In this episode of Days of Revolt, host Chris Hedges speaks with author, consumer advocate, and former presidential candidate Ralph Nader. Together, they trace the advancement of corporate control in the U.S. political system. teleSUR
Ralph carves up Antonin Scalia and “Corporate Welfare King,” Rush Limbaugh, points out how Exxon actually made money on the Exxon/Valdez oil spill; and we discuss whether Germany actually won World War II, and the one position that Ralph took that he now regrets. Continue reading →
The recent Supreme Court ruling removing limits to campaign financing should be the final straw on the camel’s back of the American people. Democracy in our country is a standing joke . . . and the trend of politics-for-sale is no longer funny. Wealthy elites and mega-corporations have created a modern day Court of Versailles in which the super-wealthy profit from the abject poverty of the rest of us. The Marie Antoinette’s of our day cut food stamps for impoverished children while crying, “Let them work for their cake!” Continue reading →
The Supreme Court on Wednesday struck down key limits on campaign contributions. The $123,200 overall limit for total contributions to campaigns, parties, and PACs will no longer be in effect, although contributions to individual candidates remain limited to $2,600. Potentially opening the door to a flood of cash from wealthy individuals, Justice Stephen Breyer wrote the dissenting opinion, stating that this ruling “perhaps devastates, what remains of campaign finance reform.” RT’s Lindsay France looks into this historic ruling.
If a corporation continually breaks the law, they need to be put in prison. And believe it or not, there are at least TWO regulators in the United States who are not afraid to do that. The first is the Federal Energy Regulator Commission. And the second is New York’s Department of Financial Services, run by Benjamin Lawsky.
The Democrats could not have won so handily without the Citizens United ruling. That is what enabled the Koch Brothers to spend their billions to support right-wing candidates that barked and growled like sheep dogs to give voters little civilized option but to vote for “the lesser evil.” This will be President Obama’s epitaph for future historians. Orchestrating the election like a World Wrestling Federation melodrama, the Tea Party’s sponsors threw billions of dollars into the campaign to cast the President’s party in the role of “good cop” against stereotyped opponents attacking women’s rights, Hispanics and nearly every other hyphenated-American interest group.
Moyers & Company presents “United States of ALEC,” a report on the most influential corporate-funded political force most of America has never heard of — ALEC, the American Legislative Exchange Council. A national consortium of state politicians and powerful corporations, ALEC presents itself as a “nonpartisan public-private partnership”. But behind that mantra lies a vast network of corporate lobbying and political action aimed to increase corporate profits at public expense without public knowledge.
Using interviews, documents, and field reporting, the episode explores ALEC’s self-serving machine at work, acting in a way one Wisconsin politician describes as “a corporate dating service for lonely legislators and corporate special interests.”
On this week’s Moyers & Company, Bill talks with historian Thomas Frank, author of the bestseller What’s the Matter With Kansas?, about the power of concentrated money to subvert democracy. How does a society built on democratic ideals allow them to become so corrupted? Frank’s most recent book is Pity the Billionaire.
Bill also talks to Mother Jones editors Clara Jeffery and Monika Bauerlein, who continue to throw light on what they call “dark money” — the conspiracy of cash that allows the rich to influence our most fundamental political freedoms. On the show, Bill calls out some of the biggest super PAC donors, revealing how easy it is for the wealthy one percent to sway an election.
We can evaluate Obama’s track record using statistics and apply them to unemployment, GNP, military spending and inflation (or deflation). This is probably how the GOP will try to portray his presidency. It’s an effective strategy mainly because many economic indicators were better when he took office then they are today. It’s easy to point to statistics and convince people, based on empirical evidence, that this nation was in better shape when George W. Bush was President. In fact, it’s so easy to manipulate numbers, that even a brain-dead candidate like Romney could “prove” that things have undoubtedly gone downhill since Obama took office.