Share

Mother's Milk of Politics Turns Sour

by: Bill Moyers and Michael Winship, t r u t h o u t | Perspective

photo
(Photo: Bill Moyers Journal)

    Once again we're closing the barn door after the horse is out and gone. In Washington, the Federal Reserve has finally acted to stop some of the predatory lending that exploited people's need for money. And like Rip Van Winkle, Congress is finally waking up from a long doze under the warm sun of laissez-faire economics. That's French for turning off the alarm until the burglars have made their getaway.

    Philosophy is one reason we do this to ourselves; when you worship market forces as if they were the gods of Olympus, then the gods can do no wrong - until, of course, they prove to be human. Then we realize we should have listened to our inner agnostic and not been so reverent in the first place.

    But we also get into these terrible dilemmas - where the big guys step all over everyone else and the victims are required to pay the hospital bills - because we refuse to recognize the connection between money and politics. This is the great denial in democracy that may ultimately mean our ruin. We just don't seem able to see or accept the fact that money drives policy. It's no wonder that Congress and the White House have been looking the other way as the predators picked the pockets of unsuspecting debtors. Mega banking and investment firms have been some of the biggest providers of the cash vital to keeping incumbents in office. There isn't much appetite for biting - or regulating - the manicured hand that feeds them.

    Guess who gave the most money to candidates in this 2007-08 federal election cycle? That's right, the financial services and real estate industries. They stuffed nearly $250 million into the candidate coffers. The about-to-be-bailed-out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac together are responsible for about half the country's $12 trillion mortgage debt. Lisa Lerer of Politico.com reports that over the past decade, the two financial giants with the down-home names have spent nearly $200 million on campaign contributions and lobbying. According to Lerer, "They've stacked their payrolls with top Washington power brokers of all political stripes, including Republican John McCain's presidential campaign manager, Rick Davis; Democrat Barack Obama's original vice presidential vetter, Jim Johnson, and scores of others now working for the two rivals for the White House."

    Last Sunday's New York Times put it as bluntly as anyone ever has: "In Washington, Fannie and Freddie's sprawling lobbying machine hired family and friends of politicians in their efforts to quickly sideline any regulations that might slow their growth or invite greater oversight of their business practices. Indeed, their rapid expansion was, at least in part, the result of such artful lobbying over the years."

    What a beautiful term: "artful lobbying." It means honest graft. Look at any of the important issues bogged down in the swampland along the Potomac and you don't have to scrape away the muck too deeply to find that campaign cash is at the core of virtually every impasse. We're spending more than six percent of our salaries on gasoline, and global warming keeps temperatures rising, but the climate bill was killed last month and President Bush just got rid of his daddy's longtime ban on offshore drilling. Only in a fairy tale would anyone believe it's just coincidence that the oil and gas industries have donated more than $18 million to federal candidates this year, three-quarters of it going to Republicans. They've spent more than $26 million lobbying this year - that's seven times more than environmental groups have spent.

    Follow the money - it goes from your gas tank to the wine bars and steak houses of DC, where the payoffs happen. Or ponder that FISA surveillance legislation that just passed the Senate. It let the big telecommunications companies off the hook for helping the government wiretap our phones and laptops without warrants. Over the years those telecom companies have given Republicans in the House and Senate $63 million and Democrats $49 million. No wonder that when their lobbyists reach out and place a call to Congress, they never get a busy signal. Do the same without making a big contribution, and you'll be put on "hold" until the embalmer shows up to claim your cold corpse.

    The late journalist Meg Greenfield once wrote that trying to get money out of politics is akin to the quest for a squirrel-proof birdfeeder. No matter how clever and ingenious the design, the squirrels are always one mouthful ahead of you. Here's an example. Corporations are limited in how much they can contribute to candidates' campaigns, right? But someone's always figuring out how to open another back door. So Democrats have turned to Steve Farber. He's using the resources of his big K Street law and lobbying factory to help raise $40 million for the Democratic National Convention. Half a dozen of his clients have signed up, including AT&T, Comcast, Western Union and Google. Their presence at the convention will offer lots of opportunities to curry favors at private parties while ordinary delegates wander Denver looking for the nearest Wendy's. By the way, just as you pay at the gas pump for those energy lobbyists to wine and dine your representatives in Washington, you'll pay on April 15 for Denver - corporations can deduct their contributions.

    Another back door - one quite familiar to Steve Farber and his ilk - leads to presidential libraries. Bill Clinton's in Arkansas required serious political bucks, and we're not talking penny ante fines for overdue books. Again, there's no limit to the amount donors can give and no obligation to reveal their names. Clinton's cost $165 million and we still don't know the identities of everyone who put up the dough, even though four years ago a reporter stumbled on a list that included Arab businessmen, Saudi royals, Hollywood celebs and the governments of Dubai, Kuwait, Qatar, Brunei and Taiwan. Hmmm ...

    Once George W. is out of the White House, he, too, plans what one newspaper described as a "legacy polishing" institute - a presidential library and think tank at Southern Methodist University in Dallas costing half a billion dollars. Last Sunday, The Times of London released a remarkable video of one of the president's buddies and fund raisers - Stephen Payne, a political appointee named to the Homeland Security Advisory Council.

    The Times set him up in a video sting, and taped a conversation in which Payne offers an exiled leader of Kyrgyzstan meetings with such White House luminaries as Vice President Cheney and Condoleezza Rice - provided he makes a whopping contribution to the Bush Library, and an even bigger payment to Payne's lobbying firm. Payne tells him, "It will be somewhere between $600,000 and $750,000, with about a third of it going directly to the Bush Library.... That's gonna be a show of 'we're interested, we're your friends, we're still your friends.'" The White House denies any connection between library contributions and access to officials, and harrumphed at the preposterous idea that Payne had a close relationship with the president. Unfortunately, there's at least one photo of Payne with the president, cutting brush at Bush's Crawford ranch. There's also one of Payne demonstrating more guts than common sense, on a rifle range with Deadeye Dick Cheney.

    Payne, who now is supporting John McCain, says he's done nothing wrong, but a Congressional investigation intends to find out. So, from the financial meltdown brought on by predatory lending to global warming to tax breaks and other favors, the late California politician Jesse "Big Daddy" Unruh got it right: Money is the mother's milk of politics. He knew what he was talking about, because Big Daddy swigged it by the gallon. Now it has curdled into a witch's brew.

    --------

    Bill Moyers is managing editor and Michael Winship is senior writer of the weekly public affairs program, Bill Moyers Journal, which airs Friday night on PBS. Check local airtimes or comment at The Moyers Blog at www.pbs.org/moyers.

  

»


Comments

This is a moderated forum.  It may take a little while for comments to go live. Be civil and on-topic, don't threaten or advocate violence, please keep it under 300 words. Thanks for participating.

To whom, fellow citizens,

To whom, fellow citizens, does Mr. Moyers refer? First paragraph, right away 'we' let the horse out. Then the FED enters. Are they part of 'we'? (Congress is not 'we', it' s a somnolent RVWinkle. And as 'we' are not Congress, is it possible that only the Congress was asleep. There are many among the people I know who were not at all fooled by the depredations, the cold shadow that business and the calculated interests of capital, cast across society. ) Then, 'we' worship market forces, because 'we' have been duped by a theology of that asks reverence. By the third paragraph, 'we' are in trouble. But it is unclear to me who the 'we' are now? Are 'we' doing the stomping? Or are 'we' the ones cleaning up the mess? And while one of these two (both?) 'we's don't "see or accept" the "great denial of democracy", vis., that the money matters, wasn't lost on the crafters of the US Constitution, who strictly laid out the mechanism and by what bodies (Congress and the People's Treasury) Bills would be paid. Put a for-profit group of bankers in between, and someone is out to make money on the People's money. To whom is this news? Perhaps Mr Moyers, for he "follows the money" from the gas pump, when it really gets issued, with interest due, not to the US Treasury, but to for-profit BANKERS. We, the People, cannot ever get out of debt. A critical actor in Mr Moyer's drama that seems to have been cut. Crucial, not only because an executive may then bypass Congress for funds, going instead down to the Bankers (always glad to lend, at interest!) for the money, perhaps even for a war that Congress would have had to debate before the We the People. But tyrants and those who distrust and despise democracy and the people, and worship the nation-state and personal privilege over the welfare of all , these people are part of the 'we' too, aren't they? The ones doing the stomping? They have their say, invented immortal private fiefdoms, run their presses and TV stations, gloss over their excesses, using forks and knives to eat their bacon, with the best PR their hold on our money can buy. Government seems to work pretty well when it acts as a business booster, cracking down on retail crime while ignoring the wholesale white-collar variety, using the Marines to open up recalcitrant markets, providing free market discipline for the poor, and publicly-funded socialism for the rich, rewarding the rewarded. Here's a radical solution: The airwaves belong to the people, don't they? How about: No charge for airtime. Unless these self-same, for profit tyrannies are truly lawless, and 'we' are willing to be honest about the lack of democracy we have, the lack of control the people have over their own money, the meaninglessness of elections, 'we' (and I am hoping that maybe Mr Moyers would care to join this group) will be honest enough to forthrightly declare and often repeat the glaring crystal reality, the 600 pound gorilla, that this country has only one political party, the business party, the party of the owners, with 2 factions: the Gambinos and the Rosellis, oops, I mean, Democrats and Republicans. We call it fascism when the government takes over the corporations. What do 'we' call it when the corporations have taken over the government? And what do 'we' do when even a Mr Moyers, who has the platform, avoids it?

