First, the GOP has a 51-vote Senate majority. They do not have anywhere close to automatic cloture. It will take 10 Democrats to cross the line in the Senate to do anything there. Unless the Senate takes the Harry Reid approach and uses the nuclear option to eliminate cloture votes.
Second, half the GOP members of Congress hate Trump (ever hear of Never-Trump Republicans?), and have no reason to support him except the party line (which actively tried to thwart his election).
Third, the GOP agenda (Speaker Ryan's plans) are not the same as Trump's plans. Trump needs Congress to pass his laws. Congress, OTOH, can overturn Trump vetos if they desire, so really don't need Trump.
Expect gridlock to continue, with Democrats in the Senate becoming the "obstructionist" bloc (actions for which they ironically denounced the GOP for 8 years).
A GOP Congress, who for the most part hate him, will have no qualms about cutting him off at the knees--he's a rich white man and not black or a woman so nobody will cry about racism or sexism if Congress disagrees with him. Dems will filibuster any actions in the Senate that he might take (becoming the new Party of No) and giving gridlock such as we've had for the last 4 or 6 years.
Will his executive orders and administrative policies (many are promised to simply undo Obama's executive orders and administrative policies) be procedurally more dictatorial than Obama's own executive edicts? Materially, maybe, but not procedurally.
PATRIOT was bad law, but it cannot be laid at the feet of Republicans only.
98 U.S. senators for voted in favor of the US Patriot Act of 2001, including Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Harry Reid, Barbara Boxer, Robert Byrd, Dianne Feinstein, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Fritz Hollings, Max Baucus, John Edwards, Chris Dodd, Chuck Schumer, and many more.
A few years later, in 2006, it was reauthorized pretty much intact with the by then Senator Obama joining Clinton, Baucus, Biden, Boxer, Dodd, Schumer, Reid, Kerry, Kennedy, Feinstein, and many others (89 total yeas in the Senate). Only a few, like Byrd, changed their vote between 2001 and 2006.
In 2001, Democrats in the House favored it by a margin of 145-62, helping it pass the House 357-66. Nancy Pelosi was among the yea votes. In 2006, the Democrat votes were reversed, 66-124, but those 66 helped it carry the House reauthorization vote 280-138 (Pelosi reversed course).
"Wall Street is freaking out over Trump's impending presidency"
Well, the S&P index dropped -5.27% the day after Obama got elected the first time.
When the party in power changes, the average move has been a decline of 2.97%, while the market has scored an average gain of 2.34% in the period when the same party retains the White House. [MarketWatch]
If it was required to prove ID, residency, and citizenship when registering to vote then I would agree that voter ID at the polling place is probably not required as that kind of "My name is Bob Smith but I'm going to pretend to be Bill Jones so I can steal his vote" voter fraud is probably non-existent. Just sign your name and if the data on the form and the signature matches the registration, then off you go to the booth.
But in most places registering does not require any of the above. If it did, the Democrats would be screaming about disenfranchisement at the time of registration--how dare we require someone to prove that they a) are alive and who they say they are via approved photo ID, b) actually reside in the district in which they are voting, and c) are actually US citizens? In some places, you can register and vote on the same day.
If nothing else, can we agree that voting in US elections should be reserved to US citizens? If not, let's just send a ballot to every person on the planet and let them vote for US Congress and President. And if so, can we come up with some way to ensure that only US citizens vote that Democrats will not complain about?
"participants who used wearable devices reported an average weight loss of 7.7 pounds, compared to the 13 pounds lost by those who didn't use the devices and only used health counseling"
Undermines?
Both A (fitbit) and B (counseling) are better than doing nothing (as well as many other alternatives), but A is somewhat less effective than B on average.
Now if people with a fitbit had gained 7.7 pounds...
First of all, some 2/3s of US corps. don't owe any taxes in any given year, since they aren't profitable enough to have positive tax rate.
But the OP is probably talking about the elasticity of corporate taxes means that by and large, individuals pay the taxes be they shareholders, employees, or consumers.
The CBO produced a report "THE INCIDENCE OF THE CORPORATE INCOME TAX" in which it states
"A corporation may write its check to the Internal Revenue Service for payment of the corporate income tax, but that money must come from somewhere: from reduced returns to investors in the company, lower wages to its workers, or higher prices that consumers pay for the products the company produces."
And it goes on to say
"Although economists are far from a consensus about exactly who bears how much of the burden of the corporate income tax, the existing studies highlight the significant types of economic mechanisms as well as the empirical estimates necessary for further quantifying the burdens. CBO's review of the studies yields the following conclusions:
o The short-term burden of the corporate tax probably falls on stockholders or investors in general, but may fall on some more than on others, because not all investments are taxed at the same rate.
o The long-term burden of corporate or dividend taxation is unlikely to rest fully on corporate equity, because it will remain there only if marginal investment is not affected by those taxes. Most economists believe that the corporate tax system has some effect on investment decisions.
o Most evidence from closed-economy, general-equilibrium models suggests that given reasonable parameters, the long-term incidence of the corporate tax falls on capital in general.
o In the context of international capital mobility, the burden of the corporate tax may be shifted onto immobile factors (such as labor or land), but only to the degree that the capital and outputs of different countries can be substituted.
o In the very long term, the burden is likely to be shifted in part to labor, if the corporate tax dampens capital accumulation.
"Capitalism in the US requires silencing dissent and anti-free speech when it comes to a sport player sitting for the national anthem"
Not sure how the former implies the later or even what connection there may be between capitalism and protesting using the national anthem.
As for the "requires silencing..." I think you'd be hard to pressed to find anyone who thinks the athletes should be deprived of their free speech rights or not be allowed to express their dissenting opinion. What you will find are lot of people who are offended by the actions of the athletes, primarily along the lines of "there's a time and a place" and who think that protesting against cops by disrespecting the flag and anthem during a 9/11 ceremony is just beyond the pale. Also a large number of people who feel that the athletes protests are largely nothing more than hypocritical attention-getting antics (i.e., coddled multi-millionaires paid to play a game, worshiped for their athletic prowess all their lives complaining about oppression?).
Perhaps there is a capitalistic connection, because a lot of people are now boycotting the NFL for their actions for allowing its employees to execute this protest on "company time" effectively supporting the protesters while at the same time fining athletes who wore commemorative gear (e.g., shoes with 9/11 painted on them).
Here's the story: A bunch of right wing think tanks were campaigning for Republican politicians and calling themselves charities. They weren't even trying to hide it. The IRS went after them because hey, low hanging fruit. That didn't change a damn thing about how illegal their actions were. There's a reason it's illegal to pretend to be a charity. A good one. And you're being disingenuous (read: lying through your teeth) when you suggest otherwise.
May 18, 2009 12:01 a.m. ET Barack Obama owes his presidency in no small part to the power of rhetoric. It's too bad he doesn't appreciate the damage that loose talk can do to America's tax system, even as exploding federal deficits make revenues more important than ever.
At his Arizona State University commencement speech last Wednesday, Mr. Obama noted that ASU had refused to grant him an honorary degree, citing his lack of experience, and the controversy this had caused. He then demonstrated ASU's point by remarking, "I really thought this was much ado about nothing, but I do think we all learned an important lesson. I learned never again to pick another team over the Sun Devils in my NCAA brackets. . . . President [Michael] Crowe and the Board of Regents will soon learn all about being audited by the IRS."
Just a joke about the power of the presidency. Made by Jay Leno it might have been funny. But as told by Mr. Obama, the actual president of the United States, it's hard to see the humor. Surely he's aware that other presidents, most notably Richard Nixon, have abused the power of the Internal Revenue Service to harass their political opponents. But that abuse generated a powerful backlash and with good reason. Should the IRS come to be seen as just a bunch of enforcers for whoever is in political power, the result would be an enormous loss of legitimacy for the tax system.
