Slashdot Mirror

No, corporations just decide who we may vote for, and then we may decide which of their vassals we want to vote for.

Low information voters like you no doubt believe that, absurd as it actually is.

I mean, have a look at the massive spending lavished on the favorites of the Republican establishment and their abject failure:

https://www.opensecrets.org/ou...

Even Clinton has turned out to be an exceptionally weak candidate despite her massive spending.

Note your OpenSecrets list is for 2016 only, and is only what has been reported through Q1 2016. Many organizations hold their spending/influence until after the conventions. Looking at how the spending ends up is much more illustrative of where the money comes from.

Companies will have power as long as they can make political donations.

Companies in the US already have strong restrictions on "political donations".

They may have "restrictions"-- but they find ways to donate anyway. Nice thing about corporations; they have lawyers to find the loopholes.

Here's the top contributors list from OpenSecrets.org: https://www.opensecrets.org/or...

What they can do is communicate on issues.

Yes, that's the biggest loophole: the Political Action Committee ("PAC"). It's "supposed" to be to "communicate issues". Every candidate has one.
"Political contributions, which used to go directly to candidates, now often flow to Super PACs, independent organizations that can raise money to either help or defeat a political candidate. Historically, traditional political action committees have been prohibited from accepting donations from unions and companies. However, following rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals, Super PACs are now allowed to accept unlimited donations from unions and companies, provided the money does not go directly to the campaign.
The rise of the Super PAC has opened the door to a new generation of fundraising, changing how money is used to elect candidates and increasing the amount candidates need to raise to be competitive as they seek office.
(source: http://247wallst.com/special-r... )

So, are you going to start massively censoring speech by companies? How exactly is that going to work? Does "company" include the New York Times, or only companies you don't like?

A start would be a law mandating that money donated to political action committees has to be disclosed: if you're funding political campaigns, you have to do it openly, not secretly. This wouldn't even require overturning the Citizen's United decision: the Supreme court already said that this would be legal.

Strangely, telecoms don't even make the top 20 for Hillary.

You're correct about the banks though. They are, by far, #1 for her. But I'm sure she'll regulate the shit out of them once they buy her the election.

Right... because Trump isn't a multi-billionare elite looking to do nothing but line his own pockets...

I'm pretty sure he's rather looking to line his own ego.

There are far easier ways to make money over the course of five and a half years than running for and becoming President. Based on how poorly he's fundraising he'll probably finish well in the red.

unlike the corporate lobbyists the NRA doesn't buy political support with money

Riiiight and they don't have a PAC either. Too bad the pro-gun shills can't get their facts straight.

unlike the corporate lobbyists the NRA doesn't buy political support with money

Riiiight and they don't have a PAC either. Too bad the pro-gun shills can't get their facts straight.

Of course, this could still be overturned if Trump wins and gets to override the pick for the next Justice, nevermind that a GOP congress plus Trump would be free to pass whatever anti-net neutrality legislation they want, or to replace the pro-neutrality majority of the FCC commissioners with a Republican one.

Historically, campaign contributions from the telecom industry have slightly favored Democrats (scroll to the bottom). And Hillary Clinton is by far the biggest recipient from that industry in recent years with 3.4x the money received by the second biggest recipient. Bernie Sanders is the third biggest recipient.

> Bernie Sanders was the only major candidate so far in my lifetime who wasn't bought and paid for by the corporations

According to his FEC filings, Sanders is paid for by Google, Amazon, Apple, Microsoft, and by the post office (tax money).
https://www.opensecrets.org/po...

Bernie also has quite a few illegal contributions:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/...

Clinton is paid for primarily by Wall Street. As I recall, 8 of her top 10 donors are investment firms.

Reality TV star Donald Trump has largely paid for his own campaign so far. He's spent less by making ridiculous statements to get free press.

And remember, those hedge fund managers overwhelmingly support Clinton. They know where they can reliably buy votes and get what they need to keep enriching themselves at the expense of everyone else...

If nothing else, Sanders and Trump are a shot across the bow that there is a limit to the concept of "we will only be weathy when everyone is poor."

I have nothing against a single person making the impressive amount of 1.7 billion dollars a year in principle. But not when they tell us how it costs too much to employ people that they don't want to pay at all, the numbers are cute.

$1,700,000,000 is fine.

