NYT Discovers Pay-to-Play, Blames Trump (Again)
The New York Times reports that 'hundreds of big post-election donors have benefited from Trump’s return to office,' a finding they present with the breathless urgency of discovering fire. This isn't groundbreaking journalism; it's practically a constitutional amendment—the 'you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours' clause, enshrined in campaign finance law. What the Times omits is that this cycle
is bipartisan, a feature not a bug, of a system where organizations like AIPAC funnel millions to politicians (per OpenSecrets data) who then vote for specific foreign policy agendas, regardless of who is president. One might wonder why the NYT finds this arrangement scandalous only when the names include a 'Trump' (and the hypothetical second term they've conjured). It appears the outrage over
donor influence is highly selective, reserved for occasions when it aligns with preferred political narratives. How many articles have they published detailing the direct policy benefits received by donors to, say, Democratic campaigns, for instance, those who champion 'humanitarian aid' that often doubles as military support for partners with questionable human rights records?