• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

10 business honchos about to flood Congress with money

Hatuey

Hatuey

Rule of Two
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2006
Messages
59,334
Reaction score
27,000
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/the-...t-to-flood-congress-with-money-140020944.html

Big political donors such as Charles and David Koch, Sheldon Adelson and George Soros have drawn attention mostly because of ideological campaigns to unseat an entire political party or push a particular social agenda. Adelson and the Koch Brothers fund Republicans and advocate limited government, among other things. Soros, a top Democratic donor, lobbies for immigration reform and other social-justice causes. Up till now, most of their donations have been in the form of “soft money” targeted at party committees and so-called super PACs, which can spend large sums advocating on behalf of issues or parties.

The McCutcheon decision, by contrast, will open up new pathways for businesses to pursue narrower issues that might be of interest only to them, through “hard money” donations directly to politicians who write the laws. “That’s much more valuable for donors to use to gain access and influence through donations,” says Krumholz.


Ideological donors can have business interests too, of course: Adelson, for instance, wants Congress to ban online gambling, which competes with his casinos. Koch Industries, which is privately owned by the Koch family, is a conglomerate with major energy holdings subject to federal and state environmental regulations. It’s not clear yet whether the new rules will benefit certain industries over others or prompt a do-little Congress to be more aggressive about passing laws favorable to generous donors. But it’s nearly certain more money will flow to politicians, giving lobbyists more leverage to ask for favors in return.
Click to expand...

The best part about this entire ****ty decision is that there were members of SCOTUS who didn't think it went far enough. Some actually were in support of what is essentially buying your own congressman. The RNCs complicity in this is what's most shocking. The same people complaining about the influence of rich left wingers like George Soros have now effectively given those rich left wingers the power to put large amounts of cash in Democratic coffers. This, along the Senate's recent decision to approve the nuclear option mean we are headed down an EXTREMELY dangerous path of undemocratic election policies.
 
Hatuey said:
http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/the-...t-to-flood-congress-with-money-140020944.html



The best part about this entire ****ty decision is that there were members of SCOTUS who didn't think it went far enough. Some actually were in support of what is essentially buying your own congressman. The RNCs complicity in this is what's most shocking. The same people complaining about the influence of rich left wingers like George Soros have now effectively given those rich left wingers the power to put large amounts of cash in Democratic coffers. This, along the Senate's recent decision to approve the nuclear option mean we are headed down an EXTREMELY dangerous path of undemocratic election policies.
Click to expand...


It does the reverse actually. It forces the rich to spend MORE of their own money to get what they want, because of competing interests. It actually pushes power back to the people who don't have a lot of money. Remove the rest of the limits and the rich will be spending sizable portions of their wealth just trying to buy influence against their competitors. I find the whole situation amusing.
 
PirateMk1 said:
It does the reverse actually. It forces the rich to spend MORE of their own money to get what they want, because of competing interests. It actually pushes power back to the people who don't have a lot of money. Remove the rest of the limits and the rich will be spending sizable portions of their wealth just trying to buy influence against their competitors. I find the whole situation amusing.
Click to expand...

What a nice way to :spin: all of this. You do realize that those who don't have a lot of money don't make large contributions to many candidates. Correct? And that by being able to contribute to many candidates it'll simply mean more backdoor deals with our elected officials and wider influence. Yes? Did you even read the link?

The McCutcheon decision, by contrast, will open up new pathways for businesses to pursue narrower issues that might be of interest only to them, through “hard money” donations directly to politicians who write the laws. “That’s much more valuable for donors to use to gain access and influence through donations,” says Krumholz.
Click to expand...

The minute there are no longer limits on the amount which can be donated, we'll see the door wide opened for politicians who are quite literally owned by corporations.
 
Hatuey said:
What a nice way to :spin: all of this. You do realize that those who don't have a lot of money don't make large contributions to many candidates. Correct? And that by being able to contribute to many candidates it'll simply mean more backdoor deals with our elected officials and wider influence. Yes? Did you even read the link?



The minute there are no longer limits on the amount which can be donated, we'll see the door wide opened for politicians who are quite literally owned by corporations.
Click to expand...

Which is different then the politicians owned by unions how? Give it a rest man. The reason you're all in a tizzy over this isn't because of the "undo influence" of money, you might like to think that's the case and maybe you PERSONALLY even do feel that way however... the reality is Citizens United undermined the power of unions in the political giving arena which hurts amazingly enough, democrats. Which party is MOST angry over CU? Democrats! Thus here you are. The real :spin: here is your "outrage".
 
