by William Skink
We know money corrupts politics. Studies have shown (PDF) that money impacts policy, public opinion be damned. It is obvious, when one looks at the data, that Congress literally doesn’t care what we think about the policies that affect our lives.
A column from Dan Brooks called out Jon Tester’s corruption recently, and if Tester was a Republican you’d be hearing about this on the liberal blogs. But Tester is a Democrat, so it’s kinda awkward when evidence of his corruption pops up. From the link:
Tester voted for Dodd-Frank when it passed in 2010. The version of the bill for which he voted contained a provision that allowed the federal government to require financial advisors to prioritize their customers’ financial success ahead of their own—to sell the investment that fits the client, not the one that yields the biggest fee. Now that Labor is ready to implement that rule, however, Tester is against it.
He has also raised about $3 million in campaign contributions from the financial services industry over the course of his career. In what I can only describe as an exciting coincidence, $2.3 million of those contributions arrived in 2015. By staunchly opposing the fiduciary rule, Tester appears to have served his own financial interests at the expense of those of his clients, the voters of Montana.
People in this country know money corrupts politics. That is part of the appeal of Donald Trump; he is rich, therefore not beholden to the funders that are required to go anywhere in American politics.
Democrats in Montana should be more sensitive to this. Greg Gianforte is going to get some serious looks from Montanans because his wealth from his success in the private sector will make him appear less beholden to the corrupting influence of money. Tester and Bullock chose to be corporate money beggars for the Democrat cash machine. Will that harm them during their respective reelection campaigns?