$15,080 is unacceptable, that person is being paid too much. A taker, a leech upon society.

As I said before, in principle a person should be able to make what they can make. Others might find that comparison a little unsettling, especially when they are told they are making too much by people making a billion or more a year. Which is all to ask the question, how little is little enough?

And remember, those hedge fund managers overwhelmingly support Clinton. They know where they can reliably buy votes and get what they need to keep enriching themselves at the expense of everyone else...

Those are international numbers

Citation needed.

You mean like the $100 Billion (time.com) that has gone into every single nuclear pant ever built since the beginning of the DOE?

I appreciate your attempt to provide a citation here, but am compelled to point out, it failed.

This is pure Econ 101. If a $1billion solar plant has the same CapEx as nuclear plant [...]

Why, then, aren't private investors lining up to invest in your power plant? Why do you need taxpayers to give you loan-guarantees and grants?

I can put a panel in service every 10 seconds for $150 each

Marvelous. I'm sure, statements like this were made when the Ivanhoe facility was proposed and discussed. So, what would you have done differently from these failures?

We spend $6B/Year on cleanup.

Citation needed. Point remains — none of the nuclear power plants world-wide have had a nuclear explosion so far... Building such a plant in a location, where nukes were once tested, would not have raised risks perceptibly.

Still haven't found a long term storage solution.

Yes, because of the artificially high requirements — set by the government as if seeking to kill off an industry competing with that of the politicians' donors.

Maybe, solar is the way to go. But as long as it needs taxpayers' monies — and thus the favor of government officials controlling the funds — it will be a corruption-breeding disaster.

Actually, especially considering their net worth, Apple doesn't really give all that much to lobbyists.

That's because the ROI on lobbying is 22000%, you don't have to spend very much to garner massive rewards.

Bingo. Apple expects a big return on all that lobbying money they've been spending in DC.

Actually, especially considering their net worth, Apple doesn't really give all that much to lobbyists.

You're fooling yourself. Both sides are guilty. http://www.opensecrets.org/new... [opensecrets.org]

Computer Science Education Coalition Lobbyists: Cornerstone Government Affairs (Microsoft also a client), Penn Hill Group (Microsoft also a client),Third Dimension Strategies.

John Podesta, Podesta Group and the Clinton Fund. Google that for some king of sleaze stuff. Podesta Group was BPs chief lobby pre and during the oil spill.

http://freebeacon.com/issues/p...

https://www.opensecrets.org/lo...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

Per the page you linked, the total donations to Democrats (from the listed *organizations*) is $2.1 billion, republicans at $1.2 billion. So, nearly double, yes. (1.75x).

On the same's Political Parties page, the total money raised by Democratic Party for the 2016 election cycle is $316 million, Republican Party is $329 million. In that area, republicans have raised (and spent) a bit more. If you total up Democratic/republican Party, National Committee, Congressional, and Senatorial Committees, you get Dems with $555 million and Repubs with $587.3 million.

Let's take a look at another major election year. The 2012 election cycle, both Dems and repubs raised and spent $1 billion.

Per the page you linked, the total donations to Democrats (from the listed *organizations*) is $2.1 billion, republicans at $1.2 billion. So, nearly double, yes. (1.75x).

On the same's Political Parties page, the total money raised by Democratic Party for the 2016 election cycle is $316 million, Republican Party is $329 million. In that area, republicans have raised (and spent) a bit more. If you total up Democratic/republican Party, National Committee, Congressional, and Senatorial Committees, you get Dems with $555 million and Repubs with $587.3 million.

Let's take a look at another major election year. The 2012 election cycle, both Dems and repubs raised and spent $1 billion.

Per the page you linked, the total donations to Democrats (from the listed *organizations*) is $2.1 billion, republicans at $1.2 billion. So, nearly double, yes. (1.75x).

On the same's Political Parties page, the total money raised by Democratic Party for the 2016 election cycle is $316 million, Republican Party is $329 million. In that area, republicans have raised (and spent) a bit more. If you total up Democratic/republican Party, National Committee, Congressional, and Senatorial Committees, you get Dems with $555 million and Repubs with $587.3 million.

Let's take a look at another major election year. The 2012 election cycle, both Dems and repubs raised and spent $1 billion.

Over the last several election cycles the Democrats handily out-raised the Republicans.

