Friday, April 25, 2014


Oligarchy is defined by Wikipedia as “ a form of power structure in which power effectively rests with a small number of people…” Professor Rosenman looks at oligarchy and its effects on charitable organizations, but he might as well have titled his piece –– what oligarchy means for people— because he really is making the case for people.

A recently published article by Professor Gilens from Princeton University argues that the  US is an oligarchy and the influence of the average voter on policy is virtually zero. The US Supreme Court recently in the case of McCutcheon v. Federal Elections Commission issued a ruling that struck down contribution limits to political campaigns thereby making money the main player in US politics and the very wealthy, be it individuals or corporations, the oligarchy as it were, are the ones dictating  policies for the country.
Retired US Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens has criticized the decision saying that “the voter is less important than the man who provides the money to the candidate” “ It’s really wrong.” The influence exerted by the oligarchy as Justice Stevens and Professor Rosenman point out is overwhelming vis a vis our equal but individual vote.

We know that in the State of North Carolina, Governor McCrory, a Republican elected thanks to multi-million contributions from Duke Energy, the State’s main industry, protected this company when it was discovered that they had polluted the main river that runs through the state, in such a manner that it will cost over a billion dollars to clean it up and approximately ten years. The money most likely will come from the pockets of the energy users in the state. The staff from the local environmental agency, fined Duke energy ninety nine thousand dollars, but it will cost a bit more to fix it. One more thing that I forgot to mention before, prior to becoming the Governor of North Carolina, Mr. McCrory was CEO of Duke Energy, where he worked for thirty years.

Professor Rosenman points out that in the 2012 elections, over six billions dollars was gathered in campaign contributions and it has been a good investment for the oligarchy. Those elected in that year could not have made it without those heavy contributions. Without limits to those contributions now with this decision of the Supreme Court, think of the next election and the money that will come into play.

We remember also the economic crises of 2007 - 2008 brought about by the deregulation of the financial industry obtained through the lobbying and pressure of the big financial institutions which became known as too big to fail. The multibillion losses that were incurred into by them and the shameful rescue devised by the Treasure Secretary at the expense of the taxpayers. As they say, when a bank publishes record earnings for a given quarter, we do not see any of that money entering our bank accounts, but lo and behold, the banks and the investment companies such as Goldman Sachs, AIG, and others suffer a staggering loss due to malfeasance, then “they are too big to fail,” and must be rescued by the taxpayer. These companies are capitalist when they make money, and when they loose, they become socialists.

The Federal Reserve came in and provided credit for these companies, rescuing them from bankruptcy. The Companies in turn invested the money in US Treasure Bonds. Ah! you say they returned the hand to the country by investing in our national debt, think again! They made untold millions of dollars out of that investment and tax free. On the other hand, nobody has gone to jail for the fraudulent operations being run by these companies.

Professor Rosenman also mentions the environment battles. Business organizations and the oligarchy, the 1% of the 1% at the top of the heap is spending millions again to keep us tied to polluting energy sources where they have invested their fortunes. Ask the Koch brothers whose money defines issues and elections at both the state level and nationwide.

Professor Gilens might be right in his assertion that the individual voter has zero influence over policies in our country and that the only time when the government sometimes “acts in ways consistent with the majority view, but only when the rich and/or connected (the oligarchy) also support those polices.” Are we then powerless in the political arena? I think not. If we get, together, become involved, organized, and expose the lies spread by the oligarchy through their servant Republicans, we can stop their massive attack on the middle class and the poor, particularly if we vote, and then vote again. If the people we elect do not speak for us, let’s get them out and place someone else in there. We need to advocate for regulation of the industries controlled by the oligarchy, since deregulation has been giving them carte blanch at our expense.

Professor Rosenman in his articles quotes philanthropist Phil Stern, “we have the Best Congress Money can Buy” we need to amend that to “the oligarchy  has the Best Congress their Money can Buy,” and we must not forget that, it is their congress and we need to change that. Pass the word, organize and vote in every election.

Friday, April 11, 2014



This is a very interesting article, however, I think that it places too great an emphasis on Bill Clinton the President, vis a vis Hillary, who in fact has great merits of her own. When we talk about what factor could contribute to make Hilary Clinton a potential candidate, there is much more to say than she was just the wife of a former president. 
Hilary Clinton started to be involved in politics when she was 17 years old. She was a volunteer for Republican presidential nominee Barry Goldwater. She was part of the anti-war movement, which was against the Vietnam War. Then inspired by Martin Luther King’s speeches, she became a Democrat. She was studying law at Yale University when she met Bill Clinton. She was working as a lawyer for Rose Law Firm, actively involved in politics and civics affairs, when she finally married Bill Clinton. She is as talented and educated as Bill Clinton is. Additionally, this shows that Hillary Clinton has had a long carrier in politics; it was not something she discovered by being married to Clinton.   When Bill Clinton became president, she dedicated her time to support and work with her husband as partners. She tried to put together a Health Care Reform, which did not succeed, but proves the point that she is a bright woman and was a strong first lady. However, I would say that Hilary Clinton started her own independent career in politics after the Monica Lewinsky scandal because she separated politically from her husband and became a US senator from New York. In 2001 she became the only first lady to hold national office and then in 2007 she became Secretary of State. Probably, she had the support of her husband, but the merit to obtain and maintain those positions were all hers. It is not clear in the article why the contest between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama was controversial, but I think that it was more historic than controversial. It was a difficult choice for Democrats because these two people are highly qualified. However, I think that Obama being the first African-American to run for the presidency was overwhelming for many Americans. I cannot speak for others, but for me it was wonderful that after so many years of racial inequality, abuses, and segregation an African American could reach such a position; thus, I believe that many Americans decided the contest between Clinton and Obama based not just on political qualifications, because they both are qualified, but in political justice for all Americans in regard to race.