| DARK MONEY The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right Jane Mayer New York: Doubleday, January 2016 |
Rating: 5.0 High |
|||
| ISBN-13 978-0-385-53559-5 | ||||
| ISBN-10 0-385-53559-7 | 449pp. | HC | $29.95 | |
Whenever the issue of wealthy conservatives' influence on politics is raised, a standard conservative retort is to assert that liberals are just as bad. All politicians are corrupt, goes the thinking, therefore liberals must be trying just as hard as conservatives to promote their own selfish interests. It stands to reason, doesn't it?
Right-wing commentators love to raise the name of George Soros in attempts to counter criticism of the vast amounts of money flowing into their causes. They mean to suggest equivalence between liberal and conservative efforts. There are two problems: liberals spend far less money, and their efforts, in general, really do benefit society at large. George Soros is the prime example.
"Most of the big donors fighting the campaign-finance restrictions were conservatives, but a few extraordinarily rich liberal Democrats belonged to this rarified club, too. In 2004, Democratic-aligned outside groups spent $185 million—more than twice what the Republican outside groups spent—in a failed effort to defeat George W. Bush's reelection. Of this, $85 million came from just fourteen Democratic donors. Leading the pack was George Soros, an opponent of the U.S. invasion of Iraq who regarded President Bush as such a scourge that he vowed the would spend his entire $7 billion fortune if the result could be guaranteed. With the help of Democratic operatives, Soros funneled more than $27 million into the outside spending vehicle of choice that year, known as 527 groups." *
* * "Afterward, Soros remained active in liberal philanthropy, spending hundreds of millions to support a network of human rights and civil liberties groups, but he largely withdrew from spectacular campaign contributions." – Page 236 |
He fled from Hitler's Germany as a young man, going to England where he got a degree in economics. He later became a billionaire thanks to currency manipulation. He used his wealth to foster freedom, and is credited with hastening the fall of communism in eastern Europe.
No, it doesn't stand to reason. The reason is that there are very basic differences between the thought processes of liberals and conservatives. This is well documented in The Republican Brain, among other places. To summarize these general differences:
I hasten to reiterate that these are not hard-and-fast rules. Dogmatic liberals exist, as do those who hold beliefs for which there is no evidence. A current example is the belief that vaccines cause autism. And there have certainly been cases of corrupt liberal politicians. I could supply quite a list. But, in general, the people who are dogmatic, trust authority over evidence, and favor self-interest over altruism cluster under the conservative banner. This tendency can be seen operating in the U.S. Congress, where most of the people who refuse to accept the scientific consensus on climate change sit on the GOP side of the aisle.
But the question we are dealing with here is whether substantial numbers of liberal politicians are putting their self-interest ahead of their sworn duty, as conservatives have been shown to be doing by the policies they promote, and by the results of those policies — and whether wealthy liberals are pouring money into politics in order to advance liberal causes, as conservatives have been shown to be doing by Jane Mayer's book (as well as much other evidence.)
The first question is whether there are as many rich liberals as rich conservatives, and whether they control as much wealth. From "Economic Demographics of Democrats":
While Democrats lose support as income increases, there seems to be a tipping point where the ultra-wealthy begin leaning Democratic. The most famous example would be the entertainment industry, where star-studded events have become a significant part of Democratic culture.
But this phenomenon is not limited to Hollywood. A review of the 20 richest Americans, as listed by Forbes Magazine, found that 60 percent affiliate with the Democratic Party, including the top three individuals: Bill Gates, Warren Buffett and Larry Ellison. Among the richest families, the Democratic advantage rises even higher, to 75 percent.
This doesn't really answer the question. I'll just stipulate that liberals match conservatives in both these ways.
Next, are both sides equal in the amounts they dedicate to political causes? The fact-finding site Politifact examined this in 2014. It found that more of America's 492 billionaires donating in the then-current election cycle (13 vs. 9) were liberals. However, conservative billionaires dominated the 2012 cycle 19 to 14. In addition, the top 100 donors of 2012 gave 41 percent of all the money collected by outside spending groups, and of their donations, 71 percent went to conservative groups. But PolitiFact comes to no conclusion, stating:
We can't make a final call on whether or not Reid was right in saying the Democratic Party "doesn't have many billionaires." We know that both parties have billionaire backers. In 2012, the advantage went to the Republicans. So far in 2014, the Democrats have the edge in terms of public donations to outside spending groups. But this is far from a full picture because of current donation disclosure rules.
So while I don't have enough data to arrive at a firm conclusion, what I do know suggests that while Democrats have as much ability to influence elections as Republicans, they don't actually exercise that ability as much as Republicans do. As PolitiFact notes, disclosure rules cloud the picture. But the current disclosure rules were mostly set up by Republicans. It's reasonable to conclude, therefore, that it's mainly Republicans who see an advantage in hidden donations. Also, the majority of politicians who push for changes that benefit the rich are Republicans. I'd say that adds up to a good circumstantial case.
To contact Chris Winter, send email to this address.