Rothschild on Campaign Finance Reform

[sabang]

Evelyn Rothschild, no less- and what an excellent article it is.

Monetary Express

Perhaps no other words have played as important of a role in shaping the freedom and prosperity of the United States as have the ones found in the First Amendment. And perhaps no other amendment in the constitution has led to more unintended consequences by America's political and judiciary system. Under the cloak of freedom of speech, and thanks to the Supreme Court's systematic effort to remove barriers preventing the unlimited use of money in political campaign, political spending has spiraled out of control in America.

The pervasiveness of money in American politics is no more apparent than in presidential elections. In 2008, Barack Obama and John McCain collectively raised over $1.7 billion. That is more than double the money raised by George W. Bush and John Kerry in 2004. Obama alone spent $730 million to get elected to the White House in 2008. By contrast, the entire 2010 UK general election, which fielded over 4,000 candidates for Parliament, cost just £31.5 million ($49 million), £10.8 million ($16.8 million) less than the 2005 general elections. David Cameron spent a mere £14,000 ($22,000) on his campaign in 2010, and the average candidate spent just under £3,500.

The rise of outside spending, and particularly of 'SuperPACs,' will push the cost of the 2012 election even higher. Going into Super Tuesday, outside groups had already spent over well over $88 million during this 2012 election cycle. SuperPACs alone have already spent $66 million, $1 million more than SuperPACs spent during the entire 2010 election cycle, and we are still nine months away from the general election.

While factors, such as the advent of 24 hour news industry, have contributed, unbridled political campaign costs, shielded by the systematic misinterpretation of the First Amendment, have been the main barriers preventing those without access to vast amounts of money from running for political office.

Beginning in the 1970s, and culminating in the Citizen's United case in 2010, the Supreme Court has equated political spending to free speech, arguing that any restrictions to that spending curtails a candidates First Amendment rights. Many since abused this interpretation unethically, flooding campaigns with cash at the expense of those without similar financial power. In effect, those without money cannot compete in the US political system.
Evelyn Robert de Rothschild: Monetary Express


The US urgently needs to finance it's campaign finance laws, if it is to credibly remain a representative democracy. The current situation, of which the Citizens United decision provided the icing on the cake, more resembles a plutocracy in practise. There is no denying that money also plays a part in politics in other democracies- but it is a matter of degree. The US campaign system is awash with money, and the vast majority is absolutely not with the intention of giving every citizen an equal voice. It is, quite simply, attempting to influence the outcome to suit ones own perceived self interest. Furthermore, you can now do so anonymously and with unlimited amounts of money.

Whilst in fact they are not reptilian shape shifters that secretly control the world, the Rothschilds remain a wealthy and influential family. It is rare for a Rothschild to give his imprimatur to anything vaguely resembling a political cause- and his entirely sensible call for reform in the US campaign finance system can hardly be described as toadying to his buddies in the Illuminati. This is a guy who was invited to spend his honeymoon in the White House (he accepted for one night)- and he is also entirely right.

[Jesus Jones]

It is an interesting article, but what has de Rothschild up his sleeve?

[raycarey]

IMO citizen's united will eventually be overturned.....hopefully it's not too late.

mccain / feingold needs to be brought back to restore a relative sense of sanity to US politics.

[gwargamel]

IMO citizen's united will eventually be overturned

I do believe this will be the next amendment to the constitution. The ground swell of support in the US is building rapidly.

[sabang]

It is an interesting article, but what has de Rothschild up his sleeve?

What do you think this Rothschild has up his sleeve?

Lord Jacob Rothschild, one of the most prominent members of the legendary family of financiers and a major donor to Israel, tells The Jerusalem Report in a rare interview published this week that he is sympathetic to the social protests that have swept Israel, the US and much of Europe, and criticizes the modern banking system

... “I have a lot of sympathy with people who protested about some of the excesses in the world of finance,” he told the Report. “After all, here are characters who have made great fortunes who have been in charge of a system which has been very damaging to many interests in the last five to 10 years. They have had enormous benefits but the banking system as a whole has had a crippling effect in a number of areas throughout the world.”
Lord Rothschild reveals... JPost - Features - Insights & Features

The Rothschild's have been very candid lately, commenting both negatively on money politics in the USA, and positively about the 'Occupy" movements. What is notable about both of these comments is that they are the opposite of what you would expect a Rothschild to say, being major investors and financiers who do not actually control the world, but do own a nice wedge of it. Surely it is clear that they are expressing serious misgivings about the direction the system has been taking? There is now such an amalgmation between politics/ banking & finance/ & government (fed/ treasury etc) that it is incestous- hard to know where one ends and the other begins, regardless it is the same people talking to each other, dictating policy and doing deals, while periodically swapping seats. In partisan politics though (banking & finance plays both sides), billionaires increasingly dominate. R's are clearly concrened about the extent of this- the corrupting influence Wealth, pursuing it's own interests, is having on good governance.

Are their concerns justified?

The undisputed master of Super PAC money is Mitt Romney. In the primary season alone, Romney's rich friends invested $52 million in his Super PAC, Restore Our Future – a number that's expected to more than double in the coming months. This unprecedented infusion of money from America's monied elites underscores the radical transformation of the Republican Party, which has made defending the interests of 0.0001 percent the basis of its entire platform. "Money buys power," the Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman observed recently, "and the increasing wealth of a tiny minority has effectively bought the allegiance of one of our two major political parties." In short, the political polarization and gridlock in Washington are a direct result of the GOP's capitulation to Big Money.

Most of the megadonors backing his candidacy are elderly billionaires: Their median age is 66, and their median wealth is $1 billion. Each is looking for a payoff that will benefit his business interests, and they will all profit from Romney's pledge to eliminate inheritance taxes, extend the Bush tax cuts for the superwealthy – and then slash the top tax rate by another 20 percent.
Right-Wing Billionaires Behind Mitt Romney - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


What do the Conspiracy Theorists make of this?