• 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!

Kochs Plan to Spend $900 Million on 2016 Campaign

jet57 said:
Well number one; it's a cut and paste article with no journalistic research or interview involved. Secondly, a number of the people quoted have an ax to grind, so yes, I dispute it.
Click to expand...

All the quotes are on the record, so I don't see a problem.
 
tres borrachos said:
And? I don't think you understand how it works. AT&T didn't cut Barack Obama a check. Someone in Accounts Payable didn't say "Hey let's send a $50,000 check to Obama For America".

The donations came from the employees at these employers who willingly made donations to either the PACs affiliated with the companies, or directly to the candidates' campaigns.

These donations did not come out of AT&T's earnings, profits, coffers, general ledger, or slush fund for parties.
Click to expand...

Although there is a legal difference, there is little real-world difference between donating to a candidate and donating to a PAC supporting a candidate. I'm aware that PACS can not coordinate with, or be directed by, a candidate's campaign, but the candidate is aware that the corporation made a donation to support his run for office and still owes the corporation a favor. That is still true even when the money came from the corporation's employees or otherwise indirectly.

I am not against the Citizens United decision, because the Supreme Court was correct that it is a first amendment issue, but I am concerned about the fact that a small number of very rich people and large corporations having too much influence on our government.
 
JANFU said:
And they do this due to their love for their country. Thoughts are?

Kochs Plan to Spend $900 Million on 2016 Campaign

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/27/u...lumn-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

The political network overseen by the conservative billionaires Charles G. and David H. Koch plans to spend close to $900 million on the 2016 campaign, an unparalelled effort by outside groups to shape a presidential election that is already on track to be the most expensive in history.

The goal, revealed Monday at the Kochs’ annual winter donor retreat near Palm Springs, Calif., would effectively allow their political organization to operate at the same financial scale as the Democratic and Republican parties. In the last presidential election, the Republican National Committee and the party’s two congressional campaign committees spent a total of $657 million.
Click to expand...

It's a good thing we have no better use for that money.
 
Eventually - if there is no intervention - corporations will have complete control over the system and lawmaking will be tailored to ignore individual rights in favor of industry and a small group of influential people. When that day comes, there will be a lot of people changing their minds too late. Democracy should not be sold to the highest bidder.
 
Mustachio said:
Eventually - if there is no intervention - corporations will have complete control over the system and lawmaking will be tailored to ignore individual rights in favor of industry and a small group of influential people. When that day comes, there will be a lot of people changing their minds too late. Democracy should not be sold to the highest bidder.
Click to expand...

So what do you think Obama and liberalism is doing? We have a 3.9 trillion dollar Federal govt. today and an 18.2 trillion dollar debt NONE of it came from those evil corporations but that doesn't stop people from wishing for more govt because they are naïve, gullible, and poorly informed just like Gruber stated.

Do you have a solution to what you perceive is a problem or do you think more and bigger govt. is the answer? Who pays for it?
 
The profits of their labor are turned into political donations. Many people choose and refuse to work for certain company's based on the organizations political agenda and activism.

tres borrachos said:
Do corporations require their employees to pay dues that are transformed into political contributions to candidates? My understanding is that union donations are paycheck deductions. I'm not aware of corporations that are deducting funds from their employees' paychecks for political contributions.
Click to expand...
 
They picked McCain and Romney, and they will most likely pick Jeb. When are these working class conservative voters going to learn they are not in charge of the GOP, and why... :lol:

What if...? said:
Its really more about getting their hand picked candidates elected. The guy they know will further their agenda.

Look up "wealth primary". That's where money picks who we get to choose between.
Click to expand...
 
tres borrachos said:
Where did you see employees getting pressured to donate to their Koch PACs? That is against the law, and if you saw it you should report it. That is a violation of election laws. The only thing that they could offer is an incentive to donate, such as a matching or even accelerated contribution to a charity of the employees' choice. But that isn't pressure.
Click to expand...

:lol: Their company emails have been in the national news before. Companies have explicitly told their workers who to vote for, and without repercussions for doing so.
 
Goldman Sachs lobbies Washington. Lobbyists cut a check to the candidates they lobby.

tres borrachos said:
You seriously don't know that say Goldman Sachs doesn't cut a check to a candidate, and that the "donations from Goldman Sachs" that are tracked and logged are donations from their employees or their PACs, and these are not funds that would otherwise have been invested back in the business or shared with the stockholders?

OMG please stop posting to me.
Click to expand...
 
Jack Hays said:
Interested parties always try to influence legislation. Nothing new or menacing about that.
Click to expand...

Your comments are cherry picked half truths. Of course interested parties have always tried to influence legislation. There is no denial there. But what is happening in America is NEW, and goes beyond trying to influence legislation. Never before have an elite, wealthy few had so much influence over the government that the government requires the taxpayers to subsidize their losses, but their gains are privatized. How do you call the capitalism? It's not. It's cronyism.
 
American said:
It always assumed by the Left that the inequality is caused by the evil 1%, and not the government. Of course you won't find a govt study implicating the govt will you? Laws, especially tax laws, have consequences.....many unintended.
Click to expand...

What the hell is the difference when a select few have the majority influence over government? Wealthy people are diverse, and not all wealthy people politically agree. However, political activists like the Koch's and their philosophical values are reflected in candidates they prop up and the policies their candidates propose.
 