MrVicchio said:
Which is different then the politicians owned by unions how? Give it a rest man. The reason you're all in a tizzy over this isn't because of the "undo influence" of money, you might like to think that's the case and maybe you PERSONALLY even do feel that way however... the reality is Citizens United undermined the power of unions in the political giving arena which hurts amazingly enough, democrats. Which party is MOST angry over CU? Democrats! Thus here you are. The real :spin: here is your "outrage".
Click to expand...

You seriously think this is a good thing, or a partisan issue? A union could just as easily buy itself a majority as a corporation. It gives anyone with enough money the legal ability to say "pass this law and I'll give you $X".

As a conservative, do you really think this would lead to less government?
 
spud_meister said:
You seriously think this is a good thing, or a partisan issue? A union could just as easily buy itself a majority as a corporation. It gives anyone with enough money the legal ability to say "pass this law and I'll give you $X".

As a conservative, do you really think this would lead to less government?
Click to expand...


Spud... I don't see it the same way you do. Unions have bought candidates for YEARS with their power to get their members to vote for the candidate of their choice (bought) and now they have competition. The real reason the left is all up in arms over Citizen United.
 
Hatuey said:
http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/the-...t-to-flood-congress-with-money-140020944.html



The best part about this entire ****ty decision is that there were members of SCOTUS who didn't think it went far enough. Some actually were in support of what is essentially buying your own congressman. The RNCs complicity in this is what's most shocking. The same people complaining about the influence of rich left wingers like George Soros have now effectively given those rich left wingers the power to put large amounts of cash in Democratic coffers. This, along the Senate's recent decision to approve the nuclear option mean we are headed down an EXTREMELY dangerous path of undemocratic election policies.
Click to expand...


Too bad there isn't a app where you can take a photo of someone and put stretch marks around that person's mouth. Then you could do one of those demotivational posters of a whore and an elected official next to each other with the caption "Guess what whores and elected officials have in common?".
 
Our country has now legalized bribery and corruption in the highest levels of government, and it will eventually destroy us. Already, pieces of our founding documents have been made null and void for all intent and purpose....it is very sad to watch.
 
MrVicchio said:
Spud... I don't see it the same way you do. Unions have bought candidates for YEARS with their power to get their members to vote for the candidate of their choice (bought) and now they have competition. The real reason the left is all up in arms over Citizen United.
Click to expand...

So you believe it's ok for organisations to exert influence over politicians? That the rich and powerful deserve more of a voice in the running of the nation?
 
spud_meister said:
So you believe it's ok for organisations to exert influence over politicians? That the rich and powerful deserve more of a voice in the running of the nation?
Click to expand...

Spare me spud. Such a bull**** arguement. Politics has always involved influence. CU doesn't suddenly change that.
 
MrVicchio said:
Spare me spud. Such a bull**** arguement. Politics has always involved influence. CU doesn't suddenly change that.
Click to expand...

CU dramatically increases the ability of individuals (corporations), to utilize the most prominent and easiest form of "Influence" available.

It has made bribery and corruption legal, which makes the election process questionable.

Likely, those who see this as acceptable also believe voter fraud is a big problem....it makes no sense to me.
 
spud_meister said:
As a conservative, do you really think this would lead to less government?
Click to expand...

Nailed it. That conservatives are happy with this decision shows just how unthinkingly partisan they've become. "Now we can compete with unions herp-a-derp".
 
tecoyah said:
CU dramatically increases the ability of individuals (corporations), to utilize the most prominent and easiest form of "Influence" available.

It has made bribery and corruption legal, which makes the election process questionable.

Likely, those who see this as acceptable also believe voter fraud is a big problem....it makes no sense to me.
Click to expand...

I'll bite.

Can you give some examples of the bribery?

Let's say Koch finances Paul Ryan's campaign with unlimited donations. Then the voters cast their ballots, and Ryan gets elected. What would the Koch companues get out of Paul Ryan when he wins that they wouldn't have gotten if his opponent won?

Or let's say George Soros financed Dianne Feinstein's campaign with unlimited donations. Dianne Feinstein gets re-elected by the people. What is she doing that is at Soros' discretion and not the discretion of Feinstein?
 
tres borrachos said:
I'll bite.

Can you give some examples of the bribery?

Let's say Koch finances Paul Ryan's campaign with unlimited donations. Then the voters cast their ballots, and Ryan gets elected. What would the Koch companues get out of Paul Ryan when he wins that they wouldn't have gotten if his opponent won?

