Money isn’t "an issue" in U.S. politics. It’s virtually the only issue. If given even half the weight it merited, it would lead the news almost every night. Instead, it's something on which the press simply doesn't report at all. Stray stories, here and there. It's sometimes scandalized, but the very little reporting that does appear occurs in a vacuum. No consistent narrative. No follow-up. Certainly never anything remotely approximating the sort of feeding frenzy that regularly accompanies stories about sex, crime, or, more recently, dead pop stars.[1]

Without the money angle, most political stories become inexplicable. The “mainstream” corporate press largely portrayed the teabagger phenomenon, to name one of the prominent recent examples, as a genuine “movement,” instead of what it actually is, a 100% corporate-invented astroturf campaign fueled by nonsense spread by right-wing media outlets (themselves huge corporate interests). The facts about the actual forces behind the "movement" are readily available. On the internet, they're literally only a quick Google search away. But someone who stuck to most “mainstream” corporate press outlets would know virtually nothing about it, except that there was this sudden, loud uprising of angry, anti-Obama mobs. The goal of astroturf is to give the impression of a genuine grassroots campaign--when, as has happened here, the press treats it as one, the campaign has succeeded.

The Center for Responsive Politics calls their website opensecrets.org. The information they collect isn't really "secret." It's all publicly available. It's "secret" because, among other things, the press, which is supposed to be a watchdog about such things, won’t, as a rule, touch such information with a 10-foot pole. Common Cause issued one of their "Legislating While Under the Influence" reports on health care industry contributions to congress, and you’ll learn more about health care reform by reading its relatively few pages than you’d learn from the combination of every report of every network newscast on the subject.

One "secret" kept by the press is that Sen. Max Baucus, the Democratic chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, is the top recipient of health-care industry donations in the congress.

An even better-kept secret is that Baucus allowed the former Vice President of Wellpoint to write "his" bill. Everywhere in the press, it's just "the Baucus bill." And, since it's the most conservative health care bill in congress (and the one that offers no real reform), it's more often than not being treated, by the press, as the only one. There are actually four others that long ago passed out of the relevant committees of both houses--the ones dealing with health care--whereas the Wellpoint bill is being hashed out in the Finance Committee.

The health care industry spent a fortune getting politicians (including the Obama) to support provisions mandating that everyone carry health insurance. Wellpoi… er… Baucus included a provision making health coverage mandatory, and imposing a tax penalty on anyone who fails to comply.[2] This sets up a dynamic one would think our watchdog press would find interesting: The Wellpoint plan publicly subsidizes Americans' purchase of health care. It also creates, at the point of a gun, millions of mandatory new clients for the current nightmare of a health insurance industry. The government subsidies to those new clients go, of course, to those insurance companies, who, in turn, spend millions of dollars purchasing politicians like Max Baucus.

What a deal!

If the press would report ANY of this, the “Baucus” bill would have been dead before it ever began, but that would require abandoning the fairy-tale narrative of American politics as a battle of competing ideologies and dealing with what actually makes the trains run on time.

--classicliberal2

---

[1] The reasons for this are many and varied. Among a great many other things, the media orgs are, themselves, huge corporate interests with their own chunk invested in the process Their even-bigger-money ownership has even more money in it.

[2] That wasn't strong enough for the industry, which wanted criminal penalties--jail time--for those who failed to carry health insurance. The failure of the bill to include this is largely responsible for the last-minute industry push against reform which has so befuddled the corporate press this week--again, if you don't follow the money, the story is inexplicable.

http://lefthooktheblog.blogspot.com/

0
Your rating: None

Comments

Good post, classicliberal2

I was already familiar with the corporate work behind the Baucus bill (their 'investment' in donations for his campaigns clearly paid off!) and the corporate power behind the August townhall protests, but I never mind seeing it repeated in as many venues as possible.

I wish more people really sought out and understood that we must always, always, ALWAYS follow the money.  There is no 'policy' in government other than the budget -- the budget IS the policy. 

I saw this week's ridiculous last-minute 'report' funded by the insurance companies as akin to just about this time last year when Hank Paulson went to Congress and as much as said, "Give the banks $700 billion, no questions asked, and nobody gets hurt."  It would be comical if it weren't so frightening that they're now so brazen.  Increasingly it seems these massive corporate interests feel confident they don't even need to bother working the back rooms and slipping money under the table.  Straight-up threats in broad daylight are greeted with a "meh" from the media, itself concentrated and controlled in a few mega-corporations.

All the Tea Party and townhall protests?  Kabuki theater for the masses, courtesy of corporated-funded organizations led by lobbyists and former pols.  How can so many people not know this? 

One of my biggest hopes for 'change' in voting for Obama was some hope that Dems would restore some halfway-responsible regulation of the financial industry's most egregious practices.  No such luck, so far, and I'm not holding my breath.  The Baucus bill is stark testament to the fact that the old saw that Dems are more likely to enact regulations is another old saw we can put to rest, next to the old saw that the GOP is more fiscally responsible than Dems.  Tax and spend Dems?  Sheesh, that would be a deal compared to borrow and spend Republicans.  Off-balance-sheet wars, anyone?

Question is:  what to do?  I rack my brain but can't for the life of me think of how it might be changed.  Campaigns are so expensive that every pol has to raise big money somewhere -- it's just a question of who owns them.  And if the Supreme Court decides that corporations are a "person" for donation purposes -- well, let's just say there'll be no more reason for them to even bother with the kabuki.  There will be no need for the facade that the government is anything other than a wholly-owned subsidiary of the highest corporate bidder.

I think your post would have been more effective if...

I think your post would have been more effective if you left out the part about the teabagger movement. Someone reading this and getting to that part might be inclined to dismiss this as partisan diatribe, while your main point is to highlight excessive coporate influence over a prominant Democrat.

Conservative, liberal, whatever... why can't we all join forces to defeat the crooks? While we are so busy bickering about petty things, the lobbyists are stealing our democracy.

The teabaggers are just as

The teabaggers are just as much tools of the corporate interests in question as is Max Baucus. The only difference is that they're "useful idiots," whereas Baucus is a willing tool, looking out for his own interests. I don't doubt that you're correct about it leading some people to dismiss it as "partisan diatribe." Those people are fools, though, and wouldn't have cared about the larger problem I was outlining anyway.

I think the questions I've raised should be of particular concern to conservatives, because they're always the natural allies of the Establishment. Any liberal movement has to start from nothing, or virtually nothing, and build itself the hard way, from the ground up. They're grassroots efforts that are generally marginalized, often feared and despised, and even criminalized, and have to fight like hell, often for decades, to get anything at all. Conservatives, on the other hand, find millions and even billions of dollars available to them on the first day they launch a "movement." Money from powerful interests looking to maintain their prerogatives. That must feel great, but that money is as dirty as an old carburetor, and conscientious conservatives--if the breed isn't entirely extinct by now--haven't really come to terms with it.

Fools, perhaps. But...

Fools, perhaps. But in these days of extreme political polarization, there seems to be a heavy "language barrier" between left and right. Overcoming this barrier will require a conscientious effort on the part of both the writer and the reader. Perhaps some people here care about excessive corporate influence over congress, but will have trouble overcoming this barrier?

I think you've raised some interesting questions. Are conservatives natural allies of corporate special interests? I think perhaps more so for some types of conservatives, but less so for others such as social conservatives, evangelicals, and the people who sell used guns at the flea market.

I'm curious to hear what the intellegent conservatives on this site think about this...

No "but"

Fools, perhaps. But in these days of extreme political polarization, there seems to be a heavy "language barrier" between left and right. Overcoming this barrier will require a conscientious effort on the part of both the writer and the reader. Perhaps some people here care about excessive corporate influence over congress, but will have trouble overcoming this barrier?

That's their problem. The teabagger movement is a prominent example of what I was describing. I could have simply omitted my comments about them, but as the rest of the piece was concerned with corruption on the part of a prominent Democrat (even if a conservative one), that would merely tend to feed the political fantasies of those whom you're discussing. I don't want to feed such fantasies. I want to spark a thoughtful discussion.

I think you've raised some interesting questions. Are conservatives natural allies of corporate special interests? I think perhaps more so for some types of conservatives, but less so for others such as social conservatives, evangelicals, and the people who sell used guns at the flea market.

The latter are just as much the natural allies of those interests, because they're the ones who empower them. They vote for politicians who rant against homosexuals and abortion, and, as a consequence, saddle us with elected officials who are slavish servants of the money elite--they send our jobs out of the country, and cut taxes on the wealthy so we have to make up the difference.

I'm curious to hear what the intellegent conservatives on this site think about this...

I am, as well, but I confess I haven't had a lot of luck in reaching many with any of my posts here.

Astroturf?

The "teabagger" (since our minds aren't in the gutter, we aren't offended by the term) movement started out as a protest against corporate bailouts. That doesn't sound like something corporate propagandists would want.

I googled "teabagger movement" and

I googled "teabagger movement" and got a picture of someone holding a sign that read

"TEA BAG the LIBERAL DEMS BEFORE THEY TEA BAG YOU!"

Someone has a sense of humor. LOL

Yes.

The "teabagger" (since our minds aren't in the gutter, we aren't offended by the term) movement started out as a protest against corporate bailouts. That doesn't sound like something corporate propagandists would want.

That isn't what started the "movement," either. The teabaggers began with Rick Santelli's infamous rant on CNBC. By that time, we'd already had the Wall Street bailouts, the automaker bailout, and all the rest. Those were months-old, with the fat-cats gobbling up billions in government largesse with no teabagger "movement." Santelli's rant--the public unveiling of the astroturf campaign--wasn't about any of that. It was a rant against a proposal that the government help regular people (rather than the super-wealthy) avoid foreclosure on their homes. The well-funded teabagger "movement" was unveiled that same day.