U.S. Chamber rewards Senators Manchin, Sinema for opposing Biden initiatives and Democracy

[CousinIT]

TOLD YA.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-chamber-backs-manchin-sinema-with-campaign-contributions-2021-04-15/

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce said it is backing Democratic Senators Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema with campaign contributions as a reward for their opposition to some of President Joe Biden's legislative initiatives and for trying to work with Republicans.

In disclosures made public on Thursday, the Chamber said its political action committee during the first quarter made about $17,000 worth of contributions to the two senators and nine members of the House of Representatives.

These included congressmen Carlos Gimenez of Florida and Steve Chabot of Ohio, two Republicans who voted against certifying the 2020 presidential election results after the Jan. 6 storming of the U.S. Capitol by supporters of then-President Donald Trump.

. . .

Manchin, who is from West Virginia, and Sinema, who is from Arizona, are opposed to ending the Senate's filibuster, a custom that requires a 60-vote majority to advance most legislation. read more The Chamber also has called for preserving the filibuster to require Democrats, who control a single-vote Senate majority, to seek support from Republicans on major non-budgetary initiatives.

[MineralMan]

1. That does not sound like a lot of money to me, frankly.

What Senator could be bought for that small sum? Makes no sense.

[FoxNewsSucks]

2. Probably just the tip of the iceberg

They're the only organization to make a public statement directly admitting their bribe, uh, "donation", is a specific thank-you.

There's probably a lot more to come, and a lot of anonymous dark money.

[MineralMan]

5. Show me some data, please.

You are stating a supposition as fact. While you might be correct, you have offered no evidence of that.

PACs donate to candidates. The amounts mentioned in the OP are not enough, however, to really have much influence.

Show me evidence that large amounts of money are going to people like Manchin and Sinema, not just "probably," but "provably."

[FoxNewsSucks]

21. Being well-read, I'm sure you're keenly aware that money in politics

is a huge problem.

Not the piddling amounts like this, where the donor is both identified and flat-out states the rationale of the contribution. But the super-pacs and orgs which no longer have to identify donors. So there is no direct evidence, paper trail or smoking gun for most of that. Those sums of money dwarf donations like this. That's why politicians (mainly republicons) changed and enacted laws at the behest of lobbyists to enable that giant spigot of money.

Here's a good example- we all "know" that Russian money was funneled to tRump via the NRA, but there is no admissible evidence of that.

So while Sinema and Manchin can't just take money and pocket it, there are a multitude of ways for money and benefit to be given, identified and anonymous.

[MineralMan]

31. Of course money plays in politics.

Democrats spend a lot of it, as well, sometimes well and sometimes poorly.

You know what Democrats often don't do, though? They often don't bother to vote in mid-term elections. If we don't vote, Republicans win. Remember 2010?

Plus, some states are going to make it more difficult for some Democrats to vote. What are we planning to do to make sure we enable those Democrats to vote, whatever the rules end up being in those states? How much will we spend on getting the voters to the polls?

Not so much, I expect. We usually fall flat on our faces when it comes to that, really, especially in mid-term elections. So, maybe we should focus on that, instead of focusing on past elections. Maybe we should put our time, energy, and money into that. What an idea, eh?

No doubt there are organizations gearing up to fight the voter suppression laws being passed. Maybe we should be spending money and energy helping those organizations follow through with their legal efforts? You think?

The 2020 election is over and done. If we're still talking about it, we're wasting valuable time.

[FoxNewsSucks]

42. That's absolutely right.

And why I think HR1/S1 is the most critical thing to get passed now, while working on other things. I agree about supporting groups, but remember those legal fights will be in Moscow-Mitch-packed courts and if it gets far enough the 6/3 Roberts SCROTUS. I don't like relying on that.

