Liberal Boogie Man: Campaign Contributions are Ruining America



Let’s Examine the Bribe Ratio Between Industry and Politicians

If one group of people were donating $1000 to a candidate, but getting a $1 million back in business or bonus revenue, who is being bribed?  The group giving the largest bribe is getting the largest favors of course.    Liberals never want to talk about this.

They shout “politicians are bought” easily, but evade discussing how industry is coerced with far larger, far more dangerous, fascist bribes to go along with corrupt policy.   Once the corruption is in place, then politicians can charge the industry leaders with crimes if they don’t continue with their plans – simple carrot and stick motivation.

That’s how fascists like Hitler worked, and it’s how the Federal government is working now.

The Obamacare Medical:Politician Bribe Ratio

The government illegally gave a $175B Illegal Bribe for the insurance industry to align with Obamacare.   The false “marketplace” for Obamacare was not a market at all, it was a socialist central planning bureaucracy.  Take a look at the ratio of the money going to Big Insurance versus the money medicine gave to candidates, it is $175 billion:$43 million.    That is a ratio of 4000:1 !    Big insurance MUST be beholden to politicians if they got 4000 times more money than they gave.

The TARP Banker:Politician Bribe Ratio

Bankers were granted $400B for TARP, while bankers donated  $91 million to politicians.  This is a 4000:1 Banker:Politician bribe ratio.   If we include the trillions printed by the FED for “liquidity”, the ratio is more like 10,000:1 Banker:Politician bribe ratio.

TARP Leader Neil Barofsky said this slush fund was hideously mismanaged in his book, Bailout: How Washington Abandoned Main Street While Rescuing Wall Street, but he protects the criminal behavior of the politicians by writing those bankers GETTING the money were responsible for the funding abuse, not the people GIVING the money.   Only under Democrats – are recipients of benefits blamed for mismanaging the funding they hand out, instead of the managers that gave out the money!   Blaming bankers for mismanaging the funding handed to them, is an obviously false claim from Barofsky.  Somebody was benefiting greatly from TARP:  The politicians were bribing the bankers.

Consistently, they also delayed prosecution of the bankers.  A Fraud Investigator Speaks

Total Citizen:Politician Bribe Ratio

The government gives trillions per year in citizen benefits – a form of bribe – while politicians get only about a billion back in a presidential cycle, which is a 1000:1 Citizen:Politician bribe ratio.   The citizens must be considered to be beholden to the politician, far more than the the opposite.

Socialists Deceive Constantly

Liberals love to claim campaign contributions are ruining their socialist agenda and causing these problems.   But we should never trust socialists to tell us the cause of a failure of their policies, we know they make up false stories, like “the train wrecked because conservatives opposed infrastructure spending.”

Or the banks couldn’t be prosecuted because it would hurt the economy.

Or the banks didn’t really break any laws!!!

Campaign contributions aren’t causing these oligarchical behaviors, quite the opposite.   Let’s take a look at a donation problem 1000 times larger than political donations:

Politicians are buying the voters’ votes – by giving away a thousand times more money than they get.

Destroying the Boogie Man: Campaign Contributions

1. Uncontrolled political donations worked fine for 200 years during which the US. Government was healthier and more honest – prior to controlling political contributions in 1972.  And, government was even more healthy prior to the 1920s, when the federal government began vote buying the populace – under Republican Warren Harding’s initiation of federal medical handouts. ( )

2. If the liberal believes donating money to a politician perniciously buys a vote, then donating money to a citizen perniciously buys a vote, too.    If 1000 times more money is “donated”, then it’s reasonable to assume 1000 times more pernicious vote buying occurs.

The fact is, politicians buying citizens’ votes IS 1000 times worse than corporate vote buying, measured by the amount of money transferred.

That’s right, the ratio of citizen vote buying .vs. politician vote buying is 1000 to 1.  There was around $2.4B of campaign contributions in the 2008 election. Voter benefits are around $3 trillion a year – and votes are corresponding aligned between the vote buying party and their benefits-addled constituents.   Surely, if 1000 times more “free” money is handed to voters  than to politicians, then it is reasonable to assume 1000X more influence is purchased – especially considering the poor voter getting a small amount of money is far more influential the a rich politician getting a little bit richer.

3. There is no history of countries getting unhealthy due to campaign contributions.  The only stories I know of corporations dominating government – mass oligarchy – are socialist and communist countries.    Russia.  Nazi Germany.

4. There is plenty of history of countries getting unhealthy due to socialism’s inherent, unavoidable voter bribing: They all end in oligarchy, communism, corruption, widespread poverty, or massive banking fraud.   Even Polybius notes this behavior 2400 years ago.

