
How ‘ghost corporations’ are funding the 2016 election - ShaneBonich
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-ghost-corporations-are-funding-the-2016-election/2016/03/18/2446e526-ed14-11e5-a6f3-21ccdbc5f74e_story.html
======
matt_wulfeck
I must say that I am not a fan of anyone still running for president, but it
has been extremely satisfying to see how many millions of dollars are being
thrashed across the rocks by Donald Trumps rise in the Republican Party.
Everyone that's dropped out represents millions and millions in wasted
donation dollars.

I once heard a trump supporter interviewed say "good or bad were using trump
to destroy the established Republican Party". it looks like it's working quite
nicely to me. Let's get another one for the other side of the political aisle.

~~~
hga
Classic expression of that is
[https://twitter.com/empireofjeff/status/632271934907138048](https://twitter.com/empireofjeff/status/632271934907138048)

Dick Brisket ‏@EmpireOfJeff

 _You "conservative" "pundits" still don't get it: Trump isn't our candidate.
He's our murder weapon. And the GOP is our victim.

We good, now?_

He's also a body blow to the Republican consultant class which for many years
has been paid handsomely for less than stellar results, this election's prime
example being Mike "Set all our donor money on fire." Murphy
([http://hotair.com/archives/2016/01/07/the-saddest-
political-...](http://hotair.com/archives/2016/01/07/the-saddest-political-ad-
ever/)), who showed a $100+ million warchest is _nothing_ without voters.

On the other side, Sanders isn't what you'd call a Democratic Party
establishment type, seeing as how he joined the party only a few months ago
(was an independent who caucused with the Democrats for decades), and
nonetheless gave Hillary fits despite how even more thoroughly the nomination
was wired for her than _¡Jeb!_.

But that whole situation isn't hardly as existential for the party's
establishment as the Republican one is, where Trump is showing that the "rules
of the game" aren't what the whole US political establishment has been
insisting, and we don't expect "business as usual" to follow, whatever the
specific outcomes of this election.

~~~
curiouscats
I do expect the same "'business as usual' to follow, whatever the specific
outcomes of this election."

It is very hard to imagine the legislative process would change much even if
Trump is the president. Probably he would be muss less beholden to the typical
political power brokers (mainly bought lobbyists for all sorts of interests).

But for any legislation I would expect things to be very much the same.

He would likely use the executive branch much more aggressively than even
Nixon or Bush and Obama in the ongoing spying nation state efforts they both
aggressively promoted.

In a Trump administration we would be likely be even more reliant on
government employees standing up to unlawful orders but given the recent
history with spying and all the very questionable government actions
undermining constitutional protections, current (access to spying apparatus
for personal gain, prurient interests etc.) and past abuses of police power
(Hoover etc.), past history with Nixon, past history with McCarthy, etc. that
is a very dangerous hope to rely on. But it also is more a matter of degree
given that all the examples given are under the traditional/establishment
Democrat and Republican party rule in the last 60 years.

~~~
hga
_It is very hard to imagine the legislative process would change much even if
Trump is the president_

I don't find it hard to imagine at all; for example:

Trump to the American public in 2018: "Please elect this slate of high energy
candidates and turn out of office these traitors to the American people."

With of course his preceding dealings with the Congress based upon such
threats; what are they and the rest of the establishment going to do, call him
Hitler again?

Do you remember how Reagan managed to get his programs passed by a House lead
by a Communist sympathizer who said he was "the most ignorant man who had ever
occupied the White House", "Herbert Hoover with a smile", and "a cheerleader
for selfishness," and who's "policies meant that his presidency was 'one big
Christmas party for the rich.'" (All quotes from Wikipedia's article on Tip
O'Neil, and there's worse out there.)

The rest of your posting is on issues of importance but that don't even hit
the top 5, probably top 10 of what the people who are supporting Trump care
about ... especially if the government is "fundamentally transformed" in to
one that isn't trying to destroy them.

As for those government employees you base some hopes on, anyone who genuinely
wants to change things will abolish the current "civil 'servant'" system and
return us to an updated spoils system where they're actually held accountable
for their actions. Given how many Baby Boomers in it are retiring right now,
it wouldn't even be all that messy.

Now, I'm not saying this is what Trump will do, but it's just the barest of
what he _could_ do if he's not accepting "business as usual" with its
inevitable fatal end for the country.

And while we're talking about the branches of the Federal government, clipping
the judiciary's wings with the end of the last sentence of paragraph 2 of
section 2 of article III shows our Founders had a clue about its dangers.

