Thanks for sharing. It is surprising, even for a jaded guy like me, to see that that EVERY senator is on this list. It is a good indicator how deep the rot is in US "elite" institutions.
Yes, bought and paid for. That IS the American Way! We have history and documents that at least suggest we rejected Monarchy and Royalty in favor of some sort of democracy, but in reality governance does not really reflect democratic ideals and instead, all political power STILL reflects the interests of concentrated capital. Once that fact has been implicitly accepted by the masses as made clear by the lack of any credible public challenges to it (and, in fact, even legalized via Citizens United v FEC and other such rulings), than why would anyone think that Foreign States (and their representatives) would not also be major players, using the same currency? There is NO foreign state that does it as continuously, comprehensively and successfully as does Israel.
An excellent magazine, the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs keeps track of lobby donations to members of both the Senate and the House.
To add to what you have posted, here is a link to the listing for top recipients both currently (last election) and over their careers. Note that the figures are larger than those you posted and I think that is because all pro-Israel money is included, not just that from AIPAC.
I guess we should be thankful that at least we can get these figures. They prove that private money donations to campaigns have to end (beyond small individual donations).
Here's the link - scroll down a little to see the listing.
The number one objective of any politician is to get re-elected. I would note that Rand Paul took the least amount of money whereas Bob Menendez, who has been indicted several times for corruption, took the most. Also he was Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Well, as they say, money talks, bullshit walks.
The long and rich history of the contemporary genocides of the cultured, cultivated Europeans, The Americans and the Brits., to nominate yet a few.
And first, of Washington's lost Ukrainian Proxy War to weaken Russia and pillage its resources, perhaps the greatest and most feckless imperial play, something of a progress update.
That is totally startling news! Not eve ONE senator has refused AIPAC money. Wow, that really lays it out for us - we are totally owned by the Israeli government. Now we know! We are lost and our government is run by Israel. That is so depressing I can hardly speak or write. How come you are the first person to tell us that??!! Please tell us more!
Holy Moley, I just happened across a list of senators and the total amount they have received from the Israel lobby over their careers. Joe Biden as a senator puts Chuck Schumer in the shade - almost twice as much received!
Biden was on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and then was its chairman. In addition he ran (unsuccessfully back then) for President. Israel puts its money where it expects a good return and he has been an astoundingly good investment for them.
I would never be able to vote for Trump and Gaza has made Biden anathema as well. I'm happy to see he is being hounded at his public appearances by people demanding a ceasefire.
We've already had campaign finance reform. Several rounds of it. It's very difficult to separate money from power. Money almost always finds its way to power.
While various announced efforts at "campaign finance reform" were possibly motivated originally by some genuine concern with the problem, the resulting legislation likely would have been more symbolic than anything- and SCOTUS made sure even that would have no effect. As you said, money always finds a way to maintain its grip on power, as long as people will vote for people who will concede to it.
I think it doesn't so much matter how people vote. Money finds power. That's more basic than any voting scheme. The only way to keep money from political power is to keep the political sphere relatively small. We are way beyond that. Unfortunately. And the schemes that would try to keep money from power just add to government power. So the effect of money becomes even greater.
It matters, to a degree how people vote; or at least it would if, for example, the holders of concentrated private capital could be constrained from using that capital as influence / control. And that could happen, if, say, a Constitutional Amendment specifically invalidated the rulings such as C.U. v. FEC and otherwise limiting corporate and other private expenditures in elections.
You do point to what I think is an important concept- that the more remote and large the government structure, the less likely it is to reflect 'the average citizen' (whatever that is) or the public interests of any locale. That's because the governing officials are inaccessible and relatively unaccountable to you & me. (i.e. one has a much better chance of reaching and persuading a local Town Board or City Council member , or staffer; and of organizing pressure on them, than one does with a typical Congress-Critter, or someone in the Federal bureaucracy. So scale definitely matters.
That would seem at the surface to argue for "smaller government"... but you could halve or quarter the spending of all of the federal departments but it STILL wouldn't produce the desired effect of making any of them more responsive to "the little guy" as long as $$ drives both elections and policy politics.
I don't want to get into a deeper discussion of libertarian philosophy, which to my observation when taken to logical conclusions is tantamount to anarchy and "survival of the fittest", "beast mode"; failing to acknowledge any 'public commons' of interests and resources. There are aspects of libertarianism that I certainly agree with- especially where they coincide with notions of universal civil rights, etc.
But I think you are correct in stating or suggesting that (at least in the existing systems), money will find a way to exercise political power; and it will likely do so until we've corrected some of the systemic flaws that deliberately (in my understanding) extended more political power to the most wealthy landowners and thereby undermined any promise of 'democratic' or 'representative' governance.
Thanks for sharing. It is surprising, even for a jaded guy like me, to see that that EVERY senator is on this list. It is a good indicator how deep the rot is in US "elite" institutions.
Yes, bought and paid for. That IS the American Way! We have history and documents that at least suggest we rejected Monarchy and Royalty in favor of some sort of democracy, but in reality governance does not really reflect democratic ideals and instead, all political power STILL reflects the interests of concentrated capital. Once that fact has been implicitly accepted by the masses as made clear by the lack of any credible public challenges to it (and, in fact, even legalized via Citizens United v FEC and other such rulings), than why would anyone think that Foreign States (and their representatives) would not also be major players, using the same currency? There is NO foreign state that does it as continuously, comprehensively and successfully as does Israel.
