Funding Joe Biden - Part 2 - The Campaign

In part one of this two part posting, I looked at the donors who were ingratiating themselves to Joe Biden by funding his inauguration.  In part two, we'll examine who funded his run for the 46th Presidency of the United States, thanks to data provided by Open Secrets.

  

Let's start by looking at a summary of what was raised and spent by the Biden campaign:

 

Here is a list of the top campaign and single-candidate groups that supported Joe Biden:

 

Here is a list of the top contributors which combines money that came from the organizations' PACs, individual members, employees or owners and the immediate family members of those individuals:

Here are the top contributing industries:

 

Here are the top states and metropolitan areas that contributed to Joe Biden's campaign:

 

Now, let's look at Biden's donor demographics by gender and by size of donation:

 

As you can see, the majority of donors contributed less than $500, however, they only accounted for $155.5 million or 17.7 percent of the $880.6 million total in contributions.

 

Here is a list of the top 20 organizations and individuals who were part of the Biden campaign's "independent expenditures" or so-called "outside spending", those expenditures that are not co-ordinated with either candidates or political parties and whether they supported or opposed Joe Biden:

 

Notice that the top two independent spenders were opposed Joe Biden's presidency, raising a total of $236.765 million.  It is also interesting to note that the National Rifle Association's Victory Fund raised $11.689 million in its battle for Biden's defeat, not surprising given his stance on firearms.  

 

Now, in closing, let's look at how much the wealthiest among us spent in 2020 to see their chosen political party occupy the Oval Office and Congress:

 

The top individual spender on the liberal side was Michael Bloomberg who spent a whopping $151.336 million as follows:

 

 

Bloomberg is followed by hedge fund manager Thomas Steyer who spent the following:

 

In third place among liberal spenders we have Cari Tuna, fo-founder of Good Ventures and wife of Dustin Moscovitz, co-founder of Facebook, who spent the following as a couple:

 

Given that American politicians are always for sale, it is always interesting to "follow the money", particularly given that some of the big spenders (i.e. Tuna/Moscovitz) have substantial skin in the game when it comes to banning communication from Donald Trump and showing their political bias in how they have attempted to manipulate American voters.

Protecting the 2020 Election - The Role of America's Technoplutocracy

Since the 2016 election, Americans have been subjected to a repeated diet of electoral interference by "outside bad actors", suggesting that significant steps need to be taken to control the spread of false information and narratives during the 2020 presidential election in particular.  While it receives almost no attention from the mainstream media, 

 

Let's open by looking at a quote from Chad Wolf, Acting Secretary for the Department of Homeland Security, during his September 2020 State of the Homeland address:

"We are identifying and preventing malign foreign actors and nation states from interfering in our elections and protecting our election infrastructure....

Our newest component – the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency  (or CISA) – is at the forefront guarding against nation-state actors’ cyber-enabled espionage and malicious influence activity aimed at all levels of government and industry.

 

As we approach the 2020 election, we remain steadfast in protecting this essential American process. 

 

CISA has doubled down both on their efforts across the federal government and in partnering with local election leaders across the country to make sure our elections are safe and secure.

 

Elections are a bedrock of our Constitutional republic, and securing them is paramount to accurately expressing the will of the American people.

 

To protect the integrity of our representative government, our ultimate goal must be to ensure that American voters decide American elections.

 

In light of new levels of organized efforts by Russia in 2016 to disrupt and deceive, the Department strengthened U.S. efforts to rebuff the aggressive and meddlesome behavior of any nefarious state actor.

 

Signed into law by President Trump, CISA has made extraordinary and rapid strides bolstering the security of this most sacred democratic process.

 

CISA leveraged unique cybersecurity technical services by funding the Election Infrastructure Information Sharing and Analysis Center (or EI-ISAC) that deploys and monitors intrusion detection systems on election infrastructure across all 50 states.

 

The results were historic - 2018 was the most secure election in the modern era.

 

Not resting on its laurels, CISA has only increased its protection in scope and impact as it pursues the goal of an ever-more secure election in 2020."

