Salon.com author David Sirota shares a fact-packed criticism of the New York Time’s support of Cory Booker on the grounds that Cory’s ties with Big Money is a political asset. Sirota laments the trend in Big Media to look upon as positive, politician’s betrayal of their local constituent communities interests in favor of outside investors and developers.
Yes, despite every member of the upper house raising huge amounts of campaign money primarily from the American aristocracy, and despite the fact that legalized bribery results in votes that consistently defend the aristocracy’s economic interests at the expense of everyone else — the (New York Times) editorial board implored voters to see Senate candidates’ all-too-close relationship with America’s uber-rich not as something suspicious or repugnant, but as something commendable and worthy of reward … you might expect an allegedly liberal editorial board in this Citizens United era to issue a scathing editorial denouncing Booker and endorsing one of his opponents with a more virtuous record. The fact that the opposite happened this weekend at one of the world’s largest newspapers exposes a taboo truth: namely, that regardless of stated ideology on hot-button issues, the establishment press across the ideological spectrum almost universally accepts and/or lauds — rather than questions — the corrosive influence of money in politics.
…voters are not supposed to see politicians’ loyalty to corporations and the wealthy as the root of so many of the nation’s problems. Instead, we are supposed to see a politician’s unity with the “moneyed class” as an altogether desirable “asset” — no matter how much that so-called “asset” harms the country.
Sirota also questions the ethics of Booker cashing in on his position to line his pockets.
Booker has personally pocketed massive speaking fees from corporations and interest groups while simultaneously holding a full-time public office.