A Tsunami of Money

Bill Londrigan (Photo: Berry Craig)

Kentucky State AFL-CIO President Bill Londrigan says most of the media is still mischaracterizing the election day “tsunami.”

“It was a tsunami of money triggered by the Supreme Court ruling that corporations could spend unlimited sums to elect or oppose candidates for public office.”

Londrigan forecasts an even more towering tidal wave of corporate cash in 2012.

“Corporations, mostly hidden behind front group facades like Karl Rove’s American Crossroads and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, tried to create a wave big enough to replace Harry with Mitch. While that wave failed to create enough force for a Republican takeover of the Senate, it did replace Pelosi with man-tan Boehner. The bigger second wave will hit with a vengeance in the presidential election.”

Londrigan said a group of GOP-friendly organizations teamed up to “spend a fortune, secretly provided by corporations, to propagandize the electorate against pro-labor Democratic candidates. They continually attacked Obama-Reid-Pelosi with a barrage of ads designed to mislead and incite voters so that pro-corporate candidates could ‘take the country back’ for corporations and the wealthy – as if they aren’t already in control.”

Londrigan warned that the mid-term elections were “just a warm-up” for the presidential election. “Karl and Mitch are already amassing more and more corporate money to take it all in 2012. Mitch has said publicly that the number one objective of the Republicans is to replace Obama. Mitch is the one who has championed the rights of corporations to spend unlimited sums on behalf of candidates they favor and has equated money with free speech.”

Meanwhile, Londrigan said the flood of corporate cash funneled through these Republican front groups “created so much collective amnesia among the voters that they became convinced it was the Obama administration that was responsible for the deficit, the bailout, unemployment and the economic collapse. These front groups conveniently forgot that their man, George W. Bush, was in control for eight years and that he and his party are ultimately responsible for our nation’s economic collapse. It is amazing what money will buy.”

Berry CraigLondrigan said some of that money helped tea party Republican Rand Paul win a senate seat in the Bluegrass State . The fiercely anti-labor Paul beat labor-endorsed Democrat Jack Conway.

Concluded Londrigan: “With Rand Paul as Jim Bunning’s replacement, we can expect more grandstanding similar to when Bunning showed his callous disregard for America’s hard working men and women and blocked unemployment benefits for millions of Americans just to demagogue the issue of the deficit.”

Berry Craig


  1. John Lloyd Scharf says

    Danged First Amendment! It gives GM the same rights as AFSCME.

    Why can’t the Free Press just be the lapdog of the government instead of its watchdog?

  2. says

    A little encore:

    Ascribing humanity to a corporation, to a company like Exxon or Disney for example, raises too many questions to even list here. But let’s at least attempt to ask a few of them, shall we, boys and girls? Here goes….

    Are corporations really persons?

    Do corporations think?

    Do corporations weep?

    Do corporations fall in love?

    Do corporations grieve when a loved one dies as a result of a lack of adequate health care?

    Do corporations have loved ones?

    Are corporations even capable of loving?

    Do corporations sometimes lose sleep at night worrying about disease, violence, destruction, and the suffering of their fellow human beings?

    Do corporations feel your pain?

    Can a corporation run for public office?

    Is a corporation capable of having a sense of humor? Is it capable of laughing at itself? (EXAMPLE: “So these two corporations walk into a bar….”)

    If a corporation ever committed an unspeakable crime against the American people, could IT be sent to federal prison? (Note the operative word here: “It”)

    Can a corporation register to vote?

    We all know that corporations have made a truck-load of cash throughout our history by profiting on the unspeakable tragedy of war. But has a corporation ever given its life for its country?

    Is a corporation capable of raising a child?

    Does a corporation have a conscience? Does it feel remorse after it has done something really bad?

    Has a corporation ever been killed in an accident as the result of a design flaw in the automobile it was driving?

    Has a corporation ever written a novel or a dramatic play or a song that inspired millions?

    Has a corporation ever risked its life by climbing a ladder to save a child from a burning house?

    Has a corporation ever won an Oscar? Or an Emmy? Or a Tony? Or the Nobel Peace Prize? Or a Polk or Peabody Award? Or the Pulitzer Prize in Biography?

    Has a corporation ever performed Schubert’s Ave Maria?

    Has a corporation ever been shot and killed by someone who was using an illegal and unregistered gun?

