The sinister story of Kyrsten Sinema's turn to conservatism and political corruption

[marmar]

by Thom Hartmann


When Bobby Kennedy went after organized crime in the early 1960s, one of the things he learned was that the Mafia had a series of rituals new members went through to declare their loyalty and promise they'd never turn away from their new benefactors. Once in, they'd be showered with money and protection, but they could never leave and even faced serious problems if they betrayed the syndicate.

Which brings us to the story of Kyrsten Sinema.

For a republican democracy to actually work, average citizens with a passion for making their country better must be able to run for public office without needing wealthy or powerful patrons; this is a concept that dates back to Aristotle's rants on the topic. And Sinema was, in the beginning, just that sort of person. But I'm getting ahead of myself…

After the Nixon and Agnew bribery scandals were fully revealed with a series of congressional investigations leading to Nixon's resignation in 1974, Congress passed and President Jerry Ford signed into law a series of "good government" laws that provided for public funding of elections and strictly limited the role of big money in campaigns.

....(snip)....

Quietly and without fanfare, she began voting with Republicans and the corporate- and billionaire-owned Democrats, supporting efforts to deregulate big banks, "reform" Social Security and Medicare, and make it harder to for government to protect regular investors or even buyers of used cars from being ripped off.

She voted with the Chamber 77 percent of the time in her first term; in return, political networks run by right-wing billionaires and the US Chamber of Commerce showered her with support. In her first re-election race, in 2014, she was one of only five democrats endorsed by the notoriously right-wing Chamber. ...........(more)

https://www.rawstory.com/the-sinister-story-of-kyrsten-sinema-s-turn-to-conservatism-and-political-corruption/

[lagomorph777]

1. New word for "Theatric Corruption" : "Sinematic"

[Celerity]

6. Oh, I love this wordplay!

[StClone]

19. I made this neologism

Months ago, where's my prize.

[agingdem]

2. Like Manchin she is not going to switch parties...

she'll get swallowed up..her pink hair and baby doll clothes will not cut it with Mitchie and his boys...she will be told to shut up and sit down...she needs to be center stage...she loses that stage if she goes to the dark side...

[BeckyDem]

3. There is a documented trail and the votes.

Campaign finance laws protect our democracy from corruption and preserve the integrity of our elections. These rules governing the use of money in politics were in a sorry state before Citizens United v. FEC. Here are ten ways in which the Citizens United decision has made a bad situation much worse.

1. “Independent” Spending Farce Leads To SuperPACs

The Supreme Court thought non-candidate spending would be “independent” and therefore non-corrupting. This proposition not only beggars belief, it led to the rise of SuperPACs, which are allowed to raise and spend unlimited amounts because they don’t contribute directly to candidates and are purportedly independent. These Super PACs, more than 250 of which registered between their creation in 2010 and the end of 2011, have super-charged the influence of the biggest corporations and wealthiest individuals. The Supreme Court still recognizes that contributions to candidates can be corrupting, which is why direct contributions can be limited; if outside groups coordinate spending with a candidate it is treated like a direct contribution and can also be limited. Rules exist to prevent coordination between candidates and outside groups. But these rules have been reduced to such swiss cheese that they barely maintain the pretense of independence. That is how we’ve ended up with candidate SuperPACs - founded by former campaign associates, funded by family and friends, explicitly supporting one candidate, who is allowed to fundraise for these groups himself. These candidate SuperPACs are making a mockery of contribution limits by running figure eights around and through the coordination rules; the idea that they are independent in any real sense is absurd.

https://www.demos.org/policy-briefs/10-ways-citizens-united-endangers-democracy

[Botany]

4. Sinema has been getting her beak wet from big pharma with promises of more to come later

The world’s biggest pharmaceutical companies: Top ten by revenue

1. Johnson & Johnson – $56.1bn

2. Pfizer – $51.75bn

3. Roche – $49.23bn

4. Novartis – $47.45bn

5. Merck & Co. – $46.84bn

6. GlaxoSmithKline – $44.27bn

7. Sanofi – $40.46bn

8. AbbVie – $33.26bn

9. Takeda – $30.52bn

10. Shanghai Pharmaceuticals Holding – $26.69bn

Lots of money to be made there in protecting the status quo.

https://www.pharmaceutical-technology.com/features/top-ten-pharma-companies-in-2020/

[Budi]

5. About time we show a list of all Senators their $$$ ties to Pharma support.

We'd probably be rather surprised to see who's in the top ten recipients $$.
From campaign $$ to pressure from paid lobbists, who's in the top ten?
Better yet, list the top ten 2-3 years back.

