Jimmy Carter says US is an oligarchy for sale to highest bidder

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/07/30/jimmy-carter-u-s-oligarchy-unlimited-political-bribery/

   HARTMANN: Our Supreme Court has now said, “unlimited money in politics.” It seems like a violation of principles of democracy. … Your thoughts on that?

   CARTER: It violates the essence of what made America a great country in its political system. Now it’s just an oligarchy, with unlimited political bribery being the essence of getting the nominations for president or to elect the president. And the same thing applies to governors and U.S. senators and congress members. So now we’ve just seen a complete subversion of our political system as a payoff to major contributors, who want and expect and sometimes get favors for themselves after the election’s over. … The incumbents, Democrats and Republicans, look upon this unlimited money as a great benefit to themselves. Somebody’s who’s already in Congress has a lot more to sell to an avid contributor than somebody who’s just a challenger.

Copied from this HuffPo article

Quote :

As an oligarchy of campaign contributors has begun to dominate political fundraising, opposition is mounting, with activists calling for campaign finance reform and a rejection of super PAC politics. In Iowa, a coalition of Republicans and Democrats called Iowa Pays the Price are spotlighting the influx of big money into their state to bring attention to the issue. A group called the New Hampshire Rebellion is calling attention to the trend in the nation’s first presidential primary state.

Former President Jimmy Carter this week took note of what was happening to the nation’s politics as candidates race for larger and larger checks from billionaires and millionaires.

"It violates the essence of what made America a great country in its political system," Carter said in a radio interview July 28. "Now it’s just an oligarchy, with unlimited political bribery being the essence of getting the nominations for president or to elect the president."

Numerous candidates have obliterated the requirement that their super PACs operate independently, by directly coordinating with the groups and raising money for them. Republican Jeb Bush personally raised $103 million for his super PAC during a six-month period when he declared that he was not officially running for president.

Bush raised a combined $114 million, including his official campaign and his super PAC. Of that, 63 percent came from donors giving $100,000 or more. Twenty-four of Bush’s super PAC donors gave $1 million or more.

Much of Bush’s money came from a vast pool of large donors. Unlike the rest of the Republican field, Bush’s Right to Rise super PAC collected $100,000-plus donations from about 300 individual donors. His donor list includes more than 1,000 people, corporations or political committees that gave at least $10,000.

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz (R) racked up 71 percent of his super PAC and campaign fundraising from big donors, almost all of it from three million-dollar contributors: $15 million from the fracking Wilks family, $11 million from New York hedge fund executive Robert Mercer, and $10 million from Texas private equity investor Toby Negeubauer.

Florida Sen. Marco Rubio's (R) campaign and super PAC raised 60 percent of their combined total from six-figure donors, most from million-dollar contributors. He raised $5 million from his longtime personal funder, luxury car dealer Norman Braman, $3 million from Oracle CEO Larry Ellison, $2.5 million from a thoroughbred horse stable owned by Benjamin Leon and $2 million from the Israeli-American wife of the Marvel Entertainment CEO, Laura Perlmutter.

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) hasn't reported any fundraising for his official campaign. But two unlimited money groups working for him had raised $26 million. Those groups raised 77 percent of their money from donors giving more than six figures. Like other candidates, Walker's groups were predominantly funded by a few million-dollar checks, including $5 million from Wisconsin roofing billionaire Diane Hendricks, $5 million from Chicago Cubs owners Marlene and Joe Ricketts, $2.5 million from Richard and Elizabeth Uihlein, and $1 million from Access Industries, a company run by billionaire Len Blavatnik.

New Day for America, a group that has since converted into a super PAC, supports Ohio Gov. John Kasich (R) and raised more than $11 million, with 86 percent from those giving more than $100,000. Four gave $1 million.

