At forstå denne forvandling gør det klart hvorfor USA og deres politikere i Washington er blevet nogle af de mest foragtede og latterliggjorte i verden idag og hvorfor de seneste præsidenter fra Ronald Reagan til Barack Obama har været så moralsk rådne.
En nøgledel af denne forvandling af Amerika er kommet fra ekstraordinære højesteretskendelser. Landet er gået fra at være et land og politisk system hvor tværpolitisk konsensus og samarbejde om lovgivning i Washington var kendetegnet for politik i Washington, til den nuværende udemokratiske stat. Idag er der ikke en tøddel forskel mellem de vigtigste kandidater - Demokrat eller Republikaner. Det er fordi der har været en række højesteretskendelser og love som har praktisk talt elimineret de strikse grænser for hvor mange penge individuelle personer eller specielle interessegrupper må bruge for at få deres kandidat valgt.
Skabelsen af det amerikanske oligarki
På grund af ændringer introduceret i starten af 1980erne fra Bush-Reagan præsidentperioderne, er de skattemæssige fradrag som den højeste indtægtsgruppe har nydt af, røget til vejrs, mens byrderne på hvad der engang var den stabile middelklasses indtægter, er blevet alvorligt presset over de sidste tre årtier. Fra 2010 har de 400 rigeste amerikanere - folk som Bill Gates, George Soros, Ted Turner, Warren Buffett, David Rockefeller—ejet mere end halvdelen af alle Amerikanere.
Mens gennemsnitsindtægten af de top 20% i USA steg med 43% i inflationsjusterede tal mellem 1979 og 2012, så er gennemsnitsindtægten af den midterste 60% vokset med blot 10%, og indtægten af de laveste 20% faldt faktisk med 3%. Toppen lagde afstand til midten, mens bunden faldt yderligere bagud.
Finanskrisen som eksploderede i 2007 da luften gik ud af husboblen, ødelagde middelklassen, mens de skattelove som blev indført i 2008 hjalp de top 10%. Perioden siden Ronald Reagans første præsidentperiode i 1981 har set en fænomenal fremvækst af et oprigtigt amerikansk oligarki. Det græske ord oligarki betyder en form for magtstruktur i hvilken magten i virkeligheden hviler på nogle få. Det kan være et oligarki af kongelige. I USA idag er det de riges oligarki. Dette er baggrunden for den farlige udvikling i financieringen af den amerikanske valgkampagne.
Kommentar: Vi undskylder at resten af artiklen er på engelsk, men vores lille stab må af og til ty til blot delvist at oversætte artikler for at få så mange interessante artikler ud til vores nordiske læsere. Hvis du har lyst til at hjælpe med at oversætte, så skriv blot til sott_da@sott.net
No limits...
Since 1979 the US Supreme Court has handed down decisions that have literally opened the floodgates to the oligarchs' takeover of elections.
After the Nixon Watergate campaign scandal in 1974 Congress passed amendments to the Federal Election Campaign Act. The amendments created a bipartisan Federal Election Commission (FEC), to oversee and enforce the law that initially set limits to total costs of federal campaigns. The act set up disclosure requirements for federal candidates, political parties, and political action committees of donations. On the surface all looked well and good. Political elections would be monitored strictly to prevent big money interests from buying elections.
Then in 1979 Congress made amendments to the FECA law that opened a giant financing loophole in the once strict FECA. A loophole allowed individuals, unions, and corporations to give unlimited sums to parties and national party committees for "party-building" purposes. These donations are known as "soft money."
That was not enough for some special interests. They wanted to be certain they could push the "little man" out of politics with their money, along the motto "Who pays the piper calls the tune."
In 2007 during the George W. Bush administration the Supreme Court took up the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act in Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life. The Court ruled, 5—4, that bans on ads paid for by corporations or unions in the weeks leading up to an election are an unconstitutional restriction on the right to advocate on an issue. "Discussion of issues cannot be suppressed simply because the issues may also be pertinent in an election," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote.
Then, in 2010 during the Obama first term, the Supreme Court ruled, 5 - 4, in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, that the government cannot restrict the spending of corporations, unions, and other groups for political campaigns, maintaining that it's their First Amendment right to support candidates as they choose. The US Constitution's First Amendment in the Bill of Rights prohibits Congress from restricting the press or the rights of individuals to speak freely.
In the majority decision, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the astonishing conclusion, "We now conclude that independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption." The decision gave rise to a proliferation of "super PACs" or Political Action Committees that opened the floodgates for unlimited amounts of money to be poured into political campaigns.
The consequences of these successive rulings has been the soaring costs of all public elections, meaning that only candidates who can woo the big money from Wall Street, the pharmaceutical industry, Monsanto and the agribusiness lobby and private billionaires have a chance to win. No chance for a maverick like Ron Paul or son Rand Paul or Bernie Sanders.
'Dark money' now has free speech right
Now the Republicans in the US Congress have just passed a new law that insures that so-called "dark money" will remain dark. Dark money refers to money that passes through supposedly non-political social welfare non-profit organizations, such as the Koch Brothers' Crossroads GPS or the League of Conservation Voters, and is therefore free from disclosure.
On June 17, the House Appropriations Committee passed the 2016 Financial Services and General Government Appropriations bill. It included provisions that ensure that the so-called "dark money" of elections remains very dark. Section 129 of the bill prevents the IRS from making any investigation whether these social welfare groups are acting exclusively for social welfare; Section 625 prevents the SEC from requiring disclosure of political donations for publicly traded companies; Section 735 prevents a rule that requires government contractors disclose their contributions to political groups, nonprofits, and trade unions.
A closer look at the various candidates for the 2016 Presidential nominations in both Republican and Democratic parties reveals the shocking reality that almost every single one has backing of one or more American billionaires—not millionaires, but billionaires.
The billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch, behind the controversial Keystone oil pipeline from Canada to Texas, neo-conservatives who sit on the board of the American Enterprise Institute think tank, have publicly vowed to spend nearly $900 million to influence election races in 2016. Billionaires George Soros and Alice Walton, a Walmart heiress, back the 'Ready for Hillary' PAC, backing Hillary Clinton. Mitt Romney's 2012 Presidential campaign was backed by billionaire casino mogul Sheldon Adelson, also a financier of Israel's Netanyahu. Republican "golden boy," Jeb Bush, is backed by numerous billionaires, many from Wall Street like Henry Kravis.
With the latest dark money law, most Americans will have no clue who is buying which candidate but we can be sure both candidates, Democrat and Republican, will be backed by the financial networks of this American money oligarchy. Little wonder that recent American politics—domestic and foreign have been so rotten. These days we get what they pay for...
F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics, exclusively for the online magazine "New Eastern Outlook".
Kommentar: No matter who wins the White House, the new boss will be the same as the old boss