Eric Zuesse
On July 28th, Thom
Hartmann interviewed former U.S. President Jimmy Carter, and, at the
very end of his show (as if this massive question were merely an
aftethought), asked him his opinion of the 2010 Citizens United decision and the 2014 McCutcheon
decision, both decisions by the five Republican judges on the U.S.
Supreme Court. These two historic decisions enable unlimited secret
money (including foreign money) now to pour into U.S. political and
judicial campaigns. Carter answered:
“It violates the essence of what made
America a great country in its political system. Now it’s just an
oligarchy with unlimited political bribery being the essence of getting
the nominations for President or being elected President. And the same
thing applies to governors, and U.S. Senators and congress members. So,
now we’ve just seen a subversion of our political system as a payoff to
major contributors, who want and expect, and sometimes get, favors for
themselves after the election is over. … At the present time the
incumbents, Democrats and Republicans, look upon this unlimited money as
a great benefit to themselves. Somebody that is already in Congress has
a great deal more to sell.”
He was then cut off by the program, though that statement by Carter should have been the start of the program, not its end.
(And the program didn’t end with an invitation for him to return to
discuss this crucial matter in depth — something for which he’s
qualified.)
So: was this former President’s provocative allegation merely his opinion? Or was it actually lots more than that? It was lots more than that.
Only a single empirical study has
actually been done in the social sciences regarding whether the
historical record shows that the United States has been, during the
survey’s period, which in that case was between