An interesting consideration. As we all know, most political candidates these days rely on Super PACs to enhance their funding and to do a lot of dirty work on the campaign trail that can be held at a safe distance from the candidate him or herself. And, it is certainly the case that a tremendous amount of campaign funding comes from extremely wealthy individuals and corporations which want to hold some degree of influence over the candidate once they become elected.
This past week, we came to know that Senator Ted Cruz was “loaned” a million dollars from Goldman Sachs. Oddly enough, Goldman Sachs is one of Hillary Clinton’s top contributors. In fact, when you look at where Goldman Sachs has been spending its campaign donation money, you’ll see that it has been fairly evenly split between Republican and Democratic candidates.
How should we see that? Is it the case that Goldman Sachs (which we are using in this example, but you could insert your favorite campaign contributor here) has a political ideology that is both conservative and liberal simultaneously? Probably not. I think it might be fairer to say that Goldman Sachs does not care who wins an election. They care only that they have “stock” in that candidate and can expect to reap dividends in return.
These candidates, whether at a Senatorial, House or Presidential level, are auspiciously “representatives.” But whom do they represent? Many of you know that I am supporting Bernie Sanders. Part of my rationale is that Sanders represents us and does not take campaign contributions from big corporations or donors like the Koch Brothers. This is part of the homework we must all do for ourselves.