    Has a corporation ever paused to reflect upon the simple beauty of an autumn sunset or a brilliant winter moon rising on the horizon?

    If a tree falls in the forest, does it make a noise if there are no corporations there to hear it?

    Should corporations kiss on the first date?

    Could a corporation resolve to dedicate its life to being an artist? Or a musician? Or an opera singer? Or a Catholic priest? Or a rabbi? Or a Doctor? Or a Dentist? Or a sheet metal worker? Or a gourmet chef? Or a short-order cook? Or a magician? Or a nurse? Or a trapeze artist? Or an author? Or an editor? Or a Thrift Shop owner? Or a EMT worker? Or a book binder? Or a Hardware Store clerk? Or a funeral director? Or a sanitation worker? Or an actor? Or a comedian? Or a glass blower? Or a chamber maid? Or a film director? Or a newspaper reporter? Or a deep sea fisherman? Or a farmer? Or a piano tuner? Or a jeweler? Or a janitor? Or a nun? Or a Trappist Monk? Or a poet? Or a pilgrim? Or a bar tender? Or a tar bender? Or a used car salesman? Or a brick layer? Or a mayor? Or a soothsayer? Or a Hall-of-Fame football player? Or a soldier? Or a sailor? Or a butcher? Or a baker? Or a candlestick maker?

    Could a corporation choose to opt out of all the above and merely become a bum? Living life on the road, hopping freight trains and roasting mickeys in the woods?

    I realize that this is pure theological speculation on my part but the question is just screaming to be posed: When corporations die, do they go to Heaven?

    Our lives – yours and mine – have more worth than any goddamned corporation. To say that the Supreme Court made a awful decision last January is an understatement. Not only is it an obscene ruling, it is an insult to our humanity.


    Tom Degan
    Goshen, NY

    • says

      Tom, forbid unions to use members’ money for campaigns, and I will forbid corporations from using their profits to donate to campaigns. Otherwise, all I see are alligator tears.

      ‘Should a union dedicate its life to being an opera singer?’


      The vacuous reasoning and theatrics of liberals!

  3. says

    I’m sorry but even the liberal rag of record, the New York Times, has outed the Democrats as the big spenders:

    “Democrats Retain Edge in Campaign Spending
    Published: October 26, 2010

    Lost in all of the attention paid to the heavy spending by Republican-oriented independent groups in this year’s midterm elections is that Democratic candidates have generally wielded a significant head-to-head financial advantage over their Republican opponents in individual competitive races.

    Even with a recent surge in fund-raising for Republican candidates, Democratic candidates have outraised their opponents over all by more than 30 percent in the 109 House races The New York Times has identified as in play. And Democratic candidates have significantly outspent their Republican counterparts over the last few months in those contests, $119 million to $79 million….”

    Come on my liberal friends! You outspent conservatives…and we beat you anyway!

    Dishonesty characterizes most of communication by liberals, and I believe it has to do with their affirmation of moral relativism, situational ethics that are ‘autonomous’ according to their scriptures, the Humanist Manifestos.

    But everyone, liberal or conservative, should be concered about losing freedoms.

    We have had increasingly totalitarian behavior, laws and public policies from elected and appointed representatives in American government. This means that citizens’ freedoms become limited in various areas. Most thinking people would agree that freedoms – which come from God, according to America’s Declaration of Independence – should not be limited.

    Generally when there is a push for a certain public policy or law, it comes out of some belief system regarding what would be best for humans. Some standard of values is in operation, since no one gets involved and dedicates energy on an issue on the basis that that they proudly do not believe in anything, or that they nobly stand for nothing.

    What is happening in America is a titanic battle between two belief systems which are diametrically opposed to each other.

    One is the old Christian worldview which informed the thinking of our Founders {See Declaration of Independence and Benjamin Franklin’s ‘Sparrow’ speech before the Contintental Congress — http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/benfranklin.htm }, and which still lingers in American society today.

    The other worldview is the Humanist one, which uses public education, universities, ‘news’ media, entertainment media, government offices, public policies to evangelize citizens to repeat the new, Christianity-replacing worship words of ‘Diversity, Choice, World Community, Redistribution, Consenting Adults, Cultural Pluralism’ which did not exist in America’s political and faith dialogue until they were first promulgated in Humanist Manifesto I & II, first in 1933 then revised and expanded in 1973 ( http://www.c4cg.org/humanist.htm ).

