opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
David Sirota
David Sirota
25 Sep 2015
Should Companies Have to Pay Taxes?

Reading companies' annual reports to the Securities and Exchange Commission is a reliable cure for insomnia. … Read More.

18 Sep 2015
A Fight Over One of America's Most Important Waterways

Environmental groups and Democratic legislators are pressuring New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo to say that General … Read More.

11 Sep 2015
Prosecution of White Collar Crime Hits 20-Year Low

Just a few years after the financial crisis, a new report tells an important story: Federal prosecution of white-… Read More.

Two Old Names, One Lesson About Money


The two names that best explain money's unprecedented political influence in America are not Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, but Montgomery Brewster and Ross Perot. The former duo, who will each raise nearly $1 billion for their presidential campaigns, are mere symbols of the problem. The latter, by contrast, tell us how huge the problem now is and how quickly it has grown.

Let's start with Brewster, the fictional character played by Richard Pryor in 1985's satirical film "Brewster's Millions." An adaptation of a Gilded Age book of the same name, the movie is about Brewster accepting a relative's challenge to try to spend $30 million in 30 days without accruing any assets. This feat is portrayed as hilariously difficult, even with the protagonist figuring out that he can waste lots of money by running a "vote none of the above" campaign.

Today, Montgomery Brewster is more than just a fixture of cable's vast wasteland of '80s reruns. When he periodically appears on our televisions, he proves how crazy this era's politics have become. Whereas spending $30 million in 1985 — or about $64 million current dollars — in a month was once considered impossible and thus a narrative for Hollywood humor, the two real-life presidential candidates will each spend roughly three times that amount in the last 30 days of the ultra-serious 2012 election. Put another way, if Montgomery Brewster were today a presidential candidate, his $64 million would still be a comedic punch line. Only the laugh wouldn't be about his profligacy, it would be about how poorly financed a candidate he is.

Then there is Perot, the businessman who, in 1992, mounted one of history's most electorally successful independent presidential candidacies. During his campaign, he spent $63 million. For that, he has been routinely ridiculed as a poster boy of excess. But, then, Perot spent the inflation-adjusted equivalent of roughly $100 million in today's dollars — or a little more than half of what Obama and Romney each raised in just the last month.

Like Brewster, if Perot ran for president today on that budget, he'd be lambasted by pundits and politicos not for spending too much but for spending too little.

The breathtaking speed of this political transformation reflects the larger one-percent-ization of our economy. Since the heyday of Brewster and Perot, the rich got so much richer than the rest of us, and they are therefore better positioned to dominate politics with their checkbooks. Indeed, as campaign finance records show, this year's stunning influx of cash isn't coming primarily from small donors interested in democratic engagement — it is coming from the fat cats.

These are donors — or, better yet, sponsors — who don't altruistically give money but who instead shrewdly invest it, in this case in candidates from whom they expect a return. And whether that return comes in the form of pre-election speeches promoting special-interest policies or post-election bills that provide windfalls to politically connected industries, the corrupt campaign finance system forcing candidates to rely on these sponsors means the investments almost always pay off.

This influence-buying explains why, for all the attempts to stress supposed differences, the two presidential candidates essentially agree on the major economic issues their Big Money financiers care about, from Social Security cuts (for them) to free trade deals (more of them) to regulations (less of them) to corporate tax rates (lower them). As much as voters might want a choice on these issues, there is none to be had. It is a painful reminder that until we start financing campaigns with public money unattached to private interests, us non-fat-cats will never have such a choice — no matter how much the election-year agitprop pretends otherwise.

David Sirota is a best-selling author of the book "Back to Our Future: How the 1980s Explain the World We Live In Now." He co-hosts "The Rundown" on AM630 KHOW in Colorado. Email him at, follow him on Twitter @davidsirota or visit his website at



2 Comments | Post Comment
David you are right on the money again, but what do you think we can do about this issue? Its a tough one to solve and even if we did have a great solution, the pushback to that solution would be nearly insurmountable. Those who are in power will fight tooth and nail to keep it. I want to stay optomistic, but this is tough issue to keep positive on.
Comment: #1
Posted by: Chris McCoy
Thu Oct 18, 2012 11:48 AM
The greed of the richest 1% seems to be insatiable, and with the way our current system is set up there is a constant feedback loop; the wealth disparity increases as the rich keep getting richer because only they can afford to buy the politicians who keep giving them more tax breaks as payback for financing their campaigns which increases the wealth disparity and gives the rich more money to dump into our elections so they can buy more politicians so they can get more tax cuts and other economic favors... it seems it will never end.

The only hope, as small as it is, is to amend our constitution ("MoveToAmend") to explicitly state that corporations are not entitled to the same rights as flesh-and-blood humans, including this nonsense about corporate money being the same thing as an individual right to free speech. Once the rich are stopped from unfairly dominating our political speech, perhaps we can actually get some laws passed that help the bottom 99% of Americans instead of the top 1%, something like the campaign finance reform David mentions.

It would also be nice to break the 2 party strangle-hold on our elections and move to an instant-runoff system of elections where there are no spoilers and people can really feel free to vote for who they like best without fear of throwing away their votes or giving the election to someone they don't want to win. But that is just a crazy dream at this point.
Comment: #2
Posted by: A Smith
Fri Oct 19, 2012 12:40 PM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right: comments policy
David Sirota
Sep. `15
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
30 31 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 1 2 3
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Marc Dion
Marc DionUpdated 8 Feb 2016
Newspaper ContributorsUpdated 8 Feb 2016
Deb Saunders
Debra J. SaundersUpdated 7 Feb 2016

23 Jan 2014 The Economic Case for Paid Leave Laws

28 May 2010 The Michael Jordan of Bailouts

7 Aug 2007 Find Your True Center