Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Politics

Journal freejung's Journal: Campaign Finance Analysis 15

Journal by freejung
One basic and obvious principle of American politics is that we have the best democracy money can buy. In order to even participate in the popular elections in any meaningful way, candidates must first pass the "wealth primary" and amass enough campaign contributions to mount a real campaign.

Because of the extreme importance of money in politics, one good way to get an idea of who the candidates really represent is to look at who is giving them money. This is no secret. Just go to Open Secrets and you can find out all about it.

What I find most interesting is the "top industries" charts. Of course most contributions to both presidential campaigns come from roughly the same industries, but you can get a pretty good idea of what interests are strongly represented by each candidate by looking at the differences. Most notably, the top two slots are reversed, with Bush getting the most money from "retired" people, while Kerry gets the most from lawyers. This is hardly surprising, given that "retired" presumably means "extremely wealthy" in this context, and Kerry and Edwards are both lawyers.

Even more interesting, though again hardly surprising, is the presence in the Bush list of "Oil and Gas" and "Automotive," which are absent from the Kerry list. This obviously represents the most skewed group, and it should be no surprise that these folks support Bush. On the Kerry side appear "TV, Movies and Music" and "Printing and Publishing," both absent from the Bush side.

The conclusion to be drawn from this is clear: Bush represents the oil industry and its associates, whereas Kerry is supported by the media. I guess there is a liberal media bias after all! Well, think about it -- who would you rather have in charge? It's obviously a lesser-of-two-evils choice as always, but it should be pretty clear who the lesser is in this case. Clearly the media has a much greater vested interest in maintaining the prosperity of the American middle class, for example, than the oil industry does, since oil can pretty much count on selling every drop it can suck out of the ground until it runs dry regardless of what happens to the American consumer. Think about it.

Also interesting are the "top contributor" lists, of which most of Bush's are corporate, whereas many of Kerry's are universities, interestingly enough, with the University of California and Harvard at the top of the list. Again the implication is clear: academia is more likely to support Kerry for a variety of reasons, including the fact that they are pretty smart folks, whereas it is hardly surprising that the corporate world tends to back Bush, since he's the best thing that ever happened to them.

So, in one corner, we have the ultra-rich, big oil, banking and investment and other major corporate interests, whereas in the other corner we have the lawyers, the media, and academia. Again, there are few good choices among that bunch (though I still have a soft spot in my heart for the good old Ivory Tower), but I think the better choice is abundantly clear.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Campaign Finance Analysis More

Campaign Finance Analysis

Comments Filter:
  • I'll still say what I think of this choice:

    choice between Big Oil and Big Media

    Either way you're screwed. If you go Big Oil, it is more wars to be waged, more enriching of the already rich. If you choose Big Media, it is DRMed media, no more iPod, no more MP3, no more "free use", and complete lockdown of your culture in the hands of money-grabbing-bastards.

    Sometimes I'm just glad that they don't ask us anything anymore in Politics. Hey, last friday they signed the European Constitution. I didn't

    • If you go Big Oil, it is more wars to be waged, more enriching of the already rich. If you choose Big Media, it is DRMed media, no more iPod, no more MP3, no more "free use", and complete lockdown of your culture in the hands of money-grabbing-bastards.

      Hmmmmm.... let's see, lots of dead people, or no more free MP3s.... hard choice there...

      That's why I called it a lesser-of-two-evils choice. But if it's a choice between death and paying for music, I'll pay for the music, thanks.

      • Point taken. You are of course right. Personally I do pay for Music too, but I rarely buy music anymore. If on the case it is marked that it will only play on PC and on your Hifi (meaning it is copy protected), I don't buy it anymore. It must have the "CD Audio" logo *on the disk*. Needless to say that I didn't buy a CD in ages.

        Anyway, I didn't say "Free MP3"... I just said MP3. Meaning "I rip myself and listen from PC", which is still legal.

        Besides, Kerry won't pull out of Iraq. More people will

        • Besides, Kerry won't pull out of Iraq. More people will die.

          Oh, I know, I was just playing off of your options. But I think there is a significant chance that if Kerry is elected, it will save a fair number of lives. Bush, I think, would be much more likely to start another war, for example.

          • I think you're right, after all I'm a fellow pinko-commie-bastard. Even worse, I'ma pinko-commie-euro-bastard ;-)

            Bush can't start another war: as far as I understood the military is already stretched to the limit with Iraq. The only way to start another war is to re-instate the draft, and that's really going to be popular.. NOT! ;-)

            • Bush can't start another war

              Bush can't start another occupation. However, I think the military could easily handle a major bombing campaign in, say Syria or Iran, without taking much away from the occupation on the ground in Iraq.

              • Yes, indeed... I didn't think of that. Problem is: what do you do with a country after you bombed it flat? Anarchy? Just bombing isn't enough for a war. Sometimes you have to think longer term. Bush himself may not understand this, but his advisors should by now.

                Anyways, I'm off to work now. I hope that when I turn on the radio tomorrow morning, that I will hear of a Kerry victory. Preferably a landslide victory, so that I can regain confidence in the American people.

                Off to work now, gotta ear

                • Comment removed based on user account deletion
                  • ... said that nothing is yet decided but that Bush is likely to win. Well, it is as I predicted: I didn't think that Kerry would win, I hoped, but I wasn't convinced.

                    I'm sorry for you, and I'm sorry for us all: this is not good for the world. (It might be good for America, I don't know enough about your internal politics) As for my confidence in the American people, the first paragraph should already show you how it was in the first place.
                    However, as long as there are fine guys like you, there is st

                    • It's difficult to say at this point, but Bush seems to have taken the popular vote, at any rate. We won't know about the electoral vote until the results from Ohio come in, I expect, which may take some time.

                      If Bush wins, it is bad for America in the short term. In the long term, it may actually be good. The real opposition (not the false opposition of the Democrats) may grow during his second reign. We shall see.

                    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
                    • It would be cool indeed. Perhaps we'll be both sitting in the Chestnut Tree pub and reminiscence about the good olden days we could bicker and rant on slashdot. ;-)))
  • It seems, to me, deeply strange to make a pro-Kerry argument in the way you've done. The integration of basically all national capital is a process that was completed by at least the first two decades of the last century. Sectional interests still exist, naturally, but they are neither serious nor aggravated enough to have political manifestation; the two major parties are primarily political propaganda organizations for capital oriented toward different demographic groups, not political power organizations
    • Generally speaking, I agree with you completely.

      However, in this particular case, I think there is a real split going on among the ruling elite. I think they are split over what to do with the American middle class. I think some of them want to basically turn America in to a third world country with essentially no middle class, whereas others want to maintain the middle class just above the poverty level so that they will continue to consume. That's why I think there is so much controversy over this elect

  • It seems very clear to me that there are two big Capitalists Parties in the U.S.A. Amazing. you can choose the better of the two good parties. And still you choose Democrats. Long long ago traditionally, Democrats represent South and Republicans North. Could you tell me if you know when changed?

Slashdot Top Deals

Remember to say hello to your bank teller.

Close