    While successfully sanitizing Christianity from schools and public offices, and successfully using ‘news’ media to attack Christianity at every opportunity, the Humanist movement has effectively inserted its beliefs and religious affirmations into just about every area of American life.

    Among liberal, Humanist-indoctrinated, secular progressive folks, there is no apparent tolerance for anything other than this one, ‘reasonable’ way of thinking. Unfortunately, this belief system has proven to be damaging to American society.

    Let us examine some Humanist beliefs: ‘Fair’ and ‘equitable’ redistribution of wealth and resources. This is theft, taking from producers and giving to non-producers, as determined by elitists who believe they are intellectual and ‘enlightened’ and therefore qualified to determine how much of another citizen’s earnings they may take give to some other citizen. Most of us witnessed the fall of the old Soviet empire, precisely because Marx’s principle, ‘From each according to his ability, to each according to his need,’ simply does not work in practice.

    Has the unprecedented buildup of socialistic redistribution programs been helpful, or harmful to America? Has it made any dent in the ‘war on poverty,’ or has it created a permanent, bitter, suspicious victim class and drained resources from individual working families who would have placed their earnings in productive areas?

    Another belief, ‘Diversity.’ This concept involves ethnic bean-counting by government officials, special pleading by special interest groups, divisions and suspicions among Americans who should be friends and neighbors. ‘Honor Diversity!’ is not America’s motto. Our motto is E Pluribus Unum, out of many, One.

    We are to be one culture, not many, and it is obvious that citizens are only allowed to ‘celebrate diversity’ in the secular progressives’ politically correct way, if they do not want to be labeled and attacked as ‘bigots’ and ‘haters.’

    Again, ‘Diversity!’ is a Humanist concept that has divided and brought great harm to our society.

    A last concept: ‘Separation of Church and State.’ While Thomas Jefferson did promise the Danbury Baptists, in a private letter, that they need not fear government oppression, since there was a ‘wall of separation’ keeping government out of the religious beliefs of citizens (Jefferson did not ‘promise’ the Baptists that they would not be allowed to take their beliefs into public life!), and while the ‘separation’ words do appear in the Humanist Manifestos and the old, failed Constitution of the Soviet Union, the words ‘separation of church and state’ do not appear anywhere in America’s Constitution.

    The words in the U.S. Constitution actually forbid government, in both Establishment and Free Exercise clauses, from forcing a particular faith on citizens and from prohibiting the free practice of firmly held beliefs.

    With these Constitutional facts in mind, it should be alarming to citizens to see that the Humanist Manifestos literally call for the “Establishment” of their new faith in “All mankind’s institutions and associations.”

    Imagine if Christians made such a declaration! Oh! The huffing about ‘theocracy’ we would hear!

    Take each of the religious beliefs emanating from the Humanist Manifestos (Remembering that HM III is merely a cya, a take-back that did not rescind or cancel one affirmation or goal of I & II) and examine it, seeing whether it has been harmful or helpful, and it is evident that true-believing Humanist policies in government have been destructive for America.

    There is soon to be a national TV advertising campaign titled ‘Consider Humanism.’ It takes one out-of-context Bible verse and puts it in the darkest meaning possible, then compares the ‘reasonable’ religion of Humanism. This is at least overt, visible evangelism that shows its intolerance for Christianity. But this campaign only comes after many decades of Humanist indoctrination – financed by taxpayers – in our educational institutions and in many other areas of society.

    Comfort me not with the ‘tolerance’ of secular progressives. They are as fanatical as any conservative Bible-thumper, and they are using tax dollars to accomplish their faith-based goals.

    My suggestion is that if you really value Liberty, examine your core beliefs and decide whether they help or harm your cause.

    Ben Franklin – 1787 Constitutional Convention Address

  4. Patricia Digre says

    One effect of the tea party is starting to show up in entertainment. Dancing with the Stars, always a favorite entertainment for a Monday night, has now turned political. Bristol Palin (who is not a star, her mother is)is still on the show. She has consistently gotten the worst ratings by the judges every single time (I have watched them all) but the “viewers” have kept her on the show. Come on, she is a sweet kid, but the votes she is getting in no way reflect her ability. It is scary to see the tea party getting involved in even our entertainment. Shame on her mother for supporting her getting in the spotlight, rather than protecting her from all the scrutiny she will be getting. I for one am boycotting the show, and letting them know about it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *