|
Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door transnationale.org
A PRESIDENCY WEAKENED
When business "invests" four billion dollars
When it comes to financing US elections, there are only three things one needs to know: inflation is runaway, monies come from businesses, and funding is anything but disinterested.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Runaway inflation? Each new election pulverises the records set by its predecessor: $1bn in 1992 grew to $2bn in 1996 and exploded to between $3bn and $4bn in 2000. The two media-aimed conventions of last summer, the Republican one in Philadelphia and the Democratic one in Los Angeles, cost the equivalent of the national budget of Mali (population 11m) for two months.
The party of Clinton and Gore may claim to be the party of the workers. However, large corporations, not unions, account for 75.2% of the contributions received this year by the Democratic National Committee. Gore has been especially pampered by Occidental Petroleum, Bell South, Hollywood studios and the lobby representing trial lawyers. Bush is the favourite son of military industries, insurance companies, and the real estate sector. Often multinationals, unable to discern the programme that will favour them the most, hedge their bets. Bill Gates, whose political "investments" have risen exponentially, made sure financially that whatever happens Microsoft will have a friend in the White House - and the White House a friend at Microsoft. On Wall Street, PaineWebber favours the Republicans whereas Goldman Sachs prefers the Democrats; the fancy of Citygroup was split, so it offered $567,000 to the Republicans and $552,000 to the Democrats (1).
Disinterested generosity? The leading mouthpiece for AOL-Time-Warner concluded in one of its inquiries into the matter: "Washington repeatedly favoured those who pay, at the expense of those who do not" (2). Americans who contribute the brunt of election funds make up barely 0.1% of the population, but their access to decision-makers in state bureaucracies and in Congress is guaranteed. The communications giants, who plan to invest $200bn over the next four years, donated $27m to the two main candidates - a modest investment, all things considered. Sixty per cent of that amount went to the Democrats. Does this express a desire to prepare the future or a gift for services already rendered? Political scientists are debating the question.
Over the last two years the average wealth of the 400 most affluent Americans has increased by $940m per person. Some of them have been goaded by this newfound wealth to try and entertain themselves with politics. Jon Corzine, who retired from his position as CEO of Goldman Sachs at the age of 53, was once too busy even to vote; he has now purchased himself as seat as US senator for New Jersey. The cost: $61m, paid for out of his own pocket. It is an all-time record and almost exactly the sum (480m francs) expended by all the 6,214 candidates in France's last legislative election. Corzine is a Democrat.
All this money is not devoid of effect: 92% of the representatives and 88% of the senators elected were the candidates who spent the most. Often their financial advantage is due to the fact that they are incumbents - the latter are re-elected in 95% of the cases - and that they already have rendered services for a fee. Thanks to this flood of money, Americans were able to consume an extra $1bn in advertising this year. Elections are now the third largest source of advertising revenue for the television channels. The media, interestingly, think US politics is very democratic… As for the Supreme Court, it considers that stricter control of political spending would jeopardise freedom of expression.
(1) Randall Smith, "Many on Wall Street Back Al Gore", The Wall Street Journal Europe, Brussels, 26 September 2000.
(2) Time Magazine, 7 February 2000.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|