Will the Real PAC Please Stand UP?

Holy campaign finance reform! A crisis grips corporate America. Boards of directors at corporations everywhere find their hard-money, political donations greatly slimmed-down by Federal Election Commission PAC guidelines. What to do? Who to call? This looks like a job for not-so-Slim-Shady, who bursts into the boardroom rapping,

'Cause I'm 527, yes I'm the real committee
All you other contributors are just imitating
So won't the real PAC please stand up
please stand up, please stand up?'

PACs (Political Action Committees) are groups set up to support political candidates. Due to their direct advocacy, the scope of their donations have been limited and regulated by the Federal Election Commission. Since these committees are limited by a $5000 donation cap per candidate, PACs are limited in their ability to sway elections.

However, a group that avoids using “'magic' words that expressly advocate someone's election or defeat” (Public Citizen), and avoids direct contributions to political campaigns can remain outside the supervision of the FEC, and can raise unlimited amounts of corporate cash to buy elections. These alter-egos of the federally limited PACs, 527 groups, are massively invested in swaying elections, from “Get Out the Vote” efforts to media advertising (i.e. SEIU video ad).

On January 20th, 2009, the Chief Justice will likely begin Inauguration Day proceedings by asking: “So will the real corporately elected candidate please stand up, please stand up, please stand up?”

Revolutionarily yours,
Thommunist

Nader's Interview on PBS

Snubbed by ABC, NBC, FOX News, and CNN since he announced his campaign for presidency on February 24th of this year, 3rd-party candidate Ralph Nader finally gets a major newscast, presidential campaign interview--albeit only 10 minutes of airtime, less than 3 weeks from the general election. An across the board, corporate blackout.

Check out the transcript of his interview here. To hear his indictment of the Secretary of the Treachery--err, Treasury, Henry Paulson, click here.

Revolutionarily yours,
Thommunist

The Death of Democracy

My problem with this Wall Street bail out bill is that it has stolen the very heart of democracy. Abraham Lincoln defined democracy as: "the government of the people, by the people, for the people." Democracy, as a political philosophy, has long been debatable in this country. At best, we've only had a representative democracy, not a pure democracy, and as long as political candidates are allowed to accept donations from powerful corporations to fuel their campaigns, to what extent they truly represent the American people is question-able. But this decision to bail out Wall Street calls our broken democracy into further question.

Capitalism is the economic philosophy that drives the West. I'm not a proponent of free market capitalism, but I find it superior to what we have now: corporate welfare. Those who support free market capitalism argue that it encourages competition and innovation. In a capitalist society, any individual should have the potential to reach the top, through competitive means. This doesn't mean that every individual will reach the top. Most won't. But competition drives the market. Jim Bob's local hardware store might sell quality tools, but if Toolmart opens a store down the street and sells the same or similar products for less because they're larger and their tools are mass-produced, Jim Bob's may find themselves out of business. They can't compete.

Those who support capitalism argue that there are inherent checks and balances within the system. Risk-taking is necessary, but the riskier the business practice, the likelier the business is to fail. Extreme risk-taking is, therefore, naturally limited. Of those who take extreme risks, a few may succeed, but the majority will not. The self-limiting aspects of capitalism have been rendered impotent by the government's decision to bail out those corporations who have taken extreme risks, and who consequently failed as a result. What kind of a message does this send to large corporations? What kind of message does it send to small businesses? If you're a big enough corporation, regardless of how reckless and irresponsible your are, you're immune to failure. And if you're a small business, there is no fair competition, because while the government doesn't give a shit about you (because your monetary contributions are meager), it has the back of large corporations.

The fundamentals of capitalism have been completely ignored. Small business owners are allowed to fail. Individuals and families can struggle and file bankruptcy if they make poor decisions, but large corporations are immune from the consequences. Free market capitalism is dead, and now we have a corporate welfare system, where the tax payers must support the greedy, irresponsible risk-takers on Wall Street. Americans spoke out against this bill nationwide, but did the government listen? Democracy is dead as well.

At this point, we basically have an oligarchy in America. This country is not run by the president, congress, or the senate. It's run by the corporate elite who pull the strings. Bush is a glaring example. He is as dumb as a rock, a total buffoon. Everyone can see it. He doesn't even pretend to have a clue. He's simply the mouthpiece for the corporations he works for. The same is true for both McCain and Obama. Obama targets liberal-minded and lower to middle class Americans with his speeches, but I see no sincerity in him. He plays within the system. He says whatever he has to to get as many people as possible to join him. Out of one side of his mouth, he acknowledges that corporate funding for political campaigning needs to stop, yet he accepts corporate funds just like McCain.

