Mark Hanna, the father of PAC's and soft money? -- WASHINGTON BOARD

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, [10] ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 15:00:19 02/01/02 Fri
Author: Grumpy�
Author Host/IP: 155-41.poccpe.cableone.net / 24.116.155.41
Subject: Mark Hanna, the father of PAC's and soft money?

Robert Reich, The Next American Frontier:

"The presidential campaign of 1896, in which William Jennings Bryan confronted William McKinley, was the climax of agrarian populism in America. It was also a contest between two powerful symbols, each seeking to dominate American ideology. One was the vision of a "people's movement" dedicated to democratic ideals and social betterment. The other promised prosperity through patriotism, stability, law, and business. The choice between silver and gold as a standard for currency, although seemingly important to indebted farmers, was almost irrelevant to the economy, with only minor implications for currency volume or interest rates. But the two sets of symbols were potent, and America's emerging business leaders sensed a looming threat. Largely as a result, the 1896 election was the first in which the money of wealthy industrialists played a significant part, under the skillful tutelage of an Ohio industrialist named Mark Hanna. Hanna's money raising set a precedent for modern American politics. Standard Oil contributed $250,000. So did J. P. Morgan. The railroads contributed even more. Receipts and expenditures soared into the millions, enabling the Republicans to finance America's first concentrated mass political advertising campaign and to send hundreds of paid speakers into the field. It was also the first national election in which employers intimidated factory workers into voting against their will. American business literally bought its way into an emblematic battle - a battle from which it has never emerged. The divisive struggle between business culture and civic culture had been joined.29"

I can't say that I think we're winning the battle, unfortunately. It's odd that so much that is wrong with our country can be traced back to that period in history - the labor/management dichotomy, the fleecing of the public by the likes of Jay Gould, Rockefeller, Carnegie et al - the conviction that we had a 'manifest destiny' (a rehash of 'the white man's burden'), the credo that bigger is better, Horatio Alger. From there to here, there's a thread of money buying the best government it could afford. The court decision that gave corporations status as legal persons, but without the liabilities pertaining to that status is another hallmark of our state of servitude. The concept of money being a real equivalent of speech is another.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]