United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Just 158 Billionaire “Families” Are Funding the 2016 US Presidential Election
Source:
Activist Post
URL Source: http://www.activistpost.com/2015/10 ... -us-presidential-election.html
Published: Oct 16, 2015
Author: Melissa Dykes
Post Date: 2015-10-16 10:12:16 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 1376
Comments: 10
An investigation by The New York Times found that a mere 158 families, (and the companies they own/control), contributed a whopping $176 million in the first phase of the 2016 presidential campaign. Not since before Watergate have so few people and businesses provided so much early money in a campaign, most of it through channels legalized by the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision five years ago. (Thank you for that, Supreme Court.) Take a wild guess who these people are and who they represent. They are overwhelmingly white, rich, older and male… and in an economy that has minted billionaires in a dizzying array of industries, most made their fortunes in just two: finance and energy. People like the Koch brothers, for example, are spending $889 MILLION dollars during this one election. Meanwhile, the big six megabanks and Wall Street are putting all their money behind Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush. Only three percent of Bush’s donations actually come from small donors. Goldman Sachs is Hillary’s largest financial supporter by employer. Hillary’s top contributors also include Citigroup, JP Morgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, and Lehman Brothers among others. Again, even if the average American’s vote remotely counted (and studies like the one represented in the video below clearly show it doesn’t for multiple reasons, the least of which is voter fraud or vote machine tampering), the average citizen’s contributions are far and away overshadowed by billionaires and corporations. And really, it’s billionaires and corporations that fund all the policy decisions in this country anyway. Congress literally doesn’t care what the average American thinks. The system is corrupt through and through, inside and out. Making a choice inside such a corrupt system will never be the answer. The average person just can’t get over the fact that their vote simply doesn’t matter, so instead of rejecting the whole corrupt process so real change might be able to occur, people continue to turn out to the polls even though it is a complete waste of time. Don’t believe me? Anyone living under the false impression the U.S. is still a democratic republic where everyone’s vote matters equally needs to watch this video wherein researchers analyzed 20 years of data to answer a simple question: Does the government represent the people? Short answer: Nope. 
A lot of these people have put money down on both sides of the aisle because they know that, when it comes to Jeb vs. Hillary (the only real choice America will really have), the outcome will be the same either way in the White House: more bankster bailouts, more wars, more corruption and tyranny.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Deckard (#0)
Well that settles it. I've voting for the candidate who isn't corrupted by this eeevil money. Let's see. Who would that be?
There needs to be public funding of campaigns.
There needs to be a turning away from politics to tend our own gardens, and a strong culture of cooperation among those who turn away from politics to tend our own gardens. The politically active, the connected, the door-knockers, the police and agents of government need to be shunned and left outside of the circle. Their beliefs are incompatible with reason, and they bring power into a circle that has formed as a carapace to keep the power hedged outside.
Yeah the taxpayers should foot the bill . Great plan ! Public funding now gives the incumbents huge advantages over challengers . Every member of Congress sends out public information bulletins to their constituents essentially blowing their own horn about what they have done . The emperor takes junkets in the guise of doing his executive duties on the taxpayer dime while 99% of his trip is political . Of course the article fails to mention the contributions of other types of corporations like public employee unions ,or non-profit advocacy groups. It also fails to mention that there are many Republicans competing for the nomination compared to the corronation the Dems are planning for Evita. So of course in the early stages more money would be committed to Republican candidates . Here is an inconvenient fact . Before 'Citizens United ' ,incumbents in the House of Representatives were being reelected between 94 percent and 98 percent of the time . In 2010, the first post Citizens United federal election, the incumbency rate dropped to 85 percent. Although it should be even lower than that,the truth is that all the previous campaign finance laws prior to 'Citizen's United' acted in favor of incumbency protection. Citizens United opened up funding for challengers and made the playing field more even. Leave it to the NY Slimes to complain that other corporations have undue influence over the political process when their whole existance is to be an advocacy group in the guise of objective journalism . Who has more influence .... a corporation giving donations to a few candidates ;or the Slime's editorial board ? Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Your choices will be Bush or Clinton in 2016. Take your pick. In a Cop Culture, the Bill of Rights Doesn’t Amount to Much Vegetarians eat vegetables. Beware of humanitarians!
Steve Sailor noted of the NYT Article: And you can see the value of belonging to a Designated Victim class. The NYT’s article is full of demographic breakdowns regarding these 158 donors, but the word “Jewish” doesn’t appear in the article. Non auro, sed ferro, recuperando est patria
If you're going to ban private donations, why not ban public donations as well? No funding of campaigns.
What do you mean by public donations?
Two of the biggest recipients of eeevil money from "the rich".
"Just 158 Billionaire “Families” Are Funding the 2016 US Presidential Election"
#2. To: Deckard (#0)
#3. To: jeremiad (#2)
There needs to be public funding of campaigns.
#4. To: jeremiad (#2)
(Edited)
There needs to be public funding of campaigns.
#5. To: misterwhite (#1)
Well that settles it. I've voting for the candidate who isn't corrupted by this eeevil money. Let's see. Who would that be?
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#6. To: misterwhite (#1)
Well that settles it. I've voting for the candidate who isn't corrupted by this eeevil money. Let's see. Who would that be?
#7. To: Deckard, misterwhite (#0)
They are overwhelmingly white, rich, older and male… and in an economy that has minted billionaires in a dizzying array of industries, most made their fortunes in just two: finance and energy.
#8. To: jeremiad (#2)
#9. To: Roscoe (#8)
#10. To: Deckard (#5)
"Your choices will be Bush or Clinton in 2016."
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]