Or let's say George Soros financed Dianne Feinstein's campaign with unlimited donations. Dianne Feinstein gets re-elected by the people. What is she doing that is at Soros' discretion and not the discretion of Feinstein?
Click to expand...

As anyone of any intellect whatsoever would know....I am not privy to either of these politicians or what they might do. One is left to assumption and generalization in this scenario, and considering the ways money influences human decisions it is likely there would be subtle or even blatant back scratching going on.
 
tecoyah said:
CU dramatiInfluence ally increases the ability of individuals (corporations), to utilize the most prominent and easiest form of "Influence" available.

It has made bribery and corruption legal, which makes the election process questionable.

Likely, those who see this as acceptable also believe voter fraud is a big problem....it makes no sense to me.
Click to expand...
please stop the silly talking points bull**** would ya? Free speech is what CU hung on. Influence by those with money will ALWAYS be a part of the political game. Always. I look at who stands to lose and gain.
 
Hatuey said:
What a nice way to :spin: all of this. You do realize that those who don't have a lot of money don't make large contributions to many candidates. Correct? And that by being able to contribute to many candidates it'll simply mean more backdoor deals with our elected officials and wider influence. Yes? Did you even read the link?



The minute there are no longer limits on the amount which can be donated, we'll see the door wide opened for politicians who are quite literally owned by corporations.
Click to expand...

And this is different from now, how? Money has always talked.
 
MrVicchio said:
please stop the silly talking points bull**** would ya? Free speech is what CU hung on. Influence by those with money will ALWAYS be a part of the political game. Always. I look at who stands to lose and gain.
Click to expand...

These are my opinions, not "Talking Points".
 
tecoyah said:
CU dramatically increases the ability of individuals (corporations), to utilize the most prominent and easiest form of "Influence" available.

It has made bribery and corruption legal, which makes the election process questionable.

Likely, those who see this as acceptable also believe voter fraud is a big problem....it makes no sense to me.
Click to expand...

What? Bribery/corruption has nothing to do with who gets elected - only what they do after winning the election. Many "big donors" give to both sides thus assuring that, no matter who wins, they get "their guy" in office.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
What? Bribery/corruption has nothing to do with who gets elected - only what they do after winning the election. Many "big donors" give to both sides thus assuring that, no matter who wins, they get "their guy" in office.
Click to expand...

I am sure you believe this to be true.
 
tecoyah said:
As anyone of any intellect whatsoever would know....I am not privy to either of these politicians or what they might do. One is left to assumption and generalization in this scenario, and considering the ways money influences human decisions it is likely there would be subtle or even blatant back scratching going on.
Click to expand...

No, I don't assume bribery, on either side. I don't assume Soros is bribing anyone anymore than I believe Koch is being bribed.

I also believe these large money donors do their due diligence before donating to a candidate. They are not chasing candidates who don't share their ideals. That would be pointless. They chase candidates who they know when in DC will push their ideals, and by extension, the donor ideals.
 
tecoyah said:
I am sure you believe this to be true.
Click to expand...

Most laws stay the same regardless of the party in power. Take the example of Obama running against the Bush federal income tax rates but then keeping 98.6% of them, slightly raising taxes for the top 1.4% after adding far more new federal spending than that tiny (about $60 billion/year) increase will support.
 
tres borrachos said:
No, I don't assume bribery, on either side. I don't assume Soros is bribing anyone anymore than I believe Koch is being bribed.

I also believe these large money donors do their due diligence before donating to a candidate. They are not chasing candidates who don't share their ideals. That would be pointless. They chase candidates who they know when in DC will push their ideals, and by extension, the donor ideals.
Click to expand...

Most of the dealings in DC have nothing to do with the voters' "main concerns" or even any issues being discussed during the campaign. While the voters may focus on "issues" like SSM, immigration reform and "jobs" the big money folks quietly get tax breaks, outright subsidies and other "special" laws passed to reduce any competition (foreign or domestic).
 
Hatuey said:
What a nice way to :spin: all of this. You do realize that those who don't have a lot of money don't make large contributions to many candidates. Correct? And that by being able to contribute to many candidates it'll simply mean more backdoor deals with our elected officials and wider influence. Yes? Did you even read the link?



The minute there are no longer limits on the amount which can be donated, we'll see the door wide opened for politicians who are quite literally owned by corporations.
Click to expand...

Then we need to stop electing people who can be bought and start throwing those who have been bought In jail. The solution isn't to silence the voice of the people, it's to get people elected who represent the People and those who provide benefit to their election donors by use of their position need to be thrown in jail. FIX THE PROBLEM!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom