Présidentielles U$A, nausée absolument démocratique

Présidentielles U$A, nausée absolument démocratique

Une comptabilité générale des donations, en tête Wall Street, puis les milliardaires (les 0,1% des 1%), saupoudrés tout cela de Corporate Power, ici avec un zeste de l’inévitable Soros et ainsi de suite... La situation en ce début des primaires des présidentielles US est “apocalyptic-as-usual”, sinon plus que l'“usual” : tous les records seront évidemment, nécessairement pulvérisés, presque comme une évidence, comme on respire pour continuer à vivre. Il s’agit du monde de la “corruption légalisée”, quasiment comme seule ressource convenable, agréée-Système, pour les candidats. Interviewé par BBC.News, c’est l’ancien président Carter qui a proposé le terme de “legal bribery”, jugeant que dans de telles conditions il n’aurait sans doute pas été élu en 1976. « Former US president Jimmy Carter has told the Today programme that the way politics is now funded in the US opens the door to "legal bribery”. Speaking to John Humphreys, who first interviewed Carter when he was running for the Democratic nomination in 1976, he said almost all candidates now relied on “massive infusions of money”. President Carter suggested he would not have become US president if he were competing under the current conditions. »

WSWS.org publie ce 4 février un article sur cette “corruption légalisée”, en mettant l’accent sur Wall Street. Le total de l’argent donné par Wall Street aux comités “super PAC” avait atteint $2,4 millions en 2004. Il a d’ores et déjà atteint $116 millions sur les $290 millions levés, soit 70 fois plus, alors que le cycle des donations est loin d’être clos pour ces présidentielles 2016. Les détails sont évidemment vertigineux et prennent l’allure d’une sorte de compétition, plus tant pour aider les candidats que pour parvenir à donner le plus d’argent possible. (Remarque en passant : on a du mal à comprendre que WSWS.org, qui cite Carter, écrive emporté par son zèle tortskiste que “le président Carter s’est senti obligé ... de dénoncer le système de financement des campagnes électorales comme une ‘corruption légalisée’” ; cela, comme si Carter n’était pas l’un des plus vaillants guerriers, depuis déjà de nombreux années, pour dénoncer cet aspect du Système et d’autres.)

WSWS.org affirme, assez justement tous comptes faits, que cette intervention massive et voyante de l’argent de Wall Street, du Corporate Power et des 0,1%, constitue l’un des principaux moteurs du succès du candidat Sanders, qui rencontre dans ses arguments une colère populaire grandissante. La question la plus intéressante que suscite alors cette situation qui atteint un rythme surpuissant vertigineux est de savoir quand l’afflux abracadabrantesque de ce tsunami de fric finira par provoquer une colère se traduisant en votes antiSystème suffisant pour menacer le Système, c’est-à-dire lorsque la surpuissance-friquée du Système parviendra à susciter une réaction de colère-autodestructrice de type antiSystème, avec nausée garantie, surmontant et pulvérisant les effets de la “corruption légalisée”. Compétition passionnante...

« The 2016 US election campaign has exposed deep-seated popular alienation from the entire political establishment and growing anger over the domination of US society and politics by Wall Street. Democratic contender Bernie Sanders, who calls himself a democratic socialist, has capitalized on this sentiment by basing his campaign on denunciations of the “billionaire class” and an electoral process dominated by corporate money.

» New figures on the funding of so-called “super PACs,” the nominally independent “political action committees” that are the main vehicles for corporate bribery of would-be officer-holders, shed light on the degree to which the political system is controlled by big business in general, and Wall Street in particular. Statistics compiled from Federal Election Commission reports by the Center for Responsive Politics, an election watchdog group, and the Wall Street Journal show that cash from major banks and investment, real estate and insurance firms accounts for more than $116 million of the $290 million raised thus far in the current election cycle by super PACs and other independent campaign organizations. That amounts to 40 percent of the total. In the second half of 2015, super PACs backing the various presidential candidates took in $100 million. Of this, $81.2 million came from the financial industry.

» The weight of finance capital in funding the campaigns of both Democrats and Republicans has grown by leaps and bounds, particularly since the 2010 “Citizens United” Supreme Court ruling that lifted all limits on corporate campaign donations via super PACs. In the 2012 election, donations from the financial services sector comprised 20 percent, or $169 million, of the $845 million raised for the entire election cycle by super PACs and other independent campaign groups. Thus, as a share of total super PAC money, financial capital’s role has doubled in this year’s election cycle. This compares to the “mere” $2.4 million of super PAC money donated by Wall Street in the 2004 election. Already in the 2016 election, the total from banks and financial firms is 70 times the level 12 years ago.

» Former President Jimmy Carter felt obliged, in an interview Wednesday on BBC Radio 4’s “Today” program, to denounce the US campaign finance system as “legalized bribery.” Carter, who was elected in 1976 and defeated in his reelection bid by Ronald Reagan in 1980, said, “As the rich people finance the campaigns, when candidates get in office they do what the rich people want. And that’s to let the rich people get richer and the middle class get left out.”

» A Wall Street Journal article published Sunday provides details on Wall Street funding for various presidential candidates. The super PAC supporting Republican Senator Marco Rubio received over half of its money in the second half of 2015 from financial industry contributors. The two biggest donors were hedge fund billionaires Paul Singer (net worth of $2.1 billion) and Ken Griffin ($6.6 billion), who gave $2.5 million each in the last two months of the year. Hedge fund billionaire Cliff Asness and Florida mega-investor Mary Spencer each donated $1 million.

» Half of the $5 million raised by the super PAC supporting Republican Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey came from Wall Street, including a $2 million donation in December by hedge fund mogul Steven Cohen (net worth of $11.4 billion) and his wife, who also gave a combined $2 million to the super PAC in the first half of 2015. The super PAC backing Republican Senator Ted Cruz of Texas received at least $11 million from billionaire hedge fund founder Robert Mercer and $10 million from private equity firm founder Toby Neugebauer. The super PAC backing former Florida Governor Jeb Bush raised $10 million of its $15 million for the second half of 2015 from Maurice “Hank” Greenberg, the former CEO of American International Group, the mega-insurance firm that was bailed out by the US government in 2008 to the tune of $182 billion. As of the end of September 2015, half of Bush’s top donors were employed by major financial firms, including Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and Barclays, where Bush previously worked as a consultant making $2 million a year.

» Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the Democratic front-runner, is no slouch when it comes to Wall Street bribes. Of the $25 million raised by the super PAC supporting her in the second half of 2015, $15 million came from financiers. Nearly half of that came from billionaire investor George Soros (net worth of $24.5 billion). Soros gave the pro-Clinton super PAC, Priorities USA Action, $6 million in December, bringing his total in donations to $7 million. Priorities USA Action also received $3 million from entertainment industry investor Haim Saban (worth $3.6 billion) and his wife, who also gave $2 million earlier in the year... »

Mis en ligne le 4 février 2016 à 16H09