Bill Moyers and Michael

Bill Moyers and Michael Winship have it right. "The love of money is the root of all evil". The question is, how can the citizen deal with this problem. We are like a herd of sheep following the"leaders". We let them fool us, lead us to unnecessary wars and make us pay for these "privileges". The way we are despoiling our habitat, it will all be over in less than 200 years. Evolution is catching up with us.

"(W)e refuse to recognize

"(W)e refuse to recognize the connection between money and politics. " No offense to Mr. Moyers, who I admire, none at all. From someone inside the beltway, though, I say "duh." Money virtually always trumps good policy for "all the people."

It's "facism" when the

It's "facism" when the government is taken over by corporations. It was in 1938 and it is today. It's often called "communism" when corporations are at least regulated by government. The meanings and philosophies of these powerful words get manipulated when special interests find that there are signs the people might revolt against their revolting behavior. In fact, it's all socialism. We tax the things we don't want and we don't tax the things we are encouraging. We are taxing small business, the working middle class, energy conservation, higher education, financially conservative citizens, and social responsibility. We are not taxing Paris Hilton and G.W. Bush and their inbred friends, irresponsible and reckless corporations, the use of illegal labor, overpaid and under-performing CEOs, political corruption and lobbying, and corporations that waste resources and pollute the nation. Those are the behaviors we "like" and "dislike." Any other discussion is based on magic and bullshit. The two-party system has failed. Our system of government has become exactly what the founders revolted against., and we are becoming a non-industrialized, unscientific, third-world economy with a first rate military. That sounds to me like a formula for fascism.

Thank you To Whom Fellow

Thank you To Whom Fellow Citizens, you have it down. If they are going to give welfare to the rich, why not give free healthcare to all.

i'd feel better about

i'd feel better about Moyer's discovery of the influence of money on politics if he had managed to give equal time on his own program for a rebuttal to Peter Peterson's attack on Social Security. The fact that Moyers "only corporate sponsor" was a company that sells retirement plans may or may not have had any effect on Moyer's decision. More likely, perhaps, it was just the success that Peterson and other highly paid "non partisan experts" have had in fooling the people and journalists who can't think with numbers.

Thank you Mr. Moyers. Below

Thank you Mr. Moyers. Below is a similar commentary of my own on the same subject entitled: “YOU DID WHAT WITH OUR MONEY?” Or, A Few Relevant Questions To Ask About Yet Another National Financial Fiasco Shouldn't some portion of the massive bailout taxpayers are handing the incompetent company officials who recklessly got us in this mortgage mess be used instead to hire more regulators to insure we don't keeping throwing Treasury money away like this every few years? Shouldn't a few of those who cost us maybe trillions be fired or jailed or at least demoted for their incompetency and greed which has jeopardized our entire economy. At what point should greed start amounting to being a traitor or a threat to national security? Why have they allowed our future to be mortgaged to the hilt to foreign countries who don’t like us? Why are we blowing all our resources and capital today on short term gains without saving anything for the future? Why is it that none of those in charge can seem to think beyond the next fiscal quarter or the next election cycle? Shouldn't we finally stop listening to some of the mindless Pollyannas in the media who kept saying nothing was wrong, was wrong, was wrong? Why have we forgotten so soon the 1980s disaster these same nincompoops got us into with the now defunct savings and loan industry? Doesn't it strike anyone as interesting how often someone named Bush seems to be playing a prominent role in these debacles? Why did the Republicans when in control dismantle all the useful regulations and inspections of the industry? What made any sane person think controls weren't needed or that the ones profiting wouldn't help themselves given the chance? Were did such arrogance come from? The Democratic Party has nothing to be proud of for their rolling over whenever Republicans sneer on the subject, but is there anyone left who still believes that the Republican party deserves a reputation for knowing anything about financial security or conservatism other than how to line their own pockets at the expense of everyone else? Why doesn't this seem to make a difference to the voters? What is it about our education system that seems to prevent them from analyzing this for themselves? It would be nice if we got a few trustworthy answers on these questions, although the corporate media we need to look into the questions [Mr. Moyers excepted] seems as hell bent as lemmings to follow the corporate financial leaders right off the cliff.

