Once upon a time in our Good Ol' US-of-A, presidential contenders and their political parties had to raise the funds needed to make the race. How quaint.
At this point in time, the Republican donors are spreading their money to ensure interest in the 2016 process. This big tent (a.k.a. clown car) approach is a favorite of theirs. That second and third string candidates get so much attention stretches the demographics way beyond those who would profit by a Republican president. This is trickle down, but only to the campaign level. Let's see if the Joker (Trump) rattles them beyond effectiveness.
The republicans are masters at this type of financing.....and so are the Democrats.
According to Hightower, the traditional "system" of choosing candidates no longer works, "... thanks to the Supreme Court's malicious meddling in the democratic process in its reckless Citizens United decision."
— THAT pretty much says that SCOTUS no longer serves the people as an independent third branch of of government in our republic in a democratic democratic fashion.
— Does that mean that in "our Good Ol' US-of-A," it is time to admit publicly that the system itself, as it stands, is broken, violates rather than supports the Constitution, and that it is time for us to DO something about it?
I have trouble with this article from the headline onward.
Having a class of billionaires means it's a plutocracy ALREADY. Wealth = Power. Period. The problem isn't the billionaires' donations, it's the billionaires' existence. Whether SCOTUS makes it a little easier or not is irrelevant. Until the wealth itself is limited, there's no way to limit its use to own and operate the government.
( And what about the millions flowing to Hillary Clinton from Jeffrey Katzenberg, Haim and Cheryl Saban, Herbert M. Sandler, George Soros,...? Somehow if billionaires contribute to Democrats, then it's okay?)
"“Let me say it this way: If elected president, I will have a litmus test in terms of my nominee to be a Supreme Court justice, and that nominee will say that we are going to overturn this disastrous Supreme Court decision on Citizens United,” he said. “Because that decision is undermining American democracy. I do not believe that billionaires should be able to buy politicians.”
Many are in awe of the rich and powerful as Reagan revealed, and will admire and vote for royalty and plutocracy against their best interests.
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
The word that has really come to fry frijoles recently is "neoliberal." The so-called "conservatives" did a masterly job of turning the word "liberal" into a pejorative sneery name-call term, something people have to really work to deny being.
Now those who have turned being a "liberal" means bring thought of as a "tax and spend" fool who believes out-of-wedlock children are born to have an entitlement to lifelong support. None dare call their beliefs "liberal," don't got no damn "bleeding heart." So the war freaks have occupied the word by throwing the fancy pants prefix "neo" meaning "new."
They have managed to find a way to get away with saying, "we're not right wingers, we're the real liberals, the ones who aren't against tax and entitlement cutting and are for maintaining national predominance by having a 'strong' (aka tax burdensomely expensive) Military Industrial Bank and Wall Street Complex.
Though pollsters tell us that a great many people support progressive ideas and policies, but are afraid to, don't want to be call Liberals without the "neo" stuck to the front of it.
aristocracy, plutocracy, oligarchy are all the same to me and describe a government of the few by the few and for the few.