Skip to main content

Today, march 22, 2014, there was a letter to the editor in the Times Daily.  It was titled, "Badly in need of amendment"

It talked about getting the vast amounts of money out of political campaigns.  

Citizens United, which is a conservative political action group, (and mainly financed by the Koch brothers) got a law suit heard by the supreme court.  It was Citizens United verses Federal Election Commission. The court voted 5 to 4 in favor of allowing corporations to donate unlimited money to campaigns.  The 5 in favor were all republican nominees, the 4 against were all democrat nominated.

The Koch brothers and others now own all three branches of the US government.

I am waiting for comments

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

JT, if you are worried about undue influence from the Koch boys, you ought to be more worried about the undue influence about the 76 donors who spent more than them in the 2012 election.

 

http://www.opensecrets.org/big...tribs.php?cycle=2012

 

Personally, I think people should learn how to think for themselves rather than let the liberal or conservative commentators and blog-sites do it for them. Newsflash: both groups distort the facts or outright lie!

Another comment:

 

Democrats want to silence the opposition.

So how big of a threat are the Koch Brothers?
Over the past twenty five years, from 1989 to 2014, Koch Industries has donated$18,083,948 in political contributions to Republicans. While that seems like a large sum, it only ranks them as number 59 on the list of top all-time political donors – behind 18 different unions.

Here is the list of unions that top the Koch Brothers in political donations.
Via Open Secrets:

2.) American Fedn of State, County & Municipal Employees $60,667,379
4.) National Education Assn $53,594,488
7.) Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers $44,478,789
8.) United Auto Workers $41,667,858
9.) Carpenters & Joiners Union $39,260,371
10.) Service Employees International Union $38,395,690
11.) Laborers Union $37,494,010
12.) American Federation of Teachers $36,713,325
13.) Communications Workers of America $36,188,135
14.) Teamsters Union $36,123,209
16.) United Food & Commercial Workers Union $33,756,550
20.) Machinists & Aerospace Workers Union $31,313,097
23.) AFL-CIO $30,938,977
32.) National Assn of Letter Carriers $26,106,359
39.) Plumbers & Pipefitters Union $23,886,248
42.) Operating Engineers Union $23,036,848
43.) International Assn of Fire Fighters $22,963,260
46.) Sheet Metal Workers Union $22,372,978
59.) Koch Industries $18,083,948

First, JTD, get your facts straight.  Per Wiki:

 

"Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), is a US constitutional law case, in which the United States Supreme Court held that the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting political independent expenditures by corporations, associations, or labor unions. The conservative lobbying group Citizens United wanted to air a film critical of Hillary Clinton and to advertise the film during television broadcasts in apparent violation of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (commonly known as the McCain–Feingold Act or "BCRA").[2] In a 5–4 decision, the Court held that portions of BCRA §203 violated the First Amendment."

 

The decision did not, despite your protestations,  " allowing corporations to donate unlimited money to campaigns."  There are still limitations on how much may be donate directly to campaigns.  The decision did state the government may make no limitations on corporations, associations and labor unions to spent funds independently of the campaign.  Much different than your statement.  A corporation is nothing more than a group of people --shareholders.  Why should that group have to give up their constitutional rights, when other associations and unions do not! 

 

As the Senate has  a Democrat majority and both members of the executive branch are Democrats, your conclusion that Koch owns all three branches is incoherent.

 

Besides, by one interpretation of the constitution, the Bill of Rights, is not subject to amendment,

Originally Posted by jtdavis:

I wasn't very clear.  I'm on the democrat side, but, the big money needs to be taken out of political campaigns.  Under our current system, it is bought by the highest bidder.  Don't forget, my side has won 4 out of the last 6.  The election needs to be about ideals and principals, not the most money raised.

----------------------

Oh, so that's why you mention the koch brothers but not unions, soros and other big contributors to the democrats? Uh huh.

Last edited by Bestworking

it's ok, jt.. best and dire think the 'truth' is subject to republican interpretation.. i have no clue where best gets her $18 million figure..probably from some rt. wingnut blog.. or bizarro world..  the koch bros. donated, counting 'dark money', just over $400 million.. that's more than ALL THE UNIONS COMBINE.

