====================
PLUTOCRACY
The second usage of plutocracy is a reference to a disproportionate influence the wealthy have on political process in contemporary society: for example Kevin Phillips, author and political strategist to U.S. President Richard Nixon, argues that the United States is a plutocracy in which there is a “fusion of money and government.”[1]
The wealthy minority exerts influence over the political arena via many methods. Most western democracies permit partisan organizations to raise funds for politicians, and political parties frequently accept significant donations from various individuals (either directly or through corporations or advocacy groups).
These donations may be part of a cronyist or patronage system, in which major contributors and fund-raisers are rewarded with high-ranking government appointments.
While campaign donations need not directly affect the legislative decisions of elected representatives, politicians have a personal interest in serving the needs of their campaign contributors: if they fail to do so, those contributors will likely give their money to candidates who do support their interests in the future. Unless a quid pro quo agreement exists, it is generally legal for politicians to advocate policies favorable to their contributors, or grant appointed government positions to them. In some instances, extremely wealthy individuals have financed their own political campaigns. Many corporations and business interest groups pay lobbyists to maintain constant contact with elected officials, and press them for favorable legislation. Owners of mass media outlets, and the advertisement buyers which financially support them can shape public perception of political issues by controlling the information available to the population and the manner in which it is presented (see also: fourth estate). Within government bureaucracy, there is often the problem of arevolving door: the employees of government regulatory bodies, such as the Securities and Exchange Commission in the United States, often transition to and from employment with the same companies they are supposed to regulate. This can result in regulations being changed or ignored to suit the needs of business, since the regulators are more likely to later find employment in the private sector if their government work was beneficial to their new potential employer.
In the United States, campaign finance reform efforts ostensibly seek to ameliorate this situation. However, campaign finance reform must successfully challenge officials who are beneficiaries of the system which allows this dynamic in the first place. This has led many reform advocates to suggest taxpayer dollars be used to replace private campaign contributions; these reforms are often called clean money or clean election reform as opposed to simply campaign finance reform which does not address the conflict of interest involved where most or all of the campaign money is from private, often for-profit sources. In 2010, Justice Stevens along with Justice Ginsburg, Justice Breyer, and Justice Sotomayor view Citizens United v. Federal Election Commissionas having drastically weakened efforts to restrain the effect of money in government. In his dissenting remarks Justice Stevens states:
At bottom, the Court’s opinion is thus a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self government since the founding, and who have fought against the distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering since the days of Theodore Roosevelt. It is a strange time to repudiate that common sense. While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this Court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics
Critics of clean elections point out that it allows the sitting government to decide which candidates would qualify to receive tax dollars – and therefore influence who would be allowed to win – thus solving one problem by creating another problem; courts in the United States have also agreed that some “clean election” legislation has discriminated against independent or third-party candidates, and has violated the constitution.
======================
Obama Empowers Jeffery Immelt as the Ultimate Crony Capitalist
February 4, 2011
The appointment by President Obama of Jeffrey Immelt, Chairman and CEO of General Electric, to head the new President’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness is just another sign of the commitment of the Obama Administration to “Crony Capitalism”. For over 100 years GE was known for business innovation and manufacturing excellence. But long gone are the uplifting moments in our nation’s history when company spokesman Ronald Reagan proudly exalted GE’s motto: “Progress is our most important product.”
Mr. Immelt as the newly appointed pied-piper for the future for American industry suggests, (as Immelt wrote to shareholders):
“The interaction between government and business will change forever. In a reset economy, the government will be a regulator; and also, an industry policy champion, a financier, and a key partner.”
For the last three years, Mr. Immelt has been in the vanguard for this new relationship between business and government, as a member of the Administration’s “Economic Recovery Advisory Panel”.
During the wild Congressional spending spree of the last couple of years, GE miraculously became the largest beneficiary of the government’s Troubled Asset Recovery Program (TARP) bank bailout. Although GE did not initially qualify for TARP, the company’s $18 million annual investment in battalions of Washington DC lobbyists convinced Administration regulators to push that “reset” button and extend TARP guarantees and subsidies to GE. Public records demonstrate GE Capital, the company’s massive financing arm, pocketed $120 Billion in loans from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation at interest rates of less than 1% and snatched 25% of the entire $340 billion in subsidies from “Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Program” (TLGP) rescue fund.
Unlike other highly regulated financial institutions that secured Federal back-stops, including Bank of America, Citigroup and J.P. Morgan Chase; GE was not required to curtail use of risky derivatives or pass the Fed’s liquidity “stress test” to qualify for taxpayer funding. GE was also exempted from new regulations restricting executive compensation at firms like AIG and Goldman Sachs. Mr. Immelt took advantage of GE’s special treatment to pick up $30.9 million in total compensation over the last three years, while GE shareholders suffered a catastrophic 46% loss as the company’s shares crumbled from $35 to $19.
Mr. Immelt took advantage the new “reset economy” to globally expand GE’s Business Process Outsourcing (BPO) unit to over 40,000 people in India. Its NBC television network funded a series called “Outsourced” to humorously showcase what happens to off-shored American jobs.
Here at home, Mr. Immelt rearranged GE’s affairs to virtually eliminate the stiff corporate taxes most other U.S. corporations will pay for government to be the “regulator; “industry policy champion, a financier, and a key partner” for the benefit of GE.
Mr. Immelt financially expressed his appreciation for the Administration’s “interaction between government and business” by directing GE to invest heavily in its MSNBC 24 hour television news unit. Lead commentator, Keith Olbermann, who once donned a mask of Bill O’Reilly at the Television Critics’ Association in Hollywood and made a Nazi salute, received a hefty raise from $4 million to $7.5 million a year. His side-kick Chris Matthews, former Chief of Staff for legendary Democratic Speaker of the House Tip O’Neil, also stepped up to a $5 million annual contract.
This is the same Chris Matthews who stated on air that his job at MSNBC is to do everything he can to “help” President Obama succeed. Mr. Matthews added:
“Reagan was all about America, and you talked about it. Obama is, ‘We are above that now. We’re not just parochial, we’re not just chauvinistic, we’re not just provincial. We stand for something.’ I mean, in a way, Obama’s standing above the country, above – above the world. He’s sort of God. He’s going to bring all different sides together.”
The American people should be highly suspect of the intentions of Mr. Immelt as the national point person for jobs and competitiveness.
=========================
Notice how many GE commercials are airing now? Will any Journalists look into “eco-magination” “healthy-magination” all part of GE corporate “programs”. Will Obama enable Immelt to commandeer the EPA (greening of America) and HHS with Obamacare through GE “magination” programs?
http://www.ecomagination.com/
http://www.healthymagination.com/
======================
ADD THIS: READ AT LINK
Obama issues global warming rules in January, gives GE an exemption in February
Statist favoritism, one rule for us, no rules for them
===================
HAD ENOUGH AMERICA?
2012 is coming…..
Romanticpoet's Weblog 