To what extent has democracy in the US been subverted by money?

[DontSayBanana]

Immensely, when one party exists solely to promise the 99%er more money, that party will win elections more and more (you're seeing this now), and eventually the country will collapse as the productive members of society are plundered by the minorities and po folk that are given fat by the "people's" party. The Founder's recognized this and in their time all States had a limited franchise, which is what leads to the correct members of society making important societal decisions.

It amazes me people who think women who can't figure out how to avoid having 8 unwanted kids by 3 different fathers, men who can't figure out how to stay employed or refrain from punching their baby momma's heads in, people who can't earn more than minimum wage and etc should have a vote in our polity and effectively a say in public policy. People who cannot even manage their own lives have way too big a seat at the table.

Not sure if serious.

If you are serious, maybe it's because the "haves" have an inflated sense of their ability to manage- being good at managing their own situation doesn't necessarily make them better at managing the situation of, say, a single mother of 8 by 3 different fathers in a dating relationship with the future #4.

Also, I'm with Berkut.  The only reason our system is becoming less "corrupt" is because what was formerly considered corruption is being codified as now acceptable.  Citizens United was bad enough, but the new rules about religious objections could easily lead to a runaway where corporations are ungovernable.

[Valmy]

The peculiarly American ideology that everyone is a potential winner leads people to make seriously bad choices at the ballot.  This is best exemplified by "small government" types who fear "tyranny" and imagine themselves one day to be subject to severe taxation.

'Fortunately there are not enough men of property in America to dictate policy'
'Perhaps not. But don't forget that most men without property would rather protect the possibility of becoming rich, than face the reality of being poor.  And that is why they shall follow us to the right!  Always to the right!  Never to the left but forever to the right!'

[crazy canuck]

I went back and looked for another passage I thought Berkut would find interesting:

"In the late nineteenth century, in the period known as the Gilded Age, when some US industrialists and financiers... accumulated unprecedented wealth, many US observers were alarmed by the thought that the country was losing its pionering egalitarian spirit.  To be sure that spirit was partly a myth, but it was also partly justified by comparison with the concentration of wealth in Europe... this fear of growing to resemble Europe was part of the reason why the United States in 1910-1920 pioneered a very progressive estate tax on large fortunes, which were deemed to be incompatible with US values, as well as a progressive income tax on incomes thought to be excessive.  Perceptions of inequality, redistribution, and national identity changed a great deal over the course of the twentieth century, to put it mildly."  (p.349)

A wonderful yarn, but I think the rates back then--both for income tax and estate--were significantly less than they are now. How that can be squared with "Perceptions of inequality, redistribution, and national identity changed a great deal over the course of the twentieth century, to put it mildly", with the point of view that somehow we live in the more conservative time seems difficult.

I think you missed the point.  The legislative reforms he is talking about were an attempt keep the US more egalitarian than Europe.  As the 20th century progressed the US completely abandoned that notion and began cutting taxes for the most wealthy and even reduced estate taxes to the point of abolishing them.  iirc estate taxes in the US were just recently reintroduced (and as I understand it would be abolished again if the Republicans got their way).  As a result wealth concentration in the upper 1% has become extreme and inequality in the US has become greater than it was in 19th century Europe.

[DontSayBanana]

I think you missed the point.  The legislative reforms he is talking about were an attempt keep the US more egalitarian than Europe.  As the 20th century progressed the US completely abandoned that notion and began cutting taxes for the most wealthy and even reduced estate taxes to the point of abolishing them.  iirc estate taxes in the US were just recently reintroduced (and as I understand it would be abolished again if the Republicans got their way).  As a result wealth concentration in the upper 1% has become extreme and inequality in the US has become greater than it was in 19th century Europe.

This is so factually wrong...

Most estate taxes are levied by the state, not the federal government.  The exception is the federal inheritance tax, which was never actually abolished.  In 2010, there was zero federal inheritance tax because of a ten-year phaseout, but since there was no supermajority to seal the abolishment, a sunset clause kicked in and reinstated it in 2011 (in fact, it was significantly increased in 2011- from 45% to 55%).  It was actually more of a scandal that for 2010, it was gone- look up the controversy around the George Steinbrenner estate (the feds lost millions of dollars in revenue on that loophole).

[crazy canuck]

I think you missed the point.  The legislative reforms he is talking about were an attempt keep the US more egalitarian than Europe.  As the 20th century progressed the US completely abandoned that notion and began cutting taxes for the most wealthy and even reduced estate taxes to the point of abolishing them.  iirc estate taxes in the US were just recently reintroduced (and as I understand it would be abolished again if the Republicans got their way).  As a result wealth concentration in the upper 1% has become extreme and inequality in the US has become greater than it was in 19th century Europe.

This is so factually wrong...

