Just Because You 'Choose' Your Master Every 4 Years Does NOT Mean You Are Free …

ELDER PATRIOT – Opensecrets.org reports that $2.6 billion dollars was spent influencing the political debate during the 2012 presidential race.  A look at the breakdown of where the candidates’ contributions came from suggests that the 2012 election was more about corporate interests against banking interests than the bilge of competing ideologies on the size of government that both parties would want you to believe.

In the blue corner representing corporate interests was Barack Obama whose top 5 contributors were:

  1. The University of California whose $1.35 million contribution returned a staggering $751 million from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) in 2008, alone.  The list of recipients feeding at the trough of the National Science Foundation’s $7.8 billion budget is littered with funding for U.C. research projects, as well.
  2. Microsoft whose contributions topped $815.5 thousand in exchange for a bundle of goodies and government contracts.  As an example your tax dollars will pay $11 million towards a bridge Microsoft wants to connect both sides of its sprawling campus.  This alone makes Microsoft’s investment in Obama a smart one with a 135% R.O.I.  By the way, the federal funding is from the ARRA.
  3. Google spent $804 thousand buying favors from the Obama administration.  As we pointed out in an earlier article, Google co-chair Eric Schmidt also lent his time and expertise to developing and running the Obama campaign’s online efforts.  In exchange the Obama administration directed the National Science Foundation (NSF) to fund many of Google’s developmental projects through research grants and government contracts.  In return Google surreptitiously compiles your personal information for the government’s use and qualifies which information is readily available on their search engine.  It’s becoming apparent that the NSF is nothing more than a slush fund for the president to allocate to those research centers and corporations that feather his bed.
  4. Hold onto your seat for the next one.  The U.S. government was Obama’s fourth most generous contributor.  That should require no further explanation.
  5. Harvard University checks in at number 5 having contributed $681 thousand to Obama’s campaign.  With an endowment exceeding $35 billion Harvard meets many of the criteria to qualify as a hedge fund.  This is an untenable position to be in with a populist president.  What’s a well-placed contribution if it protects Harvard’s tax-free status for its $7 billion profit from its investments?

Now for the opponent in the red corner who sought to represent the international banking interests, Mitt Romney:

  1. Goldman Sachs contributed $1.045 million.
  2. Bank of America contributed $1.018 million.
  3. Morgan Stanley contributed $921 thousand.
  4. JPMorgan Chase & Company contributed $836 thousand.
  5. Wells Fargo contributed $694 thousand.

We’ll never know how Romney would’ve rewarded this group but we do know they haven’t done poorly under the current administration.  They never do poorly.

What about the bundlers?  These are people with friends in high places who solicit funds from wealthy people with similar interests on behalf of the candidate.  Seeing what a million dollars or less can buy from the government, there’s no wonder that bundlers were able put together these whopping sums for Obama and the Democrats:

  • Individual layers and law firms raised $43.75 million.  And as the regulations keep coming on every level of an expanding government their business is booming.
  • Securities and Investment executives contributed another $22.85 million.
  • Business services contributed $18.5 million.

In all, Obama received contributions of  $186.5 million for his re-election campaign.  Interestingly, the economy was still in the tank for the average American.  I guess these corporate decision-makers liked what they saw from his first 4 years.

Romney received barely 9% of Obama’s total from his bundlers, less than each of Obama’s top three industry bundlers by themselves.  It appears that for bundlers looking to gain government favor for their industry group they were just fine with the status quo.

Why anyone believes there exists a party for smaller government and more transparency when all historical evidence contradicts such an idea is baffling.  The 2012 election was a contest between corporate interests and banking interests.  Corporations won but in actuality they both won.  They both always win.

Whether our government’s leaders actually take direct orders from corporate chieftains and international bankers or they have simply formed an unholy alliance with them to do their bidding in exchange for their sliver of personal power and wealth should be immaterial to you.  The important fact is leadership of both parties has been indebting you and your progeny for the financial gain of big business and big banks for decades.

As much as there is an effort to deny Jefferson credit for it, there is no refuting the certainty of the following quote:

“I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.  If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around (these banks) will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.”

If you’re considering making a political donation this election season may I suggest that you make it to someone other than one of the two major party regulars?  If you do otherwise, you’ll be pissing in the ocean.