Lies And Politics

One of the common questions when it comes to politics is, why do Politicians lie? The most straightforward answer, of course, is money and votes. Every elected official within the United States has to walk a fine line between their constituents and the entities which fund their campaigns. From a monetary stand point, it has grown increasingly more expensive to run a successful campaign. That is to say, the cost of creating an image for each candidate, while at the same time fudging certain facts about their position on key issues, has risen considerably.

Take the 2008 presidential race for example. The funding between Barack Obama and John McCain neared $1billion dollars, the most expensive political endeavor of its kind in history. A distant second would be the 2004 elections where the entire presidential fundraising totals only reached $880.5 million. At this rate, the 2012 race could easily cost in the range of 2 billion dollars.

While appealing to their top funders, candidates from both sides of the aisle must also pacify their loyal base, or the “inconvenient mob” as some circles call them. Lobbyists are a third group which both the Democrats and Republicans know that they must pander to. To pull off this feat of political spin, language becomes increasingly important.

For the Republicans, the dialogue of less Government becomes paramount when speaking to their base. One only needs to listen to past speeches given by John McCain or the Governor of Louisiana Bobby Jindal, to be under the impression that we were dealing with populist party of Abraham Lincoln, but that party is long dead. The 19^th century industrialists set the framework for what has become land owners representatives. Here is a quote from Jindal, in a response to Barack Obama’s address to Congress, “The strength of America is not found in our government. It is found in the compassionate hearts and enterprising spirit of our citizens.” Unfortunately the language of pandering often doesn’t reflect the actions of the party.

For the Democrats, their message must consistently appeal to Unions, women’s rights groups and community organizing groups, along with African Americans organizations which by and large have been the most loyal supporters of the party. Like Republicans, Democrats seek to deliver a populist message but some of them actually mean it. They will break with party lines and support policies that are popular among the American people but unpopular on the Hill. One prime example is the issue of single payer healthcare. According to one report, 60% of the polled public supports such system but less than half of those in Congress are willing to back it at the moment – and Obama has come out against it, despite supporting it as a State Senator.

Because both sides of aisle receive such heavy campaign funding from the insurance industry, Democrats and Republicans are quick to decry the idea as “socialism”, which shows the fear of a dying free market system and not a moment too soon. This brings up the issue of special interest groups. Both parties have to appeal to many of these large lobby groups even if they oppose the base of either political divide. This breaks with the notion that each presidential election is a ideological tug-of-war; a battle of Right versus Left.

Let’s take the so-called pro-Israel faction as an example of a lobby group that has helped develop American policy. Every fours year the Republicans like to paint the false picture that the Democratic presidential candidate has plans to overturn the US policy of lending the Israeli government unconditional support. The reason is simple, the Jewish community, despite being less than 10% of the total US population consistently prove to be one of the most organized and potent voting forces under the flag. The truth of the matter is that, since 1948 our unconditional policy towards Israel has been the policy of both parties and this seems very unlikely to change under president Obama.

But in the end, every politician knows that it costs money to run a successful campaign and this is where the best interests of 90% of the American publican are kicked to the curb by both parties. This is where the lies really are given birth. Below is a list of the top contributors in the latest presidential race cycle.

Industry	Grand Total	%Dem	%Repub
Retired	$11,510,739	45%	55%
Lawyers/Law Firms	$6,122,714	70%	30%
Securities & Investment	$3,330,854	50%	50%
Real Estate	$2,852,061	47%	53%
Health Professionals	$2,153,116	49%	51%
Education	$2,077,402	73%	27%
Business Services	$2,013,354	62%	38%
Misc Business	$1,747,086	51%	49%
Misc Finance	$1,412,332	44%	56%
Computers/Internet	$1,400,256	56%	44%

ActBlue	$2,246,871	100%	0%
Goldman Sachs	$1,472,646	71%	29%
Citigroup Inc	$1,317,453	61%	39%
Morgan Stanley	$1,012,097	62%	38%
Lehman Brothers	$990,150	61%	39%
Merrill Lynch	$932,376	42%	58%
JP Morgan Chase & Co	$793,894	66%	34%
UBS AG	$696,839	64%	36%
DLA Piper	$682,560	92%	8%
Credit Suisse Group	$651,895	45%	55%