That's why I cringe when people say that "look forward not back" thing. As I said in the other post, we have to look back to learn what works and what didn't help. Republicons are despicable, deplorable and all the other things they get called. But they (to our detriment) are effective. Since Nixon, they have learned, studied, and then acted. Changing laws, repealing laws and rules, new laws, ways to manipulate their base... Whatever was needed to enable their actions toward their goals, they did it and continue to.

Democrats don't seem to do that at all.

[ananda]

10. And a lot of Koch bros money.

...

[pazzyanne]

43. Don't forget the Mercers and Adelsons. nt

[zaj]

4. Not being targeted with attack ads is the big $

[MineralMan]

7. Really? On what do you base that statement?

Do you have some sort of inside information we are not aware of? If so, explain further.

Apply Occam's Razor. The reality is that Manchin and Sinema were elected in states that generally only elect conservatives, even if those conservatives are Democrats. That is the real story here.

You needn't look for "secret" funding or anything else. West Virginia and Arizona are conservative states, at least in statewide elections. That is all the reason we need to look for.

[zaj]

11. I agree, and make the same case

... that Dems in AZ and WV need to vote differently than in more liberal states. And further, KS has even less wiggle room than Mark Kelly.

Sinema is likely to lose if she she doesn't moderate things. She is in a precarious position.

I'm using occams razor here too. Part of that risk comes from having attack ads run against you. Choosing not to run those is an unaccounted for value.

- Occams razor says that the chamber would spend money on attack ads against flippable seats held by most Dems.

- Occams razor says KS & JM would prefer not having those ads run against them.

- Occams razor says the Chamber will not run ads against someone who they write checks to.

- Occams razor says that the dollars spent on attack ads are greater than $17k.

So...

- Occams razor holds that the real value, compared to the relatively small seeming $17k, is in the ad spending.

[Elessar Zappa]

13. I think Sinema

could win if she voted like a mainstream Democrat. Arizona is not even close to as red as West Virginia. In fact, it’s purple trending blue.

[MineralMan]

14. Perhaps. Perhaps not.

AZ is trending bluer, to be sure, but winning a Senate seat is a statewide race. Sinema is doing her calculations, no doubt, in an attempt to help herself win the next time she runs.

[not fooled]

36. Yep

agree 100%. Acting puke-lite is actually more detrimental to her re-election chances.

[CrackityJones75]

16. I mean both can be true.

They are donating to them. It stands to reason they might not run attack ads against them. And they are in states that usually run red. I don’t understand the questioning of the opinion.

[FoxNewsSucks]

23. Two things-

Not being targeted by attack ads is a value in and of itself that doesn't necessarily have a calculable amount. Not having to spend money and time countering those ads is another part of that value, which can be calculated or at least estimated.

And money needn't change hands. Ask anyone who ran against MF45 in either the primary or a general. All the networks in 2015/16 treated him like he was already the president long before he ever weaseled his way into the nomination. Hour after hour of positive coverage. Of empty podiums with the chyron "AWAITING TRUMP REMARKS". They covered empty podiums INSTEAD of actual speeches by his opponents.

How many billions was that worth? No one wrote a check to pay for all that airtime, but it had tremendous value and gave advantage. Agreeing NOT to do that for one's opponent would also be of tremendous value.

[MineralMan]

25. OK. How about if our side does some donating and attack ads, then?

We're talking about Senate elections, as well, not Presidential elections. Those are very different things. The national media is not that much involved in individual Senate elections. Those are local within each state.

In heavily contested Senate elections, millions of dollars are being spent, by one group or another. Sometimes national groups pitch in. Other times, they don't.

In any case, the Senate has the makeup it has, and will have that makeup until after the 2022 election. That's where we need to be looking, not the past election, which is now over and done with.

$17,000 is not much money, especially if it was spread out over more than one candidate for Senate. In reality, that amount doesn't really matter, in the long run.

Do I like Manchin and Sinema? Not one bit. However, I do not live in Arizona or West Virginia, so I have no influence in either of those states. Unless you live in one of them, neither do you. I don't know what state you live in, so I don't know who your Senators are. Mine are both liberal Democrats.

