Frustrated that climate change wasn’t more of an issue in the 2012 campaign, Tom Steyer quit his job at Farallon Capital, a hedge-fund firm that had made him a billionaire, and dedicated himself to making a difference. He plans to spend tens of millions of dollars on candidates and ballot initiatives.
“The goal here is not to win. The goal here is to destroy these people. We want a smashing victory,” Steyer said of candidates he judges to be on the wrong side of the climate change debate.
He has already invested $126,000 in the Massachusetts Democratic primary to fill John Kerry’s senate seat. In that race, he favors Rep. Ed Markey over Rep. Stephen Lynch because the latter supports the Keystone XL pipeline project.
Mr. Steyer has hired Al Gore’s 2000 campaign press secretary, Chris Lehane, to be his spokesman.
Lehane also noted that climate change deniers — those lawmakers who have expressed skepticism on the science that proves climate change exists and is man-made — could come under particular fire.
“One of the places you’ll see a significant focus is on candidates that are anti-science, the ones who explicitly put their heads in the sand and said they don’t believe in the science,” he said.
This is our new political landscape. On one side, we have billionaires like Sheldon Adelson and Foster Friess and the Koch Brothers. On the other side, we have billionaires like Michael Bloomberg and Tom Steyer. It’s wrong. I don’t care if I happen to agree with Steyer and Bloomberg on a lot of issues. They shouldn’t have more of a voice than I do on who wins elections. Even if we welcome some billionaire firepower on our side to balance out what we’re facing from the right, the real reform will come when power is restored to the people.
I don’t really blame Steyer and Bloomberg for throwing their weight around. But I’d be a lot happier if they worked just as hard to fight for meaningful campaign finance reform as they do to protect the environment or control gun violence. When they talk about destroying their political enemies, they legitimize a political system that has become little more than a boxing match between a few of our richest citizens.
Fortunately, we’ve learned that money is no substitute for political organizing. Friess and Adelson were able to keep Santorum and Gingrich in the race for the Republican nomination, but those candidates still lost. Yet, those two billionaires completely distorted the GOP primaries, possibly changing the outcome of the presidential election by prolonging the contest and weakening Mitt Romney. They also invited the backlash we’re seeing now from left-leaning billionaires.
If we’re consistent, we have to cry foul when billionaires declare that they are going to spend tens or hundreds of millions of dollars to “destroy” their political opponents, even if we have the same political opponents.
I grew up with Chris LeHane–so it is always weird when his name comes up.
Not sure where this will go but I wish they would give some resources to those of us on the ground working on this. It sounds more like this is going to be an inside game sort of strategy. That tends to be what Chris does.
Philosophically your argument is unimpeachable.
But one can’t unilaterally disarm, and one must fight fire with fire. Spend the left wing dough while decrying the need for it. And continue with Dem attempts to brand themselves as the Campaign Reform party (assuming they really are). Pretty feeble efforts so far. Where’s the constitutional amendment overturning Citizen’s United, Harry? Can’t even get it out of committee? Or do we now need 60 votes even to propose a bill?
As for this particular billionaire campaign, the money of this hedge fund turd couldn’t be better spent.
And BTW, the only way our Repub monsters will think twice about changing the rigged game their 5 “justices” have given them is if it turns out THEY can also be harmed by it.
And that’s what this hedge fund turd is doing. So this aids possible reform.
I agree with this. Taking the high road has not helped us thus far. Why is Harry Reid so interested in preserving the Senate rules of doing business at the expense of actually accomplishing something? Is this actually a cover for his true political leanings? I’ve almost not been so disappointed by someone in recent years as by his lack of legislative toughness. His actions, or lack of them, actually irritate me even more than Obama with his courting of the GOP.
LeHane. More DLC.
You are right, Booman. But I wonder if this was always right and the illusion of free will in elections that I’ve had for more than half a century was always an illusion and I’ve just wasted my time in these elections. The rich will pick our government and I now think they always have. So, unless you personally profit from a campaign, like LeHane or Trippi, you are just a sucker to participate.