Top 10 Contributors to Presidential Candidates, 4th Quarter

Donor	Grand Total	%Dem	%Repub
Lehman Brothers	$234,060	56%	44%
Microsoft Corp	$180,620	71%	29%
Merrill Lynch	$174,654	28%	72%
Goldman Sachs	$174,143	52%	48%
Morgan Stanley	$169,922	55%	45%
Citigroup Inc	$169,839	36%	64%
Sullivan & Cromwell	$167,785	48%	52%
DLA Piper	$136,400	92%	8%
Google Inc	$115,511	71%	29%
Pricewaterhousecoopers	$112,914	86%	14%

All three charts can be found on the Open Secrets website. What seems increasingly clear is that, for many businesses, the election cycle is really about hedging one’s bets and in the end, they will win no matter who gets into office. As a result of receiving the funding listed above, both the candidates running for Congress and for the White House find themselves in the position of selling policies to their bases, frequently in a storm of protest. So the electeds must become in essence used car sales people, selling the American people a bill of goods that only Wall Street wants.

Until next time…

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/02/27/hillary-attacked-for-mideast/

http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/5610

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_population

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/02/cost-of-08-presidential-race-a.html

http://www.newkerala.com/topstory-fullnews-100438.html

http://www.democracynow.org/

http://www.alternet.org/columnists/story/106196/why_iraqis,_afghans,_palestinians,_and_others_might_be_nervous_about_president_obama/

US Inc.

A case involving 11South Africans who are suing some of the United State’s largest companies over human rights abuses got underway a week ago with very little attention by the great PR firm known the mainstream media. What is so profound about this case is less the case itself than the reason it was allowed to move forward. As it turns out the Supreme Court itself was unable to make a decision because too many of the justices, or their family members, retain stocks in many of the companies that have been cited in the lawsuit. Here is a closer look at is behind the case and how the blurring of Federal and corporate interests can very well cripple our legal system

In May of this year the United States Supreme court tied for one of the first time in recent history because too many judges would be in conflict interest. The case in question was brought by some 11 black South Africans living under the apartheid Government from 1948 to 1994. The victims in the suit are seeking $400 billion dollars in damages from 50 US corporations who were financially in bed with the former apartheid landownership structure which had enslaved the locals in their own country. Those filing the case are using the “‘Alien Tort Claims Act’, a U.S. law enacted in 1789… meant to protect U.S. ships from pirates and U.S. diplomats from attack overseas”, according to David Stout of the International Herald Tribune. A lower court judge ruled in favor of those who filed the suit after lawyer Paul Hoffman wrote that any ruling by the supreme court would be seen as the aiding and abetting the defendants. As to be expected lawyers representing the companies tried to put forth the argument that Hoffman, as Richey Warren of the Christian Science Monitor put it, “was trying to hide behind procedural maneuvers.”

The companies named as defendants include, Citi-Group, Exxon-Mobile, General Electric, International Business Machines, IBM Bank of America, Barclay’s Bank, Bristol-Meyers Squibb, BP, ChevronTexaco, Citigroup, Coca-Cola, Daimler, and Deutch Bank. Four of the court’s nine justices had to excuse themselves from making any decision on the case. Justices John Roberts JR, Stephen Breyer and Samuel Alito JR all owned stock in these companies. Justice Kennedy’s son Gregory still holds several stocks in some of the companies named in the suit. By any ruler, this situation shows quite clearly, and alarmingly, how easily the court is crippled when facing what has become the “money changers.” Moreover, it brings into question the importance of public opinion, and laws for that matter since those in charge are essentially in bed with those who commit the most stark crimes against humanity and the environment.

By not being able to make a decision on the case, the Supreme court has to allow the suit to move forward. While this is good news on the surface, it does expose how intertwined the US’s own structure is with that of corporate interests and how these interests in turn can cripple the government. What we are seeing in this case in the literal crippling of our justice system because those in Washington who accept corporate backing or have stakes in those companies must now challenge the very same money changers that supply funds to every politician’s campaign come election time. As a result it has become unquestioned practice even for judges to find themselves in bed with the same entities they themselves are technically supposed to govern.

Welcome to US Inc.

Until next time.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/05/12/business/court.php

http://www.globalpolicy.org/intljustice/atca/2008/0513apartheid.htm