Corporatocracy is Trying to Talk, Please Be Quiet

The answer to many questions in life is: “Follow the money.” Well, it’s really not an answer, it’s a step towards finding the truth about things.

In this case, we’re following the money behind Barack Obama, and Mitt Romney’s funding for the 2012 election cycle.

Without explaining things away the similarities should help voters understand how things work in their American “democracy.”

The following numbers are provided by OpenSecrets.org. Their website explains how these funds are collected:

“This table lists the top donors to this candidate in the 2008 election cycle. The organizations themselves did not donate , rather the money came from the organizations’ PACs, their individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals’ immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.”

First, here’s a look at campaign funds for Mitt Romney in 2012:

So, it appears that Romney has the support of big banks, correct? No surprise there.

Now, let’s take a look at who’s supporting Obama in the 2012 election cycle.

At first glance, it appears as though Obama is getting his money from mostly respectable institutions and companies. This all depends on whether or not you conisder Google and Microsoft respectable. It also depends on whether or not you agree with the business practices of healthcare giant Kaiser Permanente.

In a perfect world, none of these donors would expect anything in return for their investments, but as we all know, this isn’t a perfect world. Perhaps we can learn about what sort of returns can be expected by these donors by looking a short list of Obama’s donors in 2008.

It’s worth noting that this list also included JPMorgan Chase & Co ($808,799), Citigroup Inc ($736,771)and Morgan Stanley ($512,232).

However, there’s really only one interesting donor here: Goldman Sachs. Interestingly, the bank is nowhere to be found among the list of Obama’s largest donors in this election cycle. Perhaps it’s because they’ve received their returns, and have decided to move on to their next goal: the election of Mitt Romney.

The other banks I mentioned are also nowhere to be found on the list of Obama’s largest supporters in 2012.

It wouldn’t be fair for me to speak for the banks here, but luckily money often speaks for itself. There appears to be no partisanship on behalf of the banks, as is evidenced by their lack of support for Obama’s reelection and concurrent heaping support for Romney. I don’t have to say “red flag” in order for red flags to appear.

The question this leaves us with is simple: what are these banks and companies getting in return for their support? Goldman Sachs reaped benefits of the Obama-led bailouts, in the billions. The question now stands: what will Romney give them if he’s elected the next President of the United States?

Why all of this matters? I hearken back to my point that investors don’t invest unless they expect some type of return. That’s the way the world has always worked. It’s just that those on either side of the isle in D.C. don’t want us to know that. If they wanted us to know, they might tell us.

In the meantime, feel free to invest in one of these candidates. Hopefully you get a return on your investment, but with all that bank money out there, it’s likely the return on your chunk of change will be overshadowed by the debts owed to big banks and corporations. Welcome to America, land of the free, unless you’re broke.

http://www.opensecrets.org/index.php