Hey Brother, “Can You Spare $100 Million?”

Lord, what a beautiful morning in foothills of the Catskills...

In 2008 Obama raised and spent nearly $750 million. The Democratic Party raised and spent about $1   billion. By contrast McCain raised  and spent $350 million and the Republicans about $650 million. Obama does deserve credit for an emphasis on small contributions (43% to Romney’s 13% in this election cycle). In 2008 Obama raised more small contributions than any other candidate in history, but he also raised $850K from Goldman Sachs employees, $600K from Citibank, and another $600K from JP Morgan Chase. While it is true that Shelly Adelson, Harold Simmons, Bob Perry, and the Brother’s  Koch will make this the slimiest election on record-- we can thank Chief Justice Roberts master manipulation of the Citizens United case for that-- we ought not to pretend that Obama raised all his money from kid's piggy banks and hard-working mom's cookie jar funds. (Though he saved Obamacare we don’t have to pretend Roberts is a liberal either.)

 The system is completely flawed and completely broken. Both parties own that truth. The perpetual fund raising machines are in place precisely to maintain a wholly corrupt status quo.  While there can be some argument as to whether all the money is the cause or the effect, there is little doubt as to the deleterious results our current system creates. While one party or another may gain an edge from cycle to cycle, the truth is that the massive funding has both parties locked into a grid-locked tie. Committed conservatives make up about 35% of the electorate and the liberals another 35%. Those who lean consistently in one direction or another add approximately another 10% to each parties support, leaving about 10% of the electorate up for grabs in any single national election.

At the state level there seems little reason to even hold elections anymore as the amount of independent votes in each election is well below 10%. When we were children we were constantly schooled about the sham elections in communist countries. We can be certain that any election in any country-- with the possible exception of Mandela’s first win in South Africa in ’94-- which results in 90% or greater support for a single party or candidate, is a sham. But what then are we to make of the state and local elections in this country which consistently entrench nearly 2/3 majorities? 

Seats are contested, but control of most State Legislatures is locked up in a way that would have made the East German Stasi proud. In New York, no more than five or six of the 62 state Senate seats is truly contested each election cycle. While this does have the potential to swing control of that body to one party or the other, the other house, the state assembly is completely gerrymandered  into Democratic hands, leaving just enough Republicans (42 of a total 150 seats) to provide a thin veneer of small “d” democracy. In Texas the same holds in reverse with the Republicans controlling 19 seats in the state Senate out of 31, and 102 seats in the Texas House out of 150.

Is it any surprise than that according to OpenSecrets.org Texas Republicans garnered about $80 million in contributions while the Democrats there raised only about $30 million? By comparison in New York $74 million went to Democrats and just $42 million to Democrats. While one could argue that the contributions are merely flowing to the party in power in a democratic and mutually reaffirming process, there can be little doubt that the result of this process is democratic only in the sense of gauzy and supposedly profound photos released the first Tuesday in November. This is of course unless one considers virtually uncontested one party rule democracy.

Small “d” democracy in these states and dozens of others no longer exists at the state level, and it’s here that boundaries are written which determine congressional house districts. The slicing and dicing of the CD’s in turn form the foundation of the Electoral College map by which America elects its president. As we now enter into our national elections, there is little question which way New York or Texas will go. I have no doubt that either Santorum or Cain or Bachman, undisciplined zealots though they may be, would have carried Texas. Despite national polls which show a very close race the real contest will be fought in maybe ten states. If you wanted the candidates to care about your vote you might want to move to Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Wisconsin, Colorado, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Iowa, New Hampshire or North Carolina. The rest of you can suck eggs. However, in an odd twist on reality, big states with money and power still matter. Because money has become the primary means by which candidates seek votes, leaving ideas trampled in the dust, far behind, New York, Illinois, Texas, California and Florida which lead in fundraising are really the places where national elections are still won and lost.

The formidable powers now aligned to further each party’s agenda are staggering. Each party has its own “news” network. Fox News, and Murdoch’s empire in general, is at the complete disposal of the GOP. The Democrats meanwhile have MSNBC pumping out their “Lean Forward” agenda. There are arguments both ways as to whether the two networks are molding the landscape or reflecting it, but there is little doubt that millions of Americans freely accept their news from nearly propagandistic media organizations. While the largest news operations still claim neutrality, most Americans perceive bias and happily wander into the self-affirming dessert of Fox and MSNBC. Average primetime viewership of Fox News was 1.8 million, while at MSNBC it was just under 700,000. CNN draws up the rear at 400,000 viewers.

Meanwhile what passes for news is an endless parade of mindless banter and worthless drivel all focus grouped to within an inch of its useful life. Earlier this year Jon Stewart brought to our attention a new stunt—quickly dispensed by the way— where the CNN morning news team cold called newsmakers and celebrities. One particular call to an obviously still sleeping member of the Kennedy clan went virally off the tracks. Then just this week in a classic metaphor for what news has become, both CNN and Fox racing through the Supreme Court decision on Healthcare read Chief Justice Roberts’ first few sentences where he clearly bounced the commerce clause argument and reported incorrectly that Obamacare had been ruled unconstitutional. Why wait for the whole story when you can just crib note the first few sentences and report the news? Erroneously. Both networks left the incorrect conclusion up for deliciously long periods of time before reporting their mistake. 

