The political commentator and comedian George Carlin famously ranted about how the educational system was designed to keep Americans in the dark, to create a population unaware of both how the country is being run and in whose interests, and to produce an electorate unable to critically understand the political process that makes it all possible (http://yhoo.it/1EmpvTE). A major theme of his routines was that politicians were in the pockets of the monied interests of the US (and for capitalist societies in general). This was funny in part because it was not news. The need for money to run campaigns, hold on to political dynasties, and maintain both electoral discipline and finance patronage systems has a well-rehearsed history. Corruption in local government was a prime example of this: witness New York City’s Tammany Hall and Boss Tweed during the second half of the 19th Century, and a century later Richard J. Daley’s 21-year reign (1955–1976) as boss supreme serving as Mayor of the City of Chicago. Patronage and wealth, serving the interests of investors, land developers and industrialists in these great cities, dominate local politics. National politics is not immune from this sort of patronage and graft. Now synonymous with corruption at the highest levels of government, the Teapot Dome Scandal of 1922 and 1923 embroiled the administration of President Warren G. Harding; non-competitive bids below “fair prices” for drilling leases were awarded that enriched oil companies at the “public’s expense” (interestingly, or perhaps not so surprising, the only person to be convicted of wrong-doing was then Secretary of the Interior Fall while no one from the oil companies was prosecuted for bribery). National politicians have long benefited economically from their time in the highest offices of government, and for most of the last half of the 20th century those seeking the presidency have had significant family fortunes to back their electoral aspirations. Nevertheless, politicians spend a lot of time raising funds, and the fear of undue influence is never far from the surface. The very wealthy were ever behind those proverbial closed doors, dangling support and figuring out how to turn their desires into public policy. Wealthy backers had already found a way to funnel massive amounts of support in order to influence politicians and legislation. Political Action Committees (PACs) were tools that allowed interested parties to pool resources in support of a candidate or issue. But, with the Supreme Court’s January 2010 decision on the Citizen’s United case overturning campaign contribution limits, the lid was off. Politicians could and did turn to well-healed sponsors who flagrantly (and most often anonymously) contributed massive amounts to super PACs promoting candidates sympathetic to corporate interests. Some super donors were not so shy (though anonymity kept specific amounts obscure). During the 2012 election cycle billionaire Sheldon Adelson and his wife contributed, by 609037 CRS0010.1177/0896920515609037Critical SociologyFasenfest and Simon editorial2015