 

now, watch dire ask for proof.. and knows i've already provided it, in another thread. 

the rt. wingnuts are nothing, if not predictable.

Last edited by Crash.Override
Originally Posted by Kenny Powers:

People like JT and Jank think big money buying politicians is ok as long as it backing issues that they support. 

__________________

 

You have never seen me say any such thing. I would LOVE to see campaign finance reform across the board. I have said it over and over. I want it to at least go back to before Citizens United. That would impact both sides equally. Would it not? 

 

JT is right. Corporations own all 3 branches of our government right now. You ok with that Kenny? 

 

 

Originally Posted by direstraits:

First, JTD, get your facts straight.  Per Wiki:

 

 

As the Senate has  a Democrat majority and both members of the executive branch are Democrats, your conclusion that Koch owns all three branches is incoherent.

 

Besides, by one interpretation of the constitution, the Bill of Rights, is not subject to amendment,

___________________

 

Your facts, or your reading comprehension is not very straight. This is what JT said:

 

"The Koch brothers and others now own all three branches of the US government."

 

Take a look at the top 10 contributors to the Romney and Obama campaigns in 2012.

 

First Romney's

 

http://www.opensecrets.org/pre...rib.php?id=N00000286

Goldman Sachs$1,033,204
Bank of America$1,013,402
Morgan Stanley$911,305
JPMorgan Chase & Co$834,096
Wells Fargo$677,076
Credit Suisse Group$643,120
Deloitte LLP$614,874
Kirkland & Ellis$520,541
Citigroup Inc$511,199
PricewaterhouseCoopers$459,400
UBS AG$453,540
Barclays$446,000
Ernst & Young$390,992
HIG Capital$382,904
Blackstone Group$366,525
General Electric$332,875
EMC Corp$320,679
Bain Capital$285,970
Elliott Management$281,675
Rothman Institute$259,500

Percent of Contributions Coded How to read this chart

 

 
legendCoded$248,390,704(70%)
legendUncoded$108,073,776(30%)
 Total$356,464,480 

Why (and How) We Use Donors' Employer/Occupation Information

METHODOLOGY

NOTE: All the numbers on this page are for the 2012 election cycle and based on Federal Election Commission data released electronically on Monday, March 25, 2013. 
("Help! The numbers don't add up...")

Feel free to distribute or cite this material, but please credit the Center for Responsive Politics. For permission to reprint for commercial uses, such as textbooks, contact the Center.

 

 

And Obama's

 

http://www.opensecrets.org/pre...rib.php?id=N00009638

University of California$1,212,245
Microsoft Corp$814,645
Google Inc$801,770
US Government$728,647
Harvard University$668,368
Kaiser Permanente$588,386
Stanford University$512,356
Deloitte LLP$456,975
Columbia University$455,309
Time Warner$442,271
US Dept of State$417,629
DLA Piper$401,890
Sidley Austin LLP$400,883
Walt Disney Co$369,598
IBM Corp$369,491
University of Chicago$357,185
University of Michigan$339,806
Comcast Corp$337,628
US Dept of Justice$334,659
US Dept of Health & Human Services$309,956

Percent of Contributions Coded How to read this chart

 

 
legendCoded$231,140,782(73%)
legendUncoded$83,789,168(27%)
 Total$314,929,950 

Why (and How) We Use Donors' Employer/Occupation Information

METHODOLOGY

NOTE: All the numbers on this page are for the 2012 election cycle and based on Federal Election Commission data released electronically on Monday, March 25, 2013. 
("Help! The numbers don't add up...")

Feel free to distribute or cite this material, but please credit the Center for Responsive Politics. For permission to reprint for commercial uses, such as textbooks, contact the Center.

 

JT is right. Corporations own all 3 branches of our government right now.

 

Correct, if one uses the corporatist definition for "corporation". Unions are corporations.

 

 

Corporatism (or corporativism) is the socio-political organization of a society by major interest groups, or corporate groups, such as agricultural, business, ethnic, labour, military, patronage, or scientific affiliations, on the basis of common interests.[1] Corporatism is theoretically based upon the interpretation of a community as an organic body.[2][3] The term corporatism is based on the Latin root word "corpus" (plural – "corpora") meaning "body".[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism

 

An article in the The Wall Street Journal was reprinted at Fox News.com showing that unions understated their economic support by a factor of 4 times.

 

Political spending by unions far exceeds direct donations

Organized labor spends about four times as much on politics and lobbying as generally thought, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis, a finding that shines a light on an aspect of labor's political activity that has often been overlooked.

Previous estimates have focused on labor unions' filings with federal election officials, which chronicle contributions made directly to federal candidates and union spending in support of candidates for Congress and the White House.

http://www.foxnews.com/politic...ds-direct-donations/

 

Having posted all the above, I think the unions, the Koch boys, George Soros, and everyone else (As long as they are U.S. citizens!) should have the right to spend however much they want to support their ideals and politicians. What I don't like is all the non-thinking, party-line fools who vote without checking facts or even thinking. I am pretty much a libertarian voting for the lesser evil in elections; so I know that who ever wins, I lose. It seems to me the choice between a republican and a democrat is slow decline or "hell-in-a-hand-basket" with rockets tied to the hand basket.

It should also be noted that the evil Koch boys not only give money to evil right wingers like Andrew Cuomo but they also give to evil charities:

 

To be sure, the Kochs have given "more than a hundred million dollars to right wing causes" (which is their right, by the way). But in the last decade, it's also worth noting the Kochs have given more than $600 million in pledged or donated money to arts, education, and medical research, including (but not limited to):

New York-Presbyterian Hospital Weill Cornell: $15 million

M.D. Anderson Cancer Center: $25 million

The Hospital for Special Surgery: $26 million

Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center: $30 million

Prostate Cancer Foundation: $41 million

Deerfield Academy: $68 million

Lincoln Center's NY State Theater: $100 million

Massachusetts Institute of Technology: $139 million

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2...o-right-wing-causes/

 

Last edited by Stanky

Stanky, did you watch the video that I posted?

 

Are you saying you are ok with a very tiny, tiny number of people deciding who we even have as candidates? You say "I am pretty much a libertarian voting for the lesser evil in elections; so I know that who ever wins, I lose. It seems to me the choice between a republican and a democrat is slow decline or "hell-in-a-hand-basket" with rockets tied to the hand basket." If you can't understand that the reason you don't have much choice, is because of the tiny, tiny percent of people (like the Koch boys), not allowing you to have a real choice, then you my friend, are what you say you don't like, "non-thinking, party-line fools who vote without checking facts or even thinking."

 

Personally I would like to take my country back from the few that run it now, and put it back in the hands of the many. Yes, we will still disagree on many issues, but we the people will be able to deal with those issues as it was meant to be. With a Representative Democracy. 

 

 

Originally Posted by Stanky:

It should also be noted that the evil Koch boys not only give money to evil right wingers like Andrew Cuomo but they also give to evil charities:

 

To be sure, the Kochs have given "more than a hundred million dollars to right wing causes" (which is their right, by the way). But in the last decade, it's also worth noting the Kochs have given more than $600 million in pledged or donated money to arts, education, and medical research, including (but not limited to):

New York-Presbyterian Hospital Weill Cornell: $15 million

M.D. Anderson Cancer Center: $25 million

The Hospital for Special Surgery: $26 million

Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center: $30 million

Prostate Cancer Foundation: $41 million

Deerfield Academy: $68 million

Lincoln Center's NY State Theater: $100 million

Massachusetts Institute of Technology: $139 million

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2...o-right-wing-causes/

 

________________________

 

And? 

If most voters are only mindless fools easily swayed by catchy jingles, ominous musical scores, and preachy voice overs; then you're completely correct. But if that is the case, why do we hold elections? The great experiment from the late 18th' century would be a failure and only a handful of people should pick our leaders. As to campaign finance legislation, there always are ways to get around the law so big money will still be funneled to politicians and issue ads by crony capitalists, union bosses, and other ne'er-do-wells.

 

To some, Libertarianism is only hedonism when it is actually trust in the masses to arrive at the correct answers when the masses take time to look for the facts and decide for themselves. It is true that we have nanny-stated ourselves for several generations to the point that many people are lazy and uneducated, but we should still allow unfettered access to all comers in elections. Voters are going to have to learn that the booming voice on the TV or radio might be lying or stretching the truth quite a ways. It is my belief that the only way to get a trustworthy population is to trust them and that means they may make a few mistakes on the way.

Originally Posted by Stanky:

If most voters are only mindless fools easily swayed by catchy jingles, ominous musical scores, and preachy voice overs; then you're completely correct. But if that is the case, why do we hold elections? The great experiment from the late 18th' century would be a failure and only a handful of people should pick our leaders. As to campaign finance legislation, there always are ways to get around the law so big money will still be funneled to politicians and issue ads by crony capitalists, union bosses, and other ne'er-do-wells.

 

To some, Libertarianism is only hedonism when it is actually trust in the masses to arrive at the correct answers when the masses take time to look for the facts and decide for themselves. It is true that we have nanny-stated ourselves for several generations to the point that many people are lazy and uneducated, but we should still allow unfettered access to all comers in elections. Voters are going to have to learn that the booming voice on the TV or radio might be lying or stretching the truth quite a ways. It is my belief that the only way to get a trustworthy population is to trust them and that means they may make a few mistakes on the way.

___________________

 

Stanky your answer seems to contradict itself. Maybe I am just not understanding what you are saying. On forums it can be hard to pick up on the meaning without being able to see expression and body language, so maybe we agree, maybe not.

I'm not sure how entitlements have kept people from voting or running for office. What I know is that allowing unfettered campaign contributions by individuals or corporations has led to those with the most money being able to buy our elections. When congress members leave office with millions of dollars more than when they entered office, we should question why. When only those that can "afford" to compete and have to have 10's of millions of dollars just to mount a campaign then I think we should be concerned. Take away the ability of these few that finance the campaigns (and in doing so make those elected officials beholden to them), and cap the amount that can even be used to campaign with. If you watched the video then you saw where Lessig referred to several really good campaign finance reforms that have been proposed. Look into them and see how we can take back the vote and our election system. 

 

I agree with your statement "It is my belief that the only way to get a trustworthy population is to trust them and that means they may make a few mistakes on the way."

 

We will not agree with each other on many things. But as I said earlier let the system that we know is the right one decide, a Representative Democracy. Not a government that only represents a very small number of the richest people in the country. 

Since when did being rich become a crime! History shows that some of the rich can be altruistic. Didn't the banker Haym Soloman help finance the Revolutionary War or that rich guy George Washington put his fortune on the line? Even those evil Koch boys might actually mean well in promoting their conservative opinions. I personally think the whole campaign finance reform push is nothing more than a ruse to protect failed incumbents and both established parties. Jank, if the ideals you believe in have merit, they should carry the day even with counter issue adds. Silencing people we disagree with is the tool of tyrants.

 

http://www.realcampaignreform...._you_should_know.htm

 

Originally Posted by Stanky:

Since when did being rich become a crime! History shows that some of the rich can be altruistic. Didn't the banker Haym Soloman help finance the Revolutionary War or that rich guy George Washington put his fortune on the line? Even those evil Koch boys might actually mean well in promoting their conservative opinions. I personally think the whole campaign finance reform push is nothing more than a ruse to protect failed incumbents and both established parties. Jank, if the ideals you believe in have merit, they should carry the day even with counter issue adds. Silencing people we disagree with is the tool of tyrants.

 

http://www.realcampaignreform...._you_should_know.htm

 

_________________________________

Koch bros give to charities at least as much as they donate to political parties.

Originally Posted by jtdavis:

Being rich isn't a crime.  But go ahead and justify buying elections.  I know that's where this topic is going.

==============

It would be good if you finally got the message that being rich isn't a crime, if you meant that included rich Republicans too. You seem to be the one justifying buying elections, if it's the left doing it that is. Like I said, you mention the koch brothers but not soros, unions and other big contributors to the dems. Fair play isn't in the dems vocabulary.

Last edited by Bestworking
Originally Posted by Jankinonya:
Originally Posted by direstraits:

First, JTD, get your facts straight.  Per Wiki:

 

 

As the Senate has  a Democrat majority and both members of the executive branch are Democrats, your conclusion that Koch owns all three branches is incoherent.