The same can be said for nearly every candidate on down the line: Six-figure donors fueled 85 percent of New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie’s (R) super PAC fundraising; 62 percent for two groups backing Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal; 83 percent for former Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s (R) groups; 83 percent for Sen. Lindsey Graham’s (R-S.C.) super PAC; more than 90 percent for three groups supporting Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.); and 62 percent for former tech CEO Carly Fiorina’s super PAC.

Some big billionaire names were absent from the list of Republican presidential candidate megadonors, including casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, hedge fund billionaire Paul Singer and the industrialists Charles and David Koch.

While the big-money race on the Republican side of the presidential campaign is most intense, it's not absent from the Democratic Party. Frontrunner Hillary Clinton’s super PAC, Priorities USA Action, a hand-me-down from President Barack Obama, raised $15.6 million, with 99 percent of it coming from $100,000-plus donors. Her group raised nine $1 million checks from George Soros, Haim and Cheryl Saban, Jeffrey Katzenberg, Steven Spielberg, Herbert Sandler, Donald Sussman, a union for plumbers and pipefitters, and a union-backed political group.

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders (I) eschews the big-money super PAC race. Former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley’s (D) Generation Forward raised $290,000.

Large super PAC fundraising also occurred outside the presidential race.

Billionaire environmentalist Tom Steyer donated $5 million to his personal super PAC, NextGen Climate Action Committee. The United Brotherhood of Carpenters, the AFL-CIO and United Steelworkers each gave more than $1 million to their own super PACs. Singer, who so far has not put his chips down in the presidential race, gave more than $1 million to his super PAC in support of Republicans who favor gay marriage (of which there are very few). And then there’s Cruz’s benefactor, Mercer, who gave $1 million to a super PAC controlled by the neoconservative former United Nations Ambassador John Bolton.

A new super PAC launched by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to support his Republican majority pulled in three $1 million donations, from Houston Texans owner Robert McNair, Home Depot co-founder Bernard Marcus and Singer.

Notice how the ruling elite are so quick to socialize everything private... but won't do it for campaigns. If there were set govt funds for a politician to run on... the ideas and policies would be the sole factor. I don't think it should be illegal for pacs to exist however... private citizens with no contact or direct influence should be able to promote their positions freely. It costs a great deal of money too... so pooling money should be allowed as that is speech.

PkrBum wrote:

Notice how the ruling elite are so quick to socialize everything private... but won't do it for campaigns. If there were set govt funds for a politician to run on... the ideas and policies would be the sole factor. I don't think it should be illegal for pacs to exist however... private citizens with no contact or direct influence should be able to promote their positions freely. It costs a great deal of money too... so pooling money should be allowed as that is speech.

I am confused. Are you for SuperPACs?

There ought to be a limit on how one person... or a small group of persons... can effect the outcome of an election.

There should be politicians with some relative training and abilities that make them qualified for actually doing what they were elected for.  What has Hillary EVER done ? Or Obama for that matter. I wouldn't trust them to clean my pool...if I had one...getting elected doesn't confer special qualifications to one any more than me walking around in an airplane hanger makes me a pilot.

Eric wrote:

PkrBum wrote:

Notice how the ruling elite are so quick to socialize everything private... but won't do it for campaigns. If there were set govt funds for a politician to run on... the ideas and policies would be the sole factor. I don't think it should be illegal for pacs to exist however... private citizens with no contact or direct influence should be able to promote their positions freely. It costs a great deal of money too... so pooling money should be allowed as that is speech.

I am confused. Are you for SuperPACs?

There ought to be a limit on how one person... or a small group of persons... can effect the outcome of an election.

It's their money... and speech is a protected fundamental right. There are already some rules against a politicians direct involvement with those groups... but there are ofcourse loopholes. Speech today can't be effective from a soapbox in the town square... it is very expensive to broadcast... well beyond the means of almost all individuals. Therefore pooling money willingly with others of the same leanings is essential. The only issue I have are the forced participation such as with unions... and the loopholes.

I guess Oligarchy is okay, then.

Politicians will be beholden to the big donors... and that ain't right.