Why Republicans have such a major advantage over Democrats

In full compliance with ethics and financial disclosure rules

There are multiple reasons for fascist Republican Party advantage over the Democrats. One is decades of ruthless, divisive radical right propaganda intended to foment irrational fear, anger, bigotry, distrust and belief in crackpot lies and conspiracies. Another is the electoral college. Another is the moral and ethical rot that has settled into the federal government, especially in the last 5 years or so. Conflicts of interest are now normalized and accepted. Senators and representatives can always fall back on lies and illusions such as defense of their voters’ interests as justification to screw the rest of the country and planet as long as it serves their personal interests, mostly wealth, power and re-election.  

The New York Times writes on a key weakness within the Democratic Party that will most likely neuter Democratic Party efforts to pass meaningful legislation on climate change and probably most anything else. The NYT writes:

Joe Manchin, the powerful West Virginia Democrat who chairs the Senate energy panel and earned half a million dollars last year from coal production, is preparing to remake President Biden’s climate legislation in a way that tosses a lifeline to the fossil fuel industry — despite urgent calls from scientists that countries need to quickly pivot away from coal, gas and oil to avoid a climate catastrophe.

Mr. Manchin has already emerged as the crucial up-or-down vote in a sharply divided Senate when it comes to Mr. Biden’s push to pass a $3.5 trillion budget bill that could reshape the nation’s social welfare network. But Mr. Biden also wants the bill to include an aggressive climate policy that would compel utilities to stop burning fossil fuels and switch to wind, solar or nuclear energy, sources that do not emit the greenhouse gases that are heating the planet.

As chairman of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Mr. Manchin holds the pen and the gavel of the congressional panel, with the authority to shape Mr. Biden’s ambitions.

But Mr. Manchin is also closely associated with the fossil fuel industry. His beloved West Virginia is second in coal and seventh in natural gas production among the 50 states. In the current election cycle, Mr. Manchin has received more campaign donations from the oil, coal and gas industries than any other senator, according to data compiled by OpenSecrets, a research organization that tracks political spending.

The NYT points out that Manchin directly profits from polluting industries. He owns stock worth $1-5 million in Enersystems Inc., a coal brokerage firm he founded in 1988. Last year, Manchin made $491,949 in dividends from his Enersystems stock. His son, Joseph, took the company over in 2000 after Manchin was elected West Virginia secretary of state. Maybe that was part of why our corrupt ex-president felt comfortable with not divesting himself from his companies. There were precedents out there for him to point to and no meaningful federal laws to eliminate conflicts of interest. What this boils down to is having an ethically compromised fossil fuel corporate owner writing fossil fuels emissions policy. That's a fox in the hen house. 

Manchin's spokesman defends the situation, asserting that “is in full compliance with Senate ethics and financial disclosure rules.”

Yeah, Manchin might be in full compliance with Senate ethics and financial disclosure rules, but if so, so what?

Questions: 

1. On balance, who is more corrupt and morally compromised congressional fascist Republicans or congressional Democrats? 

2. Will Manchin let the Democrats pass climate change laws commensurate with what experts are desperately telling us is needed, or will Manchin’s personal agenda triumph over climate change? 

3. For the most part, what is Manchin’s personal agenda, (a) wealth, power and maybe re-election, (b) protecting jobs in West Virginia, or (c) a roughly equal mix of the two? 

4. Are federal ethics and financial disclosure rules adequate to protect the public interest, or are they mostly a smoke screen that corrupt politicians and bureaucrats can point to as evidence of their honesty and service to the public interest?