In Republican Race, a New Breed of Superdonor.

As every four years, it doesnt matter if youre a Democrat or a Republican, the Presidential elections are on their way. With them, thanks to the campaigns system, all the Political Action Committees (PACs) begin to make huge donations to the candidate(s) of their choosing: About two dozen individuals, couples or corporations have given $1 million or more to Republican super PACs this year, an exclusive club empowered by the Supreme Courts Citizens United decision and other rulings to pool their money into federal political committees and pour it directly into this years presidential campaign.1 One of the dangers of this practice happened to President Obama not so long ago. Two brothers of a Mexican casino magnate, Juan Jos Rojas Cardona, who fled out of the United States after being accused of fraud and drug charges, made a $200,000 donation to Obamas reelection campaign2. What favors were they seeking? What would have happened if Obama accepted the money? He would be acknowledging the fact that whatever was done by the donors to obtain that money is now legitimate. In other words, if you support someone, it doesnt matter the way you live. It is assumed that, in a more extreme point of view, that what this man or anyone has done is within the law. Despite not being apprehended, if Obama were to accept the money, even if hes is found guilty, he has the Presidents

CONFESSORE, LUO and McINTIRE on http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/22/us/politics/in-republicanrace-a-new-breed-of-superdonor.html?pagewanted=all 2 McINTIRE, Mike. Obama to return major donations tied to fugitive. On the New York Times. 02/07/12 http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/07/us/politics/major-obama-donors-are-tied-to-pepe-cardona-mexicanfugitive.html?pagewanted=all

approval and, could be, even his pardon. Candidates are fully aware of the people who gives them money. How dangerous can this be to a democracy? Having that, at a psychological level, the politician who is receiving the donations could feel obligated to repay his donors or feel a sense of debt towards them3. On the other hand, the donor could, using Domhoffs methodology, expand his network to another level; jumping from economic power to politics and, by doing that, they would be able to influence the decision making sphere of the nations politics. Adding to these arguments, Marxists would say that what the donors are doing and the behavior of the State in regards to this is explained by their definition of State as the apparatus whereby the dominant class is able to secure its rule (Lecture 01/24/12). In other words, theyre acting accordingly to their particular interests, using the State as a tool or mean of the dominant class in order to secure its rule. Who could argue against that? The main reason why the donors are spending a huge amount of money is to get something in return. We should not think that it is from the kindness of their hearts; it is part of the game of being rulers in a society where there are many dominant interests. Having said that, it appears as if Marxist and the Domhoff studies could agree that it is all about the networks, the favors one gets by helping one another and the intervention of these groups in the reproduction of the actual system. But what about Dahl and the pluralists? Dahl states in the first lines of his book, Who Governs? Democracy and Power in an American City: In a political system where

DOMHOFF, William. Who Rules America? Challenges to corporate and class dominance. University of California, Santa Cruz. USA. 2010.

nearly every adult may vote but where knowledge, wealth, social position, access to officials and other resources are unequally distributed, who actually governs? 4 So far so good. How can the little man compare themselves with the big capitalists? According to them, the State is a neutral mechanism of integration and its main task is to aggregate consensual values that compose society. As for democracy it is the system in which all citizens can form their own opinion and preferences to signify or communicate them (Lecture 02/01/12); having a utopian thought of how the different preferences of society are weighted equally. My first problem with the past paragraph is how the State can be a neutral mechanism if society is divided and unequal. Where do the politicians come from? They come from the same unequal and diversified society as everyone else, but, most of them, had more chances for a quality education. That doesnt make them neutral. In my view, that causes the system reproduce itself, having more of the same big shots in power, while a large amount of people do not have the chance to even dream of making history as Flacks would say. Another question that pops into my mind is how the preferences can be weighted equally if the big capitalists invest huge amounts of money in campaigns? And, as Domhoff says, even though [superdonors] rarely try to tie specific strings to their donations, they are able to ensure a hearing for their views and to work against candidates they do not consider sensible and approachable5.

DAHL, Robert. Who Governs? Democracy and Power in an American City. Yale University Press. USA. 2005. Page 1. 5 DOMHOFF, William. Who Rules America? Challenges to corporate and class dominance. University of California, Santa Cruz. USA. 2010. Page 162

Also, donors have the chance to talk with the candidate, or someone close to them, and the candidate has the opportunity to know what the donors want personally, not only through general polls or surveys. How could a personal interview weigh the same as an impersonal one? The State must be impartial and seek the greater good, but how can they if the one that is giving them the money seeks a personal interest? Contrary to the point made about Marxist, Offe and Ronge say that, the State does not defend the interests of one class, but the common interest of all members of a capitalist class society.6 They also give four elements of the capitalist State, which in summary are: (Lecture 02/15/12): 1. The political power is prohibited from organizing production, given that the means of production are private; 2. The State depends, indirectly, on the volume of private capital accumulation; 3. Every occupant of the State power is interested in promoting conditions towards accumulation; 4. Political power appears to be determined through representative and democratic, but is really controlled by the accumulation process. From these elements, it does not seem fair that the State cannot influence the way production is organized but the capitalist can, and do, influence State politics. Also, given that the State indirectly depends on taxation and the capital market, how can it be autonomous? Element number three may be true, but how could everybody be involved in the capitalist practices given that the same capitalist dynamics render those efforts useless.

OFFE, Claus and RONGE, Volker. Theses on the Theory of the State in Classes, Power, and Conflict. Edited by Giddens and Held. USA. Page 250

In response to the fourth point, yes the political power is controlled by the accumulation process or, in other words, is subordinated to the big capital; wage makers obviously do not fit into that category so how can a government be representative for the people? Living in a neoliberal age where the big companies and the capitalist are so immersed within the Sate, one might argue that the State has shrunken so drastically that its merely a provider for what the investors want. This is why I agree with Domhoffs thought and what Marxists have written. The State is not autonomous and democracy is not showed in every sphere of society; the people are dependant of what the greater capitalists wants and how governments respond to those requests. Politicians are sleeping with the enemy and they dont care what they do wrong, as long as they serve the capitalist class, theyll always have a job (according to Domhoffs revolving door.) Who watches the watchmen? The ones that are supposed to look for societys well-being. Public opinion does not have the routine importance often attributed to it by pluralist theory. Even though most people have sensible opinions, it is unlikely that any focused public opinion exists on most of the complicated legislative issues of concern to the corporate community7 And how could most people understand if the big capitalist own most of the media? How can they be informed if the media uses a really technical language to address these issues? Who watches the watchmen?

DOMHOFF, William. Who Rules America? Challenges to corporate and class dominance. University of California, Santa Cruz. USA. 2010. Page146