We really should publicly provide such a list. Unless we make it public, they'll continue under the radar of our useless Media.

[Botany]

7. Sinema's post senate career will see her in some high paying no work jobs such as being on a ....

.... some big pharma board of directors and or as a college (right wing) dean someplace.

[Budi]

8. She's not the only one, either. That's the shitty part. She's just the Name du jour

Out them all.

[Botany]

12. I understand Kristen Sinema grow up poor and that my be one of her driving forces but ....

.... even if she leaves in 2024 she will get a nice pension, SS, and free health care for the rest
of her life. Somehow from the little I have seen and or heard from her she seems to have some
kind of mental issues, no real core values, enjoys the spotlight, wants mega $ and is owned by
the Chamber of Congress & Big Pharma.

[KS Toronado]

20. That sums her up extremely well.

Never thought of it before but Scrooge McDuck must be a reQublicOn.

[Dustlawyer]

9. I will keep saying this until everyone makes it their #1 issue!

Publicly Funded Elections! Let’s make campaign season 4 months. Outlaw any donations, super PACs, dark money, and the revolving door. Root cause #1 of most of our problems!

Require truth in news reporting and get rid of the Fox News is not news but “entertainment “ defense. The propaganda is the second root cause of most of our problems!

[Budi]

21. Fairness Doctrine. Citizens United. And more, updated for the future.

How come everyone's suddenly got a Dark Money 504C PAC?

It's like the MLM craze.
Money flows upwards in turn for loyalty & free political shit.

[pbmus]

10. Dirty deeds done dirt cheap...

[NullTuples]

11. Bribery scandals? Here, here now. That's so ugly-sounding; we now prefer "lobbyist efforts".

[Hassin Bin Sober]

17. They're not politicians either. They're "legislators" who get "scholarships" from ALEC

[Lonestarblue]

13. I'm wondering whether wealthy Republican donors recruited Sinema to run as a Democrat.

As we all know, they recruited a fake candidate in Florida in 2020, which cost the Democrat the win. I think no level of corruption is beyond Republicans today. Money corrupts and big money corrupts even more.

[LymphocyteLover]

18. I would not be surprised in the least

She seems to have been bought and corrupted early on

[Joinfortmill]

14. Get the dark money out of politics.

[LittleGirl]

15. I won't vote for her again. eom

[LymphocyteLover]

16. Ugh, so depressing

[dalton99a]

22. Kick

[mathematic]

23. Another garbage opinion piece by Hartmann accusing democrats of corruption

Yes, democratS. He's not just accusing Sinema of corruption but a whole bunch of other democrats of being corrupt:

"Quietly and without fanfare, she began voting with Republicans and the corporate- and billionaire-owned Democrats"

"But this isn't as much a story about Sinema as it is about today's larger political dysfunction for which she's become, along with Joe Manchin, a poster child."

This shitty opinion piece uses links to look like it's supported by sources but those links include links to jacobin and an amazon affiliate link to his own book. It's dumb, self-important ranting.

You can still be a democrat if you disagree with other democrats on the appropriate level of the corporate tax rate or the amount of government spending. Sinema, for example, is pro abortion rights and pro anti-discrimination legislation, either of which would make her a non-entity in the republican party. She has many more positions on other issues that are nowhere close to the republican party. And this is true for virtually every democrat that gets labeled as "corrupt" by blowhards like hartmann.

[BlueLucy]

24. Hartmann is not that much different than Sinema

He's always worked to get leftist to hate Democrats. He's another Putin sympathizing Greenwald.

[marmar]

25. Complete BS. You know nothing about Thom Hartmann clearly.