2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumNot all of the 1%'ers are like the Koch brothers and the fossil fuel executives
When are people going to wise up to the fact that some of the 1% are on our side, Some of the very rich actually have a conscious. Not all of the executives on Wall street are trying to buy votes with their contributions. Some have stated publicly that they are more than willingly pay higher taxes. Others don't need the government tax breaks and cozy deals; they have too much money to worry about such BS. Some billionaires are teaming up with other billionaires to give away most of their fortunes to charity.
A progressive candidate would be foolish not to set up a Super PAC and not take their money, especially when the Koch Brothers and other evil billionaires are funding the opposition with hundreds of millions of dollars in this election cycle alone. Wouldn't that be better than extracting $27 contributions from folks who really can't afford it.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)Nothing is completely clean and nothing is completely corrupted. Only absolutest see the work in nothing but black and white.
progressivesonly
(9 posts)Nice to see the billionaire apologists stand up for their masters.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)I am in no way apologizing for those whose entire intent is to game the system with their money. I am simply pointing out that there some very rich folks whose intent is as good as yours or mine.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)with good intentions?
Busy protecting their assets and their power.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)Listen To Jon.
EmperorHasNoClothes
(4,797 posts)CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)gcomeau
(5,764 posts)Unless you think Scalia and his buddies were *totally correct* about their Citizens United reasoning.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)I think that the Citizens United ruling was an abomination! I also think nuclear weapons are an abomination, but in neither case am I a proponent of unilateral disarmament.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)
I think that the Citizens United ruling was an abomination!
And yet here you are making an IDENTICAL argument as the one used by Scalia and his ilk to make their ruling. Massive amounts of money given to politicians cannot be proven to be influence buying from them (therefore it should not be limited). It is rather simply an expression of free speech to show support for your preferred candidate!
Which is, as we all know, bullshit.
So why don't you consider the company you are keeping and give your position a little think?
All I'm saying is that only a fool or an ideological purest would unilaterally disarm when there are Billionaires who are more than ready to fund the campaigns of progressive candidates because they are progressives themselves.
Many of Bernie's biggest backers are well off liberals who live in some of our most liberal states. I'm sure that they would be more than willing to fund a PAC for Bernie, but he is trying, and has succeed in to gaining election capital by not forming a PAC in order to differentiate himself from the completion. And it has worked to some extent - but not enough to gain the nomination.
I actually hate money in politics for all of the reasons given, but I am glad that Hillary has a PAC that I can contribute to because she is going to need it in the general election.
I would favor the government funding of all electoral campaigns so that no candidate would be beholding in any way to anyone. But I take the world as I find it - and try to change it - not as I want it to be.
I vote only for pragmatic politicians because ideological purists cannot be trusted to make the most important decisions in a world that is not black and white, but is really a continuum of shades of gray.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)...considering what you followed it up with.
No matter how you want to try and make excuses for it, no matter how you twist and turn, there are one of two options here:
1. You disagree with Citizens United and recognize that large payoffs to politicians are a corrupting influence.
2. You agree with Citizens United that large payoffs to politicians cannot be proven to be corrupting/influence buying (which is essentially the entire basis of the ruling.)
So which is it? Is Citizens United right and it's ok for politicians to take large payments from the ultra wealthy because that's NOT a corrupting influence? Or is Citizens United wrong, and that is a corrupting influence?
(And if you want to argue Citizens United is both wrong AND it's still ok for our politicians to take the money because they're somehow magically immune to corruption, see Jon Stewart)
islandmkl
(5,275 posts)it is definitely 'Tool Time'...
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)In that case I am proud to be " utside".
madinmaryland
(64,934 posts)You know damn well that is what they are doing. Regardless of whether they are George Soros or Sheldon Adelman.
They all have the ability to buy influence in the government.
MONEY IS NOT FREE SPEECH.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)If I were rich and was looking for influence for pay I dang sure would not have contributed to Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton. That would be a poor use of my money. Like the Koch Brothers I could be contributing my millions to Republicans who have proven that they can be bought in order to ensure that they won.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)there for a truly smart oligarc would contribute to both, just one more than the other, depending on who was expected to win
ps it ain't 2008 no more and Hillary isn't Barack Obama, she doesn't represent hope for anything
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)And there are progressive contributors, like me, who do the same thing, just in the other direction.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)after all they made their money the old fashioned way-they inherited it
0rganism
(23,989 posts)they donate to the GOP SuperPACs and to the Democratic SuperPACs.
maybe much more to one then another in any given year, but Big Money either way.
and when the time comes you can be damn sure they collect their payouts, usually in the form of policy details or appointments of flunkies to key government posts.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)Once they have contributed their money they lose all leverage. If a office holder says "hell no, I took your money because you offered it without strings attached, but I didn't consider it a bribe, did you?" What the contributor going to do - go public that he was trying to bribe the President? The most that he could do is make damn sure that that person doesn't get his money in the next election.
Contributions for influence work best when the candidate must run for office time and time again like most US Representative and Senators in order to retain their positions. Then the threat of a cut of of contribution can be effective.
With a Presidential candidate, not so much. A President can only hold office for two terms and they no good and well that that if they are elected for a first time and they do a good job, they will have a tremendous advantage the second time around. Threatening to not fund a second campaign is simply not that effective.
0rganism
(23,989 posts)Presidents are term-limited. Congresscritters come and go.
But SuperPACs, as currently constructed, are immortal.
"You guys want my help again in 2 years, right? You know, I could free up a lot of capital to help you out if you allocated a few thousand more H1B's in my sector."
individually, influence will wain with a position like the presidency over time, especially if that president doesn't feel overly loyal to their political party. influence over SCOTUS justices is likewise designed to be minimal. congressional reps will be extremely vulnerable.
madinmaryland
(64,934 posts)and their billions out of our government.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)You also won't find me preaching it.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)That they're not all the Kochs? Absolutely.
That some of them are on our side? Yuppers.
That therefore we should just embrace this whole "grab for all the money you can get from any 1%er willing to finance you!" strategy? I refer you to Jon Stewart in reply #3.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)In the general over that of Trump taking away rights and destroying the country.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)Corruption is acceptable so long as it is deployed in favor of our immediate goals!
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)Notice that no one disagrees with my facts and logic, they just don't like my conclusions.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)hobbit709
(41,694 posts)What's in the air that you breathe on Planet Hillary?
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)So go ahead and do your nitpicking and tell all of us Democrats who give Obama extremely high approval rates exactly how our President went wrong. Waiting ......
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)Gpldman Sachs is just SO altruistic.
Skwmom
(12,685 posts)What a guy....
Hillary backer Buffett loves Wells Fargo that targeted Blacks and Hispanics for Dangerous Loans
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251580271
http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/times-watchdog/minorities-exploited-by-warren-buffetts-mobile-home-empire-clayton-homes/
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)Otherwise quit trying to change the subject.
Wilms
(26,795 posts)Big Oil hates me. Wall Street hates Big Oil. Therefore, Wall Street loves me.
Todays_Illusion
(1,209 posts)And there are no more liberal billionaires, they have all gone greeddy libertarian.
And all these conservative Democratic belong to them. Hail your corporate lords, that includes Warren Buffett who loves the tax paid wage program called E.I.T.C. and Bill Gates who has spent the last 10 years trying to prove that private wealth will solve the education and health crisis. It has not.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)------
valerief
(53,235 posts)CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)valerief
(53,235 posts)But you're a pretty new poster and a Hillary Clinton favorite grouper, so I don't expect you'll do that. That wouldn't be part of your agenda.
Feel free to donate, though!
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)I'm not fond of the ones I see now.
And I give my money to Hillary
valerief
(53,235 posts)yours.
Avalux
(35,015 posts)When are people like you going to understand that big money comes with a price, no matter which entity gives it. They don't practice charity - it's business and they want a return on their investment.
Be care when you decide to sell your soul, you may not like the new owner.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)I agree that we have to reverse Citizens United, but every politician who sets up a Super PAC is not on the take, unless of course you are implying that President Obama is on the take.
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)This post belongs on a republican forum.