The Hill today succinctly outlines the 2010 Tea Party Paradox—even while Tea Party candidates spout populist rhetoric, the powerful interests backing them have pretty much the opposite of populism in mind. Large corporate donations to groups that don’t have to disclose their donors until long after the election are upending the way elections are run, in ways that are hidden from the view of most voters, writes A.B. Stoddard:
Just as the tradition of journalism was upended by the Internet, crippling brands like the Los Angeles Times or The New York Times as new websites produced and presented the news to larger and larger audiences, the new fundraising landscape — combined with the Tea Party energy that fuels the donations — is dismantling the system in ways most voters won’t understand until long after Election Day.
A new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll finds that the change voters seek over all is a reduction in the influence of special interests. More than any other change — electing outsiders, a GOP takeover of Congress, a repeal of healthcare reform — a 70 percent majority of respondents chose scaling back the power of special interests as their top political priority.
The new rules regarding the funding of campaigns are, of course, tailor-made for the richest and most powerful interests to dominate the debate in campaigns by burying candidates who cannot match the advertisements dollar for dollar.
Wait until the Tea Party finds out.
In our new report, “After Citizens United: A Look into the Pro-Corporate Players in American Politics,” we’ve profiled the history and activities of nine of the power players working behind the scenes to elect pro-corporate Tea Party candidates.