fund raising

USA today has reported that "Obama releases his list of fundraisers every three months, but Romney has refused to do so."  As they go on to point out, "Romney is not required to name his bundlers, with the exception of those who work as federal lobbyists.  Presidential nominees, however, have voluntarily disclosed the names of their top fundraisers for a dozen years, starting with Republican George W. Bush."  Many have noted that Romney has been secretive about many things, to include his tax returns, among other things, and one wonders why such secrecy is necessary.

It could be, of course, that he feels as my wife feels about such things in our private life -- that it's nobody's business but his own -- but then too, once when I suggested running for public office with some seriousness, she ... well, let us say, she was not receptive to the idea.  That by way of saying, there is a diminished expectation of privacy when one holds public office, and the expectation diminishes the further up the food chain one climbs.  Romney, as a presidential candidate, should know that there is virtually no expectation of privacy, so even on that score his secrecy is troubling.

It could be, of course, that he feels disclosure would be more politically damaging than his secrecy, but then one needs to wonder about his own wisdom.  Secrets have a way of coming out, and one doesn't need a secret on the order of Sandusky's for it to have significant implications, and a certain part of Romney's secret has emerged through the sleuthing of USA TODAY, which reports that "more than 300 people" or about 25% of the total 1,200 fundraisers "come from the world of finance, more than any other sector," and more than a dozen come from Goldman Sachs.  Of course, there's not much that's surprising in this, insofar as Romney toes the Republican line and has "pledged to dismantle financial-industry regulations enacted during the Obama administration."

In fairness, President Obama has his financial sector fundraisers as well (77 of  532 to be exact) but one suspects that Obama will not have the success in the sector that his rival, and the real success will not be within the boundaries of campaign finance.  As the article also points out, "Romney's most prolific supporters also have performed double duty -- writing large checks to Restore our Future, a pro-Romney super PAC that can raise unlimited amounts to aid his White House bid as long as it operates independently of his campaign."  The question -- how independent is independent -- has not received an adequate answer, but it may be moot regardless.  Ninety of Romney's fundraisers have "donated nearly $18.4 million to the group, which has spent more than $53 million to promote Romney and attack his rivals."

Altogether, this comes to the point of my previous entry.  The chicken egg question of whether the financial industry has bought Romney's support, or whether Romney's position has garnered the financial industry's support, is irrelevant so long as the alignment is clear, unmistakable, and mutually reinforcing.  There is nothing new in this, except that the supreme court decision around Citizens United, by allowing unlimited contributions to super PACS, have significantly magnified the influence of corporate interests, like Goldman Sachs.

Individual citizens can still make up their own minds, and vote accordingly, but if we honest with ourselves, really honest with ourselves, we have to admit that advertising works, and a good deal of the money spent by either political camp does little to promote dialogue around the best solutions for the problems facing America today, certainly not the continuing problem that the financial sector poses for the vast majority of Americans, and does a whole lot more to reinforce existing attitudes, not all of them pretty.  Romney spoke before the NAACP, for example, not because he expected a warm welcome, or to convert the black community to his vision, but to demonstrate and reinforce the worst racial attitudes and stereotypes.  The ploy is so transparent as to be laughable, except that, I suspect, it will work with those voters who turn out to his rallies.

The money, in short, not only magnifies the influence of certain sectors who want a receptive face in the oval office, and their methods for putting him there are perhaps rhetorically effective, picking the scabs of the deepest wounds in the American psyche, but most are a diversion from what is actually at stake.  We have, in effect, almost fully commodified our electoral process within a largely unregulated market.  To a greater and greater extent, those who own America are running American, if not directly, then by proxy, and it is not surprising that fewer and fewer people are owning more and more of America.  The real danger to American democracy is not socialism, certainly not communism -- those are the bogey men of the past.  The real danger is oligarchy, and perhaps that is the secret Romney wants most to keep.  He is emergent type of the emergent oligarchy.