SheWolf said:
Your comments are cherry picked half truths. Of course interested parties have always tried to influence legislation. There is no denial there. But what is happening in America is NEW, and goes beyond trying to influence legislation. Never before have an elite, wealthy few had so much influence over the government that the government requires the taxpayers to subsidize their losses, but their gains are privatized. How do you call the capitalism? It's not. It's cronyism.
Click to expand...

What you describe is neither new nor threatening.
 
disneydude said:
The myth of the MSNM has got be one of the dumbest myths invented by the right-wing...sorry but only the biggest fools buy into that one.
Click to expand...

yeah the fact that more than 85% of the MSNM journalists covering presidential campaigns admitted voting Democrat over the last 14 or so elections doesn't mean anything

Media Bias Basics
 
Jack Hays said:
What you describe is neither new nor threatening.
Click to expand...

You posts are becoming less and less thoughtful, and you come across like a conformist with no sense of individualism.

Well, if you don't give a crap about having to bailout irresponsible corporations, nor are you concerned about doing it again in the future, then that's you. I don't understand it or relate.
 
Lutherf said:
Out of curiosity, if someone really liked "Brand X" peanut butter and decided to initiate a campaign to get more people to like the brand would you have a problem with that? What if they spent $900M to get you to change from "Brand Y" to their preferred brand?
Click to expand...

That's an obsession with peanut butter that goes far beyond any sane reasoning.
 
SheWolf said:
You posts are becoming less and less thoughtful, and you come across like a conformist with no sense of individualism.

Well, if you don't give a crap about having to bailout irresponsible corporations, nor are you concerned about doing it again in the future, then that's you. I don't understand it or relate.
Click to expand...

My posts are as thoughtful as the topic deserves. I'm simply not worried about the things that seem to have you so spun up. Powerful, wealthy interests have always tried to protect themselves and will continue to do so. The antidote is other powerful, wealthy interests in competition. The Kochs are neither more benign nor more menacing than other wealthy dabblers in politics. They are merely the targets of a partisan campaign that seems to have caught your attention.
 
SheWolf said:
You posts are becoming less and less thoughtful, and you come across like a conformist with no sense of individualism.

Well, if you don't give a crap about having to bailout irresponsible corporations, nor are you concerned about doing it again in the future, then that's you. I don't understand it or relate.
Click to expand...

You mean like taking over GM? bailing out unions? How about an irresponsible Federal Govt. that wasted SS and Medicare funds so there are trillions in unfunded liabilities. So much wasted time and effort about corporations and ignorance of the worst run organization in the country, the Federal govt.
 
Jack Hays said:
My posts are as thoughtful as the topic deserves. I'm simply not worried about the things that seem to have you so spun up. Powerful, wealthy interests have always tried to protect themselves and will continue to do so. The antidote is other powerful, wealthy interests in competition. The Kochs are neither more benign nor more menacing than other wealthy dabblers in politics. They are merely the targets of a partisan campaign that seems to have caught your attention.
Click to expand...

Then you aren't reading my posts. My problem is not with the Koch's specifically, and I was up front about that at the start of this conversation. This thread is simply about the Koch's. I also never claimed the Koch's to be more menacing than any other powerful person, corporation, or union.
 
Conservative said:
You mean like taking over GM? bailing out unions? How about an irresponsible Federal Govt. that wasted SS and Medicare funds so there are trillions in unfunded liabilities. So much wasted time and effort about corporations and ignorance of the worst run organization in the country, the Federal govt.
Click to expand...

According the Jack, none of that is any reason to be upset. It's nothing new, so just go with it...
 
SheWolf said:
Then you aren't reading my posts. My problem is not with the Koch's specifically, and I was up front about that at the start of this conversation. This thread is simply about the Koch's. I also never claimed the Koch's to be more menacing than any other powerful person, corporation, or union.
Click to expand...

Really? My first post to you (#239) was a reply to your #238, which was an attack on the Kochs.
 
TurtleDude said:
yeah the fact that more than 85% of the MSNM journalists covering presidential campaigns admitted voting Democrat over the last 14 or so elections doesn't mean anything

Media Bias Basics
Click to expand...

Of course they do! They are generally really smart and well informed people.
 
Threegoofs said:
Of course they do! They are generally really smart and well informed people.
Click to expand...

Yeah smart people need to suck on the public teat and make others fund their existence?
 
Jack Hays said:
Really? My first post to you (#239) was a reply to your #238, which was an attack on the Kochs.
Click to expand...


SheWolf said:
The thread is about the Koch's, so that is why I discussed the Koch's and their power in the right wing. Many corporations donate to both groups, such as Goldman Sachs, so no matter who runs they country Goldman Sachs hold some influence. The Obama Admin has recycled and retained many of the Bush Admin's people on the board of the Federal Reserve. Most of them like Ben Bernanke are former Goldman Sachs people.

We aren't going to see real political change until big money and lobbyists stop influencing and buying the government.

I am 100% against the revolving door, big money in politics, and lobbying DC. It leads to corruption.

Even when I listen to right wing radio, they complain about the "donor class" having too much power in picking an "establishment" candidate like Romney, Jeb, etc. Laura Ingraham specifically says it a lot.
Click to expand...


If you read prior to that, I was challenged on other donors besides the Koch's, so I am not just being a partisan...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom