Sad Billionaires are Sad

In another hard-hitting investiation, POLITICO reports that right-wing billionaires are shocked—shocked!—that people are opposed to their lavish support for politicians who promise to slash services and cut taxes for said billionaires. I mean, who knew that people would have a problem with plutocratic efforts to take the country back to the Gilded Age?:

In their view, cutting a million-dollar check to try to sway the presidential race should be just another way to do their part for democracy, not a fast-track to the front page. And now some are pushing back hard against the attention, asking: Why us?

“This idea of giving public beatings has been around for a long time,” said Frank VanderSloot, a wealthy Idaho businessman who donated $1 million in corporate cash to the super PAC supporting Mitt Romney and says he’s raised between $2 million and $5 million for the Romney campaign.

In addition to bankrolling Romney, Vandersloot also donates money to various anti-gay causes. Turns out people have a problem with bigotry. Who knew!

During my brief involvement with adolescent athletics, I never complained when I got hit or injured. After all, that’s what you sign up for when you play contact sports. Likewise, there’s no place for whining if you’re a billionaire who decides to pur millions of dollars into an election. By massively bankrolling a candidate or cause, you’ve made yourself a public figure. Deal with it.

Comments

On the surface, your argument makes sense -- These donors should be subjected to public scrutiny. However, you're twisting what Vandersloot has said, which is the President shouldn't create an "Enemy List" with names of his political opponents because they've donated to his opponent. Also, you neglected to share the fact that Vanderslot had an individual affiliated with a subcommittee of the Dept. of Homeland Security (probably working for the campaign) snooping around his town for his divorce records. The Wall Street Journal calls it "trolling for dirt." I think that no sitting President - Democrat or Republican - should publish this type of list b/c of the enormous power they wield. IMHO, that isn't whining for a donor to say that, and it's a step above just taking a few punches from political opposition. I believe that is Vandersloot's main contention.

Responding to jbaily: All campaigns "troll for dirt." The stakes are so high that it would be foolish for either side NOT to do their due diligence. It is American Presidential politics, after all, and no one complained when John Kerry got "swift-boated." The whole "sitting President" being elevated above political tactics is long gone as there is little respect left for the President, what with Jan Brewer shoving her finger in his face for a photo op and SC Representative Joe Wilson standing up and shouting, "You lie!" to the President during his State of the Union address, among other things. When a select few with unlimited wealth have an agenda, I would expect that to be snooped and brought into the light for everyone to see. If a list does that, so be it.

You need to be logged in to comment.
(If there's one thing we know about comment trolls, it's that they're lazy)

Connect
, after login or registration your account will be connected.