If someone with a lot of money wants to spend some of it in a way that makes the world a better place, I’m all for it. Here’s a guy who could have dedicated his life to hedonistic pursuits. If he’s willing to live with a smaller yacht, a few less homes and perhaps flying first class instead of in his own private jet because he has a desire to do something more important with his money, I really appreciate that. I wish more rich folks shared his perspective. So many seem to think life is only about getting richer, whatever the cost to others.
I’ve often wondered how anyone could enjoy flying in a private jet when there are children starving and when one third of the population of the world survives on $2 a day or less.
The sad truth is that not every one has a conscience.
I agree. I remember when I could have destroyed the conscious I was given but chose not to. In High School I found that some of my fellow students had chosen, a me only, approach to life. They worked diligently to kill their conscious. A conscious can get in the way of an awful lot of I want. I want vs. do the right thing, a choice most fail.
going for conscience there. Or self-consciousness.
I can’t say that I’m even that pissed off at guys like Adelson and Friess for throwing their billions around in political campaigns. I pretty much expect politically active folks to do what they can to back their pet causes within the limits of the law and their finances. If I had a few billion bucks burning a hole in my pocket, I might well do the same thing.
This is one of those situations where I hate the game a lot more than I hate the player. And the game is mostly rigged due to the Supreme Court, not elected politicians. The best we can do for a short-term solution is more liberal Democrats in the Senate and White House, and nothing Steyer and Bloomberg are doing conflicts with that.
Is your objection that these guys are into “the politics of personal destruction” or that they are rich and so have more power than you?
Or both?
my personal problem is that one person shouldn’t have more power over public officials than any other, be they rich or poor
Nope.
Since climate change will wreck our civilization so badly and since the survivors will mostly likely be those rich psychopaths, I welcome this. I don’t care if it’s inconsistent. Climate change is such a huge threat that if giving up rights to privacy, hell rights to criticism would somehow solve the problem I would.
The difference between me and someone who would abandon freedoms to fight terrorism? My threat is real.
As our foolish society starts to unravel as a result of the coming droughts, floods, unprecedented storms, hurricanes, tornadoes, food shortages and high prices, crop failures, rising tides and widespread property destruction, especially along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts, it will be interesting to see how long before we start hearing analogies to “war” and national security and appeals that the prez use his “war powers” to deal with the coming social collapse and economic calamity.
We already have braindead Southern Repubs voting against disaster relief for Northern areas, objecting to the cost and the ensuing “debt”. The South and its reps have been the principal leaders of the denialist movement and are the chief reason that the world’s 11,000 year old stable climate is now doomed. Ultimately, should there be any disaster relief for states that willfully denied the climate crisis and ensured that nothing could be done to address it? We won’t be able to afford to remedy all the coming property destruction in any event.
Climate change will tear this country apart. Today’s kids never had a chance.
One reason I decided never to have kids.
But a point: The world’s climate has not been stable for 11,000 years (and that 11,000 years is barely an eyeblink). The planet has been cooling for a while and increasingly so until human greenhouse gas emissions first ameliorated the trend then reversed it. The Little Ice Age truly ended because of human activity.
I join you, BooMan, in saying that the Citizens United ruling has created a dangerous, immoral Wild West for modern political campaigns. New laws should be created tomorrow, or a Constitutional Amendment should be moved ASAP. That ain’t happening in any foreseeable Congress, though we should continue advocating for it.
Do you want me to join you in saying that Tom Steyer is wrong to want to destroy the “climate change is a hoax” politicians and the movement which supports them? No, I won’t- we need his help. The continued existence of Homo Sapiens and many other life forms on Earth need the help his money could provide. Lord, I just hope he uses his money better than Adelson and Friess did. Lehane doesn’t share all my values, but he’s a lot closer to me than Rove, and Chris is also competent.
Was it wrong for Obama to exit the public campaign funding system in 2008? Was it wrong for him to establish a SuperPac in 2012? No and no. He could have been gloriously “right” in 2012 by proclaiming he meant what he said at the 2010 SOTU, and that he would not allow his campaign to be corrupted by money.
How would that have worked out? Would the Ryan Budget have begun its evil work weeks ago? I didn’t want to find out, and neither did the President.
EPA photos of the Exxon AR oil spill for anyone interested.