For four decades, the basic deal between big American corporations and politicians has been simple. Corporations provide campaign funds. Politicians reciprocate by lowering corporate taxes and doing whatever else corporations need to boost profits.

The deal has proven beneficial to both sides, although not to the American public. Campaign spending has soared while corporate taxes have shriveled.

In the 1950s, corporations accounted for about 40 percent of federal revenue. Today, they contribute a meager 7 percent. Last year, more than 50 of the largest U.S. companies paid no federal income taxes at all. Many haven’t paid taxes for years.

Both parties have been in on this deal although the GOP has been the bigger player. Yet since Donald Trump issued his big lie about the fraudulence of the 2020 election, corporate America has had a few qualms about its deal with the GOP.  

After the storming of the Capitol, dozens of giant corporations said they would no longer donate to the 147 Republican members of Congress who objected to the certification of Biden electors on the basis of the big lie.

Then came the GOP’s recent wave of restrictive state voting laws, premised on the same big lie. Georgia’s are among the most egregious. The chief executive of Coca Cola, headquartered in the peach tree state, calls those laws “wrong” and “a step backward.” The CEO of Delta Airlines, Georgia’s largest employer, says they’re “unacceptable.” Major League Baseball decided to relocate its annual All-Star Game away from the home of the Atlanta Braves.

These criticisms have unleashed a rare firestorm of anti-corporate Republican indignation. The senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell, warns corporations of unspecified “serious consequences” for speaking out. Republicans are moving to revoke Major League Baseball’s antitrust status. Georgia Republicans threaten to punish Delta Airlines by repealing a state tax credit for jet fuel.

“Why are we still listening to these woke corporate hypocrites on taxes, regulations & antitrust?” asks Florida Senator Marco Rubio.

Why? For the same reason Willy Sutton gave when asked why he robbed banks: That’s where the money is.

McConnell told reporters that corporations should “stay out of politics” but then qualified his remark: “I’m not talking about political contributions.” Of course not. Republicans have long championed “corporate speech” when it comes in the form of campaign cash –  just not as criticism.  

Talk about hypocrisy. McConnell was the top recipient of corporate money in the 2020 election cycle and has a long history of battling attempts to limit it. In 2010, he hailed the Supreme Court’s “Citizens United” ruling, which struck down limits on corporate political donations, on the dubious grounds that corporations are “people” under the First Amendment to the Constitution.

“For too long, some in this country have been deprived of full participation in the political process,” McConnell said at the time. Hint: He wasn’t referring to poor Black people.  

It’s hypocrisy squared. The growing tsunami of corporate campaign money suppresses votes indirectly by drowning out all other voices. Republicans are in the grotesque position of calling on corporations to continue bribing politicians as long as they don’t criticize Republicans for suppressing votes directly.

The hypocrisy flows in the other direction as well. The Delta’s CEO criticized GOP voter suppression but the company continues to bankroll Republicans. Its PAC contributed $1,725,956 in the 2020 election, more than $1 million of which went to federal candidates, mostly to Republicans. Oh, and Delta hasn’t paid federal taxes for years.

Don’t let the spat fool you. The basic deal between the GOP and corporate America is still very much alive.

Which is why, despite record-low corporate taxes, congressional Republicans are feigning outrage at Joe Biden’s plan to have corporations pay for his $2 trillion infrastructure proposal. Biden isn’t even seeking to raise the corporate tax rate as high as it was before the Trump tax cut, yet not a single Republicans will support it.

A few Democrats, such as West Virginia’s Joe Manchin, don’t want to raise corporate taxes as high as Biden does, either. Yet almost two-thirds of Americans support the idea.

The basic deal between American corporations and American politicians has been a terrible deal for America. Which is why a piece of legislation entitled the “For the People Act,” passed by the House and co-sponsored in the Senate by every Democratic senator except Manchin, is so important. It would both stop states from suppressing votes and also move the country toward public financing of elections, thereby reducing politicians’ dependence on corporate cash.

Corporations can and should bankroll much of what America needs. But they won’t as long as corporations keep bankrolling American politicians.

10 Reasons Marco Rubio is no Moderate

Marco Rubio is being positioned as a moderate alternative to Ted Cruz or Donald Trump.  Baloney.  His positions are extreme right.  Consider these 10 facts about Rubio:  

1. Rubio wants to repeal Obama’s executive order to expand background checks and close gun sale loopholes.

2. When asked about closing down mosques, Rubio said he wants to shutdown “any place radicals are inspired.”  

3. He denies humans are responsible for climate change.

4. His tax plan gives the top 1 percent over $200,000 in tax cuts every year. That’s as bad as Donald Trump’s tax plan.

5. He wants to cut $4.3 trillion in spending, including funds from Medicare and other programs, essentially freeze federal spending at 2008 levels for everything except the Pentagon.  

