Written by Diptesh Soni | 07 February 2012
Posted in Comment - US Elections

 Newt Gingrich. Photography: Gage Skidmore

Sheldon Adelson has the appearance of a near comical villain. His jowls sag, his hair is sparse and combed over, he twists his crumpled face in to a treacherous smile as he hunches over a cane and hobbles from here to there. He is like the shameful lovechild of Jabba the Hut and The Penguin.

Yet despite his appearance, his political activity is - amazingly - completely legal.

By donating $5 million to the Gingrich-affiliated SuperPAC Winning our Future Sheldon Adelson won Gingrich the South Carolina primary by a comfortable 12.4% and single-handedly saved his Presidential campaign from drowning. A few days later, Adelson’s wife gave Winning Our Future another $5 million to buy up ad slots in the hope of winning Florida.

That proved unsuccessful - Romney beat Gingrich in FL by 14% - but the flood and ease of these new expenditures in to the American political market is indicative of how our post-Citizens United world will work. It will be a world were the ultra-rich, such as Adelson, will be able to individually control elections, twist candidates, and secure their interests through hard cash contributions.

Adelson was born of Ukrainian Jewish immigrants in Dorchester, Massachusetts. He worked as a mortgage broker, investment advisor, financial consultant and a college dropout before making a fantastic fortune from casinos. His casino conglomerate, Las Vegas Sands, helped him become Forbes’ 3^rd richest man in 2007, right before his stock price dropped from around $140 to $1.77 in a year and a half. (His tremendous success in the Asian market, specifically Macau, has allowed him to recover substantially, and his current net worth is estimated at $21.5 billion.)

But for the moment, there are two main facts we need to know about Adelson: The first is that he’s filthy rich. I mean filthy. If his assets were all cash there’s no telling how much titty residue and cocaine would be on those bills. Vegas aint clean.

The second is that he’s Jewish.

The vociferous promotion and security of the state of Israel has been a fundamental priority throughout Mr. Adelson’s life, and with the use of his vast personal wealth he has pursued this in many ways.

In ’07, Adelson started the conservative, pro-Likud newspaper Israel HaYom. It has subsequently squeezed out competitors and is now arguably the most widely read daily in Israel. He is also a major donor for Taglit Birthright - the Jewish Israeli charity that sends Jews from around the globe on free 10-day heritage trips to “strengthen participants' personal Jewish identity and connection to Jewish history and culture.” Between 2007 and 2008 Adelson gave $70 million to Birthright before having to scale down donations due to his loss of wealth. His leans so far right that he withdrew support from AIPAC (the American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee) when they suggested supporting a two-state solution.

Most indicative of Adelson’s vast influence on foreign policy is his work with Freedom’s Watch, the Adelson-founded neoconservative lobbying group with close ties to the Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC) and the Bush II Administration. In mid-2007, Freedom’s Watch announced they would spend $15 million in 20 states running ads promoting the continuation of the Iraq War and the denunciation of Iran as a grave threat to the US and Israel. One ad called Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad a “terrorist”, another likened him to Hitler.

All this fits well with the hawkish rhetoric directed towards Iran, and the unabashed adoration of Israel from each Republican candidate, particularly Gingrich, who recently spoke of an “invented Palestinian people.”

But the direst aspects of Adelson’s actions are not necessarily his Zionistic tendencies, but the perverse incentives that are corrupting the democratic process through his actions.

If Gingrich won South Carolina solely because of Adelson’s donation – which he no doubt did – then Aldelson has created a relationship of complete dependence between backer (or investor) and politician. Thus, if Gingrich eventually succeeds he is indebted to Adelson, and if Adelson’s primary interest is Israel’s, Gingrich will be obliged to adopt that interest. Such an entrenched indebtedness inhibits a politician from thinking and acting freely, and makes him a mere appendage of the vested interests that fund him.

Worse still, with his ability for unlimited contributions through SuperPACs, Adelson can in effect create a bidding war between each candidate: the lure of money to win an election, or at least keep it afloat, gives candidates an incentive to align their positions with those of their potential sponsors. If Romney is pro-Israel, and Gingrich becomes super-pro-Israel, Adelson will chose Gingrich because he is more extreme, in effect pushing the whole political spectrum towards that of the wealthy backer.

It would be a stretch to say that a Jewish casino mogul and university dropout from suburban Massachusetts dictates the foreign policy of the United States. But to say that he could have more sway than just about any Congressman on Capitol Hill may not be so laughable.

Money in politics is nothing new, but after the passing of Citizens United, Americans are being forced to play a rigged game. Anyone who’s gambled knows the house always wins.  But with enough money I guess you can buy the House, Senate, and the Executive.

Comments:

< Prev		Next >