John Q. Public, as a taxpayer, as a patient, and as just a plain old or young citizen, doesn’t stand a chance against the special interests.
Politicians are awash in oodles of contributions, are courted with luxurious junkets and now, suddenly, the specter of sex enters from stage right.
A member of the California Assembly has been caught with his pants up but his mental capacities definitely down. Mike Duvall was sitting in his seat at the front of a hearing room bragging to the man in the next chair of his sexual exploits.
What made the situation unusual was that the microphone was on and the conversation was recorded, to be later made available on YouTube. But the real significance was that Duvall - a Republican who has been described as a married, family-values crusader - described one of his “conquests” as a lobbyist for a utility company that had business before the committee on which Duvall sat as vice chairman.
At this early juncture it seems that we may be looking at the tip of the iceberg rather than at a one-time anomaly. According to press reports, some are saying that Duvall, who quickly resigned from politics, just happened to get caught.
Today, Sacramento is said to be abuzz with rumors of other politicians with lobbyist-mistresses. Furthermore, the president of Common Cause was quoted in the L.A. Times as saying: “The use of sexual favors is just one more example of the tactics that energy companies and lobbyists have used to win favorable laws from lawmakers.”
And if this is going on in Sacramento, one can’t help but wonder what must be going on in Washington, where the stakes are way....way....way higher.
Ironically, this comes precisely at a time when the highest court in our nation is reaching out to consider whether to give corporations an even greater influence over the political process.
This should be of considerable concern. The current Supreme Court has, in the past, consistently interpreted the donating of money and favors by special interests to be a matter of free speech to be protected under the First Amendment.
And now the court has the opportunity to hit what might be called a grand slam for the entrenched interests.
The case seems innocuous enough. It involves a film entitled “Hillary The Movie,” an anti-Clinton film funded by a corporate entity that was itself the recipient of corporate donations.
But what this deliberation could allow the court to do would be to strike down a 102-year-old ban against corporations spending large amounts of money to elect or defeat congressional and presidential candidates.
In that event, for example, a company like Exxon Mobil, using only a small fraction of its profits, could actually outspend the $750 million raised by President Obama in the last election cycle.
The case may already be intimidating members of Congress. If the High Court goes the way it has gone in the past and rules in favor of the moneyed interests, the healthcare industry, beginning in the 2010 campaign, would have a much greater ability to target for defeat any lawmakers who supported the so-called public option during the current legislative session.
Justice Sotomayor is expected to rule against the special interests, but that, by no means, provides any assurance that a majority of the court will go her way. Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas and Alito, as well as Chief Justice Roberts, have consistently said they favor the “free speech” interpretation over any campaign funding limits. If they apply their past rulings to the current case, it will give the special interest faction the five to four majority that it needs.
The court’s consideration began yesterday. The matter has a far reaching significance which can strongly influence all other issues before the body politic.
Yet, many Americans are unaware of its existence.
Dave McGill, News Correspondent
Dave’s column, “The Contrarian,” generally published every Friday, to Gather Essential News and other groups will sometimes present a contrary view to various aspects of the news, or an alternate take on the conventional wisdom of the day. It will also often appear on other days of the week
Dave has been a senior officer of an eastern insurance company, involved in economic projections and investment strategy, president of a Midwestern mortgage banking company, and a financial consultant in Southern California, serving clients in the field of commercial real estate development.
You can find all of Dave’s “the contrarian” columns at: http://gather.com/thecontrarian. Keep up with Dave’s other postings and Gather activity by joining his Gather network at: http://atadaskew.gather.com. You’ll find Dave and other News correspondents, plus celebrity content and plenty of news experts at: news.gather.com.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 35
Thank you for bringing this our attention!
Anyway it was just a segue to focus your attention on the real issue, "Hillary The Movie."
We the people have to know where all the money is in this country. we should create a computer network and database where every economic transaction generated can be examined and queried against. We better start getting serious about understanding technology and what is going on in the world economy, and how it is being used to control people's minds.
And if you think SCOTUS has only recently become a political body, I can show you a list of nice bridges for sale.
As to corporate first amendment rights, when mutual funds buy up exxon stock and hold it for a bunch of retirees who don't even know that they own it, how do the people who "own" a company actually have a say in who gets the campaign goodies? In the real world, it does not work the way Scalia and Roberts say it does.
The vote is the obvious answer yet it doesn't seem to matter who we vote in or out the sellout seems to be destined to bring us down.
The GOP is in open rebellion and flaunts it in our faces, they have gotten away with so much corruption they do not even try to hide their agenda to bring down the constitution.
The democrats are no angels and cowardly when it comes to facing real challenges and are so busy filling their pork barrel they never get anything accomplished.
Sex in politics? It may have always been there but is that the right answer to any politician that will sell out his country for a night in bed with a prostitute? That's all these women are, common everyday prostitutes that sell their sole and yours for a buck.
Kennedy did wrong? I'm sure he did but he did a lot of right also. Without him their would not have been any medicare the attack dogs have tried to destroy for decades now and social security would probably be in the hands of the to big to fail crowd.
The public really needs to come together fast and get organised because we don't have much time left. Start ignoring the politically correct hypocrites like they are just another noise blowing on the wind.
www.nopom.info
Attraction to power?
Drink fogged thinking?
Money?
Influence?
It sure is not their fine looks and delightful personalities.
Anita D., wer're not talking about casual sex here, possibly fueled by alcohol. We are talking about the possibility that special interests may have recruited cadres of female lobbyists to influence key legislators beyond the influence already secured by money and favors.
lynn a., Our Washington politicians are now the recipients of billions of dollars in every general election cycle and nearly as much in lobbying perks.
These moneys are not "donations." They are "investments," and they may provide the best returns that the investors could find anywhere.
Thirty years ago, the general public was losing control as the special interests sdjusted to their discovery that well-constructed political ads on TV were all they needed to win elections. This adjustment involved a greater and greater emphasis on raising the money. This created a focus of concern on the well being of the entities that provided the funds and a lessening of concern for the public welfare.
Now, thirty years later, the ship has sailed. The political process is tilted in only one direction and, since those who enjoy the luxuries provided - the politicians - are the only ones that can change the system, the outlook is bleak.
It is a mistake to believe the Republicans are the only party members involved in this orgy of legaliuzed corruption. A politician cannot become elected without becoming part of the problem.
No matter who you are looking at on Capitol Hill or in the White House, you have no idea of the deals that have already been done to secure the money they need to get elected and reelected.
Our country is great, our history is mostly great, many of our leaders have been great, but our political system is deathly ill.
"We the people" must get mad enough to vote all of the bastards out of office and insist on a commitment from their replacements to fix our corrupt system. I am for 6 year term limits and the same benefits as other federal employees to get rid of the professional pols.
Do we have the guts to force change, or will we continue to wait for someone else to do it?
How will term limits help? Money will influence first time legislators just as quickly as it does old timers.
If SCOTUS does grant citizenship-by-default to corporations, god help us. That would open a whole can of worms. If Exxon (for example) has First Amendment rights, what about the Second Amendment -- would they be able to legally stockpile weaponry and/or form their own militia? What about the Fifth Amendment? Might not a savvy corporate attorney argue that mandatory reporting to government agencies constitutes self-incrimination?
Corporations are not people, dammit! They are not affected in any way by the societal expectations that influence us humans. They are not expected show compassion, charity, or connectedness with humanity. They are only expected to maintain a ruthless and single-minded pursuit of profit. I hope (but am skeptical) that SCOTUS will take that into consideration.