There are many reasons to be concerned about the role that casino magnate Sheldon Adelson has come to play in the current election cycle.
Sen. John McCain recently questioned the propriety of Mr. Adelson's donations, given that most of his money comes from casinos in Macau and foreign citizens are not allowed to contribute to U.S. campaigns. In June The New York Times editorialized that Mr. Adelson is "spending sums greater than any political donation in history to advance his personal, ideological and financial agenda, which is wildly at odds with the nation's needs." His views on Palestinians, which have been mimicked by candidates he supports, are far outside the mainstream of American Jewish opinion and his Middle East policy agenda runs counter to Israel's long-term interests.
According to Sheldon Adelson, AIPAC is helping Israel "commit suicide" and therefore no longer receives his significant support. Palestinians, he argues, are an "invented people."
Yet these concerns about Adelson are not being raised in our community. Instead, over the last few days, several prominent Jewish leaders rushed to his defense when the National Jewish Democratic Council called on Mitt Romney to stop taking the casino billionaire's money. Their rationale? NJDC had smeared Adelson by repeating accusations detailed in a recent Washington Post article that he had approved of prostitution in his Macau casinos.
The irony here is overwhelming. Adelson has personally smeared the entire Palestinian people. Repeatedly. He reportedly has mocked President Obama in front of a crowd of young Jews at a Birthright event. His money has been responsible for some of the most vicious attack ads of the entire election cycle to date. Yet somehow, according to some Jewish leaders, it is NJDC who stepped over the line. In the meantime, under intense pressure, the NJDC has backed off.
Americans generally, and American Jews in particular, reject both Adelson's views and his undue influence. If we really want a political process that reflects American opinion and our own values, we have to counter Adelson's millions of dollars with our millions of voices. We have to state clearly and unequivocally that his opinions are simply beyond the pale, and no dollar amount can change that fact. Allowing one wealthy man to buy the next American election will undermine everything this country stands for. It will also prove dangerous to Israel, the very country Adelson's acolytes claim to be supporting.
I think the allegations made against Adelson, in this lawsuit and others, are serious. But I am more concerned with the effect his money is having on our democracy, today. That's why the Jewish Council for Education & Research is picking up the NJDC effort and is calling on Mitt Romney, the entire GOP, and anyone involved with the upcoming elections to reject his influence and his dollars.
Follow Mik Moore on Twitter: www.twitter.com/mikrmoore
 |
 |
|
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Electoral Votes (270 to win) |
332 | 206 |
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Total | 65,899,660 | 60,932,152 |
| Percent | 51.1% | 47.2% |
| Democrats* | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Current Senate | 53 | 47 |
| Seats gained or lost | +2 | -2 |
| New Total | 55 | 45 |
| Democrats | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Seats won | 201 | 234 |
The issue is the ability of people or corporations to spend unlimited amount of money.
In terms of adhering to campaign finance laws, it appears that Adelson has been pretty open about his views, how much he is donating and to whom.
Obviously we can pressure people not to accept donations from Adelson, but that is treating the symptom, not the disease.
I find it worrisome that the main thrust of the criticism is that he is "spending sums greater than any political donation in history to advance his personal, ideological and financial agenda, which is wildly at odds with the nation's needs."
It makes it sound like the problem is that he is advancing ideas that some/many people disagree with. So does that mean if he had ideas that more people favored, his donations would be ok? Or is the problem the unlimited money, regardless of his ideas?
If you get selectively outraged about donations from people you don't like giving to candidates you oppose, this becomes another partisan football and we all lose.
Nobody, no matter how rich he or she is should have more right to influence politics and politicians than any other citizen.
Corporations get a 22,000% return on their lobbying investment and financing campaigns probably gets even more.
condoms to accomplish this goal using contraceptive analysis of his tax return.
Sheldon Adelson: Las Vegas Sands, Inc. faces 3 FCPA investigations into casino operations in Macao, China. (FYI: His company rakes in profits of $100 million every 19 days)
The Walton family: Wal-Mart for alleged bribes made by company representatives in Mexico. (FYI: the family's wealth is equal to the bottom 40% of the population).
The Koch brothers: for alleged payments (bribes) to officials in Africa, India & the Middle-East. (FYI: Charles & David are worth $40 billion each).
Hewlett-Packard: for alleged payments made by former employees (including CEO Meg Whitman & husband) to help a German subsidiary expand into Russia.
These are the names of a just few of the donors who have contributed tens of millions of dollars Romney's SuperPAC & the Republican Party. Given the mere fact that they are under investigation explains why these individuals are giving hand over fist, obscene amounts of money to the Party. Because they know with the GOP god forbid back in power, those investigations will probably just go away. After all once the Party eliminates regulations on businesses why bother with investigations.
If that combined with what we already know is not enough to convince all Americans to join the fight against big money corrupting our elections, government officials & reeking havoc on society at large, then what will?
When you ask "why do you think this man Adelson is willing to give Romney one hundred million dollars. What do you think he wants for that money?" are you really asking & if so do you wait for an answer or do you phrase your questions more as a statement?
Iam asking because from my own experience all too often & for too many years when Iam engaged in a live conversation I have a tendency to make a statement per se in the form of a question-- or ask a rhetorical question that does not really warrant an answer. In other words, Iam not really asking the other person a question muchless waiting for an answer or giving them a chance to answer or even expecting an answer because I presume they know what Iam talking about.
Kathy you are are absolutely correct, some people just really do not "get it" at all. But my problem is by presuming they do I never know if they really do or not. Of course that does not exactly apply to you, but your comment reminded me I need to stop & listen more. By doing so, it might help break down some of the barriers to communication.
I hope this makes sense -- it is past my bedtime.
And our world class military would be deployed to defend Israel against Iran.
Mitt would owe Sheldon, and Sheldon anticipates the Mitt's gratitude.