It is currently 04/11/25 6:33 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Go to page 1, 2  Next   Page 1 of 2   [ 40 posts ]
Author Message
 Offline
PostPosted: 01/23/10 4:36 am • # 1 
Administrator

Joined: 01/16/16
Posts: 30003
How about that. Some folks actually have the spine to call these "campaign contributions" for what they really are.

WASHINGTON -- Forty-one business leaders have co-signed letters sent to Democratic and Republican leaders in Congress voicing their opposition to Thursday's Supreme Court ruling that frees corporations to spend unlimited amounts on influencing elections.

"Is there a difference between campaign contributions and bribery?" said Alan Hassenfeld, chairman of Hasbro, Inc, who co-signed the letter.

"It is long past the time to stop requiring that our elected officials moonlight as telemarketers raising money for their re-election campaigns rather then devoting all their time to solving the problems before this nation," he said.

The letter read: "As business leaders, we believe the current political fundraising system is already broken. The Supreme Court decision further exacerbates this problem."

Signatories include current and former high-ranking corporate executives of enterprises such as Playboy Enterprises, MetLife, Ben & Jerry's, and Delta Airlines, among others.

They appeared partly motivated by a desire to be left alone. "[M]any of us individually are on the receiving end of solicitation phone calls from members of Congress," the letter read.

"Congress needs to spend its time working on the leading issues of the day, from reviving our economy to addressing our nation's energy crisis to reforming the healthcare system," it continued, arguing that Congress must be "swayed by the merits of policy without regard to the interests of campaign contributors."

The executives urged Congress to embrace public financing as the best way forward, endorsing the Fair Elections Now Act, sponsored by Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Rep. John Larson (D-CT).

"With a strong public financing system in place, candidates will be not be consigned to a system in which constant fundraising creates conflicts of interest and leaves Members little time to do the job they were elected to do."

The effort was organized by a coalition of consumer advocacy groups, including Common Cause, U.S. PIRG, Brennan Center for Justice, Change Congress, Democracy Matters, Public Campaign and Public Citizen -- all of whom support public financing of elections.

Read the letters:
http://www.publicampaign....www.p....tter-senate.pdf
http://www.publicampaign....www.p....etter-house.pdf

The executives echoes the criticisms of Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL), who blasted the ruling Thursday in an interview with Raw Story, saying without campaign finance reform, "you can kiss your country goodbye."

Grayson has already introduced six bills that seek to reverse the consequences of the ruling



http://rawstory.com/2010/...ing-extremely-troubling/


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 01/23/10 5:01 am • # 2 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/07/08
Posts: 42112
YAYYY ~ I have long been, and remain, a strong supporter of leveling the playing field via public financing ~ I am rabidly "anti" giving corporations the rights, without the responsibilities, of citizenship ~ I vow to support these 41 businesses [well, probably not including Playboy ~ Image] ~ and I vow to stop supporting any corporation that mounts a campaign for or against any candidate ~

Sooz


Top
  
PostPosted: 01/23/10 5:04 am • # 3 
Public financing's "levelling of the playing field" is the greatest incumbent-protection plan for Congress and state legislatures known to man.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 01/23/10 5:05 am • # 4 
Administrator

Joined: 01/16/16
Posts: 30003
So buy Playgirl instead. [img]/domainskins/bypass/img/smileys/wink.gif[/img]


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 01/23/10 5:10 am • # 5 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/07/08
Posts: 42112
gopqed wrote:
Public financing's "levelling of the playing field" is the greatest incumbent-protection plan for Congress and state legislatures known to man.

I disagree ~ I see incumbents as having a GREAT and usually insurmountable advantage in fund-raising ~

Sooz


Top
  
PostPosted: 01/23/10 5:12 am • # 6 
Challengers to incumbents are rarely able to win unless they outspend the incumbent by a significant margin.


Top
  
PostPosted: 01/23/10 5:13 am • # 7 
And the fundraising advantage incumbents enjoy would be lessened by eliminating or greatly increasing contribution limits.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 01/23/10 5:37 am • # 8 
Administrator

Joined: 01/16/16
Posts: 30003
Gopqed's rationalisations are quite humourous.


Top
  
PostPosted: 01/24/10 2:15 am • # 9 
Public financing of campaigns won't have any effect on the corporate and union spending on ads supporting candidates allowed by this Supreme Court decision.


Last edited by gopqed on 01/24/10 2:18 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
  
PostPosted: 01/24/10 2:17 am • # 10 
Some folks actually have the spine to call these "campaign contributions" for what they really are.


