With One Comment, Newt Gingrich Confirms the Real Goals of the Republican Party

newt-gingrich-1In politics there’s not a lot that liberals and conservatives can agree on.  It’s a problem that only seems to be getting worse as the Republican party slips further and further to their radical right base.  Even in the 90’s, as Republicans spent most of their energy trying to get Bill Clinton kicked out of office, Democrats and Republicans still proved that they could work together to at least get something done.

But there’s one issue that I believe should bring both sides together, because it’s the one issue that’s behind almost all corruption in politics and our government – money.

Unfortunately the Supreme Court doesn’t understand that basic level of logic, as they recently made it even easier for money to corrupt politics by allowing citizens to donate to an unlimited number of candidates (though the amount an individual can donate to each candidate is still capped).

Well, if people like Newt Gingrich have their way, donation limits might be done away with as well.  Not only that, but Gingrich also believes that doing away with all forms of campaign finance law (basically allowing people to donate as much money as they want to whomever they want) would even the playing field between the wealthy and middle class.

“And you would overnight equalize the middle class and the rich,” Gingrich stated.

If you need a minute to compose yourself after busting out into uncontrollable laughter mixed with disgust, I wouldn’t blame you.

To honestly believe that allowing citizens to donate an unlimited amount of money to any politician they want would “equalize” the playing field between the rich and the middle class is ridiculous.

But Gingrich’s comments follow a familiar pattern I’ve seen from several prominent Republicans who’ve applauded this recent ruling by the Supreme Court.  Can they be any more obvious?  Nothing quite like supporting court rulings that continue to inch toward the day when the richest people in this country are given an unlimited amount of power to buy off any politicians that they want.

And that’s honestly what Republicans want.  A system where people like the Koch brothers can give as much money as they want to whatever candidates they want.

Gingrich basically admitted that with his comment.  Because there’s no logical way to believe that you “equalize” the playing field between the middle class and the rich by allowing money to be the determining factor of just how much influence someone has.

Right now a billionaire and a middle class American are limited by the same cap they can give to each candidate.  Remove that and the billionaire will then be able to massively out donate the middle class American.  Which, of course, gives the billionaire an even greater advantage to buy off political candidates than they already have.

Which is exactly what the Republican party wants.  A fact Gingrich basically confirmed with these comments.

Allen Clifton

Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his channel on YouTube as well.

Comments

Facebook comments

  • James

    Stating the obvious ! That is what they call news now ?

  • Artcart

    The day this becomes untenable to the Republicans now cheering on adelson and the Kochs is the day a billionaire seriously outbids them on green energy’s side and succeeds. Same with gerrymandering. Anything grotesque that works in their favor can be contorted by the cons of the SS to suit their reading of the Constitution. Just they do with the Bible, (and the justification of lying us into war) they fixed the intelligence and facts around their policy to screw the American people

  • crabjack

    I suppose Ol’ Newt is right, in a way, about unlimited donations leveling the playing field for the rich and the middle-class, but there is many, many times more people who are in the middle-class than there are millionaires. Those few millionaires having the same voice as the millions of people who are not millionaires gives us a plutocracy, not a democracy. Indeed, that is exactly what they want.

  • Richard Verdejo

    Is there another descriptive term to describe the level of obtuseness of the GOP talking heads even greater than BLINDLY CLUELESS….because it’s becoming really applicable of late.

    • stormkite

      “Malicious,” “sociopathic,” “psychopathic” and “psychotic” would all seem to fit the bill. Or you could go for simply “unmitigated evil” and get there, too. They’re not blind or clueless, this shit’s deliberate and calculated.

  • jWd

    What have the Repubes and teatards done for the average American in the past 5 years??

    • stormkite

      Well, to be fair, they gave us Obama’s second term. They could have nominated someone sane and competent, and might have actually won the 2012 election. Not saying it would be consistent with their actions or philosophy, but 2012 could have gone the other way had someone less than Mittens and Looney been on the ticket. President Obama won in large measure because M&L lost.

      • jWd

        Obama won because there were enough smart people who got out and voted for him instead of that loser Schit Robme

  • Efishant

    here’s the thing guys….all the money spent to defeat Obama failed! They spent gillions and they failed! They’re gonna spend even more to stop Hillary…and they will fail! All the money in the world won’t save a failed message. Relax!

    • Charles Knoll

      You definitely have a point. Let’s all grab a beer, laugh it off, and continue to watch the Republican stand-up routine.

    • Tom Hubert

      wait…..remember W….THATS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU RELAX!!!

    • Eddie Krebbs

      True as a one-time past event. Now, the extreme reich has done an excellent job of firing up its base with fear and hatred. It is an open question if the moderates and left have the fire in their bellies to be sure to even turn out enough in this year’s midterm elections.

      • cole

        I’m Voting

    • Kien Tran

      The danger is not in getting rid of Obama, but in having unfettered influence. Getting enough votes to impeach is a high hurdle. But influencing a well connected politician into writing seemingly innocuous legislation that will make you even richer is a very attainable goal. Project that forward long enough and someone can effectively crown themselves Caesar.

    • cole

      Imagine if they would have spend that on jobs in America, they cry about high taxes but seem to have hundreds of millions on lost presidential Bids, this Mid Term will Surprise them when a lot o people go and vote this time 2010 woke America up to what can happen when they count on you not showing up a small minority of citizens can lock up government for 3 years with nothing done, I predict Obama will get a surprise majority again, he will then pass a jobs bill for the infrastructure those jobs alone will power up to 1 million with spill over jobs, in retail, food, Christmas time imagine a jobs bill at Christmas time the Economy would boom and that will be the Death of the Republican Party.

  • JudgeX X

    Greedy republican sycophantic wealth-worship at an all time high, “news” at 11.

  • thesquire1

    Closer and closer – United States of America Inc !

  • Sandy Greer

    “And you would overnight equalize the middle class and the rich,”

    ^^^The day the middle class INDIVIDUAL has as much to give as the rich – that is the day they will be ‘equal’. Hell, the middle class as a WHOLE doesn’t have as much as the rich. In fact, the entire COUNTRY.

    Google Wealth Inequality in America. A real eye-opener.

    Would that we could – do it overnight. Would that we could include the lower classes, as well.

  • Bobk

    Of course this would level the playing field. You have to understand the mind set. 100 of the richest people would contribute the same as 100 MILLION middle class (if that many are left)”. What could be more level than that. Makes sense to conservatives. They couldn’t understand any other way to look at it.

  • Susan Price

    I think we’re already there.

  • Veritas vos Liberabit

    Triturus vulgaris…

    • Sandy Greer

      I’ll probably screw this up, but:

      Vos fac me ridere!

      ;D

      • Veritas vos Liberabit

        Newt is good for a good ridere. As they say: “Laughter is the best medicine”….And if laughter was covered under the ACA, the Republicans would try to “repeal” it….

  • strayaway

    To add a bit more context to this clause, not sentence, as reported in the Huffington Post: “Gingrich cited the 1976 decision Buckley v. Valeo, which first equated with money with speech and said that to limit certain contributions was tantamount to limiting freedom of expression. Gingrich said that “you’ve gone from that original decision to Citizens United, which said, in effect, that corporations could give and created super PACs. Now you’ve said they’re unlimited.” “The next step is the one Justice Clarence Thomas cited — candidates should be allowed to take unlimited amounts of money from anybody. And you would, overnight, equalize the middle class and the rich.”

    I’m not sure if Gingrich said this because he happy about it or it was a scholarly insights into the history of campaign reform into the background of what was being discussed on this TV program. He has a Ph.D. in history after all.

    • Sandy Greer

      Yep; I heard that. Followed the link, read the story, played the video. It wasn’t clear to me if he was for, or against, the decision. And, I agree, he is brilliant, sometimes, with insight.

      But on this, he is dead wrong. Middle class/rich are NEVER going to be ‘equal’ – until/unless they have an ‘equal’ amount of money to ‘donate’ (bribe/beg favors of) Especially overnight.

      It’s what the fight about Income Inequality is all about: The rich, gaining an ever-increasing share of America’s wealth: Rich get richer; poor get poorer; middle class gets squeezed.

      I also found it distasteful he said candidates should be allowed to ‘take’ unlimited amounts from anybody.

      ^^^I don’t even want to think about the implications of that.