-----------------
Fast forward to 2012 when Lois Lerner and her minions sought out politically disfavored groups for targeting. And of course lots of potential evidence magically disappeared right after Congressional subpoena.
You also characterize the targeted groups incorrectly, perhaps in an attempt to paint them as somehow more worthy of your contempt.
The groups in question were not presenting themselves as "charities". Under point of law, they presented themselves as 501(c)(4) tax-exempt organizations. Such organizations are not charities, and donations to them are not deductible. Organizations like Greenpeace and Obama's own Organizing for Action (to promote President Obama's legislative priorities) are 501(c)(4) organizations. Such organizations cannot donate to campaigns, but are free to pursue issue-based initiatives, which may align with or be opposed to positions taken by one or more politicians or candidates and thus by indirect extension "support" or "oppose" candidates.
As previously stated, and much like the Clinton email server scandal, the Obama Justice Department investigated the Obama IRS and chose to file no charges.
The lack of transparency, destruction of evidence, and self-serving denial goes a long way in Obama's administration.
I hate to think what putting the IRS and Justice Department in either Hillary's or Donald's hands would look like. Make Obama look like a piker.
Just because I state an opinion that is anti-Hillary?
What I find very interesting is how George Bush who was, by all Democratic opinion, an idiot barely capable of remembering to breath was able to trick Hillary, Kerry, to vote for his war.
Similarly, how is it that Trump--by far the worst Republican candidate in memory--barely trails "the most qualified candidate ever" (really? more qualified than George Washington?) and even leads her in some polls?
This election is truly the giant douche vs the turd sandwich.
Alas, Gary Johnson has been sounding like Bernie Sanders and Bill Weld channeled his inner Michael Bloomberg on a gun-control chant. And Jill Stein? Seriously?
So not only giant douch and turd sandwich, but sides of dog vomit and cat hairballs.
It's not just about lowering costs. It's about lowering costs by abusing a system, the H1B, that is specifically designed so as to not be about lowering costs but filling holes where there are too few workers. This situation does not track with the purpose of the H1B, so it is an abuse of the H1B process and should be stopped under the H1B rules. If you don't like the H1B rules, get them changed.
Don' t fire a bunch of employees after making them train their imported replacements, in violation of the visa clause...
The employer must attest, and may need to furnish documentation upon rest, to show that the non-immigrant workers on behalf of whom the application is being made will be paid at or above both these numbers:
The actual wage: This is the wage paid to other employees in the company who do the same work. The prevailing wage: This is the wage for that occupation in the geographical area. The employer must make similar attestation regarding non-wage benefits offered.
Bringing in workers under H1B to replace existing workers at lower cost violates the clause.
You can take a losing case to trial and prosecute. Juries acquit all the time.
In this case, the reality seems to be more of choosing to not prosecute just to avoid the political outrage that would accompany the proceedings. A more cynical would say it was a decision based on partisan criteria--Obama and Lynch fixed it for Hillary when anyone else would be on trial for mishandling classified information, for destroying evidence (even after subpoena), and any number of other things.
Like so many others in the Clinton sphere. Lots of accidents and suicides for people who say bad things about Hillary.
An FBI director who realized that his only chance to assuage his guilt over his role in the charade was to go on TV and say she did it, anyone else would be in prison, but no "reasonable prosecutor" would indict. My bosses at Justice and the WH are reasonable prosecutors, and Brutus is an honorable man.
They found lots and lots and lots of grounds for her to be in Leavenworth, or at least put on trial for. They just chose to not prosecute.
And Bill's tarmac visit with Lynch had nothing at all to do with it...
Took the IRS to get him. Of course, these days he IRS is a political attack dog with a leash held by Obama, so it will not touch Hillary or the even the Clinton Foundation, which has recently had to redo taxes for several years due to “errors in the report of donations from foreign governments”.