The Supreme Court decision doesn't allow corporations and unions to make campaign contributions.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 01/24/10 7:06 am • # 11 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/07/08
Posts: 42112
gopqed wrote:
Public financing of campaigns won't have any effect on the corporate and union spending on ads supporting candidates allowed by this Supreme Court decision.

Good point, gop ~ but I still favor public financing ~ I also favor term limits ~

Sooz


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 01/24/10 7:11 am • # 12 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/07/08
Posts: 42112
gopqed wrote:
Some folks actually have the spine to call these "campaign contributions" for what they really are.


The Supreme Court decision doesn't allow corporations and unions to make campaign contributions.

You're right, gop ~ altho your comment is just a tad disingenuous ~ the recent decision doesn't remove the prohibition against corporations and unions making DIRECT campaign contributions ~ but it allows unregulated and unlimited mega bucks to be pumped into races ~ which can easily swing an election ~

Sooz
  


Last edited by sooz06 on 01/24/10 12:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 01/24/10 8:32 am • # 13 
Administrator

Joined: 01/16/16
Posts: 30003
And I'd have thought that the "" around the term "campaign contributions" would be sufficient. Apparently one needs to hit conservatives upside the head with 2 x 4s to get their attention.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 01/24/10 12:45 pm • # 14 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/07/08
Posts: 42112
This is an interesting read on its own but especially when connected to my comment in my post #1 where I said: "I am rabidly "anti" giving corporations the rights, without the responsibilities, of citizenship" ~ Sooz


If Corporations Were Human

by Scott Klinger

Yesterday's Supreme Court decision in the Citizens United case removes all limits on large corporations to finance and influence federal elections. In its ruling the Court reverse a decades old ruling barring companies from using their general funds to fund political campaign, and guts pieces of the popular McCain-Feingold campaign finance legislation. In so doing the Court implicitly embraces a 125 year-old precedent in the case of Santa Clara v. Santa Fe, where the Court first developed the legal doctrine of corporate personhood, explicitly granting corporations the same political and civil rights granted to human beings. Our nation's founders would be shocked to learn that their revolution had resulted in non-human entities like corporations being endowed with the same hard fought rights secured for citizens.

But what if we accept corporate personhood as the current reality and instead focus on changing the rules such that corporations would also have to be bound by other limitations of humanity? How would corporations be different if they were indeed human-like?

If corporations were human, they would pause for sleep and recreation. When human families vacation, they frequently go to parks or natural places which they inherently recognize as part of the commons set apart from the marketplace. Many corporations know no such bounds; if resources are available, even in the nation's National Parks, they will seek to develop them. Today's modern corporations are 24/7 affairs, that are always charging forward. The press for continuous growth and the need to deliver the next quarter's earnings, make corporation's urgency and intensity toward time a threat to many communities, which have other priorities like caring for children and elders, not the tireless quest to produce more profit.

If corporations were human, they would acknowledge their dependence on a healthy community for their well-being and contribute financially to the vibrancy of the community through payment of taxes. Fifty years ago, corporate taxes made up nearly 22% of the federal treasury receipts, today corporate taxes contribute less than 13% to the Federal budget. The mindset of many large corporations is that of takers, looking to be supported by society with a stream of tax credits and preferential tax rates. According to a 2008 report by the Government Accounting Office, 25% of large US corporations paid no Federal income taxes in 2005 (the latest year studied) despite reporting collective sales exceeding $1.1 trillion.

If corporations were human, they would recognize that their brains are only one of many vital organs. The brain, which provides the executive function for the body whole, nonetheless consumes a relatively modest share of the body's nutrition. A brain which swells beyond a normal healthy state is a dire threat to the body and most often requires the dramatic intervention of surgery. Inhuman corporations provide ever larger amount of nutrition in the form of money to its executive function. These swollen levels of pay are a cancer that often results in excessive risk, putting both the corporation and society at risk.

If corporations were human, they would be accountable to society when they break the law and would be punished with a loss of their freedoms. When a person steals or murders, they are sent to prison, where they lose their freedom to practice their trade, and to participate in the economic and political life of the community. When corporations produce products they know to be deadly, or withhold important information on the safety of their products are they not guilty of murder? When corporations submit fraudulent financial statements to investors, or engage in deceptive marketing practices that cost people their homes or their life savings, are they not guilty of felonious theft? Shouldn't corporate criminals, particularly repeat offenders, be denied their freedom to practice business and have their license revoked?

If corporations were human, they would one day die. Unlike the finitude of human life, modern corporations can live forever under the law, growing in size and gaining political and economic power generation after generation. It was not always so. When our nation was young, people recognized both the good things that business contributed but also the risks of concentrating too much power in the hands of businesses. Business charters were granted for a set period of time, commonly a generation, after which time the businesses would be dissolved. While businesses could still prosper and grow to have influence, they were kept from becoming too big to fail, where their size alone was a threat to the social order.

Corporations can't have it both ways - insisting upon the political and civil rights guaranteed human rights under the Constitution, while at the same time refusing to live within the constraints of human life in terms of longevity, size, accountability and support of the communities which grant them their existence.

Scott Klinger is an Associate Fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies. He may be reached at scottklinger@earthlink.net.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/01/22


Top
  
PostPosted: 01/25/10 2:36 am • # 15 
Good point, gop ~ but I still favor public financing ~ I also favor term limits ~

Term limits are another bad idea.  They are anti-democratic and result in an inexperienced and dysfunctional legislative body controlled by staffers and lobbyists, who hold all of the institutional knowledge.  The elected representatives are even more consumed with their political career path and so are constantly positioning themselves for their next office.  I favored term limits in California and voted for them, and now understand the harm it has done to this state.  It was the greatest mistake regarding the legislature since the conversation of the legislature to a full-time body, and I would gladly vote to eliminate those term limits if I had the opportunity.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 01/25/10 2:43 am • # 16 
Administrator

Joined: 01/16/16
Posts: 30003
IThey are anti-democratic and result in an inexperienced and dysfunctional legislative body controlled by staffers and lobbyists, who hold all of the institutional knowledge.

Currently you have the same thing without the term limits.


Top
  
PostPosted: 01/25/10 2:45 am • # 17 
the recent decision doesn't remove the prohibition against corporations and unions making DIRECT campaign contributions ~ but it allows unregulated and unlimited mega bucks to be pumped into races ~ which can easily swing an election ~

The decision doesn't allow unregulated money to flow into the process, as campaign finance is heavily regulated.  Corporations which choose to exercise their right to run ads endorsing candidates will have laws and regulatory processes to adhere to in their activities.  Congress can, and should, enact additional reporting and procedural requirements to ensure full disclosure and protect the right of shareholders in a corporation to participate in any decision to endorse a candidate by running ads or engaging in other activities.

There are many, many reasons why the vast majority of corporations, particularly large, prominent corporations, won't go near these kinds of ads. 


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 01/25/10 2:49 am • # 18 
Administrator

Joined: 01/16/16
Posts: 30003

1

New Zealand

9.4

6

9.1 - 9.5

2

Denmark

9.3

6

9.1 - 9.5

3

Singapore

9.2

9

9.0 - 9.4

3

Sweden

9.2

6

9.0 - 9.3

5

Switzerland

9.0

6

8.9 - 9.1

6

Finland

8.9

6

8.4 - 9.4

6

Netherlands

8.9

6

8.7 - 9.0

8

Australia

8.7

8

8.3 - 9.0

8

Canada

8.7

6

8.5 - 9.0

8

Iceland

8.7

4

7.5 - 9.4

11

Norway

8.6

6

8.2 - 9.1

12

Hong Kong

8.2

8

7.9 - 8.5

12

Luxembourg

8.2

6

7.6 - 8.8

14

Germany

8.0

6

7.7 - 8.3

14

Ireland

8.0

6

7.8 - 8.4

16

Austria

7.9

6

7.4 - 8.3

17

Japan

7.7

8

7.4 - 8.0

17

United Kingdom

7.7

6

7.3 - 8.2

19

United States

7.5

8

6.9 - 8.0

20

Barbados

7.4

4

6.6 - 8.2

21

Belgium

7.1

6

6.9 - 7.3

22

Qatar

7.0

6

5.8 - 8.1

22

Saint Lucia

7.0

3

6.7 - 7.5

24

France

6.9

6

6.5 - 7.3

25

Chile

6.7

7

6.5 - 6.9

25

Uruguay

6.7

5

6.4 - 7.1

27

Cyprus

6.6

4

6.1 - 7.1

27

Estonia

6.6

8

6.1 - 6.9

27

Slovenia

6.6

8

6.3 - 6.9

30

United Arab Emirates

6.5

5

5.5 - 7.5



Top
  
PostPosted: 01/25/10 2:58 am • # 19 
Currently you have the same thing without the term limits.