      • strayaway

        Unfortunately, the middle class has been shrink.ing and everyone except for the top 5% have been losing ground over the last few Obama years with whatever campaign finance laws we do have. I once has a conversation with my past Democratic State Senator. He was convinced that because money is so fluid, campaign finance laws would not work very well. There is always another way to go around them.

      • Sandy Greer

        Ooh. Is that an insinuation – ‘the Obama years’? This, from Wikipedia (Wealth Inequality in the US)

        >In 2007, the top 10% wealthiest possessed 80% of all financial assets.[11] In 2007 the richest 1% of the American population owned 34.6% of the country’s total wealth, and the next 19% owned 50.5%. Thus, the top 20% of Americans owned 85% of the country’s wealth and the bottom 80% of the population owned 15%. In 2011, financial inequality was greater than inequality in total wealth, with the top 1% of the population owning 42.7%, the next 19% of Americans owning 50.3%, and the bottom 80% owning 7%.[12] However, after the Great Recession which started in 2007, the share of total wealth owned by the top 1% of the population grew from 34.6% to 37.1%, and that owned by the top 20% of Americans grew from 85% to 87.7%. The Great Recession also caused a drop of 36.1% in median household wealth but a drop of only 11.1% for the top 1%, further widening the gap between the top 1% and the bottom 99%.[10][12][13]

        Here is what we know: The only ones who think Income Inequality should even be an ‘issue’ are Lefties. The Right tries to ‘reframe’ the argument (names it Income Redistribution)

        ^^^Yep; it’s Income Redistribution they cry over. Not the poor. The Right worries it’s their last dime Lefties are after.

        Have you seen the 6min video: Wealth Inequality in America? I’m no commie/socialist, but I gotta tell ya:

        It’s unsettling – to say the least.

      • strayaway

        “The wealthy took home a greater share of the nation’s income during the years following the recession, under Obama, than between 2002 and 2007, under Bush, according to a 2012 analysis from Emmanuel Saez, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley.”

        “The difference between America’s median and average wages grew at a rate of 0.28 percent under President Bush, while it’s grown at a rate of 1.14 percent — or about four times that — under Obama, according to The New York Times.” -Huffington Post

        Also, “Sentier Research for February 2014 shows the median household income was $53,093, which is 5 percent lower than the median income of $55,911 in December 2007.”

        Still, the most recent annual numbers from the U.S. Census Bureau, which are from 2012, were available. They suggest median incomes are down 4.9 percent since 2008.”

        With respect to the 1% Bush was bad. Obama has been worse. My solution is to create a demand for US workers by stop sending our jobs overseas and stop bringing in low paid foreign workers to compete for jobs still here.

      • Sandy Greer

        I don’t question your figures. I found the HuffPo article, and the Sentier. Take your word for what Census said.

        I question the insinuation (if it was one) it’s Obama’s fault. Here (Wikipedia, above)

        >Great Recession also caused a drop of 36.1% in median household wealth but a drop of only 11.1% for the top 1%,

        ^^^Upper class lost a smaller PORTION (%) than did Middle. It takes money to make money. I know I lost 40% that year. Now, I’ve made mine back (and then some) – but I had enough I could afford a loss like that. And I’m not rich, just comfortable.

        That money is lost to investment. Some, with less assets (none to invest) have never recovered. The wealthy? A drop in the bucket; no ‘pinch’ felt; no change in lifestyle.

        Your solution sounds good: Infrastructure is in dire need; mfg could be increased; tariffs imposed on ‘foreign’ goods (don’t even get me started on TPP) Tax incentives should be reserved for business creating work HERE; it shouldn’t ‘pay’ to send jobs overseas.

        But I think something needs to be done about Capital Gains – even knowing it would directly affect me.

        The disparity is simply too great to stomach for long.

      • strayaway

        I think that’s a fair point about the recession although the so called recovery has also favored the 1%. I’m onboard with tariffs. They would negatively affect the 1% and should help US workers. The income tax managed to transfer the tax burden from importers to the middle class. Today, most of the tax burden is supplied by the shrinking middle class. By removing this burden from the backs of the middle class and transferring it to import corporations, the owners of import profits would take a hit. I’m ok with that.