An excellent magazine, the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs keeps track of lobby donations to members of both the Senate and the House.
To add to what you have posted, here is a link to the listing for top recipients both currently (last election) and over their careers. Note that the figures are larger than those you posted and I think that is because all pro-Israel money is included, not just that from AIPAC.
I guess we should be thankful that at least we can get these figures. They prove that private money donations to campaigns have to end (beyond small individual donations).
Here's the link - scroll down a little to see the listing.
https://www.wrmea.org/2022-august/september/pro-israel-pac-donations-flood-2022-elections.html
You are right, but I assume all who read this are aware of the lobby's influence.
It goes beyond that, however until we have a national ethos that is a consensus that favoring any foreign entity is wrong, this will always happen.
Remember how Hill and Knowlton sold Nayriah to the US public and pushed the Gulf War. Plus ca change,
The number one objective of any politician is to get re-elected. I would note that Rand Paul took the least amount of money whereas Bob Menendez, who has been indicted several times for corruption, took the most. Also he was Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Well, as they say, money talks, bullshit walks.
I wonder how much of the AIPAC funding ultimately comes from American taxpayers through kickbacks from all the aid given to Israel.
You deserve more reader comments, Bill.
On related themes . . .
The long and rich history of the contemporary genocides of the cultured, cultivated Europeans, The Americans and the Brits., to nominate yet a few.
And first, of Washington's lost Ukrainian Proxy War to weaken Russia and pillage its resources, perhaps the greatest and most feckless imperial play, something of a progress update.
https://les7eb.substack.com/p/genocide-and-economics
Free to subscribe . . . The Dead Do Not Die.
_____________
On it. Have been for awhile. But will increase my efforts on these fronts. So many fronts to battle.
That is totally startling news! Not eve ONE senator has refused AIPAC money. Wow, that really lays it out for us - we are totally owned by the Israeli government. Now we know! We are lost and our government is run by Israel. That is so depressing I can hardly speak or write. How come you are the first person to tell us that??!! Please tell us more!
Holy Moley, I just happened across a list of senators and the total amount they have received from the Israel lobby over their careers. Joe Biden as a senator puts Chuck Schumer in the shade - almost twice as much received!
Link to Open Secrets: https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/summary?cycle=All&ind=Q05&mem=Y&recipdetail=S
The bank/credit card senator from Delaware is really from Israel.
Biden was on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and then was its chairman. In addition he ran (unsuccessfully back then) for President. Israel puts its money where it expects a good return and he has been an astoundingly good investment for them.
I would never be able to vote for Trump and Gaza has made Biden anathema as well. I'm happy to see he is being hounded at his public appearances by people demanding a ceasefire.
Well said
Michael heller
Good to know.
Now what?
Work to overturn Citizens United.
Work for campaign finance reform and the public funding of elections.
We've already had campaign finance reform. Several rounds of it. It's very difficult to separate money from power. Money almost always finds its way to power.
While various announced efforts at "campaign finance reform" were possibly motivated originally by some genuine concern with the problem, the resulting legislation likely would have been more symbolic than anything- and SCOTUS made sure even that would have no effect. As you said, money always finds a way to maintain its grip on power, as long as people will vote for people who will concede to it.
I think it doesn't so much matter how people vote. Money finds power. That's more basic than any voting scheme. The only way to keep money from political power is to keep the political sphere relatively small. We are way beyond that. Unfortunately. And the schemes that would try to keep money from power just add to government power. So the effect of money becomes even greater.
It matters, to a degree how people vote; or at least it would if, for example, the holders of concentrated private capital could be constrained from using that capital as influence / control. And that could happen, if, say, a Constitutional Amendment specifically invalidated the rulings such as C.U. v. FEC and otherwise limiting corporate and other private expenditures in elections.
You do point to what I think is an important concept- that the more remote and large the government structure, the less likely it is to reflect 'the average citizen' (whatever that is) or the public interests of any locale. That's because the governing officials are inaccessible and relatively unaccountable to you & me. (i.e. one has a much better chance of reaching and persuading a local Town Board or City Council member , or staffer; and of organizing pressure on them, than one does with a typical Congress-Critter, or someone in the Federal bureaucracy. So scale definitely matters.
That would seem at the surface to argue for "smaller government"... but you could halve or quarter the spending of all of the federal departments but it STILL wouldn't produce the desired effect of making any of them more responsive to "the little guy" as long as $$ drives both elections and policy politics.
I don't want to get into a deeper discussion of libertarian philosophy, which to my observation when taken to logical conclusions is tantamount to anarchy and "survival of the fittest", "beast mode"; failing to acknowledge any 'public commons' of interests and resources. There are aspects of libertarianism that I certainly agree with- especially where they coincide with notions of universal civil rights, etc.
But I think you are correct in stating or suggesting that (at least in the existing systems), money will find a way to exercise political power; and it will likely do so until we've corrected some of the systemic flaws that deliberately (in my understanding) extended more political power to the most wealthy landowners and thereby undermined any promise of 'democratic' or 'representative' governance.
I would submit that pretty much anything taken to its logical conclusion will result in an absurd result.