Vote for the Money
Some men worship rank, some worship heroes, some worship power, some worship God, & over these ideals they dispute & cannot unite--but they all worship money.
- Mark Twain's Notebook
Tex Shelters here. If you are a liberal, I hope you haven’t voted. Please, don’t. You don’t deserve to. But if you do vote, be assured that you will be voting for one of two pre-selected corporate candidates that have been vetted by the elites. As for all you patriotic conservatives and Tea Party members, thank you for helping me become richer.
I have lost elections by listening to that little voice inside telling me to stand by morals and vote my conscience. I supported Huckabee for his moral fortitude standing up against gay sex by comparing it to pedophilia and bestiality. Standing up for God is why the liberal media hated the Huckster. During the 2012 campaign season, I also supported Bachmann for being courageous enough to stand against her own raped gender on abortion issues. But no more. Now, I am strictly going to vote for the money.
About 90% of campaigns with the most money win congressional seats, so why not be a winner too and vote for the richest campaign? Also, the media reports incessantly about campaign money, so why fight it? Who needs policies anyway, and who can trust what a politician says? Money doesn't lie.
Besides, money should be the determining factor in who runs this nation. Congress will have to know how to work with their masters: the Kochs, Sheldon Adelson, Warren Buffet, Big Pharma, Monsanto, GE and the war industry, among others, to keep this nation running smoothly for their wealthy benefactors. Having Congress members who are millionaires is a must. Poor Congress members who are worth less than a million, thus inept human beings, should not even be eligible for Congress. And we have done our best to make it nearly impossible for those lesser, poorer Americans to get elected. Besides, poor Congress members are likely to be bribed and influenced by money, unlike wealthy members. We must elect the wealthy to ensure that power will be held at the top of the economic rung and not trickle down to the people who don’t deserve nor know what to do with this power.
A New York Times article called “How Much Does It Cost to Run for President?” shows how money can determine how a campaign is perceived. That’s good news for us billionaires.
The answer to that question is remarkably complicated. It depends in large part on how much a candidate is able to raise. And it can vary wildly, from the candidate who operates on a shoestring budget to the gold-plated, multistate operations of the most serious contenders.
Observation: Journalists will often tell us that something is “remarkably complicated” when it’s not in order to justify their jobs.
Note the words, “gold-plated, multistate operations of the most serious contenders.” The implication is that if you don’t have lots of money for your campaign, you aren’t a serious contender. Thank you New York Times for helping winnow out those loser candidates with ideas but no money. Bye bye Nader, Kucinich, McKinney and other radical lefty intellectuals.
Money not only determines the coverage you can buy, but it in large part it determines the coverage you get. The candidates with the largest bankroll usually get the most free media attention because money means you are more deserving, “In primary politics name recognition equals money, money equals coverage, coverage equals name recognition, and name recognition equals--you guessed it--more money.” I call it the Tex Shelters Thermal Dynamics of Money Attraction; money is attracted to the campaign with the most money.
Romney was twice as visible as Santorum in February of 2012 despite Santorum’s consecutive wins in three Midwestern states. So instead of trying to hide his money and his tax statements, Mitt Romney should have waved a wad of hundreds in front of him at every campaign stop to get attention like a woman might push up her chest or a man might thrust his pelvis forward for the world to see to show their worthiness and their willingness to screw you. Let’s hope Romney runs in 2016 so he can show off his wad to everyone.
In 2012, Santorum selected his handler in billionaire Foster Friess to back his campaign. I like Friess for being brave enough to say what many of Santorum’s patriotic backers were afraid to say in public, that he hopes Obama’s “‘Teleprompters Are Bulletproof.’” It’s thoughts such as those that demonstrate why billionaires should run this nation. Only great Americans, billionaires, can say whatever they want about the president without getting into a big hassle over free speech. And Friess has billions in free speech dollars. Let’s hope he starts spending them on Romney instead of Santorum this time out.
Newt Gingrich also had his great handler billionaire, the third richest man in the U.S., Sheldon Adelson, “ 'Mr. Adelson, by some estimates worth as much as $22 billion, presides over a global empire of casinos, hotels and convention centers whose centerpiece is the Venetian in Las Vegas, an exuberant monument to excess…' ”
Excess is just not on display enough in political campaigns, so I am glad Adelson put his cash where his mouth, Newt Gingrich, is. However, one billionaire could not beat Romney’s team, all of Wall Street.
After seeing who had the money, I, Tex Shelters, started supporting Romney. Romney's campaign was back-stopped with Wall Street money and had cruised to victory over Santorum and Gingrich. Frankly, we didn’t care what Romney's positions were on social issues like abortion as long as he gave Obama a run for his money.
But then I learned that Obama had received much of his campaign money from the same donors as Romney: Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, UBS AG, and others. While most of the individual donations to Obama come from people giving $200 or less, a majority of his total cash came form large donors. Obama’s small donors didn’t mean as much as his campaign let on, and that is just the kind of plutocratic manipulation of facts this billionaire likes. So perhaps Obama is not such a bad guy or socialist after all if he accepted all those donations from billionaires and millionaires.
It’s clear that granddad lied to us; it’s not about who you are, what morals you have, it’s about getting money at whatever the cost.
