( – promoted by buhdydharma )
For some strange reason, I’m not sure this is a good thing.
“BUSINESS DONARS Bypass McCain” read the headline in the April 2 Wall Street Journal.
Business is hedging it’s bets. I can’t blame them. The question is if Democrats want to be in big business’s thrall.
Considering that the Republican Party is generally considered to be the main big business party in the U.S. political system, this would be news by itself. But the difference between the amount of money Democratic presidential candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have collected from business compared to McCain’s take is truly “startling,” former Republican National Committee counsel Jan Baran told the Journal. “It’s very foreboding for Republicans.”
So we should feel good about this, yes? Isn’t it good that the Dems are pulling in another segment of society?
Through February, McCain had racked up $13.1 million from these industries, compared to $27.1 million to Clinton and $22.5 million to Obama. And this is separate from the money Clinton and Obama have raised from business sectors, like Hollywood, that traditionally support Democrats.
That’s a ton of cash. Now, think of it this way: Do businesses spend money on candidates without wanting to get something back? If so, what are the two Dems willing to give them in return for the money?
Thus, the Clinton campaign pounded Obama for criticizing the North American Free Trade Agreement while his chief economic adviser was telling Canadian officials to ignore the anti-NAFTA rhetoric. But over the weekend, Clinton’s top adviser, Mark Penn, resigned after revelations that he was lobbying for a free trade pact with Colombia that his candidate opposes!
The funny thing on NAFTA, of course, is that it’s sacrosanct for both of the Dems. They won’t end it, just try to ‘fix’ it. Neo-liberalism runs deep at the top of the Democratic party.
What about Obama’s talk of building a movement to change politics in Washington? Judging from the millions pouring into Obama’s coffers from the management of major Wall Street firms, big business isn’t worried. Doug Henwood, editor of Left Business Observer, put it this way:
Big capital would have no problem with an Obama presidency. Top hedge fund honcho Paul Tudor Jones threw a fundraiser for him at his Greenwich house last spring. ‘The whole of Greenwich is backing Obama,’ one source said of the posh headquarters of the hedge fund industry.
They like him because they’re socially liberal, up to a point, and probably eager for a little less war, and think he’s the man to do their work. They’re also confident he wouldn’t undertake any renovations to the distribution of wealth. You could say the same about Clinton–but you know those hedge fund guys. They like a contrary bet.
Keep this in mind in the runup to November. Are we going to see any changes to the way business is done in the US? Or are the business types realizing that their free-wheeling ways are bad for the economy?
Not to look a gift horse in the mouth, Democratic Rep. Steny Hoyer, who became House Majority Leader when the Democrats won Congress, announced that he would start a fundraising operation that The Hill magazine dubbed “Hoyer’s K-Street Project”–after the strong-arm program a Republican predecessor, Tom Delay, created to enforce loyalty among corporate lobbyists.
Wasn’t K-Street the font of corruption which helped to bring the Republicans low in 2006? Why would the Dems want to follow the same path? The answer may be:
For industry bosses, this is the beauty of the two-party system. If one party falls out of favor with the voters, there’s always the other one–with predictable policies–waiting in the wings.
‘Hope’ and ‘Change’ are all well and good as long as things change. Big business is placing a pretty good sized bet on the Dems. The question is if the bet is on change or keeping the status quo. We on the left may not like the answer.
Original posted here: http://rjones2818.blogspot.com/2008/…