Citizens Un-united

A few months ago, many beef-industry-reliant states got into a tizzy over media reports about 'pink slime.' This is in fact a derogatory name for a beef filler / by-product that's found in practically every package of ground beef.  (The beef industry prefers the name "lean finely textured beef.")

Anyway, the governors of these states held a press conference at a processing plant to complain about the way this filler was being characterized.  At this made-for-TV event, the mainstream media reporter who gave the 'pink slime' a national spotlight asked Iowa's governor a question - did his interest in this issue also stem from the fact the beef processor was one of his biggest political donors?

Of course, the governor responded with righteous indignation that someone would even think there was a connection.  Many others, including my own friends and acquaintances, agreed it was a cheap shot question from a self-aggrandizing reporter.

Hold on, now.  While this 'pink slime' deal was very overblown and a bit offensive, that question was not.  If politicians are going to accept political donations, they are fair game to be criticized when they appear to do favors for those donors, rightly or wrongly.  It doesn't matter if they actually happen to believe what they're saying, the appearance of impropriety is there.

Of course, this is just a microcosm of the current state of affairs in this country when it comes to money and politics.  Thanks to the Citizens United decision, money has never had a bigger influence in who gets what in the USA, and politicians have never been more brazen about doing favors for those who provide them with financial backing.

Senator John McCain, one of the few people who still can pass as a moderate Republican and a long-time voice for campaign finance reform, recently said about Citizens United, "There will be scandals associated with the worst decision of the United States Supreme Court in the 21st century.”  Will be?  It's been happening since the day the decision was made.

Even before that decision, that system was still broken.  PACs/SuperPACs and lobbyists have always had too much influence, mostly due to the access their money buys them.  I used to work for a large trade association, and it was no secret how this worked.  When raising money for the PAC, they openly stated  that money was how the game was played, and they needed to be a player.

Oh, but they didn't say that publicly.  Instead they had the gall to quote Thomas Jefferson, who once said, "We in America do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority who participate.”  As if that meant Jefferson would support a PAC!  (Note - Thomas Jefferson also said, "The end of democracy will occur when government falls into the hands of lending institutions and moneyed incorporations."  Why didn't that trade association use that quote?  D-bags.)

What planet are elected officials on when they allow themselves to accept money from people and especially from corporations, yet don't think constituents or the media should question them about the consequences of that relationship?  It's legal bribery, with politicians who don't want to change it and an electorate that feels powerless to change it.