No, we don't.  There are issues with the way Congress conducts business, but it isn't the result of the inexpereince of the members of Congress.  The opportunities for greater competitiveness in elections can be increased through some changes to redistricting processes and campaign finance regulations that increase the ability of challengers to incumbents to compete.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 01/25/10 3:02 am • # 20 
Administrator

Joined: 01/16/16
Posts: 30003
After almost 250 years you're still grappling with the same issues and it won't change much. The Congress Critters love their hush money and post-term rewards. They'll see to that with the complicity of equally corrupt courts.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 01/25/10 3:05 am • # 21 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/07/08
Posts: 42112
gopqed wrote:
the recent decision doesn't remove the prohibition against corporations and unions making DIRECT campaign contributions ~ but it allows unregulated and unlimited mega bucks to be pumped into races ~ which can easily swing an election ~

The decision doesn't allow unregulated money to flow into the process, as campaign finance is heavily regulated.  Corporations which choose to exercise their right to run ads endorsing candidates will have laws and regulatory processes to adhere to in their activities.  Congress can, and should, enact additional reporting and procedural requirements to ensure full disclosure and protect the right of shareholders in a corporation to participate in any decision to endorse a candidate by running ads or engaging in other activities.

There are many, many reasons why the vast majority of corporations, particularly large, prominent corporations, won't go near these kinds of ads. 

gop, the USSC decision opened the floodgates with NO barriers in the form of laws/regulations in place ~ it was a strictly partisan decision which would be ragingly condemned from a "liberal" court ~ and good ol' Clarence Thomas doesn't think the decision goes far enough ~ he is on record as strongly favoring NOT requiring disclosure ~ Image ~ I'm willing to bet the Rs threaten/try to filibuster any laws and regulations that are brought to a vote ~ how about $20, funds to be paid to winner's choice of charity?

Sooz


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 01/25/10 3:10 am • # 22 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/07/08
Posts: 42112
oskar576 wrote:
After almost 250 years you're still grappling with the same issues and it won't change much. The Congress Critters love their hush money and post-term rewards. They'll see to that with the complicity of equally corrupt courts.

I don't see the US as being so vastly different than other industrialized countries, oskar ~ everyone has warts ~ do I like/support it? ~ NO ~ but it IS reality ~

Sooz

  


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 01/25/10 3:13 am • # 23 
Administrator

Joined: 01/16/16
Posts: 30003
I don't see the US as being so vastly different than other industrialized countries, oskar ~ everyone has warts ~ do I like/support it? ~ NO ~ but it IS reality ~

Corruption elsewhere doesn't alter the corruption of USian governments.


Top
  
PostPosted: 01/25/10 3:13 am • # 24 
gop, the USSC decision opened the floodgates with NO barriers in the form of laws/regulations in place ~ it was a strictly partisan decision which would be ragingly condemned from a "liberal" court ~ and good ol' Clarence Thomas doesn't think the decision goes far enough ~ he is on record as strongly favoring NOT requiring disclosure ~ Image ~ I'm willing to bet the Rs threaten/try to filibuster any laws and regulations that are brought to a vote ~ how about $20, funds to be paid to winner's choice of charity?

sooz, a filibuster isn't going to work because John McCain, Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, at a minimum, are going to be working on the side of those disclosure laws.  There may well be a threat of a filibuster, but a threat has no teeth if there aren't 41 votes against cloture.  I'm not sure what we would be betting on - that there is a successful filibuster?  Given that there would only be a maximum of 38 Republican votes against cloture, you would have to be betting that your party's leader is so incompetent he can't muster 58 of his caucus' 60 votes for disclosure laws that would be overwhelmingly (far more than the supposed health insurance reform) supported by the public.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 01/25/10 3:17 am • # 25 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/07/08
Posts: 42112
oskar576 wrote:
I don't see the US as being so vastly different than other industrialized countries, oskar ~ everyone has warts ~ do I like/support it? ~ NO ~ but it IS reality ~

Corruption elsewhere doesn't alter the corruption of USian governments.

I know ~ my point was that the US is NOT the only country with corrupt/egotistical/arrogant politicians ~ and I'm including Canada in that assessment ~

Sooz
  


Top
  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  

Go to page 1, 2  Next   Page 1 of 2   [ 40 posts ] New Topic Add Reply

All times are UTC - 6 hours



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
© Voices or Choices.
All rights reserved.