Our next big move should be to take away the power of corporations to donate to

[rainy]

office holders. This is our next big fight. Imagine if big pharma, ins. companies, banks etc... could not donate to campaigns.

[dmallind]

1. To what kind of donations, delivered how and to whom, are you referring?

[rainy]

3. Campaign donations to get people elected to office. That is the only way

right now that our congress persons can get elected. They depend too much on corporate money so they have to do their bidding. The people can't compete with the large sums that the corporations give.
I just think we should really go after this next as it is the biggest obstacle in our way of real change.

[el_bryanto]

4. Would officers of companies be allowed to donate their private funds to campaigns?

Just out of curiosity.

Bryant

[PVnRT]

5. As private citizens, yes

The problem is the PACs that these corporations form to guide their political donations.

[Statistical]

8. PACs are a negligble amount of money.

PACs are limited to the same amount as an individual per candidate.

[el_bryanto]

11. Ah - a little thought though

Bob - "Well Rob, as Vice President of McHuge Co., you are entitled to a special bonus of the maximum amount you can give in soft money to Sen. Slimeball. Now I can't tell you what to do with your bonus, but you might realize that using this bonus wisely will get you further bonuses."

Just saying.

Bryant

[havocmom]

19. and the hiring of spouses, family members at above market compensation

[havocmom]

17. That is sorta how it is done

[Statistical]

7. Corporations ARE prohibited from donating election funds and have been for a long time.

However people in the corporation are (for obvious reasons) not and they can contribute up to the limit ($7,000 ???) per candidate.

So take health care for example. There are 20 major healthcare companies. Likely 100 or so top executvies in each company so say 2000 people who can each contribute $7000 = $14 million per candidate. So it is easy for the top 1% to hold private fundraisers so 100-200 people and contribute the max per person to each candidate who attends.

The concentration of funds makes the return per hour invested fund raising by the candidate much higher and thus they "value" those "individuals" more. Of course a CEO or CFO at Aetna isn't going to use that relationship to request a public option.

[MNDemNY]

10. There it is.

[rainy]

12. I keep reading where big pharma donated hundreds of thousands of dollars

to so and so's campaign. The lists have been quite long with the amounts in the hundreds of thousands. How do these big pharma groups donate?

[Statistical]

16. They don't, employee do.

EMPLOYEES at Big Pharma companies (or big banks, or big military) donated to so and so candidacy.

I don't remember the exact year but it has been a long time since companies could donate directly to candidates or political parties.

Even though corporations and labor organizations may not make contributions or expenditures in connection with federal elections, they may establish Political Action Committees, or PACs. Corporate and labor PACs raise voluntary contributions from a restricted class of individuals. In the case of unions, this consists of union members and their families. For corporations, the restricted class consists of managerial employees and stockholders and their families. These funds may be used to support federal candidates and political committees, either through independent expenditures or through contributions to candidates. A PAC is limited to a maximum contribution of $5,000 to a candidate committee per election.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_finance_in_the_United_States#Corporate_and_Union_Activity

[MNDemNY]

2. That would require a constitutional amendment.

Good luck.

[rainy]

6. not really. It's only because some old case accidentally gave the rights of

persons to corporations. We just need a new law that says corporations are not people and therefore do not have the same rights. Right now the Supreme court considers it a free speech issue. We just need to take "personhood" from the corporations. That shouldn't be too hard as they are not people. The Supreme Court considers giving money a matter of free speech. That should be only true for individuals.

[MNDemNY]

9. Their CEOs , BODs, etc. are people.

[rainy]

14. I don't think all that money being donated by big pharma and ins. companies is

just coming from the CEOs etc

[Statistical]

18. It is coming from all the employees.

No company anywhere in the Unite States is legally allowed to contribute anything to a candidates election fund. Period.
The law is absolute on that and it has been for a long time.

So when you here Exxon donated $1.2 million to Bush re-election campaign it was the total of all Exxon employees donations that were $1.2 million.

[rainy]

21. Thanks for the clarification. I guess we should just go directly to public

funded elections and no individual donations like an earlier poster said. Giving money should not be considered a "free Speech" issue.

[Statistical]

24. No problem it is a common mistake. The media doesn't help either...

it is more sensationalistic to say "Exxon donated" then the more correct "employees of Exoon" so they leave off the employees.

I do think public funded elections would be a good idea however I don't know how you would handle every wingbat saying it is their right to get $100 million in campaign support for the Moonbat party.

Maybe something like private funds in primary and public election would be a step in the right direction?

[rainy]

25. Yea, I don't know either but something has to give. The power now lies

with corporations to set policy. That is fascism period. We are there now.

[MNDemNY]

20. No, middle managment is pressured to give as well. It adds up pretty fast.

[billyoc]

13. What was your LAST big move?

Did I miss something?

[Orsino]

15. Think how much easier--or even unecessary--the current health fight would be...

...were Big Money's influence not trumping our own. Getting private funds out of the campaign process is key to any major progressive reforms.

[kentuck]

22. Right on!

I'm with you.

[endarkenment]

23. Corporations have been barred since 1907 from direct contributions

to federal office holders or candidates. Unfortunately the pervasive corruption has been around since long before 1907 and consequently the loopholes in all attempts to end the kleptocracy have been huge.