We need to be looking forward, not backward. It is that simple. Complaining about who is in the Senate now is useless. We need to be talking about how to fix that in 2022 and 2024.

[FoxNewsSucks]

35. I generally agree with that,

except for the "forward, not backward" part. That is all too often taken literally. We need to look forward for planning purposes and to come up with strategy. Actually, I think there needs to be a lot more of that. But it also seems that by not looking back, Democrats fail to learn from mistakes, fail to see the setups for the knockout blows that come. I think "look back and plan forward" would be a better slogan.

$17k is a pittance, that's why the real benefit to watch for is yet to come. Any of the things speculated on this thread could be possible.

I'm in Kansas, so my senators are rightwing crackpots. I do have a D rep, Sharice Davids. She's not extremely liberal, but a huge improvement over when I previously lived in KS. I was in MO for 10 years, and missed the Gov Sam Brownhole era. These days, though, Missouri is not much better than Kansas when it comes to the politics.

[JT45242]

3. There are limits to direct contrubutions -- but as Lenny Briscoe would say -- follow the money

If they are giving this much to the campaign directly that can be seen -- how much more dark money has been sent thourgh a PAC or promised in advertising buys (or promises to not buy ads for a future opponent)?

One of the big problems since Citizens United is the idea that the traceable money indicates all of the pay to play money involved. I tend to think that the traceable is just the tip of the iceberg (about 10%) ... Manchin is bought by corporate overlords (as are most of the Senators , the question is whether we generally like the overlords) but not through traceable money.

until we also address this -- big money will control people in both parties.

[Botany]

8. Tip of the iceberg .... the right wing has been and will be spending billions on stopping Biden ...

... the dems from getting anything done. Lose elections? Being the minority? Who cares?
"They" have work arounds to still get their agenda done. And that agenda is keeping Biden/
Harris from having any wins.

Looks like we will have to have another blue wave in 2022 to overcome all their shit.

[dalton99a]

18. +1. The USCC stamp of approval is a powerful signal to business executives.

[Botany]

20. I just don't get business executives support for the republicans.

The economy does so much better under the democrats not unless they want poverty and higher
unemployment because that gives a fearful work force that can be exploited.

BTW I might be nuts but I think the right has a huge bank roll of money from the start of
Iraqi war when they pumped oil that was not measured for 6 months.

[Turbineguy]

9. Who needs democracy?

When you have profit.

[spanone]

12. Ain't that sumpin'

[housecat]

15. The Chamber of Commerce needs to change its name.

[ancianita]

29. To what. The word 'chamber' says a lot already about how it sees itself, business and the nation.

The word 'commerce' recalls not just the commerce clause for the nation, but for international commerce which is established by longstanding networks and the ICC.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Chamber_of_Commerce#World_Chambers_Federation

[housecat]

32. This entity needs to be, at least theoretically, non-political -- like the Commerce Clause. and ICC.

What it calls itself and what it is are not the same.

[ancianita]

37. It needs no theoretically. It exists literally. Its name reflects that literal level of involvement

in governments & politics because national and international commerce -- beginning with the Transatlantic commodity supply chain of King Cotton and the economy we built on that going forward -- and the Constitutional commerce clause itself, bring business into the business of America, political and otherwise. Otherwise, Citizens United and all the pro-corporate commerce rulings that led up to it wouldn't exist.

[housecat]

45. a partisan lobby?

[ancianita]

46. If you want to use that description, yes.

What I'm describing, however, is more than what we normally consider normal lobbying or a normal lobby group.

[aocommunalpunch]

17. LMAO

People suddenly noticing our government is a system of legalized bribery.

[ChrisF1961]

19. Shocked!

[AllaN01Bear]

22. we need to shut down the chamber and trounce these pusedo rs in 2022 if they are up.

[seta1950]

24. Question

Why is the chamber for the filibuster?🤨

[MineralMan]

27. It's an organization of Republicans.

I remember getting mail from them when I opened my little business years ago. I got phone calls to, wanting me to join and pay my dues. I told them to bugger off, and that I was a one-person business, owned and operated by a liberal Democrat. They stopped bothering me after that. The local chamber of commerce, too, wanted my money and membership. I told them the same thing, and they left me alone from then on.

[ancianita]

30. That org of Republicans is also part of a larger chamber network, & Repubs are down with all that.

[MineralMan]

33. Yes. So? We're not going to shut that organization down.

So, the question is: What will we do to counter its influence? What will we DO?

What we usually do is just complain about it, and then do nothing else.

I suggest we focus on what we can actually DO something about.

[ancianita]

44. So the Chamber of Commerce money part is a bigger money power than the Republican money part.

I hear you and of course we're not shutting any of that down.

What we can DO about that context is keep fighting for the existence of democratic structures that enable the nation to stay a regulatory body on outside commerce's money and politics about the filibuster and bills that will change the political system for Americans in general.

There are larger reasons Republicans don't want that, and the Dept of Commerce continually lets the public know whose politics the Chamber benefits from. As a few hundred corporations have come out to take sides about elections now, some saying our party's model is better for business, we need to notice that the Chamber has always been out front and vocal.

We're sorting this out, and situating Republicans in the Chamber's lap helps us do and say things that get us to winning, like messaging that the Chamber never existed to work in the public's or even businesses' interest; that the Chamber is part of the larger international interference that Republicans' politics willingly sold out to, then bought into ideologically, to get the nation Trump and the autocratic piggery he called 'great again.' Bernie has long messaged the lapdog status of 'chamber' Republicans and should go even more hardcore about Republican corruption between now and 2022)


The Chamber writes the Republican policy and politics we're having to do something about. Its people, Perdue of GA, and Vern Buchanan of FL, have been Chamber controllers of their states.

[FoxNewsSucks]

40. I think the same of the NFIB

I was a member for a few years, then during 2004 their incessant push-polling for Bush opened my eyes to them.

It's just a rightwing front, designed to influence business owners and con them into voting R. Like Fox "news", just one of the multitude of angles used in this case on business. Looking back, it was easier to see the context of their polling and realize they really weren't a representative group working on the behalf of small business, but a messaging org designed to influence its membership on behalf of the republicon platform.

[MineralMan]

41. Yes, of course. Such organizations are perfectly legal.

We can support them, ignore them, or fight them.

I suggest the latter two things. They exist, and we can do nothing about that. We also cannot limit their ability to communicate to their members. So, what can we do?

We can communicate with people in other ways, providing a different message. That costs money, so we need to supply funding to organization that will do that. We're not so good at that, it seems.

In 2020, our grassroots efforts made a big difference. Again, why don't we focus on what we CAN do, rather than what our opponents are doing. We know they're going to push as hard as they can and that they are well funded. We can't change that, so we need to counter their efforts with even better efforts.

Complaining does nothing. Action does something. Let's act.

[sakabatou]

26. I seriously hate those two, along with the CoC!

[SayItLoud]

28. All the back and forth on amount, this, that, who's well read...bla bla. Chamber Pac supports:

These included congressmen Carlos Gimenez of Florida and Steve Chabot of Ohio, two Republicans who voted against certifying the 2020 presidential election results after the Jan. 6 storming of the U.S. Capitol by supporters of then-President Donald Trump.

[NewHendoLib]

34. So the Chamber of Greed. Quelle Surprise. Oh yes - and fuck Manchin and Sinema

[Layzeebeaver]

38. Democracy sold down the river for the lowly sum of $17,000

Thanks for fucking us all, Joe Manchin-ean

[roamer65]

39. All about the money.

I used to think we had the best Congress money could buy. Now I don’t know even think we have that anymore.