I don’t often link to right-wing sites to approve of something, but recently John Hawkins of Right Wing News published the results of a study showing how right-wing PACs spent contributors’ money. And — what a not surprise — there are many PACs soliciting money for “conservative” politicians that are spending little to no money on behalf of those politicians. Even PACs that are allegedly linked to a particular candidate aren’t spending money on behalf of that candidate. For example, the National Draft Ben Carson for President PAC spent only 4 percent of nearly $13 million received on efforts to draft Ben Carson for President. It may actually surprise you not in the least that SarahPAC spent maybe 7 percent of more than $3 million to help political candidates, which is the ostensible purpose of SarahPAC.

The PACs are not necessarily guilty of criminal activity. There are all sorts of legal ways to move money around to confound oversight. A PAC might set up a couple of vendors, possibly owned by people associated with the PAC, and send the vendors $100,000 each. The vendors then print $1,000 worth of fliers and pocket the rest. But on the PACs paperwork, it shows $200,000 spent on political action.

The Good Roger Ailes is derisive of Hawkins’ work, mostly because — duh, you didn’t know this already? Plus Hawkins’s analysis has lots of blind spots, some willful. But the larger point stands.

There is much speculation on rightie blogs that left-wing PACs are just as bad and probably worse. And I welcome similar analysis of leftie PACs. One of my gripes about progressivism going back many years is that, until the last decade or so, about the only activism going on was coming from single-issue advocacy groups that incessantly raised money but never seemed to accomplish anything. I may have told the story about how I stopped giving money to NARAL back in the 1980s, because as far as I could tell my donations were all being spent on salaries and office furniture.

But progressives across the board have been much more opposed to no-holds-barred contributions and want significant campaign finance reform that would stop a lot of this, whereas conservatives oppose reform and like the system just as it is, thank you, except they’d like to be able to bar unions from political activity if they could. But just unions; not the Koch Brothers.

And the even larger point is that the Right is mostly a grift, anyway. Characters like Richard Viguerie, Ann Coulter, etc., have been cashing in for years by doing nothing but raising alarm about the Coming Darkness of Liberalism When You Will Be Forced to Convert to Islam and Eat Babies. I wrote awhile back:

If bank robbers rob banks because that’s where the money is, grifters infest the Right because that’s where the gullibility is. People who can be made to believe in death panels can also be sold on dubious investment schemes, survivalist kits and quack arthritis cures. It’s too easy. See especially Rick Perlstein, “The Long Con.”

At least, I’m not aware of anyone using leftie political networks to sell cancer cures, dubious investments schemes or the leftie equivalent of survivalist kits, whatever that might be.

There are also subcategories of specialized grifters such as the NRA/firearm industry and climate change denialists/petroleum industry. But it’s all of a piece, really.

I wrote recently that the only substantive difference between the “extremists” and the “moderates/establishment” in the Republican Party is that “the ‘moderates’ realize elections have to be won, and the ‘extremists’ don’t know that, or don’t care.” When you look at someone like Ted Cruz, who unlike many others may not be crazy or stupid, one suspects his long game isn’t winning the White House. The long game is making a ton of money. In this country, once you become a reliable supplier of red meat for the Right, you are set for life. Whether you ever actually accomplish anything that’s good for anyone is irrelevant.

Now Paul Waldman writes about how rich conservatives are bilking the rank and file:

This particular con is just one variant of a wider system, one that has been in operation for decades. While there may be some cases of similar scams on the left, they’re absolutely rampant on the right, because they’ve been so central to the conservative movement for so long. In the 1960s, conservatives realized that the nationwide grassroots network that activists built to support Barry Goldwater could be an ongoing source of funds, not only for conservative causes but for people wanting to sell snake oil. Lists of names and addresses became a valued commodity, built, bought and sold again and again for the benefit of those who controlled them and those who used them (Rick Perlstein lays out that history here).

That tradition continues, but in new and more complicated ways that I like to call the circle of scam. Organizations like the Heritage Foundation and FreedomWorks pay radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity big money to offer on-air endorsements that are the radio equivalent of ‘native advertising.’ Future presidential candidate Mike Huckabee sells his email list on ‘miracle cancer cures’ hidden in the Bible. Conservative media figures like Dick Morris solicit contributions that somehow are never turned to the political ends they claim. Nobody wants to upend the system, because too many people are getting a taste.

The common thread can be found in the marks: the little old lady in Tupelo who sends in $50 thinking that she’s striking a blow against Barack Obama, the couple in Topeka who hopes Mike Huckabee’s biblical cancer cure can save their daughter’s life, the man in Toledo who thinks that the group with ‘Tea Party’ in its name is going to have an impact on his state’s races. What none of them know is that their money is just going to make somebody who’s already rich a little bit richer.

It’s been a hugely successful scam. However, there are signs more and more people are getting elected who don’t know it’s a scam. Could The Stupid eventually become so blatant even wingnuts notice? Hmm, I’m not holding my breath until that happens. But maybe Peak Wingnut will finally come to pass.

In the last post I argued that Republicans have reversed John Locke’s “life, liberty and property,” putting property (or the wealth of the wealthy) first, liberty second, and life a distant and expendable third. Now Paul Krugman agrees —

If you look for an overarching theme for overall conservative policy these past four decades, it definitely isn’t liberty — by and large the GOP has been enthusiastic about expanding the security and surveillance state. Nor is it in a consistent fashion smaller government, unless you define military and homeland security as not government. Instead, it has been about making the tax-and-transfer system harsher on the poor and easier on the rich. In short, class warfare.

It seems that several Republican governors, whose “conservative” economic policies strangled their states’ economies, are proposing tax increases to make up for loss of revenue. However, Krugman writes, “in every case the tax hike would fall most heavily on those with lower incomes, and many are proposing simultaneous tax cuts for business and/or the wealthy.”

In short, doing more of what hasn’t worked before. Erik Loomis writes,

Watching how Republican presidential possibilities have been talking in the last couple of weeks, it’s pretty clear that they are going to focus on income inequality, but define income inequality as a problem that exists because the rich pay too much in taxes and the poor don’t pay enough. I know this sounds like a terrible strategy for the Republicans, and maybe it is, but I do believe in their ability to obfuscate an issue and twist meanings that the message of income inequality I hope the Democrats run on in 2016 will have a lot of difficulty motivating the public.

Unfortunately, I think he’s right. A substantial portion of the American public will be persuaded that “income inequality” means the rich are being soaked so that the poor can lounge around living high on the hog and food stamps.

Thomas Jefferson’s “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” was presumably inspired by John Locke’s “life, liberty and property.”  Locke’s thinking influenced the U.S. Founding Guys more than any other single philosopher, and Locke said government is obligated to protect the life, liberty and property rights of the people. You would think teabaggers/Republicans would know this and respect it.

However, if you pay attention you notice that they’ve reworked the order — property first, then liberty, but life gets bumped off the list unless you are a fetus. Mark Joseph Stern provides several examples of Republicans putting liberty and property ahead of life. These include putting a right to refuse vaccination ahead of public health and their frantic crusade to stop the government from paying for health care.

Republicans are currently cheering on an anti-Obamacare lawsuit that could strip millions of health insurance. They’re willing to put Americans at risk of death just to score points against a law they hate. … Many conservatives are cheerfully unconcerned by this lawsuit’s potentially fatal consequences. In one op-ed titled “End Obamacare, and People Could Die. That’s Okay,” Michael R. Strain of the American Enterprise Institute insisted that the Supreme Court should have no compunction about rendering a decision that will kill Americans. A higher mortality rate, Strain wrote, is “an acceptable price to pay for certain goals,” including “less government coercion and more individual liberty.”

Liberty trumps life, in other words. Better dead than taxed, or something. If anyone knows on what planet that makes sense, do raise your hand. The Michael Strain op-ed is a chilling thing to read, but you know this “acceptable price” stuff is conventional wisdom among the privileged crew he rubs elbows with. They’re never going to have to pay that price, of course. But they’re kicking some of us to the curb for the Greater Good, and we’re supposed to be grateful. Yay, freedom!

I’ve been particularly infuriated by reports that the Koch Brother-led Americans for Prosperity has been going around strangling any movement toward expanding Medicaid in the non-Medicaid-expanding states, most recently Tennessee. Apparently the Koch Boys love freedom so much they’re determined to kill any poor, sick hillbillies that get in the way.

So, obviously, liberty is ranked ahead of life. But I would argue that for all their rhetoric about liberty, in truth the U.S. Right puts property ahead of liberty. The late 19th century Supreme Court was notorious for putting property rights above civil liberty, so this is not without precedent. But the base has been well trained to unquestioningly support everything from Citizen’s United to more tax cuts for the rich at the expense of everyone else to climate change denialism, because it’s in the best interests of the 1 percent to do so, and those policies are not promoting anyone’s liberty. Indeed, if you pay close attention you may notice that a lot of their arguments for “liberty” are mostly in favor of unrestricted acquisition of wealth.

It’s property first, then liberty when it doesn’t get in the way of property, and life for the post-born can be bumped off the table as necessary.

Update: How could I have forgotten that gun rights also trump life?  Little children killing themselves with guns is the price we pay for the freedom to keep loaded guns anywhere we want, right?