How to Spell Bigtime Weasel — With a Capital "B" as in Billionaire of Course

Here ya' go: For your campaign for Congress or the White House

(More if you need - just let us know)

Excellent piece here - FYI - that is for those interested in shutting off the greenback spigot in DC and around the country now in firmly in place since 2010 and that dreadful Citizens United 5-4 USSC decision. This piece originally appeared on Tom Dispatch. 

People often say (mostly those on the right wing side): "We have to take our country back." Which means in common lingo: take it back from current W/H occupant, Mr. Obama, and natch any DEM in office - ergo: we must stop their damage to the country and their zeal to "take away our guns," etc., etc., yada, yada, yap, yap.  Were it true.

Oddly enough, though is those same voices seldom if ever mention the handful of billionaires buying and selling candidates for their own greed and power extension, as if it weren't long and deep enough already. But, I digress.

From the story with this introduction, in part:

Q: How do you respond to a rampaging bull of a billionaire in the political arena?  

A:  In America in 2016, the answer is obvious. You send in not the clowns, but the matador: another billionaire, of course. 

Now, Michael Bloomberg is threatening to enter the race as a third-party candidate. According to the New York Times, he’s considering spending at least $1 billion of his $36 billion (or is it almost $49 billion?) fortune if it looks like Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders (just about the only candidate in the race not backed by billionaires and so an obvious threat to any billionaire around) might truly be nominated for president. 

Of course, if he wanted to, Bloomberg could dump billions into an election run, since he may be worth 11 or more Donald Trumps.  If he could potentially tip the election to the Republicans or, if no one ends up with a majority in the Electoral College, even put it in the House for resolution thus making Speaker Paul Ryan the equivalent of the Supreme Court we saw in Bush v. Gore after the 2000 mess.

From the NY Times this short reminder:

Just 158 families, along with companies they own or control, contributed $176 million in the first phase of the campaign, a New York Times investigation found.

Not since before Watergate have so few people and businesses provided so much early money in a campaign, most of it through channels legalized by the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision five years ago.

Stories continue at the two links. Enjoy and then if you can pitch in try and help reverse this mess — the "how as always" is the imperative.

Thanks for stopping by.