by Tina Grazier
Over the past six years progressives have claimed that big corporations have too much control in elections, particularly after the Supreme Court ruled that money is speech and opened contributions in elections to corporations. Concerned citizen of all political stripes have worried that big money has too much influence and power. But as we will see, big money doesn’t guarantee a win in elections and the right side of the aisle doesn’t have all of corporate America in its pocket. In fact some of the biggest political cash comes from groups that project a nonpartisan or cause oriented image. This election’s left leaning donors show us that big money doesn’t determine victory:
American Federation of Teachers’ (AFT) President Randi Weingarten recently revealed that her union spent over $20 million on election campaigns this cycle in order to elect politicians who defend an indefensible status quo that she’s partly responsible for.
The other big teacher union, the National Education Association (NEA), pledged up to $60 million, making teacher unions among the biggest campaign contributors this election cycle.
$80 million dollars ain’t peanuts boys and girls.
This year our nations educators worked against the interests of many of the parents whose children they teach to elect politicians that promise to protect their tenure and benefits. This isn’t the only year they have given their all for the Democrat Party.These powerful unions are always for the left. Is it right that a union that represents teachers of many political persuasions donates exclusively to one party? It might matter to conservative teachers and concerned parents but does it matter, in terms of election outcomes? It certainly didn’t this time.
Open Secrets reports that “the NEA ranks fourth and the AFT thirteenth on the list of biggest overall campaign contributors of the last 25 years.” I find that astounding given all of the yammering about corporate influence.
In 2008 another group of educators, the University of California, was Obama’s largest contributor, with contributions of $1,591,395. That’s pretty incredible given the number of corporations, groups, and individuals with the means to make large contributions.
George Soros, a Wall Street guy and long time investor in “the fundamental transformation of America,” has given millions and millions of his massive fortune, through his Tides Foundation, to hundreds of progressive activist organizations. These political contributions are quietly invested and have been for a long time but can we specifically say he was able to “buy elections” with his money?
A more recent example is Tom Steyer, a former Wall Street hedge fund manager and special interest (green) contributor. This year he pledged $100 Million, fifty mil personally and fifty mil in bundled money, to Obama. He is buying influence, or trying to, but did his investment pay off? It certainly didn’t help to keep Democrats in the Senate, nor did it open the door to sweeping green legislation and regulation. We have yet to see if it will affect how the President works with Congress. Will Obama move toward the middle on energy issues and respect the decisions made by our elected officials in Congress or will he continue his extremist phone and pen tyranny and deliver another black eye to his legacy and the Democrat Party?
Scratch the surface and it’s easy to see the precariousness of election investing. At best it’s a bet that may or may not pay off.
If we look behind the left’s political talking point, that big corporate money represents an evil republican plot, an obvious hypocrisy is revealed. The left has plenty of supporters with deep pockets. The money thing is just another way to distract and divide the people at election time.
We are all Americans with the right to contribute in political campaigns. The result this time was that progressive democrats and green activists lost despite the big money they invested. That’s because it isn’t the money that directs the result or the will of the people. Money plays a part in setting and maintaining the stage for the contest but in the end it is the record of the incumbent and the competing vision for the future that people respond to and on which they hang their votes and their hopes.
The left lost much more than money this time. They lost the argument. Their strategies and games have been exposed and their failures, having endured for much to long, took on a stinky aroma. The people demand better of their leaders and will expect stronger leadership to follow this election. Ditto the next election.
Americans want and demand an atmosphere of freedom and support. We need and demand an atmosphere in which individuals can begin to invent, to invest, to risk, and then to see a return on their personal investments. Americans long to give of themselves, of their time, talent, creativity, and energy to follow their dreams. Americans want to prosper and to see their neighbors prosper. Americans realize that it is we who have the power to build a strong economy and good jobs. We are the strength of our nation when we are free to act in our own interests and when we are not blunted and thwarted by our government. Americans work hard to care for our families. We are generous in our communities. We should be able to keep, save, spend and invest more of our money as we see fit. And when we do send a portion of what we earn to Washington we expect it to be spent wisely and managed well.
At long last the time has come to put fundamental transformation behind us. At long last the time has come to focus on the American people and jobs. Its time to begin to heal as a nation and to create a stronger, more dignified and reliable image and presence in the world. That’s exactly what we want the newly formed Congress to do now and in the future.
Politicians on both sides of the aisle can be sure if they fail the people will use both words and campaign contributions to remove and replace them. Money is speech! But if the people want better government then it is up to them to be cognizant of past mistakes, clear about present circumstances, and certain about demands and expectations for the future.