And that is why I had been supporting Mitt Romney. Except, Obama had more money, (ABC News) so I had to donate to, and vote for, him. Moreover, the candidate with the most money wins 90% of presidential elections. (OpenSecrets) As long as Obama didn’t challenge the basic assumptions of our economy that allows billionaires to hoard money while poverty increases, we're fine with that. Unless, of course, Romney had caught and passed Obama in the donation department. It didn’t matter, for whoever won, it was a win-win for the billionaire class.
The good news for billionaires this time out is that 2014 is a record year for campaign spending. Democrats and Republicans have raised $957,255,769 dollars in direct donations for 1432 candidates for an average of $668,475 per candidate. (https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/) All that money guarantees a bumper crop of corporate supporting candidates and legislation, “This year’s midterm election will be the most expensive in history, ringing up a $4 billion tab, according to the Center for Responsive Politics’ research site.” You see, they included dark, un-sourced donations from PACs and others. I wish OpenSecrets weren’t so open about that. (opensecrets.org)
And even better news for the media and rich campaigns, “Fifty-five percent of broadcast advertising in the midterm elections has been paid for by groups that do not fully disclose their donors, according to an analysis by The New York Times of advertising data from the Campaign Media Analysis Group.” Lots of money, secret donations, no discussion of campaign finance reform from the Democrats or Republicans; I nearly cream my pants when I think about it.
To quote Justice John Roberts, “ 'Money in politics may at times seem repugnant to some, but so too does much of what the First Amendment vigorously protects. If the First Amendment protects flag burning, funeral protests and Nazi parades - despite the profound offense such spectacles cause - it surely protects political campaign speech despite popular opposition.' ” Yes, buying elections and influencing legislation through money to make more money while poverty increases in the nation is just like protesting a funeral. That’s an absolutely valid comparison, though I know some libtards will complain because they are too lazy to make enough money to buy their own Congressmen.
Justice Roberts also argues for unlimited donations of all types, not just in PACs, “ 'The thing is, you can't give [unlimited contributions] to the Republican Party or the Democratic Party, but you can start your own PAC," he said. "I'm not sure that that's a benefit to our political system.' ” (ibid) He concludes that no donations should have limits.
Yes, and that money is speech. What you communist types don’t understand is that unlimited PAC money can be fixed by unlimited donations of all types. Or are you too stupid to get it?
Justice Scalia makes clear by stating it, there is no way all this campaign money will in any way influence Congress. Just because Congress passes laws that favor corporations and billionaires doesn’t mean that it’s quid pro quo.
Trevor Burrus, contributor to Forbes, penned a brilliant defense of unlimited money in politics. In it, he states that, “Campaign spending increases voter knowledge.” (ibid) Yes, campaign spending does increase knowledge, the knowledge we plutocrats want you to know, knowledge completely out of context and not cited, knowledge we can use to get you to vote for rich folks that support even richer folks. Using money to buy elections and influence (even write) legislation makes the U.S. the best democracy in history.
Burrus also acknowledges that “Money in politics elicits ire, but rarely does that ire come with understanding. Blaming money in politics for perceived policy failures also provides a convenient explanation for why the world doesn’t align with your policy preferences.” (ibid) We billionaires have more influence on the government and nation and blaming it on our donations just shows what ignorant losers you liberals are.
What do you liberals have against free speech in the form of money you don’t have? And just because communists at Princeton have a study to refute patriots like Burrus, a study using over 1800 pieces of legislation and government decisions, doesn’t make the words of a contributor to Forbes less worth following. Watch for the communist words in the report: “'The central point that emerges from our research is that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy,' they write, 'while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence.' ”
And don’t listen to Comrade Bernie Sanders, “A handful of billionaires own a significant part of the wealth of America and have enormous control over our economy. What the Supreme Court did in Citizens United is to say to these same billionaires: “You own and control the economy, you own Wall Street, you own the coal companies, you own the oil companies. Now, for a very small percentage of your wealth, we’re going to give you the opportunity to own the United States government.” That is the essence of what Citizens United is all about – and that’s why it must be overturned.”
—Sen. Bernie Sanders, at a Senate hearing on July 24.
Bernie, why do you hate our success? You're just another jealous liberal because you don't have that kind of influence, the kind of influence comrades like you and Stalin want to wield.
According to opensecrets.com, less than 10% of the people in the U.S. have given to a candidate for any office. Moreover, PACs (political action committees), account for about 33% of all campaign money for the House and about 16% for the Senate. Small donors giving $200 or less add up to 10 and 15% respectively, and that was from about 25 million donors, according to the Sunlight Foundation. You see, we allow peasants to donate, but just a little, so it appears they have influence. What a great democracy we live in.
The Sunlight Foundation states that, “In the 2012 election, 28 percent of all disclosed political contributions came from just 31,385 people. In a nation of 313.85 million, these donors represent the 1% of the 1%, an elite class that increasingly serves as the gatekeepers of public office in the United States.” (ibid) And that is the way it should be. Fewer people give more because those with money are the best people to run our nation, and that is why this nation is doing so well economically and internationally.
During these midterm elections, Republicans have more money in most races. Well, you know who Tex Shelters is supporting. I vote for the money.