Corporate Crooks and the GOP Contradiction: Occupy War Chests


The corner of Wall Street and Broadway, showin...

Image via Wikipedia

On October 18, 2011, six Republican presidential candidates gathered in Las Vegas for the GOP presidential debate. Hosted by CNN talk show and news host, Anderson Cooper, the debate surrounded, amongst other things, questions concerning faith in government, illegal immigration and border control, foreign aid, tax policies, and the Occupy Wall Street protests.

After being hounded by other other candidates regarding his fictitious and unrealistic 9-9-9-tax plan, Herman Cain stated protests should be brought to the White House and not Wall Street. Earlier in the debate, candidates (specifically Michelle Bachmann) spoke for the repeal of Dodd-Frank regulations on banks and Wall Street firms. The party is contradicting itself.

Dodd-Frank regulations were implemented in 2010 after the burst of the housing bubble and financial disaster of the mortgage crisis. The bill would extend government regulation to private sectors of Wall Street, causing trades to become a part of the public market. The goal of the council is to create 400 rules under Dodd-Frank in order to cut loopholes and promote financial stability within Wall Street by “promoting market discipline … eliminating expectations of government bailouts.” (Morison & Foerster 4). A year has gone by and the council overseeing Dodd-Frank has put 27 rules to law.

Opposing parties and interest groups elected to negotiate on behalf of Wall Street are purposely holding up the creation of laws, while these banks and financial institutions continue to run rampant. These interest groups are the same groups making anonymous campaign donations to both nationally and locally recognized candidates running for government offices across the country. “501(c) groups have the advantage of usually not having to disclose their donors’ identity.” (Luo & Strom 1). Immoral and treasonous to public interest, campaign funds flow into a candidate’s war chest, selling-out their own ideologies and beliefs to non-profit organizations.

The hypocrisy with Republican candidates shaking their fists at the White House while lobbying for banks and financial firms on Wall Street, in my opinion, shows how little the contributions from war chests and anonymous non-profit group donations will go to public interest.

Do you believe campaign donations to candidates through non-profits should be anonymous or disclosed? What if a non-profit organization you supported or worked for gave a generous campaign donation to a candidate without member discretion?

Read more on anonymous donations: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/21/us/politics/21money.html?pagewanted=all

Read more on the Dodd-Frank bill: www.mofo.com/files/Uploads/Images/SummaryDoddFrankAct.pdf

Advertisements
, , , , , , ,

About Michael Zanger

Student at the University of Michigan studying political science and philosophy.

View all posts by Michael Zanger

Subscribe

Subscribe to our RSS feed and social profiles to receive updates.

One Comment on “Corporate Crooks and the GOP Contradiction: Occupy War Chests”

  1. Steve Dougherty Says:

    I don’t think unsettling corporate-backed political campaign donations are limited to any one political party, but I do agree with your point that non-profit organizations lend another – often stronger – voice to those who control it. I find it tempting to call for the prohibition of organizations donating to political causes, but I think that would also impact organizations that aren’t puppets for corporate interests but really do attempt to advocate for their members, such as the EFF or MoveOn.Org. I don’t know how possible it would be to restrict one but not the other – referring to the basis of an organization’s actions seems uncomfortably subjective.

%d bloggers like this: