Monday, June 18 , 2018, 8:37 am | Fair 62º


Jim Hightower: Mediocre Candidates and Corporate Cash Storm Iowa

GOP race shows how Supreme Court ruling has mucked up America's democratic process

And away we go!

Not just into a new year, but — zap! — suddenly we find ourselves catapulted en masse into the turbulent Twilight Zone of the 2012 presidential election. On day three of the year, while most of us were still woozy from our New Year’s Eve celebration, Iowa voted. Well ... sort of.

The media’s breathless coverage of Tuesday night’s 1,774 local Republican caucuses in the Hawkeye State offered a mind-boggling blizzard of statistics, but made practically no mention of two telling stats.

First: 5.5 percent. That’s the percentage of Iowa’s eligible voters who ventured out in the cold to pick from the GOP’s rather unappetizing menu of Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich, The Other Rick (Perry) and Michele Bachmann. So the top vote-getters (Romney and Santorum) each got only 25 percent of the paltry turnout of 122,000 Iowans who bothered to show up — fewer people than who live in one block of some big cities.

Second: zero. That’s the number of delegates allocated to the contenders in Tuesday’s Hawkeye hullabaloo. You see, the 25 actual voting delegates Iowa will send to the Republican presidential nominating convention this summer will be chosen in a separate, arcane series of county, district and state meetings. The caucuses are just for show — a glorified straw poll.

But what a show it was! At one time or another in the past year, all six of the active wannabes rose to the top of the heap, only to slip on their own ugly records, lies or slapstick misstatements and then slide back into the muck of negativity and ultra-right-wing goofiness that is the lasting hallmark of this dispiriting Republican group.

In a December radio commentary, I noted that people have coined useful phrases to describe groups of animals — a gaggle of geese, for example, or a pride of lions. But what, I asked listeners, should we call this herd of political critters? The emails poured in, suggesting such juicy phrases as a pandermonium of right-wingers, an egoswarm, a klutz cluster, a cawcaphoeny (with apologies to crows), a giggle of candidates, a flub of Republicans, a pod of nimrods ... and, simply, an embarrassment.

OK, many of you are down on President Barack Obama, and others are just pure-blooded Republicans — but, seriously, having seen these six in action, don’t you have to ask yourself, in the words of the old Peggy Lee song, “Is that all there is?”

In Iowa’s presidential scramble, the biggest players were not the candidates, but an insidious and ever-growing force that voters couldn’t even see: corporate cash.

Welcome to the Brave New Political World created out of thin air by the Supreme Court two years ago. In its now infamous edict in the Citizens United case, the court’s five-man majority of laissez-faire ideologues decreed that unlimited sums of money from corporations and the rich can be funneled into independent electioneering committees, dubbed “superPACs.” These outfits are then free to bombard the airwaves with nonstop ads to elect candidates they support. In the Iowa caucuses, an unprecedented $12.5 million went into the campaigns — two-thirds of that was spent not by candidates, but by the superPACs.

The court theorized that superPACs would operate entirely independently from their favored candidates. What a fantasy! In fact, the candidates themselves have merely dispatched their top staffers and millionaire funders to create and run superPACs on their behalf, so “separation” is a legalistic fraud.

Second, although the SuperPACs operate under benign, nondescript names such as Restore Our Future (Romney’s) and Make Us Great Again (Perry’s), they have become each candidate’s nuclear bombs of negative campaigning, doing the sleazy work of sliming opponents with attacks. In addition, the Supremes also theorized that superPACs would report the names of their donors, but — surprise — most are simply not doing so.

What the court has achieved by hurling the Citizens United monkey wrench into America’s democratic machinery is truly stunning. It has made corporate money supreme in our elections, drastically increased the number and ferocity of negative campaign ads, and dangerously hidden the identity of funders and candidates who are quietly conspiring to buy public office. To help repeal Citizens United, go to

Jim Hightower is a national radio commentator, writer, public speaker and author of Swim Against The Current: Even A Dead Fish Can Go With The Flow. Click here for more information, or click here to contact him.

Support Noozhawk Today

You are an important ally in our mission to deliver clear, objective, high-quality professional news reporting for Santa Barbara, Goleta and the rest of Santa Barbara County. Join the Hawks Club today to help keep Noozhawk soaring.

We offer four membership levels: $5 a month, $10 a month, $25 a month or $1 a week. Payments can be made through PayPal below, or click here for information on recurring credit-card payments.

Thank you for your vital support.

Become a Noozhawk Supporter

First name
Last name
Enter your email
Select your membership level

Payment Information

You are purchasing:

Payment Method

Pay by Credit Card:

Mastercard, Visa, American Express, Discover

Pay with Apple Pay or Google Pay:

Noozhawk partners with Stripe to provide secure invoicing and payments processing.

  • Ask
  • Vote
  • Investigate
  • Answer

Noozhawk Asks: What’s Your Question?

Welcome to Noozhawk Asks, a new feature in which you ask the questions, you help decide what Noozhawk investigates, and you work with us to find the answers.

Here’s how it works: You share your questions with us in the nearby box. In some cases, we may work with you to find the answers. In others, we may ask you to vote on your top choices to help us narrow the scope. And we’ll be regularly asking you for your feedback on a specific issue or topic.

We also expect to work together with the reader who asked the winning questions to find the answer together. Noozhawk’s objective is to come at questions from a place of curiosity and openness, and we believe a transparent collaboration is the key to achieve it.

The results of our investigation will be published here in this Noozhawk Asks section. Once or twice a month, we plan to do a review of what was asked and answered.

Thanks for asking!

Click Here to Get Started >

Reader Comments

Noozhawk is no longer accepting reader comments on our articles. Click here for the announcement. Readers are instead invited to submit letters to the editor by emailing them to [email protected]. Please provide your full name and community, as well as contact information for verification purposes only.

Daily Noozhawk

Subscribe to Noozhawk's A.M. Report, our free e-Bulletin sent out every day at 4:15 a.m. with Noozhawk's top stories, hand-picked by the editors.

Sign Up Now >