Wealthy people are contributing to both major candidates, demonstrating they are really buying protection because government is dangerous.
The Washington Post reports, “Hedging bets in 2016: Some donors give to Bush and Clinton.”
John Catsimatidis, a Manhattan grocery chain owner, gave as much money as allowed to Hillary Rodham Clinton’s Democratic primary campaign. Two months later, he gave the same amount, $2,700, to Jeb Bush, her would-be Republican challenger.
“I’ve been friends with both of their families for many, many years,” he said. “They both love America, and I’d be happy if either of them won.”
The billionaire is one of at least 60 donors hedging their bets heading into 2016 by giving to presidential campaigns of both parties, an Associated Press review of federal campaign finance records found. While those contributions totaled only about $300,000, they are an odd wrinkle of presidential politics in a race expected to see 22 candidates vying for billions of dollars in contributions.
Even more people — at least 350 — gave to multiple candidates within the same party, the data show, reflecting a sense of uncertainty among the donor class eying a crowded Republican primary with no clear front-runner but an array of strong candidates, governors, senators and business leaders among them.
Let’s be honest about what this means. “Hedging one’s bets” is a metaphor for paying protection money to the government.
This is how it works: If you are a person of wealth who owns a great deal of property, you know you can be targeted at any time. Also, if you can bribe the right people you can be given special favors at the expense of taxpayers or of other businesses. That’s also why you can become a target since other businessmen might want to use government to cut you out.
So when two people are running for office, and you don’t know who is going to win, you throw money at both of them so that neither of them have a reason to hurt you when one of them wins office.
It is like what mobster Meyer Lansky did in Havana while Castro was trying to overthrow the government. Lansky gave money to both the government and the communists so that his casinos would remain open no matter who won. Castro won but he closed Lansky’s casinos anyway.
These rich business owners want to keep both sides happy with them. They don’t want to be damaged or destroyed and they know that whoever holds office will have the power to do either of those things.
So both these candidates are basically blackmailing rich Americans. Simply by virtue of running for office they are becoming a threat to anyone else. Billionaires know this and pay for protection. The rest of us try to imagine that these politicians are our friends and just want to help us.
Who do you think has a more realistic view of politicians?