6. He wants a permanent U.S. presence in Iraq, and would end the nuclear deal with Iran, putting us on a path to war.

7. We have no way to know where he is on immigration because he’s flip-flopped — first working on legislation to regularize citizenship for undocumented immigrants, and now firmly anti-legalization.

8. He wants to repeal Obamacare.  

9. He’s against a woman’s right to choose, even in cases of rape and incest.

10. Although elected to the Senate as a Tea Party favorite, he’s now the establishment’s favorite Republican. Among his donors are hedge-fund billionaire Paul Singer and the executives and PACs of Goldman Sachs, Wells Fargo, and Koch Industries.

Washington has been rocked by the scandal of J. Dennis Hastert, the longest-serving Republican speaker in the history of the U.S. House, indicted on charges of violating banking laws by paying $1.7 million (as part of a $3.5 million agreement) to conceal prior misconduct, allegedly child molestation.

That scandal contains another one that’s received less attention: the fact that Hastert, who never made much money as a teacher or a congressman, could manage such payments because after retiring from Congress he became a high-paid lobbyist.

This second scandal is perfectly legal but it’s a growing menace.

In the 1970s, only 3 percent of retiring members of Congress went on to become Washington lobbyists. Now, half of all retiring senators and 42 percent of retiring representatives become lobbyists.

This isn’t because more recent retirees have had fewer qualms. It’s because the financial rewards from lobbying have mushroomed, as big corporations and giant Wall Street banks have sunk fortunes into rigging the game to their advantage.

In every election cycle since 2008, more money has gone into lobbying at the federal level than into political campaigns. And an increasing portion of that lobbying money has gone into the pockets of former members of Congress.

In viewing campaign contributions as the major source of corruption we overlook the more insidious flow of direct, personal payments – much of which might be called “anticipatory bribery” because they enable office holders to cash in big after they’ve left office.

For years, former Republican House majority leader Eric Cantor was one of Wall Street’s strongest advocates – fighting for the bailout of the Street, to retain the Street’s tax advantages and subsidies, and to water down the Dodd-Frank financial reform legislation.

Just two weeks after resigning from the House, Cantor joined the Wall Street investment bank of Moelis & Co., as vice chairman and managing director, starting with a $400,000 base salary, $400,000 initial cash bonus, and $1 million in stock.

As Cantor explained, “I have known Ken [the bank’s CEO] for some time and … followed the growth and success of his firm.” 

Exactly. They had been doing business together so long that Cantor must have anticipated the bribe.

Anticipatory bribery undermines trust in government almost as much as direct bribery. At a minimum, it can create the appearance of corruption, and raise questions in the public’s mind about the motives of public officials.

Was the Obama White House so easy on big Wall Street banks – never putting tough conditions on them for getting bailout money or prosecuting a single top Wall Street executive – because Tim Geithner, Barack Obama’s treasury secretary, and Peter Orszag, his director of the Office of Management and Budget, anticipated lucrative jobs on the Street? (Geithner became president of the private-equity firm Warburg Pincus when he left the administration; Orszag became Citigroup’s vice chairman for global banking.)

Another form of anticipatory bribery occurs when the payment comes in anticipation of a person holding office, and then delivering the favors.  

According to the New York Times, as Marco Rubio ascended the ranks of Republican politics, billionaire Norman Braman not only bankrolled his campaigns but subsidized Rubio’s personal finances.

A case of anticipatory bribery? Certainly looks like it. In the Florida legislature, Rubio steered taxpayer funds to Braman’s favored causes, including an $80 million state grant to finance a genomics center at a private university and $5 million for cancer research at a Miami institute. “When Norman Braman brings [a proposal] to you,” Rubio said, “you take it seriously.”

Hillary and Bill Clinton have made more than $25 million for 104 speeches since the start of last year, according to disclosure forms filed with the Federal Election Commission in mid May – of which she delivered 51, earning more than $11 million of the total.  

Now that she’s running for president, she’s stopped giving paid speeches. But her husband says he intends to continue. “I gotta pay our bills,” he told NBC News.

Anticipatory bribery? Asked about his paid speeches, some of which pay $500,000 or more, Bill Clinton said, “People like to hear me speak.”

That may be the reason for the hefty fees, but is it possible that some portion comes in anticipation his having the intimate ear of the next president? 

We need some rules here. 

First, former government officials, including members of Congress, shouldn’t be able to lobby or take jobs in industries over which they had some oversight, for at least three years after leaving office.

Second, anyone who runs for office should bear the burden of showing that whatever personal payments they received up to three years before were based on their economic worth, not anticipated political clout.

Finally, once they declare, even their spouses should desist from collecting big bucks that could look like anticipatory bribes.