There's a reason why the election comes down to two parties; it's because both are controlled by Corporate America. Why are there no other serious candidates running for president? It's not because nobody else is interested. It's because nobody else can raise the kind of money needed to campaign along side them. Why are independent candidates like Ralph Nader kept out of the debates? He's anti-corporation, so he receives no corporate funding. He also can't get much air time because the news media is also owned by corporations. In a true representative democracy, shouldn't every presidential candidate be given a fair chance to argue his/her position?

Our government has strayed so far from the ideals upon which this country's constitution was built. It's not a democracy "of the people, by the people, and for the people." It's an oligarchy of wealthy rulers who use the media and charismatic candidates to keep people deluded. In my opinion, the American political and economic systems are total crap as they function today. I want to see a return to democratic ideals and socialization of wealth for the people. That's not going to happen by supporting either of these presidential cronies.

Naddia

The New World Order: Crony Capitalism

Germany, England, France, and the United States setting aside their ideological, cultural, and political differences and unifying on a common policy? Is this some sort of Hollywood-depicted utopia or opium-induced delusion? Unfortunately, no. If you don't believe me, check it out for yourself: (BBC) or (CNN).

This hardly fictional, hardly utopian, global financial bailout was nothing more than a trans-Atlantic debutante's ball for the One who wields true political power—Capitalism.

Capitalism is the underlying foundation for these societies; the functioning of every social institution—from government, to church, to business—is founded upon a necessity of capital. A functional government, church, business, or any other social institution requires capital to fund its initiatives, programs, and policies. Capital thus precedes policy—and indeed trumps it when they collide in conflict, as we have seen from this unprecedented European/American cooperation.

Capitalism is thus the true, singular power in our contemporary, global society; like society, capitalism is fluid and ever-changing, as we have seen from recent economic events. When the highly-evolved capitalist golem--the corporation--begin to implode under the strain of its fundamental flaw—greed—its fight-or-flight mechanism kicked in and it fled to the shelter of mutually dependent social institution—government. Capitalism needed government to save it from itself, and these governments were wholly dependent upon capital. To avoid mutual annihilation, these entities co-evolved in a new ‘organism,’ state-sponsored capitalism, or more precisely, corporate socialism.

The free-market and laissez-fair have died. Like an abominable phoenix, corporate socialism arose from the ruins on Wall Street.

Revolutionarily yours,
Thommunist

Charlie the Oil-Packed Republican & the Jolly Green Democrat

McCain and Obama delivered their performances in such canned fashion that I was expecting moderator Tom Brokaw to interject: “Senators, the next question comes from Mr. Charlie the Tuna in section F…”

Tuna: “Senators, where do you stand on the fundamental issue facing contemporary political debate—water- or oil-packing?”

Calculatedly ambiguous throughout the debate, getting a straight answer from McCain or Obama would be like trying to ‘nail tuna to a wall.’ However, McCain’s “Drill, baby, drill” platform suggests that he indeed is an oil-packer, while Obama’s Green platform suggests that he prefers the more natural surroundings of water-packing. But I digress.

The debate was nothing more than scripted, sound-bite politics. This is exactly why the Commission on Presidential Debates needs to be impeached. In bipartisan charade, these candidates—under the auspices of the Commission on Presidential Debates—craft a memorandum of understanding, a frame-work deliberately designed to avoid back-and-forth debate, to prevent spontaneity, and dodge delicate questions. Like a minotaur from Baghdad, these CPD sponsored debates are nothing but bull-shi’ite.

Obama again proved that he’s style without substance, regurgitating the same vague, stump-speech sound-bytes, on issues ranging from the bailout to taxes. Completely absent were elaborated specifics in his platform—economic reform, foreign policy, healthcare, etc…

Like a seasoned Washington insider, John McCain merely resorted to more of the same, tired mudslinging that his campaign has engaged in since he formally accepted the nomination of his party at the Republican National Convention of 1872. Politics as usual…

This debate—more than anything else—highlighted the need to scrap the Commission on Presidential Debates and to allow relevant, 3rd party candidates like Ralph Nader to participate.

Charlie the Oil-Packed Republican and the Jolly Green Democrat were preservative-laden bores.

Revolutionarily yours,
Thommmunist

Pulled Pork: The Obama-McCain Sandwich

When speaking to the American public, Barack Obama and John McCain prove themselves masters of the politically-expedient language of Duplicitese. For example, Barack Obama and especially John McCain were both vocal opposers of pork-barrel spending, voting YES on the Earmark Moratorium on March 13th of this year. However, when corporate interests conflict with the public good, these Frauds belie their true intentions, clandestinely supporting legislation that directly conflicts with their spoken agendas. While both Obama and McCain supported the Earmark Moratorium, they had no qualms about quietly stuffing the “Economic Recovery Act of 2008” (euphemism for a 700 billion-dollar corporate subsidy) with 150 billion dollars of earmark spending—PORK!