“By which means when, in their senseless mania for reputation, they have made the populace ready and greedy to receive bribes, the virtue of democracy is destroyed, and it is transformed into a government of violence and the strong hand.” – Polybius

5. America’s strongest consumer protection law was passed in the age of a growing, politically unbridled Corporate America: The Sherman Act.  ( It outlawed cartel pricing but this is now routinely abused by Obamacare, a cartel pricing scheme which was created by… guessed it….the anti-corporation party, the Democrats. Which is the same party that didn’t prosecute the corrupt banks. See the pattern? Voters’ whims of the party become pro-corporate and anti-consumer if THEY GET REWARDED DIRECTLY by two actions:

  1. Voters’ vote purchasing begins to dominate policy decisions.
  2. Corporations are coerced to align with socialism.

For item 1, Obamacare coerced a majority of consumers to believe they got “free medical care”, so they cheer for cartel pricing and buying medicine on credit – a guaranteed inflation source that will make medicine more un-affordable and drive more people into dependency. Federal handouts went from 5% to 50% of government spending in the last 50 years.  Compare this to the military spending boogie man:  Defense spending fell from 45% to 20% of spending in the same period.   Vote buying has taken over government – both for the elderly and the poor.    Without taxing to pay for these benefits, inflation is GUARANTEED.     And they are hiding the inflation bubble they’ve created, its 10% by the old metrics:

For item 2, Businesses were forced and bribed to go into Obamacare, as discussed above.

The Voter-Buying Scheme Has 1000 Times More Money Than the Politician-Buying Scheme

This model of vote buying being the key corruption issue in America explains all of our unhealthy decay in governance, and is in harmony with historical patterns of decay.  All of these patterns of decay are influenced primarily by socialist policy decisions and subsidies:

Big education is making America stupid.
Big medicine is making America sick.
Big government is making America lawless.
Big politics is making America contemptuous and dishonest.

Can you cite a case where corporate influence went COMPLETELY against popular liberal sentiments – pushed the citizens’ broad whims aside?  If Corporations owned the politicians, why is Obama, a heavy bank donation receiver, still criticizing them as criminals?   The behavior does not match the accusations, and it’s obvious: Conflicting evidence – biting the hand that allegedly feeds.

If corporate donations dominate, we should see a series of corporate wins/citizen losses, but every time I see an alleged “corporate influence” win like Obamacare and not prosecuting the banks – there was a huge CITIZEN benefits windfall that was mixed into the alleged “pro-corporate” policy – benefits and bailouts that lined the liberal voters’ pockets.

And it’s one thousand times worse than any political donation corrupted any politician.



    • To debate the point, you must discredit the arguments, not call me names.

      Which point is incorrect?
      – The country was healthier when donations to politicians were unregulated except by voters' voting against those getting donations from the wrong people?

      – There is 1000X more vote-buying benefits given away than money donated to politicians, thus the $3 trillion is more damaging that the $3 billion?

      – All the new corporate/government alignments are attached to increases in benefits to the voters?

      If you can't find fault in the arguments, you haven't found fault in the conclusion.

  1. YEAH id read this article but Im too busy living high on the hog with this bailout money which went to me and not to Goldman Sachs, Wells Fargo, AIG, Citibank, Bear Stealehmaaahwababab

    "Without taxing to pay for these benefits, inflation is GUARANTEED. "
    Cool a libertarian arguing for tax hikes.

    "3. There is no history of countries getting unhealthy due to campaign contributions. The only stories I know of corporations dominating government – mass oligarchy – are socialist and communist countries. Russia. Nazi Germany."

    Famous socialist republic Nazi Germany, where worker wages were capped (I guess this was done to stop inflation right?). Guess they invaded the Soviet Union over doctrinal differences. Surely the East India company exerted no influence on parliament, nor US steel or Standard Oil on the US Congress? This must be a sketch from some crazy alt history

    ".the anti-corporation party, the Democrats. Which is the same party that didn’t prosecute the corrupt banks. See the pattern?"

    No I don't see a pattern. In fact I might go so far as to say the premise and accusation here are incompatible.

    Hey you know what would solve all these corruption problems? Deregulating the banks and repealing Dodd-Frank, let me get on the phone with my democratic congressman.

  2. Hoops makes a series of leftist arguments here, I'll address a couple:

    > "Without taxing to pay for these benefits, inflation is GUARANTEED. "
    > Cool a libertarian arguing for tax hikes.

    The libertarian (and conservative) would argue to eliminate the unpaid-for benefits. This is a "fake stupidity" argument, since the writer cannot possibly be that stupid about libertarianism.

    Once I see fake stupidity, I don't argue much – the opponent is simply here to make noise and waste our time.