 Certainly a criticism can be made that Americans who complain of gridlock in Washington have only themselves to blame. But to an ever greater extent the real reason American elections look increasingly like a tricked up hybrid of late 20^th century Egypt and Poland, circa 1980, is that big money has clawed away any attempt at reform since poor little tricky Dick Nixon amassed his oh so sweet $500,000 slush fund and perverted the Democratic nomination results in 1972.

Even when they are hopelessly corrupted elections have consequences. While most Americans know that as a result of demographic shifts entitlements need to be reined in, and that to balance the budget a lot of us will need to pay more taxes.  Even middle class people, stretched as they are I believe could be convinced to stretch themselves even  a bit more if there was a comprehensive and balanced plan. But Shelly Adelson is not paying $100 million for any of that sort of loose talk. Adelson is making his “investment” in Republicans for the specific purpose of making sure that compromise is never, ever reached. It is contributions at that astounding level which cause (or allow) Republicans to stand absolutely resolute against any compromise on any level of tax increases.

According to an April 2012 New York Times Poll, “A large majority of Americans believe that global warming made several high profile extreme weather events worse, including the unusually warm winter of December 2011 and January 2012 (72%), record high summer temperatures in the U.S. in 2011 (70%), the drought in Texas and Oklahoma in 2011 (69%), record snowfall in the U.S. in 2010 and 2011 (61%), the Mississippi River floods in the spring of 2011 (63%), and Hurricane Irene (59%).” Yet Congress has taken no significant action to curb greenhouse gasses during the whole of Obama’s term. While the EPA is moving forward with the regulation of greenhouse gases, this is in direct confrontation to a bitter Republican house majority that repeatedly has voted to defund the EPA as the core of its frequently touted “job creation” bills. Check out the top three: The Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act (HR872), The Energy Tax Prevention Act (HR 910), and the Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act (HR 2018). The Koch Brothers, David and Charles who run a $100 billion energy company are not going to cough up $100 million to let the EPA regulate the production of energy on which they make their vast profits.

Neither Party has really embraced Dodd-Frank, the 2010 legislation intended to prevent another wall Street creation like financial catastrophe of 2008. Both parties are deeply dependent on Wall Street cash. The result is a Republican Party that completely champions repeal of ALL regulations and a Democratic Party which treads oh so lightly on any sort of Governmental controls. Despite all the socialist/communist assertions to the contrary this is where we are: A highly monetized and militant right and a moderate, supine, center left alternative, far too beholden to cash which emanates from at best questionable sources.  

The Republicans have enshrined repeal of Dodd-Frank as a campaign manifesto. Though it’s not on the ridiculous list of day one priorities Romney has had made clear he would try to get it repealed. Meanwhile, Democrats, in control of all regulatory authority in the Executive branch, have left hundreds of the necessary controlling regs unwritten. Before it was repealed in 1999 by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act in 1999, Glass-Steagall prevented banks from “investing” depositor’s money.  Phil Graham was the former head of the Senate Banking committee. His committee was the industry’s chief overseer. In turn Graham pulled by far the greatest amount of his campaign case from Wall Street. His Top 5 contributors were all financial firms. Graham was also responsible for the deregulation of the derivatives market in 2000 which in combination with the low interest money available after post 9-11 caused the sub-prime Wall Street markets to go into overheated hyper drive. In 2008 he was laughably quoted as saying he saw "no evidence whatsoever" that legislation he authored caused the sub-prime crisis. Graham is now the Vice Chairman of UBS, a Swiss based investment bank. He joined the firm in 2002 immediately after leaving the Senate.

The Volcker rule designed as modest alternative to Glas-Steagull, but which would keep the money flowing, was passed in a seriously weakened form after Wall Street flushed Washington with partially taxpayer TARP funded millions in lobbying efforts in 2010. But even the Volcker rule which would have headed off Chase’s recent multi-billion dollar loss—losses Jamie Dimon Chase CEO said were based on "errors," "sloppiness" and "bad judgment”-- has two years later yet to have regulations written to enforce it.

And so it goes… In 2012 democracy in America is awash in two-headed coins flowing equally to both parties. Groups like Common Cause, the forever champions of clean elections still exist far removed on the sidelines as they wait patiently for the scandal of the century that will finally galvanize Americans into demanding reform. Considering the watered down and unimplemented response to the 2008 Wall Street meltdown it’s hard to picture what it would take for Americans to demand the type of action that will be required to affect real change.

With the Supreme Court decision on Immigration in Arizona and especially the stunning ruling on Obamacare this was a good week for America. The Arizona ruling was a real victory, the Obamacare ruling, as with the policy itself a little less so. I am happy and surprised that the Supreme Court chose not to overturn such a complex piece of legislation. BUT…the Act itself is deeply flawed, a product of compromise, not only of ideology, which is tolerable, but also of deeply engrained financial interest which as with everything else corrupted the process. America will get better healthcare, or at least a more inclusive healthcare industry in which more people are covered. But the entrenched and all powerful financial interests of the health industry-- insurance companies, pharmaceuticals and hospital corporations, just as with the surviving Wall Street banks—will now be more entrenched and more powerful as a result of Obamacare steering millions more towards private insurance. This it seems to me is that great irony of the Obama presidency so often called Socialist by his opponents: Large and already too powerful private financial institutions keeping getting bigger and will be far more difficult for government to regulate in the future as a result of his supposedly Socialist agenda.  Yet, it’s seems this is the best we can do. It is not nearly enough.

Still a magnificent morning though. Birds chirping, Saturday quiet, warm soft breezes, brilliant sunshine, lush greenery set against endless blue skies, all I could ask in that regard...