view freedom. The domination of the neoliberal consensus applies to both the mainstream “conservative” and “liberal” sides since the Democratic Party reliably helps Wall Street and large corporations while marginalizing potential progressive reformers.

In reality, our political system is controlled by neither conservatives nor liberals. Electoral politics, government agencies, the courts, the universities, and the media have been bought out by corporations and billionaires. America’s economy is tied in with permanent wars, which are waged to sustain the demands of a global corporate-controlled empire. Our politics and our culture have been subverted by a tiny ruling circle, whose agenda isn’t to advance the traditional definitions of conservatism or liberalism but to protect their own wealth and power. And these elites have gotten many people to rationalize their tyrannical rule-or to even be unaware that a dominating class exists-by branding the accumulation of wealth as a personal freedom that shouldn’t be limited.

This economically centered concept of “freedom” is popularized by giving Americans-- especially white Americans-- the sense that they have the opportunity to succeed in the game of capitalism. Of course, the vast majority of white working class people never become part of the capitalist class. But the promise that they can theoretically become the commanders of the capitalist apparatus is rooted in the Western mentality of individualism, which is psychologically compelling for someone who’s told that the masters of business are society’s deserving “winners.” And the fact that becoming part of the capitalist class would entail domination over society’s “losers” is justified by the darker part of Western culture that glorifies conquest. This aspect of our culture derives from the mentalities behind colonialism and slavery, and it’s now being used to justify our current period of exploitation.

The shallow culture of consumerism enforces this lack of concern for the common good, as well as the regimentation and lack of community that our modern suburban paradigm has created. America’s culture is in a crisis of empathy, where people are encouraged to only think of their own interests while ignoring the circumstances of those who are different from them. Anthropologically, it makes sense for a population in these circumstances to largely be cynical, suspicious of outsiders, and loyal to authority.

...As the clinical psychologist John F. Schumaker recently wrote about the empathy deficit that modern consumerist capitalism has created:

Only the odd diehard biophile or flower child still preaches love as the revolutionary force that could awaken a higher humanity and reverse our death march. People have become less loveable, both in terms of their loveableness and, more crucially, their ability to love.

The lesson is that if we want to make things better, we need to spread compassion and generosity throughout our daily lives. Even more important is the creation of a mass movement that seeks to overthrow corporate capitalism, and then creates a society which protects the planet while ensuring that every person has a safe and comfortable life.