Views > August 4, 2003

$200 Million Pyramid Scheme

By Craig Aaron

The language and logic of Wall Street have so infected the political discourse that most campaign coverage is now indistinguishable from the squawking heads of CNBC.

“Follow the money” long has been the mantra of every wannabe Woodward or Bernstein, and more reporters are on the campaign-finance beat than ever before. The public certainly would benefit from knowing who’s backing which candidate—and what favors they might expect in return. But instead of investigating the pernicious influence of money in politics, these stories are riddled with incomprehensible inside baseball about which candidates are moving into the mythical “top tier.”

The “money primary”—the year of corporate panhandling prior to the New Hampshire primary—offers the press easily quantifiable statistics and a simple narrative of obvious winners and losers. It allows reporters to avoid messy policy discussions or “biased” evaluations of a candidate’s record. Like CEOs being celebrated solely on the basis of their companies’ stock prices—no matter how many jobs they’ve slashed or what accounting acrobatics they’ve used—the presidential candidates must prove their fundraising prowess. Who’s got the best health plan? Who understands foreign policy? Who cares? What really matters is who’s got the most “cash on hand.”

On Wall Street, it’s relatively unimportant whether a company actually makes a useful product—or even a profit. Stock prices go up, and shareholders stay happy, as long as a company exceeds the expectations of the analysts. The same logic is now being applied to the presidential campaign.

Witness the drubbing Dick Gephardt took following the release of second-quarter fundraising numbers by the Federal Election Commission. His “unexpectedly weak performance”—as the Washington Post put it—had nothing to do with his health care policy, ability to attract union supporters, or standing among likely voters. But when Gephardt & Co. failed to meet quarterly earnings projections, their stock plummeted.

John Edwards dodged a Gephardt-like disappointment only by collecting last-minute checks from his wife and campaign staff. And even though he has less money in the bank than Gephardt, Joe Lieberman’s late fundraising push left him with “a bigger-than-anticipated sum that will allow him to remain a key player,” according to the Hartford Courant.

Howard Dean’s strong showing shocked the analysts, who quickly branded him the rebel leader of an Internet “revolution.” The pundits split over whether Dr. Dean’s Money Machine was the next eBay or Pets.com. John Kerry was generally considered less of a “risk.”

The only blue-chip stock in the field belongs to Bush Inc. The president’s re-election effort is attracting prudent investors looking to cash in during a second term. The administration has already issued dividends in the form of tax cuts for the richest 1 percent—whose average tax reduction over the next four years will total $103,899, according to Citizens for Tax Justice.

The president flexed his fundraising muscle in the six weeks before the June 30 close of the second quarter, raking in $34.4 million—even though he doesn’t face a single opponent in the primaries. Bush Inc. lauded the fact that 105,000 individuals donated at least a dollar as evidence of the “broad support” and “overwhelming enthusiasm” for the president. But more than two-thirds of the total money came in $2,000 checks—the maximum individual contribution allowed under the law. (By comparison, Dean raised more than 50 percent of his $7.6 million in contributions of less than $200.)

Bush, who opted out of the public matching funds, plans to raise and spend at least $200 million before the September 2004 Republican National Convention. (Afterward he will take $74 million in public funding for a two-month sprint to the general election.) Twenty-three individuals have already qualified as “Rangers” by collecting $200,000 for the president; another 45 have passed the $100,000 “Pioneer” threshold. “[It’s] sort of like pyramid fundraising,” first-time Ranger Eric Tanenblatt told The Associated Press. “If you find 10 people and they each raise $20,000, that’s $200,000 right there.” (It’s worth noting here that Amway founder Richard M. DeVos was one of the original Pioneers.)

For $2,000, you might get a lukewarm hot dog. A snapshot with Dubya goes for $20,000. Closer to the top of the pyramid scheme, the Rangers and Pioneers are eyeing ambassadorships and access to Dick Cheney’s undisclosed locations. The energy traders and oil barons who populated the Pioneer list in 2000 can testify to priceless returns on their donations in the form of loosened regulations and no-bid federal contracts.

In the language of Wall Street, Bush is a “screaming buy.” Just ask the investment bankers and analysts whose firms comprise 12 of the top 20 groups of Bush donors so far. Merrill Lynch led the way with $264,750 in donations from employees and their family members, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, and CEO Stan O’Neal was deputized a Ranger. O’Neal—whose firm has paid out $280 million over the past two years to settle state and federal charges of fraud and financial wrongdoing—didn’t contribute to any presidential candidate in 2000. But he knows a good investment when he sees one.

