Look who is buying the election

[Intense]

oops

Oh well, I'm leaving my mistake there. Maybe it will give some of you a smile. Here's the link I meant to post.

Corporate Campaign Contributions Show Some Industries Giving Up Appearance Of Bipartisanship

Those statistics should tell you the damage being done by current policy. It's not rocket science. It is about poor leadership and failed policy.

 

[Gadawg73]

Campaign donations are the purest form of FREE SPEECH.
But 4 more years of Obama, will there be ANY $$$ left to contribute to any campaign?

 

[Mr. Peepers]

Campaign donations are the purest form of FREE SPEECH.

If that's true, then all of us regular American citizens are doomed, and we have a plutocracy / oligarchy on our hands... oh wait, that's exactly what we have. No one's voice should matter other than living, breathing American citizens. One person, one vote, one voice (that does NOT include corporations because they are NOT people, nor are unions). Period. We've sold our government to monied interests who have no interest in us. How's that working out for us now???

 

[boilermaker55]

The largest donors in the 2008 presidential election were the unions. Did you have a problem with that?

I didnt have a problem with it.

because its not true:

Goldman Sachs was top Obama donor - CNN

Top campaign contributors: McCain and Obama « Vivian Grant Farrell

I did however have a problem with how much money the Finance industry was putting into the election.

I should revise my statement. What I meant was there has been more union money going into federal elections over the past 20 years than any other industry or special interest group.

Top All-Time Donors, 1989-2012 | OpenSecrets

you still need to revise your statement.
Nothing you have shown says that Unions outspend corporate interests.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/3.jpeg

Wait, your get your info from a site called http:\\icanhascheezburger?



What are you, like 11?

 

[Gadawg73]

Campaign donations are the purest form of FREE SPEECH.

If that's true, then all of us regular American citizens are doomed, and we have a plutocracy / oligarchy on our hands... oh wait, that's exactly what we have. No one's voice should matter other than living, breathing American citizens. One person, one vote, one voice (that does NOT include corporations because they are NOT people, nor are unions). Period. We've sold our government to monied interests who have no interest in us. How's that working out for us now???

I own 3 corporations and I am a person.
Every shareholder that owns every corporation is a person.
How come this is news to you?
Who do you think owns corporations? Trees? Bricks?
PEOPLE are corporations.
Same with unions.

 

[Mr. Peepers]

I own 3 corporations and I am a person.
Every shareholder that owns every corporation is a person.
How come this is news to you?
Who do you think owns corporations? Trees? Bricks?
PEOPLE are corporations.
Same with unions.

No, you are a person who happens to run a corporation. Yes, people own corporations, as do the people that work for them and they have the right to vote. A corporation is not a person, and should not have the right to vote. No special interest group should have the right to influence elections.

 

[Big Fitz]

Campaign donations are the purest form of FREE SPEECH.

If that's true, then all of us regular American citizens are doomed, and we have a plutocracy / oligarchy on our hands... oh wait, that's exactly what we have. No one's voice should matter other than living, breathing American citizens. One person, one vote, one voice (that does NOT include corporations because they are NOT people, nor are unions). Period. We've sold our government to monied interests who have no interest in us. How's that working out for us now???

I own 3 corporations and I am a person.
Every shareholder that owns every corporation is a person.
How come this is news to you?
Who do you think owns corporations? Trees? Bricks?
PEOPLE are corporations.
Same with unions.

Oh wow... they're gonna have to put you in 3 different gulags for that. Might even have to shoot you three times for being so evil.

 

[8537]

Maybe this will help you get the point.

Frank Rich on How Conservative Donors are Buying This Presidential Election -- New York Magazine

The largest donors in the 2008 presidential election were the unions. Did you have a problem with that?

Goldman-Sachs is not a union.

 

[Katzndogz]

Look who is making political donations and what the presidebt is doing about them.

The enemies list.

Strassel: The President Has a List - WSJ.com

Try this thought experiment: You decide to donate money to Mitt Romney. You want change in the Oval Office, so you engage in your democratic right to send a check.

Several days later, President Barack Obama, the most powerful man on the planet, singles you out by name. His campaign brands you a Romney donor, shames you for "betting against America," and accuses you of having a "less-than-reputable" record. The message from the man who controls the Justice Department (which can indict you), the SEC (which can fine you), and the IRS (which can audit you), is clear: You made a mistake donating that money.

Are you worried?

This fundraiser of a president has shown an acute appreciation for the power of money to win elections, and a cutthroat approach to intimidating those who might give to his opponents.

He's targeted insurers, oil firms and Wall Street—letting it be known that those who oppose his policies might face political or legislative retribution. He lectured the Supreme Court for giving companies more free speech and (falsely) accused the Chamber of Commerce of using foreign money to bankroll U.S. elections. The White House even ginned up an executive order (yet to be released) to require companies to list political donations as a condition of bidding for government contracts. Companies could bid but lose out for donating to Republicans. Or they could quit donating to the GOP—Mr. Obama's real aim.

The White House has couched its attacks in the language of "disclosure" and the argument that corporations should not have the same speech rights as individuals. But now, says Rory Cooper of the Heritage Foundation, "he's doing the same at the individual level, for anyone who opposes his policies." Any giver, at any level, risks reprisal from the president of the United States.

