General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsDonald Trump Says He Can Buy Politicians, None of His Rivals Disagree
by Lee Fang
The Intercept, Aug. 7 2015
Donald Trump bragged Thursday night that he could buy politicians even the ones sharing the stage with him at a Republican presidential debate.
Trump was asked about something he said in a previous interview: When you give, they do whatever the hell you want them to do.
Youd better believe it, Trump said. If I ask them, if I need them, you know, most of the people on this stage Ive given to, just so you understand, a lot of money.
The only complaints came from two candidates who yelled that they had received no Trump money. As Trump continued to talk, he was interrupted by Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., complaining that Trump instead gave campaign contributions to Rubios Democratic opponent.
SNIP...
Though it surely wasnt his intention, Trump was illustrating the key problem with the current campaign finance system. Campaign contributions are legally considered bribes only when there is an explicit quid-pro-quo. But as Trump explained, giving money to politicians bought him access and relationships, which he could leverage down the road in the form of favors. Such conflicts of interest are inherent in privately funded election systems.
CONTINUED w/Video...
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/08/07/donald-trump-buy/
reformist2
(9,841 posts)If politicians can be bribed so easily, it kind of nullifies almost every policy position they spout during the campaign. You can't really have a serious discussion about any issue where money is involved, because the odds are they are going to be bribed to do the wrong thing in the end. That's why campaign finance reform is the sine qua non (without which, nothing) of politics!
tblue37
(68,421 posts)lso voter suppression to aid in rigging elections. Oh, and gerrymandering so that the party with fewer votes wins anyway.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)And the press remains immune to doing its job.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/08/07/trumps-triumph-billionaire-blowhard-exposes-fake-political-system/
The Constitution names only one business by name, the press as essential to the Republic.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)Octafish
(55,745 posts)By Felix Salmon December 11, 2009
Michael Froman is one of those behind-the-scenes technocrats who never quite makes it into full public view. But according to Matt Taibbi, hes one of the most egregious examples up there with Bob Rubin, literally weve yet seen of the way the revolving door works between business and government generally, and between Citigroup and Treasury in particular.
Im not sure how much of this information is new, but a lot of it was new to me, especially the bit about Froman leading the search for the presidents new economic team while he was still pulling down a multi-million-dollar salary at Citigroup, no less. Apologies for quoting at length:
Leading the search for the presidents new economic team was his close friend and Harvard Law classmate Michael Froman, a high-ranking executive at Citigroup. During the campaign, Froman had emerged as one of Obamas biggest fundraisers, bundling $200,000 in contributions and introducing the candidate to a host of heavy hitters chief among them his mentor Bob Rubin, the former co-chairman of Goldman Sachs who served as Treasury secretary under Bill Clinton. Froman had served as chief of staff to Rubin at Treasury, and had followed his boss when Rubin left the Clinton administration to serve as a senior counselor to Citigroup (a massive new financial conglomerate created by deregulatory moves pushed through by Rubin himself).
Incredibly, Froman did not resign from the bank when he went to work for Obama: He remained in the employ of Citigroup for two more months, even as he helped appoint the very people who would shape the future of his own firm. And to help him pick Obamas economic team, Froman brought in none other than Jamie Rubin, a former Clinton diplomat who happens to be Bob Rubins son. At the time, Jamies dad was still earning roughly $15 million a year working for Citigroup, which was in the midst of a collapse brought on in part because Rubin had pushed the bank to invest heavily in mortgage-backed CDOs and other risky instruments
On November 23rd, 2008, a deal is announced in which the government will bail out Rubins messes at Citigroup with a massive buffet of taxpayer-funded cash and guarantees No Citi executives are replaced, and few restrictions are placed on their compensation. Its the sweetheart deal of the century, putting generations of working-stiff taxpayers on the hook to pay off Bob Rubins fuck-up-rich tenure at Citi. If you had any doubts at all about the primacy of Wall Street over Main Street, former labor secretary Robert Reich declares when the bailout is announced, your doubts should be laid to rest.
It is bad enough that one of Bob Rubins former protégés from the Clinton years, the New York Fed chief Geithner, is intimately involved in the negotiations, which unsurprisingly leave the Federal Reserve massively exposed to future Citi losses. But the real stunner comes only hours after the bailout deal is struck, when the Obama transition team makes a cheerful announcement: Timothy Geithner is going to be Barack Obamas Treasury secretary!
Geithner, in other words, is hired to head the U.S. Treasury by an executive from Citigroup Michael Froman before the ink is even dry on a massive government giveaway to Citigroup that Geithner himself was instrumental in delivering. In the annals of brazen political swindles, this one has to go in the all-time Fuck-the-Optics Hall of Fame.
Wall Street loved the Citi bailout and the Geithner nomination so much that the Dow immediately posted its biggest two-day jump since 1987, rising 11.8 percent. Citi shares jumped 58 percent in a single day, and JP Morgan Chase, Merrill Lynch and Morgan Stanley soared more than 20 percent, as Wall Street embraced the news that the governments bailout generosity would not die with George W. Bush and Hank Paulson.
How much influence did Froman have over the appointment of Geithner as Treasury secretary? Geithner, who wanted to become Treasury secretary and who as New York Fed president was a central (if not the central) figure in orchestrating the massive Citigroup bailout just after the election, knew what Fromans job was in the Obama transition team, and knew that Froman was a senior executive at Citigroup.
CONTINUED...
http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/12/11/michael-froman-and-the-revolving-door/
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)Last edited Mon Aug 10, 2015, 01:12 PM - Edit history (1)
Octafish
(55,745 posts)No one -- no other candidate, none of the "journalists, nobody from Facebook, saw fit to ask a follow up, let alone deny the allegation that rich people have bought the process and own the players.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)or these puppet men work for me: not you the American
people.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)vimeo.com/135638632
He mentioned a woman, too.
David Zephyr
(22,785 posts)Spot on.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Those with money have political power. That's as fascist as all get out. And those with political power can cut their cronies and friends in on a piece of the action.

Like Fizzbin
"Organized Money." --FDR
http://docs.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/od2ndst.html
David Zephyr
(22,785 posts)Great to see you around. Can't get here much anymore (health and eyesight), but you know you're one of my faves.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Great to read ya! You are a sight for sore brains.
I empathize completely. Hope you are feeling better, my Brother.
For newer DUers, a reminder of why DUers matter:
There's the Kennedy Family & Then There's the Bush Family.
...and today we have the brother of Jebthro workin' hard to continue the dynasty.
Herman4747
(1,825 posts)Octafish
(55,745 posts)5 signs America is devolving into a plutocracy
One-percent elections. Congressional gridlock. An increasingly demobilized public. Our democracy is on life support
TOM ENGELHARDT, TOMDISPATCH.COM
Salon, March 22, 2015
EXCERPT...
3. The De-legitimization of Congress and the Presidency
On a third front, American confidence in the three classic check-and-balance branches of government, as measured by polling outfits, continues to fall. In 2014, Americans expressing a great deal of confidence in the Supreme Court hit a new low of 23%; in the presidency, it was 11%, and in Congress a bottom-scraping 5%. (The military, on the other hand, registers at 50%.) The figures for hardly any confidence at all are respectively 20%, 44%, and more than 50%. All are in or near record-breaking territory for the last four decades.
It seems fair to say that in recent years Congress has been engaged in a process of delegitimizing itself. Where that body once had the genuine power to declare war, for example, it is now debating in a desultory fashion an authorization for a war against the Islamic State in Syria, Iraq, and possibly elsewhere that has already been underway for eight months and whose course, it seems, will be essentially unaltered, whether Congress authorizes it or not.
What would President Harry Truman, who once famously ran a presidential campaign against a do-nothing Congress, have to say about a body that truly can do just about nothing? Or rather, to give the Republican war hawks in that new Congress their due, not quite nothing. They are proving capable of acting effectively to delegitimize the presidency as well. House Majority Leader John Boehners invitation to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to undercut the presidents Iranian nuclear negotiations and the lettersigned by 47 Republican senators and directed to the Iranian ayatollahs are striking examples of this. They are visibly meant to tear down an imperial presidency that Republicans gloried in not so long ago.
The radical nature of that letter, not as an act of state but of its de-legitimization, was noted even in Iran, where fundamentalist Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei proclaimed it a sign of a decline in political ethics and the destruction of the American establishment from within. Here, however, the letter is either being covered as a singularly extreme one-off act (treason!) or, as Jon Stewart did on The Daily Show, as part of a repetitive tit-for-tat between Democrats and Republicans over who controls foreign policy. It is, in fact, neither. It represents part of a growing pattern in which Congress becomes an ever less effective body, except in its willingness to take on and potentially take out the presidency.
In the twenty-first century, all that small government Republicans and big government Democrats can agree on is offering essentially unconditional support to the military and the national security state. The Republican Party its various factions increasingly at each others throats almost as often as at those of the Democrats seems reasonably united solely on issues of war-making and security. As for the Democrats, an unpopular administration, facing constant attack by those who loath President Obama, has kept its footing in part by allying with and fusing with the national security state. A president who came into office rejecting torture and promoting sunshine and transparency in government has, in the course of six-plus years, come to identify himself almost totally with the U.S. military, the CIA, the NSA, and the like. While it has launched an unprecedented campaign against whistleblowers and leakers (as well as sunshine and transparency), the Obama White House has proved a powerful enabler of, but also remarkably dependent upon, that state-within-a-state, a strange fate for the imperial presidency.
CONTINUED...
http://www.salon.com/2015/03/22/5_signs_america_is_devolving_into_a_plutocracy_partner/
Is it democracy when only the wealthy have power?
FDR called it "Fascism."
JEB
(4,748 posts)let the dreaded truth out.
niyad
(132,110 posts)money (or anybody else's) will ever buy you class and humanity.