With the media’s help, the “money primary” allows big corporations and the wealthy to cast their ballots early and often. What’s left for the 99 percent of us who don’t play the political market by contributing to any federal candidate? We’ve still got a vote—just not many choices.

• subscribe to print magazine

  First Name Last Name Home Address City State Zip Code Email

  2-year, 24-issues, $44.95 1-year, 12-issue, $24.95

• stay in touch with our email newsletter

  Subscribe to our regular weekly e-mail newsletter. It's packed with updates on recent and upcoming stories, events, campaigns and things every progressive should be informed about.

   

• email this article to a friend

  Your Name Your Email Recipient Email

  Personal message Thought you might be interested in this article from In These Times.

   

  Please help us prevent spam by verifying the word you see in the image above

  Send to multiple recipients. Just separate each email address with a comma.

• Reader Comments

  We can be proud as a Nation that we have the best leaders that money can buy. In addition, unlike some crummy third world despots, our guys stay bought. When you send that person to the White House or Congress, you can rest assured that your dollars will keep working for years to come.
  What’s the difference between a working prostitute and someone running for office here?  Well there are just some things no self respecting hooker will do for any amount of money, while most of those running for office will do anything for a large enough contribution.

  Posted by Paul N. Sidio on Aug 4, 2003 at 5:21 PM

  Your story misses the point that
  Howard Dean’s money,
  while widely reported, is truly
  amazing because 93,000 small donors
  who are fed up with the DLC, the
  whiny self-absorbed Greens, the
  turncoat same ole D.C. Democrats,
  and most of all, the radical right
  Bushites, donated 7.5 million at an
  average of $75 per donor.

  Posted by Colleen Fowles on Aug 5, 2003 at 3:29 PM

  The American political process has become so corrupted and polluted by money, that I see no hope in saving it.  The concept of “one man (or woman), one vote” is long gone.  Do you think your vote is as important as say, Richard Mellon-Scaife’s or Ken Lay’s?  If you said yes, you should have your friggin’ head examined.  Wealthy individuals and corporations control the politicians of both parties and most politicians could give a shit about the average American!  That is what is so appealing about Howard Dean.  He is truly trying to build a grassroots movement, where Big Money does not call all the shots.  I should know, my brother-in-law lives in Iowa, is a poor librarian and has Howard Dean call him twice at home, to solicit his viewpoints!

  Until we severely restrict the amount individuals can give to candidates, and prohibit PACs, corporations, and other non-individuals from giving one nickel in hard or soft money, we are going to have a corrupt system where vermin like George W. Bush and Dick Cheney get elected.

  And don’t let some right-wing Dittohead try to tell you that restricting campaign contributions equates to restricting free speech.  That isn’t free speech - It’s bought-and-paid-for speech.

  Posted by Stephen Kriz on Aug 6, 2003 at 1:10 PM

  To those jumping on the Howard Dean bandwagen, do you really believe that when push comes to shove he’s NOT going to accept the big dollars from corporations and PACS if he should do well in the early primaries?

  Dean is not a liberal/progressive by any means, he is only riding a wave of anti-war, anti-Bush sentiment.

  Dennis Kucinich at the recent AFL/CIO debate called Dean out on wanting to raise the retirement age for social security and Dean promptly lied and claimed he never said that. Do we really need ANOTHER liar as president?

  I suppose that is what our corrupt political system produces, liars as our leaders. Dean went to Yale just like Bush, maybe Yale offers the course Lying 101. I have no influence in regards to the moneyed elections, but I still will look hopefully for an honest politician to vote for, Dean is off my list. 

  Posted by Jon Barber on Aug 11, 2003 at 7:38 AM

  Dean strikes me as basically conservative and not very honest where it counts. In the Dem Party’s own terms, the left’s candidate is Kucinich.

  Posted by Charles Jannuzi on Aug 29, 2003 at 7:17 PM

• extended discussion >>>Continued...

  Discussions with more than 5 comments are continued on our special discussion page to encourage continuity and ease of use. There are currently 6 posts.

Member Login

Username

Password

Forgot password?