Brazil Bans Corporate Donations in Elections, Meanwhile U.S. Elections Drown in Corporate Cash

The Free Thought Project

I bet most Americans want to have a government run by the people and for the people.

Yet, a democratic political system funded and, as such, controlled by large corporations and their owners, cannot be a true democracy that represents and protects the interests of the people.

Establishment politicians have been compared to, putting it mildly, escorts, who, once elected by the people, do what their major campaign contributors (and potential future employers, clients & co-investors in their businesses after leaving office) tell them to do -- to vote in a way that specifically benefits these strategic political & campaign supporters. 

Until elected politicians are just as afraid of losing the support of a regular middle-class voter constituency as they are of losing the trust of big business that funds these politicians -- during their election campaigns, while they're in office (by giving money, jobs and business to politicians' relatives and affiliated persons) and after they leave office (via jobs, paid speeches, business investments & etc.) -- the regular American voter will not have politicians who are defending his rights & interests, but instead, will have political prostitutes  who work in the best interests of their political pimps (both Democratic and Republican parties) and clients (big business & major campaign contributors.

America needs to say "NO!" to corporate campaign contributions, regardless if they're funneled through PACs and other legal entities being used to circumvent and manipulate campaign contribution laws.

Individual campaign contributions need to be capped the same way to preserved the "one man man one vote" principle, otherwise wealthy individuals will have a disproportionate effect on elections by funding their candidates the same way as corporations -- though PACs and etc.

Greg Krasovsky

"Taking an approach to the issue of corporate donations in election campaigns almost completely opposite that of the U.S. Supreme Court in Citizens United v FEC, the Brazilian Supreme Court has banned corporate donations in elections.

Last week, the court ruled 8 to 3 that campaign donations from corporations were unconstitutional.

The Brazilian ban on corporate donations comes amid an extensive corruption scandal that has reached all the way to the Brazilian presidency, with citizens calling for President Dilma Rousseff to be impeached.

During the Brazilian elections last year, close to 76% of the total $760 million donated to the campaigns for congress and the presidency, came directly from corporate sources, according to The Guardian.

Taking virtually the opposite position of the Brazilian Supreme Court, the U.S. Supreme Court in 2008, in the case of Citizens United v FEC, ruled to allow virtually unlimited giving to political campaigns by corporations in the United States

While in the U.S. corporations are technically limited in how much they may donate to a candidate or party, the use of 501 (c) 4 organizations, commonly referred to as a “super PAC” allow corporations to give limitlessly."

Read more at http://thefreethoughtproject.com/brazil-bans-corporate-donations-elections-u-s-system-drowning-big-business-money/#yOObvkTjq1AysC6y.99

Ukraine Finance Minister’s American ‘Values’

Ukraine Finance Minister’s American ‘Values’

Joke: So what do you get when you adopt an adult mix of Beltway Bandit and Carpetbagger that's used to going to its business through a Revolving Door?

A house that'll have to get used to cleaning up the spills, 'cause you can't teach an old dog new tricks!

Basically, Ukrainian Finance Minister Natalie Jaresko's appointment, given her previous track record, could be bad news for Ukraine's regular folks, taxpayers, senior citizens and future generations -- who'll have to foot the bill -- for foreign loans, large-scale government contracts, fire-sale privatizations -- just like their Greek counterparts.

You're going to tell me that there were no honest, qualified and experienced Ukrainians who could have been nominated for Finance Minister?

So why was Ms. Jaresko, an American citizen, selected to be Ukraine's finance minister?

Her lack of propensity for corruption and back-room deals? Her former husband thought otherwise.

Or was it her loyalty to the U.S. government, her former employer.

It's painful to say, but there's a strong ring of truth to Russian President Putin's allegations that today's Ukraine is literally under foreign management, including its Ministry of Finance, just like colonies used to be.

For those who want to see an independent Ukraine on its way to eradicate government corruption, Ms. Jaresko is not the U.S. export to Ukraine that makes sense.

Unless you like Washington's Revolving Door policies and what they do to governmental independence and transparency in government contracts.

****************

Beltway bandit:
Beltway bandit is a term for private companies located in or near Washington, D.C. whose major business is to provide consulting services to the US government. The phrase was originally a mild insult, implying that the companies preyed like bandits on the largesse of the federal government, but it has lost much of its pejorative nature and is now often used as a neutral, descriptive term.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beltway_bandits

Carpetbagger:
In United States history, a carpetbagger was a Northerner who moved to the South after the American Civil War, during the Reconstruction era (1865–1877). White Southerners denounced them fearing they would loot and plunder the defeated South.[1]
...
The term carpetbagger was a pejorative term referring to the carpet bags (a form of cheap luggage at the time) which many of these newcomers carried. The term came to be associated with opportunism and exploitation by outsiders. The term is still used today to refer to an outsider who runs for public office in an area where he or she does not have deep community ties, or has lived only for a short time.[3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpetbagger

Revolving Door:
In politics, the "revolving door" is a movement of personnel between roles as legislators and regulators and the industries affected by the legislation and regulation.[note 1]

In some cases the roles are performed in sequence but in certain circumstances may be performed at the same time. Political analysts claim that an unhealthy relationship can develop between the private sector and government, based on the granting of reciprocated privileges to the detriment of the nation and can lead to regulatory capture.
....
Governments hire industry professionals for their private sector experience, their influence within corporations that the government is attempting to regulate or do business with, and in order to gain political support (donations and endorsements) from private firms.

Industry, in turn, hires people out of government positions to gain personal access to government officials, seek favorable legislation/regulation and government contracts in exchange for high-paying employment offers, and get inside information on what is going on in government.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolving_door_(politics)

************************

https://consortiumnews.com/2015/02/18/ukraine-finance-ministers-american-values/

"Special Report: Among the arguments for why Americans should risk nuclear war with Russia over Ukraine is that the regime that took power in a coup last year “shares our values.” But one of those “values” – personified by Finance Minister Natalie Jaresko – may be the skill of using insider connections, reports Robert Parry.

By Robert Parry

Ukraine’s new Finance Minister Natalie Jaresko, who has become the face of reform for the U.S.-backed regime in Kiev and will be a key figure handling billions of dollars in Western financial aid, was at the center of insider deals and other questionable activities when she ran a $150 million U.S.-taxpayer-financed investment fund.

Prior to taking Ukrainian citizenship and becoming Finance Minister last December, Jaresko was a former U.S. diplomat who served as chief executive officer of the Western NIS Enterprise Fund (WNISEF), which was created by Congress in the 1990s and overseen by the U.S. Agency for International Development (U.S. AID) to help jumpstart an investment economy in Ukraine.

But Jaresko, who was limited to making $150,000 a year at WNISEF under the U.S. AID grant agreement, managed to earn more than that amount, reporting in 2004 that she was paid $383,259 along with $67,415 in expenses, according to WNISEF’s public filing with the Internal Revenue Service."