Thanks to "To whom, fellow

Thanks to "To whom, fellow citizens" below. Put thusly it is hard to imagine how the US government could be brought back to a functioning democratic entity... see the doc - The Corporation" if you haven't, its all there. We are a nation of corporations that vote with their purse, not a nation of individuals with one person one vote.

Please do not be so harsh,

Please do not be so harsh, Mr. Moyers, on the US system of politics. For this system is precisely the Democracy that your government wants to export to the Middle East and other "developing countries" all over the world. Now if you criticize your system so harshly that it becomes apparent that the American meaning of the word 'Democracy' is different from its definition in the traditional dictionaries, maybe millions of people will arrive at the conclusion that they may not want to have your blend of 'Democracy'. Hmm... that would be bad, both to the reputation and to the wealth of the USA... But if would be no surprise.

On the subject of 'Deadeye

On the subject of 'Deadeye Dick Cheney.' I thought I might add a few lines from "The Gospel according to Clarence Thomas" (Bayeux Arts, 2008): Gimme a break, gimme a gun, we'll show The proud Iranian how we have fun. Let me take Imdinajad to hunt some quail, Don't be alarmed if you hear a sudden wail. In the world of oil and gas, guns, sport, and Aristocrats we always find a way. Has anyone heard of Attorney Harry Whittington since that fateful day? CHORUS OF THE HOMELESS: Hunters in the twilight, under the Texas sky! How lucky the rich, while we poor buggers cry.

Jesse Unruh also said, "If I

Jesse Unruh also said, "If I can't eat a lobbyist's steak and drink his booze and vote against him tomorrow, I don't belong in politics." Has there been a mutation of the species' spine to Jello?

I fully agree wit Mr Moyers

I fully agree wit Mr Moyers here, and I am freshly apalled at the extent of the problem (especially w/rt presidential libraries); however, after many long years of thinking my way through the whole campaign finance/political donation problem, I can't think of any solutions that are not worse than the original problem. The making of rules concerning the spending of money in politics similar to the problem of locks: "Locks help honest men stay that way." Dishonest politicians will always be influenced by those with the most money - and the men with the most money are generally in the best position to benefit from the broad strokes of the governmental pen. It often seems to me that Reaganite (or even Confederate) reduction of the size, scope, and influence of the Federal government - thereby reducing the attractiveness of Federal power to wealthy influence is our best hope. This is pure blue-sky thinking but perhaps the *main* job of the Federal government should be to regulate and investigate electoral fraud in the states - all the rest of the 'Interstate Commerce' powers have simply become tools of corporate growth.

to whom, fellow citizens

to whom, fellow citizens hits the nail square on the head all the way around. i especially like: '...this country has only one political party, the business party..". so 'We the people' are sold the ideas of nationalism: the homeland, democracy, security, voting power, etc etc and all the clusterfucked rhetoric ad nauseam that keeps the divide and conquer machine rolling, but the big money doesn't know borders, countries et al, only PROFIT and POWER. this IS 1984, the real 1984, and i don't mean maybe.

"the Federal Reserve has

"the Federal Reserve has finally acted to stop some of the predatory lending that exploited people's need for money Painting the Fed as the good guys eh? Who previously extended a 2.5bm line of credit to F&F? Who has now essentially backed the failing U.S. Dollar with F&F securities by extending an UNLIMITED line of credit from the U.S. treasury to the mismanaged F&F institutions? Don't waste our time bashing the political actors. The problem is at the top - The PRIVATE Federal Reserve system. "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." -Henry Thoreau