Should we just auction off political offices? Another Supreme Court 5-4 ruling

[spidey07]

If that's what he said, fair enough. It's why I asked for clarification. Because the way it reads to me, a corporation can contribute money belonging to all the shareholders by a majority vote, but union members cannot do that. The way I read it, the analogy to unions would be to ban corporate contributions and tell the shareholders that they can contribute as individuals. Admittedly, however, I perceive some ambiguity in what he wrote.

I can't speak for werepossom, but that's what I gathered.

 

[the DRIZZLE]

We disagree on the definition of "level playing field". I think it means that all candidates are equally unencumbered by government or industry to raise money to get out their messages. You apparently think that government should be in the business of funding a candidate that the people refuse to fund - to wit, that a "level playing field" should be measured by results rather than by opportunity.

When a candidate favoring Obamacare gets free coverage and a candidate opposing Obamacare is not allowed to even buy adverts, obviously there is not a level playing field. If however the candidate opposing Obamacare is unable to raise money to pay for adverts detailing why it is bad, that does not by itself indicate lack of a level playing field. It may only indicate that his message is not resonating with the people, or at least, not sufficiently to make them give up something to support that candidate.

Put another way, is a candidate advocating Marxism with forced relocation of most people to government farms really entitled to funding equity (or even a substantial shadow of funding equity) with a candidate advocating low taxes and personal freedom? If we measure a "level playing field" by how much money each raises, then the answer must be yes.

There is a middle ground here. The law is bad policy but I don't believe it's unconstitutional.

 

[Doppel]

I love your logic, when the other side is money guzzling whores it is alright your side is the same.

You are part of the problem. You assume that for me to attack the left means I agree with the right. It's this grade school partisanship that is so integral a foundation of the political fvckery that is the US political system.

The Republican party couldn't balance a lemonade stand budget if it had a million bucks. Happy?

 

[Jhhnn]

You are part of the problem. You assume that for me to attack the left means I agree with the right. It's this grade school partisanship that is so integral a foundation of the political fvckery that is the US political system.

The Republican party couldn't balance a lemonade stand budget if it had a million bucks. Happy?

Then why do you propose that corporate spending on political speech be treated differently than union spending?

 

[Doppel]

Then why do you propose that corporate spending on political speech be treated differently than union spending?

There is huge risk really in anything that allows a legislator to make a clear link between campaign funds he has and who gave it to him. A corporation can buy votes just as a union can. Neither one is right and I think campaign financing is the greatest cancer on the political system. It turns people with principles into knee-scraped sycophants for whomever is going to give them money for their next election.

 

[Craig234]

There is huge risk really in anything that allows a legislator to make a clear link between campaign funds he has and who gave it to him. A corporation can buy votes just as a union can. Neither one is right and I think campaign financing is the greatest cancer on the political system. It turns people with principles into knee-scraped sycophants for whomever is going to give them money for their next election.

This isn't aimed at you, but I'm sick of the false equivalency between the corporate agenda and unions. Unions don't lobby to get to pollute, to let them put the economy at risk with gambling trillions in financial schemes, to overcharge for drugs, to do all kinds of things against the public interest. Their agenda is FAR less threatening to the public - it's to pay and protect workers more than they would be without the union. It can be excessive, but there's no comparison between the agendas.

Their power is far less, their agenda is far more broadly spread across the American people - their efforts that protect wages benefit not only unions but all workers.

But that isn't the point. Liberals are generally happy to have the same regulations for 'political interests', including unions and corporations, despite the unequal harms.

But the right loves to excuse the corporate agenda by claiming unions justify doing so.

Now, a comment that is directed to you, I think you're on the right track about, as I'd put it, that money is a poison for democracy.

 

[Jhhnn]

There is huge risk really in anything that allows a legislator to make a clear link between campaign funds he has and who gave it to him. A corporation can buy votes just as a union can. Neither one is right and I think campaign financing is the greatest cancer on the political system. It turns people with principles into knee-scraped sycophants for whomever is going to give them money for their next election.

So, uhh, who has more money- corporate interests, or the 12% of the workforce represented by unions? It's a no-brainer, even thought righties luvs to rave on about unions in politics.

Shee-it, Sherlock, the Koch Bros have more influence than all 15M union members combined.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Koch_Industries

 

[lothar]

The political system needs total revamping.

There should be no advertising or promotion allowed at any media outlet other than allowed by law. And even then it should be VERY limited so that intelligent middle class people would have a shot financially speaking.

I would vote for a middle class engineer that ran a business for 10 years over anyone in office right now. I would also vote For Charlie Munger or Warren Buffett in a heartbeat also. Rather have Munger in office though since he is one of the smartest people I have ever heard speak and he is a republican.

“Costco does more for civilization than the Rockefeller Foundation”
-Charlie Munger

So does Wal-Mart, Target, GE, Johnson & Johnson, Google, Microsoft, and other corporations.