 

Let's take a closer look at EI-ISAC, the Department of Homeland Security's frontline shield against electoral interference in the United States.  Here is the front page of EI-ISAC's website as found on the Center for Internet Security website (noting that CIS is the operator of EI-ISAC):

 

According to CIS, EI-ISAC is "supporting the rapidly changing cybersecurity needs of U.S. elections offices."

 

EI-ISAC provides the following cybersecurity tools and training resources to "help elections officials protect their systems and data":

 

Joining EI-ISAC is free for U.S. elections organizations as shown here:

 

Now, let's look at one of the products being used by EI-ISAC to protect American elections.  Here is the lead page of Protect Your Elections website:

 

Here is an introductory video about Protect Your Elections: 

 

Here is how Protect Your Election can help with the election process:

 

Here are the tools that Protect Your Election offers to protect the electoral process against digital attacks:

 

 

Most importantly in this age of censorship, here is how Protect Your Election can prevent the spread of false narratives and information during elections:

 

If you read carefully through the screen captures, you may have noticed this:

 

That's right, America's technoplutocracy is hard at work, protecting your election!

 

With the above information in mind, let's close this posting with some key information from Open Secrets.  Here are the 2020 and previous elections campaign contributions from affiliates of Alphabet Inc. (i.e. Google), noting that organization themselves cannot contribute to candidates and party committees:

 

Here is a further breakdown of how these funds were designated by political party:

 

As shown here, the top 25 recipients of these campaign contributions are all Democrats:

 

By way of comparison, the top Republican recipient, Donald Trump, has received a rather measly $29,021.  Given this donation information, do you really think that Protect Your Election is really going to provide a balanced product, particularly when it comes to fact-checking?

 

While companies like Google and its technoplutocracy sector peers are publicly stating that they are in the business of protecting America's democracy from the hostile disinformation tactics being used by America's enemies for the benefit of the sweaty masses, I think that we can pretty much assume that at least some of the most influential players are in it, to win it for their chosen party, the Democrats.  At the very least, we should make the assumption that products that are being touted by the technology tyrants to protect democracy are highly vulnerable to political bias.

What Happens if Donald Trump Wins?

While insiders in Washington, particularly of the Donkey brand, love to brandish the tired old mantra of Russian interference in America's political theatre, a document from the Transition Integrity Project or TIP shows who is really showing potential for interfering in America's growingly fractured and fractious political landscape.

The Transition Integrity Project is a group that you have not likely heard anything about.  TIP is made up of a group of Democratic Party insiders and former Obama and Clinton era officials as well as a selection of disgruntled neoconservative Republicans.  TIP was created in late 2019 by Rosa Brooks and Nils Gilman.  Rosa Brooks was an advisor to the Hillary Clinton State Department and was previously the general counsel to the President of the Open Society Institute, part of George Soros' Open Societies Foundations as shown here:

The current director of TIP is Zoe Hudson, former serving as senior policy analysis at the Open Society Foundation where she also played the role of liaison between the U.S. federal government and the foundation as shown here:

While we only know the identities of a few members of TIP, many members remain anonymous other than David Frum, William Kristol, Donna Brazile, John Podesta and Chuck Hagel.

Members of TIP met in June 2020 to conduct a series of four "war games" which simulated the eleven week period between the November 3, 2020 Election Day and the January 20, 2021 Inauguration Day under various scenarios. 

Here is the lead page of the "Preventing a Disrupted Presidential Election and Transition" document: 

 

In the four exercises, participants noted the following as an overriding concern and reasoning for the necessity of holding such a simulation:

"We assess with a high degree of likelihood that November’s elections will be marked by a chaotic legal and political landscape. We also assess that the President Trump is likely to contest the result by both legal and extra-legal means, in an attempt to hold onto power. Recent events, including the President’s own unwillingness to commit to abiding by the results of the election, the Attorney General’s embrace of the President’s groundless electoral fraud claims, and the unprecedented deployment of federal agents to put down leftwing protests, underscore the extreme lengths to which President Trump may be willing to go in order to stay in office."

TIP felt it necessary to examine the following unknowns:

 

1.) How far might candidates go in contesting negative electoral outcomes or disrupting the normal transition process?

 

2.) How well would American institutions hold up if one or both candidates refused to play by the rules.

Each exercise involved seven teams consisting of 2 to 3 people as follows:

 

1.) Trump campaign team

2.) Biden campaign team

3.) Republican elected officials

4.) Democratic elected officials

5.) Career military and civilian federal government employees as well as political appointees

6.) Media - right wing, left wing and mainstream

7.) Public - consisted of polling experts

 

Here are the four game scenarios:

In case you are interested in more details, here is a detailed outline of each of the four game scenarios:

 

Here are the top-line findings of the exercises:

 

1.) Campaign decisions about whether to contest the election are likely to be political calcula- tions, rather than calculations based on legal rules alone.

 

2.) A close and contested election may be resolved through the exercise of power, not through the courts.

 

3.) As an incumbent unbounded by norms, President Trump has a huge advantage.

 

4.) A show of numbers in the streets- and actions in the streets- may be decisive factors in de-

 termining what the public perceives as a just and legitimate outcome.

 

5.) Trump is likely to prioritize his personal interests in the transition period.

 

Let's focus on point five.  Here are some quotes from TIP's report about how Donald Trump will handle a contested electoral result:

 

1.) Take the money and run. Participants in the scenario exercises universally believed that self- preservation for President Trump and his family will be Trump’s first and possibly only priority if he is forced to concede electoral defeat. Before he leaves office he might maximize the flow of federal money into Trump businesses (moves played: direct COVID-19 relief package for Trump hotels; relocate to Mar-a-Lago for the final months of his presidency); negotiate business deals with foreign countries; and purge documents that might incriminate foreign governments and business partners (for example, documents related to Jamal Khashoggi’s murder). President Trump could also launch his next business venture from the White House (speculations include “MAGA TV,” possibly headed by Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner

 

2.) Pardon everyone. In almost every TIP scenario, Team Trump executed or prepared for the par-dons of relatives, campaign associates, and himself. Players took different approaches in each of the scenarios; in one scenario Trump resigned on January 19, 2021, trusting that Pence would sign the pardons. In another scenario, Trump executed his own pardon. In the debrief, participants noted that the pardons could be challenged only after he leaves office and someone files charges. Even with an expansive understanding of pardon powers, Trump can’t absolve himself of state crimes…He will certainly try to establish the narrative in advance that any efforts to hold him or his allies accountable for wrong-doing and illegality is politically motivated revenge.

 

3.)  Wag the Dog/spark a foreign adventure. There was quite a bit of speculation that Trump might himself initiate a foreign crisis shortly after the election or during the transition, perhaps to change the media narrative around a contested election, attempt to rally nationalist feelings to himself, or placate foreign leaders to whom he may feel beholden, such as Vladimir Putin. Some participants noted that in the event of political chaos in the United States, certain US adversaries might be emboldened to act opportunistically, especially if electoral contestation was generating uncertainty about who precisely was acting as Commander in Chief. From a national security perspective, participants expressed concern about US vulnerability during a contested election.

 

4.) Destroy evidence. In an effort to preserve the President’s legacy and thwart future criminal investigations, Team Trump ordered numerous documents destroyed in several of the exercises. Team Trump also classified many more documents as top secret and expanded the use of non-disclosure agreements.

 

5.) Disrupt the transition process. In several of the TIP exercises, Team Trump refused to provide clearances or briefings for proposed members of the incoming Biden administration, offering only what is already in the public domain. Team Trump attempted to discredit the transition team (“We’re cooperating, but not with Democrat Antifa agents”). In a debrief, one participant ex- pressed concern that Attorney General Barr could launch a bogus investigation into “terrorist ties” of the Biden transition team in order to justify surveillance, and/or facilitate a false flag operation before the election or when the election is still being contested. 

Now, in closing, let's look at TIP's recommendations:

1.) Plan for a contested election. If there is a crisis, events will unfold quickly, and sleep-deprived leaders will be asked to make consequential decisions quickly. Thinking through options now will help to ensure better decisions. Approach this as a political battle, not just a legal battle. In the event of electoral contestation, sustained political mobilization will likely be crucial for ensuring transition integrity. Dedicated staff and resources need to be in place at least through the end of January.

 

2.) Focus on readiness in the states, providing political support for a complete and accurate count. Governors, Secretaries of State, Attorneys General and Legislatures can communicate and rein- force laws and norms and be ready to confront irregularities. Election officials will need political and public support to see the process through to completion.

 

3.) Address the two biggest threats head on: lies about “voter fraud” and escalating violence. Voting fraud is virtually non-existent, but Trump lies about it to create a narrative designed to politically mobilize his base and to create the basis for contesting the results should he lose. The potential for violent conflict is high, particularly since Trump encourages his supporters to take up arms.

 

4.) Anticipate a rocky administrative transition. Transition teams will likely need to do two things simultaneously: defend against Trump’s reckless actions on his way out of office; and find creative solutions to ensure landing teams are able to access the information and resources they need to begin to prepare for governing.

 

What I find particularly interesting about this document is that even if Donald Trump clearly wins the election, this group of Obama-administration linked individuals is willing to take extreme measures to ensure a Biden win as quoted here:

 

"The Biden Campaign encouraged Western states, particularly California but also Oregon and Washington, and collectively known as “Cascadia,” to secede from the Union unless Congres- sional Republicans agreed to a set of structural reforms to fix our democratic system to ensure majority rule. With advice from President Obama, the Biden Campaign submitted a proposal to 1) Give statehood to Washington, DC and Puerto Rico; 2) Divide California into five states to more accurately represent its population in the Senate; 3) Require Supreme Court justices to retire at 70; and 4) Eliminate the Electoral College, to ensure that the candidate who wins to the popular vote becomes President....

 

One of the most consequential moves was that Team Biden on January 6 provoked a breakdown in the joint session of Congress by getting the House of Representatives to agree to award the presidency to Biden (based on the alternative pro-Biden submissions sent by pro-Biden governors)."

 

And here we all thought that Russia was the "bogeyman in the closet" when it came to interfering in the will of American voters.  What should be of concern to all American voters is the presence of more than one of George Soros insiders among the leaders of the rather ironically named Transition Integrity Project, particularly given Soros close links to Hillary Clinton as shown here (thanks to WikiLeaks):

Bernie Sanders' Net Worth

With Bernie Sanders repeatedly talking about taxing "the rich", I thought it was prudent to take a quick look at his net worth as he declared on his annual Senate financial disclosure for 2018.  

Let's start by looking at his non-investment earnings outside of his Senate annual salary of $174,000:

City of Burlington, VT pension - $5,240.52

McMillan - St. Martin's Press book royalties - $391,000

Verso Publications book royalties - $1,810.37

Todd R. Lockwood Works royalties - $109.82

This brings Senator Sanders total non-investment earnings in calendar 2018 to $398,160.71 and when his Senate salary is included, his total non-investment earnings for 2018 were $572,160.71.

Now, let's look at his assets as shown on these screen captures from his financial disclosure:

Since the value of the assets are only declared in ranges, here are the two key numbers:

Minimum Value of Assets - $427,027

Maximum Value of Assets - $1,305,000

It is also important to note that the $250,001 to $500,000 that is currently on deposit at the U.S. Senate Federal Credit Union is being held for tax payments on the proceeds of the sale of Sanders' book.

When it comes to Senator Sanders' liabilities, there is only one:

Finally, here is a complete list of Senator Sanders' reportable agreements, all of which are royalty agreements from his books and "We Shall Overcome" album:

While Bernie Sanders makes far more than a median American household as shown here:

...his net worth (excluding the value of his homes in Vermont and Washington) is really rather modest given that his annual salary has ranged from $125,100 (in 1991 when he was the Representative from Vermont's at-large district) to its current level of $174,000.  Compared to other members of Congress like Rep. Darrell Issa (net worth $283.3 million), Rep. Greg Gianforte (net worth $135.7 million) and fellow Senator Mark Warner (net worth $90.2 million), Bernie Sanders is almost Main Street when it comes to his net worth.  If it weren't for his book writing skills, outside of his Senate salary, he would be pretty much average.