Red-State Senate Democrats Are Top Recipients of Wall Street Donations

[truthout.org]

(One trend that should not be ignored is that the Democrats who are getting the most money are, by and large, the ones who have embraced the Wall Street agenda during the first two years of Trump’s presidency. Seventeen Democrats helped repeal portions of Obama-era Dodd-Frank legislation by voting with Republicans on the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection bill (hereafter “Dodd-Frank repeal&rdquo.

Not that the bill was so great anyways, but they want to make sure they keep these democrats in line should they need them. So, buy them. See, it doesn't matter, republican, democrat, you're not worth being represented.

(Nine Democrats also crossed party lines to appoint Goldman Sach’s bailout attorney Jay Clayton to lead the Securities and Exchange Commission. This was despite opposition from most Democrats who lamented his connection to Goldman, whose exploitation of the 2008 economic crisis is infamous. Sen. Bernie Sanders, one of 37 Senators to oppose his confirmation, said he “embodies the greed that nearly wrecked our economy.&rdquo

Most likely a closed door discussion on which 9 would take the fall to give the nod, yea. So those 9 get paid off when their time comes up at election time. You learn this when you watch the vote on cspan. The last votes usually are made by those close to an election cycle. Then they give some bogus reason like Sanders does by saying, the bill had some good things in it. In other words, blackmail bill. Or pretend to be against a bill but eventually vote for it. The Paul's are infamous for this.

(While the mainstream media do cover fundraising, they often do it to gauge a candidate’s chances. The potential impacts of political donations on policymaking are rarely discussed on cable television. These media companies themselves are owned by parent companies that benefit dramatically from this influx of cash as well — to buy influence and profit off record-breaking political advertising spending.)

One feeds the other. If the media, now owned by only 5 people, outs a company, that company takes its adds off that medias stations, therefore reducing the money that source needs to survive. The cycle of money from company to media to politician needs to survive to manage the illusion we are to accept that the oligarchs use to rule us. They all rub shoulders in the same bed. End game? Issues that we need addressed are ignored while they feed us the same few issues in repetitive mode to keep us fighting against each other as the world around us goes to shit. They give you false narratives like Venezuela to make you believe socialism is a bad thing. While at the same time using it to create an income inequality gap to benefit the most wealthy in our country. They don't mention how our CIA and military support and fund terrorist in the Middle East and falsely accuse Syria of using chemical weapons. When was the last time you heard of the conditions in Libya? How we turned that into a terrorist heaven for Clinton's war mongering. Or the fact that Obama and John McCain turned the Ukraine into a fascist country. If a main stream media source was to start covering real news fully, the wrath of the oligarchy would take it out. Managed perception to keep the population ignorant.