The 'money doesn't always work' argument is a favorite excuse of Republicans - as part of a 'it's not really a problem", "democrats raise money too", and "in any case, what can we do about it" rationalization of a system that they know favors them. And it favors them if only because it pushes all non-money centric issues off of center stage. "Both parties are able to raise lots of money" is part of the problem - not a reason it's not a problem.

Yes, it doesn't always work in high profile contests like Presidential elections, where the media pay enough attention - and can be manipulated into getting your message out for you. And where bad politicians are on such constant display that they're unable to hide their unattractive sides.

But in lower-level elections, money can make a huge difference. Republicans don't control the majority of statehouses by accident - or by popularity. When the public (and the media) are not paying attention, money can easily put you over the top.

WTF?!?!?!

Do you really think Democrats lack funding, even at the state and local levels?

Do you really think the largest political contributors IN THE WORLD - public employee unions that give exclusively to Democrats - ignore local elections?

Really?

The American Federation of State, City, and Municiple employees, that gave $100 MILLION to DEMOCRATS ignores local elections?

The AFT and NEA, composed of local chapters, which gave close to $200 MILLION to Democrats, ignores local elections?

Well, we know why Republicans control most state houses - delusion.

Actually you were more right the first time when saying the problem was created by Congress. It isn't the industry's fault at all and certainly isn't the CEO's faults. Congress said thou shalt build one plane to rule them all. One plane to find them, one plane to bring them all in and in the darkness bind them.

The way the US gets new weapon systems is a straight-forward, three step process.

Step one: Congress announces the defense budget for the fiscal year.

Step two: The DoD announces the requirements for new weapons systems.

Step three: The DoD reviews bids and awards the contract.

The US defense industry spends tens of millions of dollars ($74M in 2015) making sure that they have somebody in a position to influence every step in this process. You are definitely right about the pathological requirements, but their source is the industry itself. Here's how you get expensive fails like the F-35, by the numbers.

Step one: Help paranoid Republicans and hawkish Democrats sell Congress on the (false) idea that we face a serious threat from somebody, anybody. The Russians can do this, the Chinese can do that, and fucking ISIS is gonna eat our lunch. Yay, the pool of funds available to fund the DoD stays the same, or gets larger. Step one, check.

Step two: You can ignore the rest of my post, if you just understand this part right here. Tell the DoD what they want to hear. Need a plane that can dogfight, land without a runway, and deliver a metric fuck-ton of bombs halfway around the planet without being seen by radar? We can do that, we promise! Step two, check.

Step three: Hire ex-generals and ex-admirals who know whose ear to whisper in when the DoD is evaluating bids. It is way cheaper, for example, to convince a former aide or deputy who took over for you when you "retired" to down check a competitor's evaluation than it is to actually earn an up check on your company's evaluation by actually providing a provably superior product (largely because step two above hosed any chance of actually meeting contract requirements.) Step three, check.

If you ever have a chance to attend the Paris Air Show, do so. That will remove any doubt you have about how the defense industry influences every step of the acquisition process, not only for the US DoD but every defense ministry on the planet. So, in a bucket, it's the industry's fault we have programs like the F-35, and nobody elses. BTW, you know there is a problem with the F-35 if *Wikipedia* uses it as an example of a boondoggle.

It isn't an easy problem to solve and you'll never make everyone happy.

movetoamend.org
Somehow slashdot is taking over this link, but you can find the real one.. At any rate...

We, the People of the United States of America, reject the U.S. Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling and other related cases, and move to amend our Constitution to firmly establish that money is not speech, and that human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights.

So, what about that $1 BILLION unions have given to DEMOCRATS ?

John Podesta, Podesta Group and the Clinton Fund. Google that for some king of sleaze stuff. Podesta Group was BPs chief lobby pre and during the oil spill.

http://freebeacon.com/issues/p...

https://www.opensecrets.org/lo...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

Amazon isn't exactly a liberal-loving corporation, I mean look at their PAC name:

AMAZON CORPORATE LLC SEPARATE SEGREGATED FUND (AMAZON PAC)

I kid you not. It's like openly... ahem, separate, -ist!

/snark.

Tampering with elections is legal in the USA. It's ratified by Citizens United.

Oh, STFU you idiotic waste of protoplasm and oxygen.

The ONE BILLION DOLLARS public employee unions have donated to DEMOCRATS has probably been the most corrupting force in US history.

Because it's basically made one party the party of government FOR the government BY the government.

And FUCK EVERYONE ELSE.

Have Democrats really helped minority unemployment? Minority poverty rates?

Solyndra's story is unfinished.

The scandal is 5 years old now. If they haven't updated the article, it can only be because they can not help Obama and Democrats any further.

Solyndra's request predated his administration, and career Energy Department officials handled the deal.

Sure, sure. And the career government officials know, what their bosses want — or else the said careers end abruptly... Know without being told — but they may have been.

"Predates" my muscular tail — the company spent over half a million dollars on lobbying alone in 2010. You (and Politifact) would've screamed bloody murder if such appearance of impropriety happened between 2001 and 2008...

The last line in the article is: "We rate this ad's claim Mostly False."

"Mostly". They could not flat-out reject it, as I said. Which, given their adoration for Illiberalism in general and Obama in particular, confirms, it is true.

If you choose to reply, be sure to state unambiguously:

• Whether you accept the fact, that Solyndra executives have donated to Obama and other Democrats.
• Whether you agree, that such donations create — as a minimum — an appearance of impropriety. And, if not, what would create such an appearance in your opinion?
• Whether it is acceptable, in your opinion, for it being necessary for a private company operating in a free country to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on lobbying government officials?

The last line in the article is: "We rate this ad's claim Mostly False."

"Mostly". They could not flat-out reject it, as I said. Which, given their adoration for Illiberalism in general and Obama in particular, confirms, it is true.

If you choose to reply, be sure to state unambiguously:

• Whether you accept the fact, that Solyndra executives have donated to Obama and other Democrats.
• Whether you agree, that such donations create — as a minimum — an appearance of impropriety. And, if not, what would create such an appearance in your opinion?
• Whether it is acceptable, in your opinion, for it being necessary for a private company operating in a free country to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on lobbying government officials?

A post full of utter nonsense, especially re: Citizen's united, which nakedly subverts democracy by allowing a massive influx of unaccounted money into the already distorted political process. If you were actually for the middle class and poor, you should be vociferously against that awful SCOTUS-made law, which reduces the influence of the people in the political process. (Why is it that when pseudo-conservatives (note the Republican party of today or the Tea Party, aren't exactly your goldwater or even Reagan conservatives) don't like SCOTUS decisions, they rail against "unelected judges legislating from the bench", but for things they like, it's all good?).

Unaccounted-for money?

The biggest donors to political campaigns GIVE TO DEMOCRATS

1 Service Employees International Union $224,273,550 $222,520,804 $1,294,169 99% 1%
2 ActBlue $194,439,211 $193,985,073 $59,727 100% 0%
3 American Fedn of St/Cnty/Munic Employees $94,708,977 $93,739,954 $671,755 99% 1%
4 National Education Assn $93,656,468 $89,590,047 $3,192,344 97% 3%

That's HALF A BILLION DOLLARS TO DEMOCRATS.

You ignorant, hypocritical JACKASS.

Sanders is getting his money to campaign from large corporations as Clinton, Cruz, Rubio and the others. They expect a return.

Really? I don't see any corporations, large or small, listed here, but if you can cite a source to back up your claim I'd be interested in seeing it.

Yeah, but I'm sure the Democrats will fix it. No wait, Time Warner is a Top 10 donor for Hillary, underneath 5 wall street banks.

But clearly this is a Republican problem.

Yeah, because the Democratic Queen's Coronation isn't funded by big business at all. Absolutely not CitiGroup, Goldman Sachs, DLA Piper, Morgan Stanley, or JPMorgan Chase.

Fuck off, you partisan hack.

Where do they think their bread is buttered? Let's find out.
Spoiler: Not Trump.

I mean, the reality is that if you were paying 10% on cash trapped in your account, you would more than likely just go out each week and spend all your money, even if you don't really want anything you are buying.

I'm not sure this is true. Eroding your purchasing power at 10% per year is just like inflation at 10%. We've had that. People will likely borrow more. But also, people will draw down their spending in an attempt to preserve whatever purchasing power they've got. People still need to eat, pay rent, pay for gas, buy clothes.

I think it could radically inflate debt-based purchases though. However, I don't know what the housing market did during the inflationary/stagflationary episode of the late 70s/early 80s. We can see just how people react with inflation of 10%.