Most estate taxes are levied by the state, not the federal government.  The exception is the federal inheritance tax, which was never actually abolished.  In 2010, there was zero federal inheritance tax because of a ten-year phaseout, but since there was no supermajority to seal the abolishment, a sunset clause kicked in and reinstated it in 2011 (in fact, it was significantly increased in 2011- from 45% to 55%).  It was actually more of a scandal that for 2010, it was gone- look up the controversy around the George Steinbrenner estate (the feds lost millions of dollars in revenue on that loophole).

Ok you win.  Reducing a tax to 0 insnt abolishing in some odd legal sense of that word that only an American can truly appreciate.

[DontSayBanana]

Ok you win.  Reducing a tax to 0 insnt abolishing in some odd legal sense of that word that only an American can truly appreciate.

The point was it ended up temporarily lessened between 2000 and 2010, not abolished.  And again, the majority of estate taxes are levied by the state, not the federal government.  I would argue that 45% liability in 2009, 0% liability in 2010, and 55% liability in 2011 is a far cry from "abolishing estate taxes."

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

Ok you win.  Reducing a tax to 0 insnt abolishing in some odd legal sense of that word that only an American can truly appreciate.

Reducing a tax to 0 for a single tax period without the intent to do so permanently is not abolishing anything.

[The Minsky Moment]

an enlightened elite

I've heard tell of such creatures, along with unicorns, fairies, and sensible Republicans.

[The Minsky Moment]

Don't really see what the rich are getting for their money. 

carried interest, for example

The US has the highest corporate tax rate in the civilized world.  The US is unique in that it taxes income earned overseas (which presumably skews rich).  Congress a couple years ago passed a repeal of the Bush tax cuts on the highest bracket only.  Before that they passed Obamacare, which was half funded by a lifting of the Medicare payroll tax.

The taxes corporations actually pay are not necessarily correlated with headline rates.  Congress didn't repeal the Bush tax cuts; those cuts were due to sunset and what Congress actually did is selectively preserve some of them.  As someone who worked overseas, that is rarely a huge issue since most often the overseas rates are higher.

Anyways, I don't think Berkut's point is necessarily that "THE RICH" are some unified conspiracy that are systematically extracting benefits as a class. Rather particular monied interests are in a strong position to extract particularized or special treatment.  See carried interest, above.

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

The thing is, politicians still need to convince people to actually vote for them.

Sure.  That is a factor.  But the gate keepers to getting on the ballots are corrupted by money so while they will be looking for electable people it does not have much to do with the underlying problem.

Who are these gatekeepers?  The two main parties?  That is a much bigger issue than campaign donations to candidates, and that was my point.  I can get on the ballot in any jurisdiction I am qualified to run in.  However, if I don't have the right letter after my name I am not getting elected, regardless of the amount of money I raise.

Money, at least campaign money, only goes so far in that.

Sure the other guy, also controlled by the money, might also win.

See above.  That there is only one other guy is a problem that goes beyond campaign finance.

Campaign finance is one head of the hydra, but just one.

What are the other heads?

• Large, organizational influencers and voting blocks (unions, the NRA, etc.)
• A political system designed to only support two parties
• An appropriations system where companies that do business with the government can manipulate politicians via their desire to be re-elected

Whacking it off won't do much; in fact, you may get shit like the McCain-Feingold Incumbent Protection Act that simply reinforces the other heads under the fig leaf of slaying this one.

While I appreciate the use of metaphors and poetic language here I am not sure what you are going on about.

Nonsense.  Well ok sure but they are running against some other person who is also bought so sure the individual politician needs to look good on TV and hit all the talking points and so forth to win.  But they have lots of people trained to help them with that.

The fundamental problem is a political system controlled by two massive, corporate-funded political machines that manipulate the rules of the system to squeeze out everyone else.  Its very.... monopolistic.

[frunk]

Don't worry, OvB's enlightened elites will, um, make sure they stay enlightened by preserving their eliteness.

[DGuller]

  Yes, yes it would.  Dramatically.  Gini is something that applies to the whole population, it can't be split up like income.  Any individual's Gini coefficient is 0.

Looking at the definition of the Gini coefficient shows that it wouldn't have a big impact to have a few extreme incomes among a huge population of 300 million. Even the top 1000 ultra high income earners do not command a statistically significant proportion of income when seen as part of the general population of the USA. However, they do earn so much money that they can influence campaign financing significantly.

The way Gini is defined, one person out of 300 million can move it from 0 to 0.99999.  I was responding to the claim that a mere thousand people can't possibly move the Gini much in a nation of 300 million.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I've heard tell of such creatures, along with unicorns, fairies, and sensible Republicans.

No system is perfect, but elites are far more enlightened than white trash and welfare queens--simple fact.

[Berkut]

Of all the possible responses, I guess "Yeah, you are right Berkut, and thank god it is happening!" is not one I can say I really expected.

[Syt]

I've heard tell of such creatures, along with unicorns, fairies, and sensible Republicans.

No system is perfect, but elites are far more enlightened than white trash and welfare queens--simple fact.

I'd rather be ruled by the intellectual elite than the corporate elite.

Given the choice, though, I'll rather rely on the stupidity of the masses.