Hardly urgent and completely irrelevant to the Bill’s substance, these taxpayer slap-in-the-face earmarks included:
· 2 million dollars of tax relief for a wooden arrow toy manufacturer.
· 100 million dollars worth of tax relief for automobile race-track owners
· 192 million dollars of tax relief for rum producers in PR and Virgin Islands
· 478 million dollars in tax relief for Hollywood movie producers

Remember this line? “The first big-spending, pork-barrel earmark bill that comes across my desk, I will veto it. I will make them famous, and you will know their names. You will know their names.” Sounds familiar, hmm…who said that? Oh yeah, John McCain, 4 weeks ago at the Republican National Convention. That’s some graduate level Duplicitese, Mr. McCain.

When speaking out against the Iraq War, Obama said in part, “That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.”

Let’s put the wonders of modern technology to fun use: have Microsoft Word Find the word war and Replace it with bailout. Hmm, “A dumb [bailout]. A rash [bailout]. A [bailout] based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics” Interesting...

His fundamental arguments against the war were that it was (1) poorly constructed, (2) rash, (3) based on passion, and (4) politically motivated. His arguments against the decision-making process on the Iraq war are equally applicable to the decision-making process on the Wall Street bailout.

(1) The bailout was poorly constructed: it did not address the fundamental issues contributing to the crisis, including sub-prime, predatory lending practices that bamboozled citizens into purchasing homes that bankers knew they couldn’t afford or the stagnation of wages and outsourcing of jobs that have diminished Americans’ abilities to make mortgage payments.

(2) The bailout was rash: it bypassed normal procedure that relies on public congressional hearings, which allow expert testimony and encourage debate. Congress rushed this unprecedented, minimally examined package through in less than 2 weeks.

(3). The bailout was based on passion: corporate shills--ranging from Treasury Secretary Paulson to congressional sell-outs Frank and Pelosi--relied on the same mechanism that bullied the Iraq War resolution through Congress—fearmongering.

(4). The bailout was politically motivated: Consider that…

• Some of Obama’s highest campaign contributors are Goldman Sachs ($739,521), Citigroup ($492,548), JP Morgan/Chase ($475,112), and Lehman Brothers ($391,774)—all direct beneficiaries of the bail-out.
  
• John McCain’s top 4 campaign contributors are Merrill Lynch ($349,170), Citigroup ($287,801), Morgan Stanley ($249,377), and Goldman Sachs ($220,045).
  
• Henry Paulson, prior to being appointed Treasury Secretary, was employed for over 30 years by an investment bank that will possibly be the single-largest beneficiary of the bailout—Goldman Sachs.

John McCain and Barack Obama—the two toilets on opposite sides of the Congressional aisle that opened wide to eagerly gulp down the single biggest piece of legislative poop that the American taxpayer has ever seen.

Revolutionarily yours,

Thommunist

There are Charlatans amongst Us!

Forthcoming blogs will examine the fraudulant campaigns of Senators Barack Obama & John McCain. Stay tuned.

If you're interested in an alternative to these political posers, please check out 3rd party candidate Ralph Nader's website at
http://www.votenader.org/.


Revolutionarily yours,
Thommunist

Death of the Republic

Death of Republic: An Obituary to the Late Republic of the United States of America (1776-2008).

During the autumn of 1863, this nation was caught up in an armed struggle of ideologies. During his speech at Gettysburg during that time period, President Abraham Lincoln beseeched of his listeners, “…that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

Well, Mr. Lincoln, I regret to inform you that the Republic is indeed dead and cold, and that “government of the people, by the people, for the people,” has indeed perished from this earth. On Wednesday, October 1st, the Republic went into cardiac arrest, with 74 Senators injecting a lethal cocktail of pork, corporate-welfare, and treachery into the arm of the Republic. When the Republic lay in cardiac arrest on the floor of the House of Representatives on Friday, October 4th, with 263 Representatives opting to loot the wallet and pockets of the Republic as it lay dying, blocking the efforts of 171 concerned bystanders to offer assistance. Only the signature of President Bush delays its eternal interment into the ground.

We have now effectively entered the era of government of the corporation, by the corporation, and for the corporation. We have entered into the age of crony capitalism, where free market competitiveness is based on government subsidy and privilege. We have stood by as traitors usurped public office, most notably Treasury Secretary/CEO of Goldman Sachs, Henry Paulson. His regulatory coup d’etat of the Treasury Department was officially sanctioned and legitimized by Congress with the approval of this traitorous Wall Street Bailout.

Well, America, say goodbye to the existing Pledge of Allegiance. I imagine Secretary Paulson is proposing a rewrite as we speak: “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of Corporate America, and to the Oligarchy for which it stands: one Corporation under the Fed, invulnerable, with corporate socialism and privilege for Wall…Street, that is.”

Revolutionarily yours,
Thommunist.