We both know that Charlie is not going to win the liberal and progressive vote by saying such factual statements and telling the truth.
Of course he'd still win my vote and yours.

Anyone who wants to understand Charlie should read this:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/157...SIN=1578645018

Charlie Munger on Donald Trump:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGLMnTzQIh8
"The last person, almost, I'd want to be president of the United States is Donald Trump."

 

[werepossum]

Let me see if I understand this correctly. Corporations and individuals can contribute, each with no limit. Unions cannot contribute. Their "members" can contribute but that is no different than individual contributions, so in effect union contributions are outlawed and there is no limit on corporate contributions, other than that they require a shareholder vote. The shareholder vote of course requires a majority of shareholders, but the union can't contribute if a majority of its members vote to do so. Only the individual members can contribute just like anyone else. So collective political use of aggregated funds based on a majority vote is OK for corporations but not for unions? If I'm misdesribing what you're saying, then correct me.

I have no problem with a union contributing as a union as long as a recorded vote is taken for each contribution. Recognize one big difference from corporations though; shareholders usually cannot lose their jobs if they vote against management's wishes.

EDIT: I should also add that my true preference would be that neither corporations nor unions be allowed to contribute at all, only actual flesh-and-blood individuals. However, SCOTUS has already recognized corporations as entities entitled to free speech (i.e. political contributions), so that's a non-starter. Failing that, the best thing to do is to treat them both the same. I have no problem with unions being forced to divide their contributions proportionally according to their members' vote, as long as corporate contributions are treated the same, even though this would disproportionally benefit unions as they typically have greater ability to threaten and coerce members than corporations do stockholders. However, no system is going to be perfect.

 

[Jhhnn]

So does Wal-Mart, Target, GE, Johnson & Johnson, Google, Microsoft, and other corporations.

Except Charlie didn't say that- you did. If you need to put words in his mouth to make your point, you have no point.

 

[BoomerD]

I have no problem with a union contributing as a union as long as a recorded vote is taken for each contribution. Recognize one big difference from corporations though; shareholders usually cannot lose their jobs if they vote against management's wishes.

I worked union for most of my working career...and spent some time as a business agent.
ALL union members have the right to opt out of having any portion of their union dues spent for political campaigns and such. All they have to do is fill out a form every year.
I've never heard of a union member losing his/her job because they did this.

Hell, you're more likely to lose your job for failing to contribute to the bosses pet charity/political action committee than you are for opting out of union dues for politics.

 

[Jhhnn]

I have no problem with a union contributing as a union as long as a recorded vote is taken for each contribution. Recognize one big difference from corporations though; shareholders usually cannot lose their jobs if they vote against management's wishes.

That's utterly impractical because of the structure of unions. You haven't advocated the same wrt corporate interests, either. Should they send out proxy forms to every shareholder for every contribution, every issue ad?

 

[werepossum]

That's utterly impractical because of the structure of unions. You haven't advocated the same wrt corporate interests, either. Should they send out proxy forms to every shareholder for every contribution, every issue ad?

Go back and re-read. This was specifically in answer to Woolfe's question about unions, since I had just advocated the exact same thing for corporations and seemed to be treating unions differently, which was not my intention.

I certainly think that both unions and corporations should have to have votes on at least each campaign, to select a side and to determine how much is to be spent. Whether it's winner take all or proportionally split is a different matter; I tend toward the former since a union or corporation funding both sides of a campaign seems rather pointless. (Or rather, it points to the main purpose of today's lobbying and campaign donations - protection money.) Another issue is between publicly recorded and anonymous secret ballot votes; after thinking it over, anonymous votes would probably be better, to protect dissenting union members and shareholders with whom corporate management has leverage. But then you get into needing a trustworthy third party to ensure fair elections, if not to actually run them.

EDIT: It occurs to me that the old saw about democracies only lasting until the voters discover they can vote themselves largesse out of public funds is true, but incomplete. Corporations (and unions) have also discovered the ability to vote themselves favors and competitive advantages, by buying politicians.

 

[werepossum]

I worked union for most of my working career...and spent some time as a business agent.
ALL union members have the right to opt out of having any portion of their union dues spent for political campaigns and such. All they have to do is fill out a form every year.
I've never heard of a union member losing his/her job because they did this.

Hell, you're more likely to lose your job for failing to contribute to the bosses pet charity/political action committee than you are for opting out of union dues for politics.

That's not been my experience, but your mileage may vary.

 

[BoomerD]

Go back and re-read. This was specifically in answer to Woolfe's question about unions, since I had just advocated the exact same thing for corporations and seemed to be treating unions differently, which was not my intention.

I certainly think that both unions and corporations should have to have votes on at least each campaign, to select a side and to determine how much is to be spent. Whether it's winner take all or proportionally split is a different matter; I tend toward the former since a union or corporation funding both sides of a campaign seems rather pointless. (Or rather, it points to the main purpose of today's lobbying and campaign donations - protection money.) Another issue is between publicly recorded and anonymous secret ballot votes; after thinking it over, anonymous votes would probably be better, to protect dissenting union members and shareholders with whom corporate management has leverage. But then you get into needing a trustworthy third party to ensure fair elections, if not to actually run them.

EDIT: It occurs to me that the old saw about democracies only lasting until the voters discover they can vote themselves largesse out of public funds is true, but incomplete. Corporations (and unions) have also discovered the ability to vote themselves favors and competitive advantages, by buying politicians.

Hell...the definition of a good politician is one who stays bought...right?

 

[Jadow]

the irony is, campaign spending doesn't make nearly as much impact as people think.

http://www.freakonomics.com/2007/07/26/the-campaign-finance-bottom-line/

 

[woolfe9999]

That's not been my experience, but your mileage may vary.

The way I see it, there is a pretty good symmetry between the situation with union members and the situation with shareholders in your scenario. Those who are outvoted and don't like where their money is going, they can quit their jobs or divest from the company, or live with it. Either may have bad economic consequences. It may in theory be worse for the union people, but there's no perfect solution.

In any event, I don't think these ideas go nearly far enough to solve this problem that is threatening the foundation of our democracy, though the disclosure aspect your describe is one essential piece.

 

[sportage]

Bottom line? It matters how you vote, people. How bad does bad have to get before it finally hits home in your little neighborhood? One lesson everyone should have learned in the last year, is that republicans have an agenda. They will never tell you face to face, but they have the memo, they follow their agenda. If you agree on the plan, then elect them. If you don't, don't. Forget what republican candidates tell you they want, watch what they do. It is really THAT simple!!! What they really want is to kill Medicare, privatize SS, raise taxes on the middle class, and continue their GW Bush tax cut agenda.
If you are on SS, on Medicare, plan on future SS, future Medicare, are one of the working middle class, and you want your life made much more miserable and expensive, then sure... keep voting in those self labeled middle class friendly republicans. WOOT!
Unless you are some high paid CEO, or one of the upper 2% wealthy, one day this agenda is going to come a knocking at your door. It will want your money, want your lifestyle, want your ability to support your family, and your future security. They want your healthcare, your children’s future, your job, and your retirement savings. They want it all. And if you look out your living room window right now... you might see them at the corner just turning down your street. Heading right toward your front door.
Knock Knock Knock... Whos there? You really don't want to know...

 

[trenchfoot]

Bottom line? It matters how you vote, people. How bad does bad have to get before it finally hits home in your little neighborhood? One lesson everyone should have learned in the last year, is that republicans have an agenda. They will never tell you face to face, but they have the memo, they follow their agenda. If you agree on the plan, then elect them. If you don't, don't. Forget what republican candidates tell you they want, watch what they do. It is really THAT simple!!! What they really want is to kill Medicare, privatize SS, raise taxes on the middle class, and continue their GW Bush tax cut agenda.
If you are on SS, on Medicare, plan on future SS, future Medicare, are one of the working middle class, and you want your life made much more miserable and expensive, then sure... keep voting in those self labeled middle class friendly republicans. WOOT!
Unless you are some high paid CEO, or one of the upper 2% wealthy, one day this agenda is going to come a knocking at your door. It will want your money, want your lifestyle, want your ability to support your family, and your future security. They want your healthcare, your children’s future, your job, and your retirement savings. They want it all. And if you look out your living room window right now... you might see them at the corner just turning down your street. Heading right toward your front door.
Knock Knock Knock... Whos there? You really don't want to know...

I agree with most of your commentary......BUT.....a lot of people vote with their prejudices as a priority, with their thoroughly propagandized mindset, with their Swiftboat/FOX/Limbaugh/Hannity/O'reilly acquired political indoctrination firmly implanted and mostly, with their ignorant far right wing fear-induced paranoia as their prime motivator for choosing our leaders.

That these middle class citizens would vote against their own best interests is testament to how powerful the entities are that conditioned them to a life of utter indenturement to the rich. They would forfeit their children's potential prosperity to believe the lies coming from the Koch brothers, et al.

The power of the common citizen is in their ability to choose those that would serve their best interests and not for those that would play on their worst fears to control them into subjugation.

From the looks of things, a very tough nut to crack.

 

[spidey07]

So, uhh, who has more money- corporate interests, or the 12% of the workforce represented by unions? It's a no-brainer, even thought righties luvs to rave on about unions in politics.

Shee-it, Sherlock, the Koch Bros have more influence than all 15M union members combined.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Koch_Industries

Umm, the biggest donors are most always unions and they overwhelmingly support democrats.

That's why the libtards are so up in arms about this, it allows people and companies without unions to have a fair fight.

 

[hal2kilo]

Hell, you're more likely to lose your job for failing to contribute to the bosses pet charity/political action committee than you are for opting out of union dues for politics.

This