 

[blastoff]

This reminds me of the idiot TDM's insistence that only Republicans ever engage in voter mischief, never Dimocrats...ever!!!

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

I should revise my statement. What I meant was there has been more union money going into federal elections over the past 20 years than any other industry or special interest group.

Top All-Time Donors, 1989-2012 | OpenSecrets

you still need to revise your statement.
Nothing you have shown says that Unions outspend corporate interests.

Except that it does. Thanks

 

[Vidi]

I should revise my statement. What I meant was there has been more union money going into federal elections over the past 20 years than any other industry or special interest group.

Top All-Time Donors, 1989-2012 | OpenSecrets

you still need to revise your statement.
Nothing you have shown says that Unions outspend corporate interests.

Except that it does. Thanks

First, thank you for revising your statement. I certainly appreciate the fact that you have an open mind on the subject and are willing to accept new facts to shift your opinion. I totally respect that.

Second, Inshould point out, that while your link shows that over that time period unions are certainly outspending individual corporations, in fact the top 15 donors is pretty much dominated by Unions.

However, if you continue down the list you find fewer and fewer unions on the list. In fact, in the first 30 the split is 16 corporations 14 unions.

As we continue down the list, we also see that the spending is very close. For example the difference between donor 30 and donor 40 is only 3 million. Both 30 and 40 are Unions but there isn't a single union on the list between them.

This shows that when you take that list and start adding donations in a corporate vs union divide, the unions have been FAR outspent by the corporations.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Campaign donations are the purest form of FREE SPEECH.
But 4 more years of Obama, will there be ANY $$$ left to contribute to any campaign?

they say money talks......

 

[Harry Dresden]

I own 3 corporations and I am a person.
Every shareholder that owns every corporation is a person.
How come this is news to you?
Who do you think owns corporations? Trees? Bricks?
PEOPLE are corporations.
Same with unions.

No, you are a person who happens to run a corporation. Yes, people own corporations, as do the people that work for them and they have the right to vote. A corporation is not a person, and should not have the right to vote. No special interest group should have the right to influence elections.

good luck with that.....

 

[dblack]

No special interest group should have the right to influence elections.

Really? So, political parties should not have the right to influence elections?

 

[Mr. Peepers]

Really? So, political parties should not have the right to influence elections?

They can SAY all they want, but they shouldn't be able to buy the whole process. Money does NOT equal speech.

 

[dblack]

Really? So, political parties should not have the right to influence elections?

They can SAY all they want, but they shouldn't be able to buy the whole process. Money does NOT equal speech.

Well, no one is defending bribery. And no one seems to be saying that money equals speech. So what is it you mean when you say special interests should have no right to influence elections. I consider myself a special interest of one. Am I included in your ban?

 

[Mr. Peepers]

Well, no one is defending bribery. And no one seems to be saying that money equals speech. So what is it you mean when you say special interests should have no right to influence elections. I consider myself a special interest of one. Am I included in your ban?

Of course not, because you are an individual American-born human being (I think), which means you have the right and responsibility to influence elections ie sending in a contribution and voting. Personally, I don't think anyone should be allowed to send in more than $1,000K - let the average joe count as much as evil incarnate, Monsanto. Why should your special interest trump the voices of regular people, who generally cannot afford to give millions to something as frivolous (in their day to day opinion) as a primary campaign? And tell me, why is it ok with you that legislation is now written SOLELY for the benefit of those big spenders. The people of this country no longer have any real voice. Even the candidates we have to choose from were hand-picked by corporate America and millionaires and billionaires. Why don't you see anything wrong with this picture???

 

[dblack]

Of course not, because you are an individual American-born human being (I think), which means you have the right and responsibility to influence elections ie sending in a contribution and voting. Personally, I don't think anyone should be allowed to send in more than $1,000K - let the average joe count as much as evil incarnate, Monsanto.

Hmmm... I'm not sure these ideas are very well thought out. I mean, should people be allowed to work together to effect political change? If the owners of Monsanto agree to send their money (let's say it's limited to $1000 for each stockholder, as you suggested) to a particular candidate, should that be allowed? What about all the member of the AARP?

Also, w/r to the $1000 limit - that's a limit on financial aid. But what about volunteering to help a candidate in other ways? What about celebrities or pundits who wield considerable public influence? Should they be limited likewise?

Why should your special interest trump the voices of regular people, who generally cannot afford to give millions to something as frivolous (in their day to day opinion) as a primary campaign?

It seems like what you're really asking is why wealthy people should have more power and influence in society. I suppose because we give it to them.

And tell me, why is it ok with you that legislation is now written SOLELY for the benefit of those big spenders. The people of this country no longer have any real voice. Even the candidates we have to choose from were hand-picked by corporate America and millionaires and billionaires. Why don't you see anything wrong with this picture???

Oh, it's not OK with me at all. I just don't think violating free speech addresses the problem. I think it would compound it. What we need are strict limits on the power of government to intervene in economic matters. There should be a wall of separation between government and economy. The state should have NO power to influence the economy on anyone's behalf. As long as it does, and to the extent that it does, there will be people who want to control that power for their own benefit.