By J.B. Williams
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
The Party of systemic political corruption was elected on the promise to end political corruption?
The Democrat Party is the official juggernaut of political soft money, those funds coming from often unknown institutional investors in American politics, with all sorts of allegedly illegal special interest strings attached.
So what are the chances that the Party funded primarily by soft money will be the party to eliminate soft money in American politics?
Soft money now comes in several forms. Here's the official Top Ten list of U.S. institutional political investors between 1990 and 2006, how much they invested, who they invested with and you can figure out why once you know who they are...
| American Fedn of State, County & Municipal Employees | 98% to Democrats | $38,090,299 |
| AT&T Inc | 44% to Democrats | $36,920,985 |
| National Assn of Realtors | 47% to Democrats | $30,289,548 |
| National Education Assn | 93% to Democrats | $27,077,950 |
| American Assn for Justice | 90% to Democrats | $27,075,356 |
| Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers | 97% to Democrats | $25,572,741 |
| Laborers Union | 92% to Democrats | $24,981,639 |
| Goldman Sachs | 61% to Democrats | $24,852,411 |
| Service Employees International Union | 96% to Democrats | $24,649,143 |
| Carpenters & Joiners Union | 90% to Democrats | $24,388,370 |
McCain -- Feingold campaign finance reform was intended to remove all soft-money from the political process, returning individual American political contributors, aka voters, their political clout. Predictably, it instead resulted in the biggest soft money bonanza in U.S. campaign history and those who were elected to run both houses of congress on their promise to clean up political campaign corruption are in fact the primary beneficiaries of campaign corruption. Surprise -- surprise!
If you think it's going to get better under Democrat rule, think again. Keep an eye on the 2008 election process which promises to set new records in political corruption and soft money influence.
Just the Top Ten institutional soft money investors alone gave $283,898,442 between 1990 and 2006. A full 79.6% of that or $225,921,475 went directly to Democrats. Only 20.4% went to Republicans, whom Democrats falsely accuse of being owned by special interest institutional investors. It's a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black, while stuffing their pockets with sludge-slinging money that is supposed to be illegal now.
Thanks to McCain -- Feingold, we must now also track the new soft money political power of the 527 organization, the latest Democrat invention designed to keep soft money alive by circumventing both the letter and the intent of McCain -- Feingold.
In the 2006 election alone, the Top Ten 527 organization spent more than $106 million in electioneering efforts and again, you can guess who was the primary beneficiary of this huge new political sludge fund. Again, nine of the top ten 527 organizations are Democrat organizations accounting for more than 80% of the $106 million spent in 2006 alone.
In case you think this is a new trend, before McCain -- Feingold, we had the old fashioned forms of soft money which the so-called "bi-partisan" campaign finance reform was intended to eliminate.
In the last national election before the advent of McCain -- Feingold, the 2000 elections, of the Top Ten soft money investors giving a recorded $53,328,350, eight were Democrat and two were Republican. Democrats received $47,651,326 or a full 89.4% from the Top Ten soft money investors in 2000.
Therefore, the primary target of all current campaign finance reform efforts is none of these sludge fund sources, but rather only legal above board political lobbyist organizations. These are professional lobby firms and above board special interest groups who report every penny to the FEC and have since the beginning of time in America.
The Top Ten above board legal Lobby groups in America are as follows...
| US Chamber of Commerce | $317,164,680 |
| American Medical Assn | $156,375,500 |
| General Electric | $129,750,000 |
| American Hospital Assn | $129,114,026 |
| Edison Electric Institute | $105,642,628 |
| AARP | $105,332,064 |
| Pharmaceutical Rsrch & Mfrs of America | $104,302,000 |
| National Assn of Realtors | $97,530,000 |
| Business Roundtable | $97,060,000 |
| Northrop Grumman | $95,682,374 |
The assertion by liberals is that this group belongs to Republicans and that is why it must be stopped. However, on close inspection, this assertion like all other leftist assertions isn't quite true.
Both major corporate and industry association donors, like AT&T and the National Association of Realtors above, are smart enough to play the odds and hedge their bets. In other words, they ultimately give almost equally to the two primary parties so that in the end, it matters not much which wins in any election cycle. Some favor Republicans 60/40, while others favor Democrats 60/40. In the end, this group of political activists contributes nearly 50/50 between to two primary parties.
Similar to leftist disdain for the "fair and balanced" reporting of FOX News, they hold equal disdain for the "fair and balanced" political contributions of legal lobbying organizations simply because like FOX, they don't provide Democrats with the clear political advantage common among all other agencies.
So no matter how one chooses to look at the influence of special interest soft money in American politics, one must face the reality that it is in fact Democrats who are owned and funded by soft money from all of the soft money avenues known to mankind. For additional information on soft money in American politics, visit www.opensecrets.org
What does this mean and why is it an important set of facts?
First, Republican special interest donor corruption is a primary Democrat campaign mantra. Like with other issues of interest to average American voters, Democrats seek to avoid voter scrutiny by misdirecting attention and projecting their own guilt onto their political opponents. And lets face it, few Americans will take the time or effort to verify the real facts on this or any other liberal press supported claim.
Second, special interest soft money is indeed a very serious problem in modern American politics. After McCain -- Feingold, we know less than ever before where this money is coming from, where it is going and what it is buying.
In 1996, the Chinese government in effect bought our nuclear secrets from Bill Clinton for a measly $300,000 in ILLEGAL foreign campaign contribution to the Clinton campaign. Bagman Johnny Chung went to prison for it, but Bill Clinton got re-elected for it.
His wife Hillary Clinton as well as former Vice President Al Gore, have been repeatedly busted for accepting highly questionable foreign campaign contributions even from some of Americas most ardent enemy states. When busted, they claim ignorance and sometimes (though not all the time), even return those funds. But this is how we want to run our system of self-governance?
Last, those who foolishly voted for Democrats in 2006 on the basis of the DNC/media invention of a "Republican culture of corruption" must face the fact that their intended savior is the worst offender. In fact, if you actually did remove all soft money campaign funding across the board, there is great doubt that the Democrat party could financially survive the loss of their primary funding source, illegal and often foreign campaign donations.
Democrats will continue their efforts to misdirect attention away from these easily confirmed facts and one of their largest political donors, the U.S. News Industry, will remain at the forefront of that effort.
But sooner or later, the average American, including the average Democrat voter, will have to face the reality that it is Democrats who are bought and sold by soft money special interest groups, at a rate of 5 to 1 more than Republicans.
But to be "fair and balanced", I'm for eliminating ALL of it, no matter which party is the beneficiary. I bet you can't find any Democrats willing to say the same...
Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the 'fair use' exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Views are those of authors and not necessarily those of Canada Free Press. Content is Copyright 1997-2024 the individual authors. Site Copyright 1997-2024 Canada Free Press.Com Privacy Statement