

lf yeu theught
lndla has a
prebIem wlth
eIectlen fundlng,
then here's aII
abeut Amerlca's
shamefuI,
super ÞAcsI
F
irst of all, congratulations to our
Chief Election Commissioner
Dr. Quraishi for yet again man-
aging the elections with the least
reports of rigging; congratulations also to
Akhilesh for becoming an icon overnight
for the Indian youth through sheer hard
work. I shall write on him very soon!
is time, I want to write on something
that is spoken about every time that
elections are held anywhere in India -
the question of election time funding.
Of course, it's shameful the way black
money dominates election funding in
India. But then, if you thought American
Presidential elections - the nomination
ght for which is underway currently in
the USA - are clean, then here are some
facts which will make you think again!
Actually, throughout history, elections
have never been democratic in the true
cantly
dominating the outcome instead of abil-
ere has been
rarely an election where power-variables
have not played their role. Almost all
elections around the world are manipu-
lated to one extent or the other with
money, power, rigging, hacking or even
e upcoming American Presi-
dential election is no exception either.
Clearly a strange paradox - on one hand,
the American election system is consid-
ered one of the most transparent elec-
toral processes; on the other, this very
election rarely has been fair to its masses.
Unlike in India, where election fund-
ing is mostly clandestine and is funded
primarily with black money, the US elec-
toral system has been legally endowed
with formal procedures to direct cash
ows into the system, especially for elec-
tion campaigns. On hindsight, it might
appear that therefore, the elections held
in the US would be quite transparent and
money would play a moderate role in
nal winner. Unfortunately,
the fact is that irrespective of how trans-
parent the election process might be,
money power is quintessential for any
political party or any Presidential can-
didate to perform well in the elections -
that in itself undermines the true essence
of democracy! Today, the underlined fact
is that globally, it is money that makes
one win the elections, (and this has been
proved through various studies). Period!
US election laws allow Political Action
Committees (PACs) - organizations that
campaign in favour or against political
nanc-
ing the election process. In the veil of
being non governmental organisations,
the so called PACs have been known to
generally redirect money obtained for
c political lob-
bying and political purposes. However,
now a new kind of PAC - called the
'Super PAC' - has come into existence.
ese infamous Super PACs gained
legal backing and dubious prominence
er two court judgments in 2010; the
rst by the US Supreme Court and the
second by Federal Court of Appeals for
the D.C. Circuit. Post these judgments,
a Super PAC is allowed to be the recipi-
ent of an unlimited sum of money from
individuals, corporations, or unions and
further can keep their names anony-
mous - provided the Super PAC remains
independent and away from the direct
control of any political party/candidate
it is supporting! As is quite evident,
the latter part of the 'direct control'
requirement can be quite easily fudged
over, thus ensuring that the Super PAC
model has given the perfect opportunity
for political parties and candidates to
nance
rule, which enforces that no individual
can give more than $2,300 to candidates
during the nomination race and another
$2,300 during the actual elections. Ap-
parently, contributions to Super PACs
can be unlimited (as they're ostensibly
'independent' of the candidates). Even
cially the Super PACs seem
to be independent bodies with no con-
nections to respective candidates and
political parties, it's anybody's guess that
no sensible and wealthy American would
leave out on an opportunity to gain the
most out of this system. Also, needless
to say, many of these Super PACs are in
reality run by the candidates' own ac-
quaintances and former associates!
For example, Restore Our Future, a
Super PAC supporting Mitt Romney
(currently the leading Republican can-
didate) raised over $12 million during
rst half of 2011; another Super PAC
supporting Obama has raised around
$4.4 million for campaigning. Putting
things into perspective, the existence of
the Super PACs is a big question in itself.
Aren't these Super PACs, which are dom-
inated by the top 1° richest Americans,
cheating the rest 99 per cent again: And
isn't this in itself hazardous to the Ameri-
can political landscape, owing to the fact
AklNÞAM cHAUÞHUkl,
LD|1Ok-|N-CH|LI,
7HL 5UN0AY lN0lAN
IkOM 1HL DLSK
edItor's

that the nation recently saw a protest by the
masses against these top 1 per cent lobby-
ists, who not only dominate the American
economy but blatantly channelize taxpayers'
money towards the Wall Street:
What is most disturbing is the stand
of Barack Obama himself, who in the last
election was quite proud of the way he had
raised campaign funds. Unlike the last sea-
son, where Obama relied on the 99 per cent
general population and their small donors,
this time he is all set to reverse the trend!
Some of the key fundraisers for Obama
among many others include the likes of Jon
Corzine, former CEO of MF Global (Cor-
zine also happens to be the ex-governor of
New Jersey); Fred Eychaner, a Chicago based
rey Katzenberg, CEO of
DreamWorks; and movie producer Har-
vey Weinstein. A Super PAC that supports
Obama (dubbed 'Priorities USA Action')
rey
Katzenberg's funding alone! Strikingly, Jon
led for bankruptcy
in October 2011, and Corzine is facing an
FBI probe for allegedly misappropriating his
clients' funds. In another similar case, Steve
Spinner (advisor of Department of Energy)
who was a generous donor to Obama's cam-
paign, secured a bailout package of close
to half a billion dollars for a defunct solar
rm Solyndra. In other words, the
connections between donors and the candi-
dates or parties being supported can never
e world of campaign
funding works on explicit quid pro quos and
direct controls.
A study by the Center for Public Integrity
er elections, 80 per cent of top
ed important administra-
tive posts. For example, Donald Gips, who
secured around $300,000 for Obama's cam-
paign spree was made the ambassador of
South Africa; additionally, the company he
owns secured contracts worth $14 million
in stimulus.
e same goes for other candidates too.
Mitt Romney got an enormous $3 million
c
individual funding Romney is Harold Sim-
mons, who pumped in $3 million this year
over and above the $7 million last year (to
the PAC supporting Romney). Even super-
seding Simmons is Sheldon Adelson - Las
Vegas casino owner - who provided above
$10 million to Winning Our Future, the
Super PAC supporting Newt Gingrich. Newt
Gingrich's deep connections with mortgage
rms Freddie Mac and its sister concern
Fannie Mae (Gingrich received above of $1.6
million from Freddie Mac as 'consulting fee')
came in handy when these two companies
were reduced to insolvency during the real
estate bubble burst, and were later bailed
out by the federal government costing the
state exchequer a staggering $124 billion.
e lobbyists who are supporting Romney
rms like Goldman
Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Bank of America,
JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, Credit Suisse,
PriceWaterhouseCoopers among others. It
rms are
ghting bankruptcy or are on the
verge of receiving bailout packages!
America's 1° top wealthy are not only
uential when it
comes to electing (read: selecting) the pow-
ux of money and mush-
rooming of Super PACs are not only allow-
ing a select few to control the entire election
process but come as an insult to those mil-
lions who recently came out on the streets
for the 'Occupy Wall Street' campaign.
Shamelessly, President Obama didn't even
wait for a year of the campaign starting, be-
fore acquiescing to Super PACs; and - more
shamelessly - asking money from those very
corporations who have been immune to the
e disgust
towards these Super PACs is growing by the
minute. In a March 2012 Washington Post-
ABC News poll, almost 70° of respondents
said that Super PACs should be banned and
made illegal.
All in all, this current Super PAC issue
not only signals towards the possibility of
many more protests in the future similar to
'Occupy Wall Street' but also paves the way
for corporations to immorally lobby for bail-
outs in the near future - something that is
e
great American election is actually meant
for 30 rich individuals at the maximum, who
dictate terms at the Wall Street and whose
diktat is followed verbatim by the American
President. And that is a huge shame!
Lven the reeÌectIon campaIgn of 8arack Obama (seen
here wIth CrIag Deeds and 1Im KaIne) has receIved
ampÌe corporate funds thIs eÌectIon season
lN 7H£ V£lL 0f 8£lN0 N005, ÞAc5
k£Þlk£c7 M0N£¥ f0k 5Þ£clflc
Þ0Ll7lcAL L088¥lN0
(SMS ycur views with ycur name and tcpic tc 0-9818101234)
Ceaaect w|th the acther at
www.faceheek.cem/chac6hcr|.ar|a6am
er tweet h|m at
https://tw|tter.cem/kr|a6am_|||M
er fe||ew h|s art|c|es at
http://ar|a6amchac6hcr|.h|eqspet.cem