Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Private sector lobbyists are paid by private interests, whereas AFSCME stooges leech off of the taxpayer..And private sector lobbyists aren't always necessarily after financial handouts from gubmint.With the minor exception that the lobbyists aren't the bureaucratic bourgeoisie vampires, sucking the private sector dry.Umm just like corporate lobbyists they are hoping to get leglislation favorable to their membership.
No they are not they are wven worse! The lobbyists are the bureaucratic bourgeoisie vampires, sucking the government (aka tax dollars) dry.
Sorry, I guess we are not on the same track. I have no problem with any group support for a political position and see no reason why their support should be made public. However, once they support a candidate, I think their support should be made public whether the support is direct or indirect. A new study finds that while nearly 80 percent of S&P 500 companies have disclosed direct political campaign spending policies, 86 percent have not disclosed policies regarding indirect political expenditures. Additionally, only 20 percent of corporations disclose how much is actually spent and which organizations or causes receive the funds.I think large donations from individuals should be made public along with all other large donations. Regardless of where the contributions comes from, if it is over a certain amount it should be made public. When you vote, you have the right of privacy but when you choose to actively support political candidates, there should be no right of privacy. The U. S. Constitution contains no express right to privacy although there specific areas that are addressed.What about large donations from individuals? Why does a group of people that pool their money have fewer privacy rights than individuals? Why do rich people have fewer rights than poor people? Why should I believe that someone spending money on ads influences the politicians when they do not listen to me, and I say the same things the ads do?
Why do the rich have fewer rights than the poor? What do you base this discrimination on, and how do you justify it under the Constitution?
Let me try this again.
These people are not supporting political candidates. All donations to any federal campaign already are public by law. What we are discussing are groups that advocate political positions that are sometimes popular if on group is in power, and sometimes unpopular if another is in power. These groups run ads advocating their positions, and are not donating to candidates. Forcing them to disclose donors potentially opens their donors to retaliation that is sanctioned by the powers that be, and thus unconstitutional, according to the Supreme Court. The fact that you keep talking about donations to candidates indicates you either know this, and are attempting to deflect the discussion purposely, or that you are an idiot. I am leaning toward the first at this point, but if you continue after this I will have to admit that the evidence supports the latter.
Please do not prove me wrong.
Umm just like corporate lobbyists they are hoping to get leglislation favorable to their membership.
CaféAuLait;2878456 said:My apologies Quantum Windbag I did not notice you had already started a thread on this subject.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/138322-will-we-here-calls-for-disclosing-donors.html
Sorry, I guess we are not on the same track. I have no problem with any group support for a political position and see no reason why their support should be made public. However, once they support a candidate, I think their support should be made public whether the support is direct or indirect. A new study finds that while nearly 80 percent of S&P 500 companies have disclosed direct political campaign spending policies, 86 percent have not disclosed policies regarding indirect political expenditures. Additionally, only 20 percent of corporations disclose how much is actually spent and which organizations or causes receive the funds.I think large donations from individuals should be made public along with all other large donations. Regardless of where the contributions comes from, if it is over a certain amount it should be made public. When you vote, you have the right of privacy but when you choose to actively support political candidates, there should be no right of privacy. The U. S. Constitution contains no express right to privacy although there specific areas that are addressed.
Why do the rich have fewer rights than the poor? What do you base this discrimination on, and how do you justify it under the Constitution?
Let me try this again.
These people are not supporting political candidates. All donations to any federal campaign already are public by law. What we are discussing are groups that advocate political positions that are sometimes popular if on group is in power, and sometimes unpopular if another is in power. These groups run ads advocating their positions, and are not donating to candidates. Forcing them to disclose donors potentially opens their donors to retaliation that is sanctioned by the powers that be, and thus unconstitutional, according to the Supreme Court. The fact that you keep talking about donations to candidates indicates you either know this, and are attempting to deflect the discussion purposely, or that you are an idiot. I am leaning toward the first at this point, but if you continue after this I will have to admit that the evidence supports the latter.
Please do not prove me wrong.
Study Finds 86% of S&P 500 Companies Have Not Disclosed Indirect Political Expenditure Policies, Only 20% Disclose Spending | Business Wire
Ah, no...no one is forced to take a job that requires union membership.I need more information before I can make a coherent comment.
Fear of retaliation, though, is not enough to make campaign donations private.
No one FORCES anyone to donate, after all.
Unions do.
These are not campaign donations, they are donations to groups that support various political causes, like Greenpeace or the NRA. Donations to campaigns are one thing, but donations to groups are another. For one thing, a lot of union members might oppose the some of the political positions their unions back. Linking them to those positions would be a violation of their right not to be linked to positions they oppose.
sigh...the people they are supporting. Don't make me hit you.And sure it IS government, QW...these are people that are campaigning to run our government.
The union is campaigning to run our government? The US Chamber of Commerce? What positions are they running for?
They should all disclose their funding sources, imo.
Where does the money COPE spends come from?
Voluntary contributions from members. The most common way that happens is by withholding small amounts of individual paychecks and forwarding the money to COPE.
If a member chooses to participate, we require they sign a statement that they understand only citizens and lawful permanent residents are eligible to contribute to COPE.
Does SEIU do anything else to ensure law is adhered to?
COPE trains members and staff soliciting COPE contributions and as part of that training it informs the members and staff of the prohibition on soliciting or accepting contributions from foreign nationals, and the importance of that prohibition.
What about foreign nationals who want to be involved but can't give to COPE?
There are a large number of fully lawful immigrant members of SEIU who wish to participate through their union in the critical policy debates going on in the country, yet cannot fund or participate in SEIU COPE because they are foreign nationals.
For those immigrant members, as a lawful alternative to participation in SEIU COPE, SEIU has established a program encouraging its immigrant members to participate in policy advocacy outside of the electoral realm on issues such as immigration reform.
As a further safeguard against unlawful electoral contributions, in SEIU workplaces in which there is a substantial immigrant membership, SEIU encourages its members to become active through this alternative program.
They should all disclose their funding sources, imo.
It seems that the biggest spender in the current election is a group by the name of AFSCME.
The 1.6 million-member AFSCME is spending a total of $87.5 million on the elections after tapping into a $16 million emergency account to help fortify the Democrats' hold on Congress. Last week, AFSCME dug deeper, taking out a $2 million loan to fund its push. The group is spending money on television advertisements, phone calls, campaign mailings and other political efforts, helped by a Supreme Court decision that loosened restrictions on campaign spending. "We're the big dog," said Larry Scanlon, the head of AFSCME's political operations. "But we don't like to brag."
The 2010 election could be pivotal for public-sector unions, whose clout helped shield members from the worst of the economic downturn. In the 2009 stimulus and other legislation, Democratic lawmakers sent more than $160 billion in federal cash to states, aimed in large part at preventing public-sector layoffs. If Republicans running under the banner of limited government win in November, they aren't likely to support extending such aid to states.
Public-Employees Union Is Now Campaign's Big Spender - WSJ.com
Will we here Obama calling on them to disclose everyone who donates to them, and prove that no foreign money is being spent to buy elections?
Ah, no...no one is forced to take a job that requires union membership.I need more information before I can make a coherent comment.
Fear of retaliation, though, is not enough to make campaign donations private.
No one FORCES anyone to donate, after all.
Unions do.
These are not campaign donations, they are donations to groups that support various political causes, like Greenpeace or the NRA. Donations to campaigns are one thing, but donations to groups are another. For one thing, a lot of union members might oppose the some of the political positions their unions back. Linking them to those positions would be a violation of their right not to be linked to positions they oppose.
And I disagree...what you are talking about, basically, are lobbyists. IMO freedom of speech (via donating) does not equate to freedom to secrecy.
sigh...the people they are supporting. Don't make me hit you.And sure it IS government, QW...these are people that are campaigning to run our government.
The union is campaigning to run our government? The US Chamber of Commerce? What positions are they running for?
They should all disclose their funding sources, imo.
We agree. If there was honesty among any partisans, it should be a desire to keep foreign interests and money out of the electoral system:
SEIU.org | Fight the Smears: SEIU Sends Members Dues Collected by "Illegal Immigrants" to Campaigns
Getting around the 'problem' alternative ways:
Where does the money COPE spends come from?
Voluntary contributions from members. The most common way that happens is by withholding small amounts of individual paychecks and forwarding the money to COPE.
If a member chooses to participate, we require they sign a statement that they understand only citizens and lawful permanent residents are eligible to contribute to COPE.
Does SEIU do anything else to ensure law is adhered to?
COPE trains members and staff soliciting COPE contributions and as part of that training it informs the members and staff of the prohibition on soliciting or accepting contributions from foreign nationals, and the importance of that prohibition.
What about foreign nationals who want to be involved but can't give to COPE?
There are a large number of fully lawful immigrant members of SEIU who wish to participate through their union in the critical policy debates going on in the country, yet cannot fund or participate in SEIU COPE because they are foreign nationals.
For those immigrant members, as a lawful alternative to participation in SEIU COPE, SEIU has established a program encouraging its immigrant members to participate in policy advocacy outside of the electoral realm on issues such as immigration reform.
As a further safeguard against unlawful electoral contributions, in SEIU workplaces in which there is a substantial immigrant membership, SEIU encourages its members to become active through this alternative program.
It seems that the biggest spender in the current election is a group by the name of AFSCME.
Public-Employees Union Is Now Campaign's Big Spender - WSJ.comThe 1.6 million-member AFSCME is spending a total of $87.5 million on the elections after tapping into a $16 million emergency account to help fortify the Democrats' hold on Congress. Last week, AFSCME dug deeper, taking out a $2 million loan to fund its push. The group is spending money on television advertisements, phone calls, campaign mailings and other political efforts, helped by a Supreme Court decision that loosened restrictions on campaign spending. "We're the big dog," said Larry Scanlon, the head of AFSCME's political operations. "But we don't like to brag."
The 2010 election could be pivotal for public-sector unions, whose clout helped shield members from the worst of the economic downturn. In the 2009 stimulus and other legislation, Democratic lawmakers sent more than $160 billion in federal cash to states, aimed in large part at preventing public-sector layoffs. If Republicans running under the banner of limited government win in November, they aren't likely to support extending such aid to states.
Will we here Obama calling on them to disclose everyone who donates to them, and prove that no foreign money is being spent to buy elections?
That's a reasonable request.
FWIW, I object to corporations of any kind donating to the election process.
Unions or managment, it's BAD policy.