Most impactfully, inflation costs politicians their jobs. And the central bank is a political animal.

'Trial lawyers' is a right wing made up perjorative so we know where you stand.

Except that's what they called themselves. They've since realized that was a little to obvious and created a new more euphemistic name. That hasn't changed which politicians they buy, however.

An internet tax hurts the dominant players in the communications industry because it makes overall prices higher, making people more likely to switch provider to a lower cost provider. Verizon alone has spent tens of millions of dollars lobbying Congress, so Congress votes in their favor.

See, e.g., https://www.opensecrets.org/or...

Supreme Court nomination

Do you really want Ginsberg types deciding what's "hate speech" or allowing restrictions on political speech?

REALLY?!?!?!?!

You WANT Citizen's United to be overturned? THINK about what you're asking for - a government that's allowed to prevent speech criticizing politicians - but only that made by certain people that the government doesn't like.

You REALLY want that?

That's scary.

And before you say, "I want the money out of politics!" you better check who the BIG donors tend to give money to - TWENTY of the top 25political contributors gave over $1 BILLION virtually entirely to DEMOCRATS.

This is not just about altruistism. There is a huge political aspect to these donations. Public employee unions are the biggest donors to the Democratic Party. The also provide thousands of campaign door knockers and phone dialers. When Obama was nominated, more than 20% of the delegates at the convention were members of either the NEA or the AFT. School reform, charter schools, and an upcoming Supreme Court ruling could weaken these unions, which will have a dramatic effect on American politics. I think this is a good thing, because the public employee unions have a corrupting influence, and push the Democratic Party away from their natural role of helping the dispossessed.

But that won't hurt who you think it will

The top six "givers" of money to politics in the US have "donated" something like $750 million dollars.

All of it to DEMOCRATS.

So yeah, let's "get the money out of politics".

The Donor Party liked this because it lowered labor costs. Oh, did I say "Donor"? I meant "Republican".

Right, the largest donors aren't donating to Democrats.

>> wish we would just scrap the elections and just sell the elections to the highest bidder

Do you really want the Service Employees International Union in charge?
https://www.opensecrets.org/or...

So what does it make Hillary who takes donations from Donald Trump?

And from the banks and other corporations?

https://www.opensecrets.org/po...

http://www.truth-out.org/speak...

Taking money from corps doesn't distinguish good or bad from Rubio.

I checked out his donor list. Apparently Goldman has a lot of H1Bs, who get paid just above $100k. Maybe the banks are the ones?

You're surprised that an organization that is pro-gun doesn't given many donations to politicians in the party that is largely anti-gun? Please explain how that's any indication of corruption.

Would you also consider this corruption: https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/toprecips.php?id=D000000083&cycle=2014.

The NRA doesn't even crack the top 50 in terms of money spent and looking at that list, most of the top organizations given heavily to one party or the other. Only 7 of the 50 are shaded gray and have close to an even split.

You're surprised that an organization that is pro-gun doesn't given many donations to politicians in the party that is largely anti-gun? Please explain how that's any indication of corruption.

Would you also consider this corruption: https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/toprecips.php?id=D000000083&cycle=2014.

The NRA doesn't even crack the top 50 in terms of money spent and looking at that list, most of the top organizations given heavily to one party or the other. Only 7 of the 50 are shaded gray and have close to an even split.

Here's something you can put in a display at the Museum of Political Corruption:

https://www.opensecrets.org/or...

Gotta understand the decision-making process for politicians:

1) These companies are big donors.

2) 90% percent of the population has no idea about this, and fewer care.

3) Politicians get cash for looking the other way, and it has no impact on their electability.

I started following these kinds of shenanigans prior to the financial crisis. The blame is on the politicians - not for being self interested, but for actually undermining the society for cash and favors from big donors. The vast majority of the voting public doesn't understand this kind of inside baseball. And the incumbency rate hasn't really changed much as a result of these issues. So the boiling of the frog (this society) will continue until we become Brazil or we snap out of the torpor.

"A society cannot be both ignorant and free." -- Lady Gaga

My bad, the NTEU worked on the unionization but apparently doesn't "represent" them now.

http://www.nteu.org/PressKits/...

It's the AFGE that's "representing" them now. And by "representing" I mean "taking some of their paycheck and giving it to Democrats".

https://www.opensecrets.org/or...