 

Besides, by one interpretation of the constitution, the Bill of Rights, is not subject to amendment,

___________________

 

Your facts, or your reading comprehension is not very straight. This is what JT said:

 

"The Koch brothers and others now own all three branches of the US government."

 

Take a look at the top 10 contributors to the Romney and Obama campaigns in 2012.

 

First Romney's

 

http://www.opensecrets.org/pre...rib.php?id=N00000286

Goldman Sachs$1,033,204
Bank of America$1,013,402
Morgan Stanley$911,305
JPMorgan Chase & Co$834,096
Wells Fargo$677,076
Credit Suisse Group$643,120
Deloitte LLP$614,874
Kirkland & Ellis$520,541
Citigroup Inc$511,199
PricewaterhouseCoopers$459,400
UBS AG$453,540
Barclays$446,000
Ernst & Young$390,992
HIG Capital$382,904
Blackstone Group$366,525
General Electric$332,875
EMC Corp$320,679
Bain Capital$285,970
Elliott Management$281,675
Rothman Institute$259,500

Percent of Contributions Coded How to read this chart

 

 
legendCoded$248,390,704(70%)
legendUncoded$108,073,776(30%)
 Total$356,464,480 

Why (and How) We Use Donors' Employer/Occupation Information

METHODOLOGY

NOTE: All the numbers on this page are for the 2012 election cycle and based on Federal Election Commission data released electronically on Monday, March 25, 2013. 
("Help! The numbers don't add up...")

Feel free to distribute or cite this material, but please credit the Center for Responsive Politics. For permission to reprint for commercial uses, such as textbooks, contact the Center.

 

 

And Obama's

 

http://www.opensecrets.org/pre...rib.php?id=N00009638

University of California$1,212,245
Microsoft Corp$814,645
Google Inc$801,770
US Government$728,647
Harvard University$668,368
Kaiser Permanente$588,386
Stanford University$512,356
Deloitte LLP$456,975
Columbia University$455,309
Time Warner$442,271
US Dept of State$417,629
DLA Piper$401,890
Sidley Austin LLP$400,883
Walt Disney Co$369,598
IBM Corp$369,491
University of Chicago$357,185
University of Michigan$339,806
Comcast Corp$337,628
US Dept of Justice$334,659
US Dept of Health & Human Services$309,956

Percent of Contributions Coded How to read this chart

 

 
legendCoded$231,140,782(73%)
legendUncoded$83,789,168(27%)
 Total$314,929,950 

Why (and How) We Use Donors' Employer/Occupation Information

METHODOLOGY

NOTE: All the numbers on this page are for the 2012 election cycle and based on Federal Election Commission data released electronically on Monday, March 25, 2013. 
("Help! The numbers don't add up...")

Feel free to distribute or cite this material, but please credit the Center for Responsive Politics. For permission to reprint for commercial uses, such as textbooks, contact the Center.

 

+++

 

Okay.

 

Somebody please help me understand.

 

How is it federal government entities such as the "US Government [???]

 

The US Dept of State

 

The US Dept of Justice

 

and the US Dept fo Health & Human Services

 

and state supported universities such as California and Michigan

 

are allowed to use taxpayer funds to contribute to any political candidate?

 

Thanks in advance.

 

 

Originally Posted by Jankinonya:

It is not the departments using tax money, its employees that work at those agencies, or Universities that are contributing.

 

+++

 

Thanks Jank.  An employee is free to contribute to the party of his/her choice but why through the federal agency they work?  Do they represent the core values of those agencies as no other co-worker who might disagree polically?

 

No official of any of the named federal agencies made a contribution on behalf of that agency towards a political candidate, did they?  Not Clinton.  Not Holder?  And they didn't influence anyone, right?  Yet there for all to see are the names of their agencies implying they did just that.

 

In fact, we are now to believe other than just being some low-level employees from a particular agency who owed many of their go-fer jobs to the current administration, they were not representatives of that Agency in a legal sense.

 

So why was it necessary for employees to channel financial contributions to the POTUS through their federal agency instead of a PAC or other mainstream contribution process? 

 

Why the deception? 

 

 

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×