Campaign contributions are business investments, not patriotism

Context

A central California Moderates (CM) theme is that the effect of special interest money on politics is usually bad because it typically is a business investment intended to benefit a special interest. Serving special interests that way impairs and corrupts American politics and unnecessarily hurts the public interest, unless the public interest is properly balanced. CM believes that politics as usual usually does not take the public interest into account when serving special interests. The special interest can be a wealthy person, a specific business or an industry. The political payback on the investment is often laundered through the blindingly complex U.S. tax code. 

 M42 Orion Nebula infrared light (1,450 light years)

Spitzer Space telescope photo, February 29, 2012

To be crystal clear, CM firmly believes that most campaign contributions are not given to help America or the public. The money is not for mom, Apple Pie or the flag. Putting money into political parties and candidates is just a business investment.

What kind of rot is that?

Obviously, the special interests involved in this kind of corruption, i.e., elected politicians, both political parties and the special interest donors, would all vehemently argue that CM's perception is a profoundly flawed perception of reality. According to their perception, i.e., their version of reality, the money has no detrimental effect and in fact is very good and absolutely necessary for the well-being of mom, Apple Pie and the flag. In short, special interests will certainly dismiss CM's opinion as a boatload of sheer, stinking treasonous rot.

 Tanantula nebula in the large Magellanic Cloud (160,000 light years)

Spitzer (red - cool gas & dust), Hubble (green - stars) and 

Chandra (blue - hot gas by X-ray)

April 17, 2012

OK. The special interest version of reality is clearly heard and fully understood. Is CM opinion a load of stinking rot? Its a fair and reasonable question.

Some donors admit it

In what must be unguarded an moment, some donors admit to the reality CM described above. Bill Moyers and Michael Winship had this to say in a piece that seems to have first appeared on the internet on June 2, 2012:

“Most of the megadonors backing [Romney’s] candidacy are elderly billionaires,” Tim Dickinson writes in Rolling Stone. “Their median age is 66, and their median wealth is $1 billion. Each is looking for a payoff that will benefit his business interests, and they will all profit from Romney’s pledge to eliminate inheritance taxes, extend the Bush tax cuts for the superwealthy — and then slash the top tax rate by another 20 percent.” As at least one of them has said, they view these cash infusions as an “investment,” plain and simple.

 Carina nebula in the Milky Way showing Eta Carinae (a star 100x heavier 

than the sun, 1,000,000x brighter and 10,000 light years away)

Spitzer space telescope, May 24, 2012

 

There you have it. A billionaire donor admitting that campaign contributions are business investments intended to benefit a special interest. There is no mention of serving the public interest. Obviously, special interest will deny this and say that the story is a fabricated lie and/or that the donor was drugged and out of his mind. They might even argue that whatever it is that any special interest ever asks must, by definition, be good for the public interest because otherwise politics would not function properly and we would fail as a society and political experiment.*

Which perception of reality is closer to the truth, the special interest version or the CM version? You choose.

---------------------------

* It is CM opinion that U.S. politics does not function properly and we are failing as a society and political experiment.

Thanks to The Moderate Voice, who posted this on June 3, which is how this little nugget of unvarnished political truth (a very rare thing indeed) first came to CM's attention.