      • Sandy Greer

        Looks like you’ve got a little ‘mellow’ in you, too, strayaway. 😉

      • Sue Roediger

        it’s not like any president can control the many factors that go into income inequality

      • strayaway

        That’s true but when Congress and the President support policies that encourage businesses to send jobs abroad, it’s hardly a surprise.

      • Dave Williams

        That’s the same as saying “more people lost jobs under Obama than any other…” blah, blah, blah. Obama was handed the worst economy of ANY president since Roosevelt. When he came into office EVERYTHING was hemorrhaging. It took the better part of the first year to just STOP losing jobs.

        The middle class lost ALLOT of footing during the recession and the Republicans have not given him one inch of help.

        Having said all that, I don’t think that Obama is as Progressive a president as we need. His pick of Timothy Geitner should have shown us all that. Fact is, he is better than McCain would have been, and orders of magnitude better than Romney. Unfortunately we need someone like an Elizabeth Warren who actually stands up for the middle class.

      • strayaway

        While i like much of Elizabeth Warren’s rhetoric, I have to note that her idea of consumer reform was to locate the Consumer Protection Bureau in the Federal Reserve. Since the Consumer Protection Bureau is supposed to regulate banks and the Federal Reserve is run by the biggest banks, it’s difficult to imagine that the Consumer Protection Bureau is going to be very effective regulating banks. The Consumer Protection Bureau, as part of the Federal Reserve, can’t even be regulated by Congress. I didn’t vote for McCain, Obama, or Romney although McCain seemed the worst of the lot.

      • buricco

        And this is why we need someone better than Killary running for pres on the Dem ticket.

  • miketothad

    NEVER underestimate the stupidity of the Republican voter.

    • Dave Williams

      Or the complacency of a Democrat. Unless Democrats get off their butts and vote in these midterms, we will have an even worse Congress

      than we have now. Can anyone even imagine that?

    • Gary Menten

      The Republican voter never ceases to amaze me. Whenever I think they couldn’t possibly get any stupider, they do exactly that as if they are trying to prove a point with me.

  • Eddie Krebbs

    A logical extension of Newt’s Contract on America back in the 1990s. Not to mention that Newt also was largely responsible for the Conservative Lexicon which is foundational to the extreme vitriolic rancor of modern politics.

  • What he means is that he wants to equalize the power of middle-class VOTES with that of upper-class MONEY. The rich as well as the GOP simply don’t think it is fair that the vote of someone making $20,000/yr is equal in power to the vote of someone making $20,000,000/yr. They want to equalize the numbers of the “middle-class” (read: 98%) apparently believing that the electoral power of the 2% and the 90% should be equal 50-50. Just remember these are the same people who constantly call out others for having a “sense of entitlement.”

  • janieliza

    For all of you who think that one man one vote means one class one vote, go stand with Newt and scream for the wonderful gift you were just given by SCOTUS, but recognize that this only infuses the rest of us with the idea that we must vote our hearts and our well-being against such gross sedition, removing as many teapublicans as we can until we get a majority that can and WILL remove any doubt about what the Constitution means when it starts, “We, the people…”… and that we mean what we were born to… one man, one vote and corporations are not the persons mention in the first ten items in the bill of rights.

  • Gary Menten

    Newt says whatever stupid thing enters his head, and apparently, there isn’t much there that stops stupid things from entering his head. The GOP base however, is even stupider than he is and aren’t likely to notice.

  • stormkite

    The law, in its infinite wisdom and equality, bans both the rich and the poor from stealing bread or sleeping in the streets.

  • real_world_truth

    What ‘middle class’? Oh you mean the one that now ranks as poor, thanks to an economy tanked by the 1% driven greed of Wall Street? The middle class that has lost jobs and homes only to see their tax dollars bail out same said ‘too big to fail’ businesses? That ‘middle class’, Newt? Man, when did you decide to go into stand up comedy as a sideline? Too bad the jokes on us, huh?

  • Dan Dorfman

    What orwellian newspeak bullshit is this? He must be operating under some hitherto unknown definition of “equal”, because where I come from “equal” means “same or similar”, not “one can brutally fuck the other up the ass”.

  • MrLightRail

    Newt thinks equality is like in “Animal Farm”..All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.’