This Candidate Brought To You By. . .

The Corporate Candidate

One sure way to bring an end to a political campaign in America is for a candidate to run out of money. In years past,Newt Gingrich's campaign would be over. But Newt has a true high-roller backing his campaign, casino magnate Sheldon Alderson.

This trend, likely a side effect of the Citizen's United decision, is one that we're likely going to see continue. Wealthy individuals and corporation forming so-caller SuperPac's to back a candidate, that support will obviously come with a slight quid pro quo.

To me there's only one logical next step, and it's one I could see Gingrich or Santorum pursuing now, or some candidate in the future. That a person, or entity, via a SuperPac, to in a sense sponsor a candidate. Candidates putting up their own money to skirt fund-raising laws in nothing new, Scott Walker, with a little help from the Koch Brothers, did that in Wisconsin, but I don't think he expected that when the Koch's asked for a return on their investment that the people of Wisconsin would rise up the way they did.

The reasons for this sponsorship would be no different from why candidates are backed today. To advance or repulse and agenda; Exxon, etc would likely look to back a candidate to favor drilling and roll back conservation and alternative energy initiatives. McDonalds or Wal-Mart would likely back candidates opposed to workers rights to organize and efforts to increase the minimum wage. A businessman with fundamentalist tendencies would look to someone like Santorum, determined to roll back the gain made by women and homosexuals over the last thirty years.

The question is, how many voters would support this type of candidate?

3 comments

Sooner28 4 years ago

People have voted for Republicans in the past who are like this, so I'd say at least 50% of the population.


LHwritings profile image

LHwritings 4 years ago from Central Texas

Thanks for turning a spotlight on this issue. I've voted this article Up and Interesting.

I generally agree with Sooner's take on this. What you suggest just seems like business as usual.

Socially and politically, the Teapot GOP seems to be trying to push the USA back not just before the New Deal era, but to the Gilded Age, somewhere in the late 19th century. In terms of sexuality, cultural program, and economics, a huge chunk of the GOP cult seem to have a mindset rooted in the 13th century.

Both the GOP and the Dems are implicated in all this. Both are parties of this country's mega-wealthy power elite, just with different voting constituencies.

On the one hand, you could assert that the American public has been extremely stupid to let things come to this. But they really have not been given a choice — working people and the lower to middle-income mass of the population, and "progressives", have no party to represent them. So far, no leadership has emerged from the labor movement or any other "progressive" movement with enough clout and popularity to change that situation.


TeaPartyCrasher profile image

TeaPartyCrasher 4 years ago from Camp Hill, PA Author

LH:

That progressive leadership you seek might emerge from the streets, someone may emerge either from the Wisconsin Movement or the "Occupy".

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working