Slashdot Mirror
"The republicans have total control."
Step off the ledge...
First, the GOP has a 51-vote Senate majority. They do not have anywhere close to automatic cloture. It will take 10 Democrats to cross the line in the Senate to do anything there. Unless the Senate takes the Harry Reid approach and uses the nuclear option to eliminate cloture votes.
Second, half the GOP members of Congress hate Trump (ever hear of Never-Trump Republicans?), and have no reason to support him except the party line (which actively tried to thwart his election).
Third, the GOP agenda (Speaker Ryan's plans) are not the same as Trump's plans. Trump needs Congress to pass his laws. Congress, OTOH, can overturn Trump vetos if they desire, so really don't need Trump.
Expect gridlock to continue, with Democrats in the Senate becoming the "obstructionist" bloc (actions for which they ironically denounced the GOP for 8 years).
A GOP Congress, who for the most part hate him, will have no qualms about cutting him off at the knees--he's a rich white man and not black or a woman so nobody will cry about racism or sexism if Congress disagrees with him. Dems will filibuster any actions in the Senate that he might take (becoming the new Party of No) and giving gridlock such as we've had for the last 4 or 6 years.
Will his executive orders and administrative policies (many are promised to simply undo Obama's executive orders and administrative policies) be procedurally more dictatorial than Obama's own executive edicts? Materially, maybe, but not procedurally.
All I can say here is ^This^.
PATRIOT was bad law, but it cannot be laid at the feet of Republicans only.
98 U.S. senators for voted in favor of the US Patriot Act of 2001, including Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Harry Reid, Barbara Boxer, Robert Byrd, Dianne Feinstein, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Fritz Hollings, Max Baucus, John Edwards, Chris Dodd, Chuck Schumer, and many more.
A few years later, in 2006, it was reauthorized pretty much intact with the by then Senator Obama joining Clinton, Baucus, Biden, Boxer, Dodd, Schumer, Reid, Kerry, Kennedy, Feinstein, and many others (89 total yeas in the Senate). Only a few, like Byrd, changed their vote between 2001 and 2006.
In 2001, Democrats in the House favored it by a margin of 145-62, helping it pass the House 357-66. Nancy Pelosi was among the yea votes. In 2006, the Democrat votes were reversed, 66-124, but those 66 helped it carry the House reauthorization vote 280-138 (Pelosi reversed course).
"Wall Street is freaking out over Trump's impending presidency"
Well, the S&P index dropped -5.27% the day after Obama got elected the first time.
When the party in power changes, the average move has been a decline of 2.97%, while the market has scored an average gain of 2.34% in the period when the same party retains the White House. [MarketWatch]
And if Dr. Condoleeza Rice had run, we'd probably have elected the first black woman. But she didn't.
If it was required to prove ID, residency, and citizenship when registering to vote then I would agree that voter ID at the polling place is probably not required as that kind of "My name is Bob Smith but I'm going to pretend to be Bill Jones so I can steal his vote" voter fraud is probably non-existent. Just sign your name and if the data on the form and the signature matches the registration, then off you go to the booth.
But in most places registering does not require any of the above. If it did, the Democrats would be screaming about disenfranchisement at the time of registration--how dare we require someone to prove that they a) are alive and who they say they are via approved photo ID, b) actually reside in the district in which they are voting, and c) are actually US citizens? In some places, you can register and vote on the same day.
If nothing else, can we agree that voting in US elections should be reserved to US citizens? If not, let's just send a ballot to every person on the planet and let them vote for US Congress and President. And if so, can we come up with some way to ensure that only US citizens vote that Democrats will not complain about?
Want to talk about profiteering? Try plugging in a projector in a meeting room or running an extension cord from the wall to your laptop.
Watch the IBEW folks come running at you screaming!
On their property, Hofstra certainly has a right to say "No WI-FI Hot Spots Permitted", just as they have a right to post "No Guns Permitted".
If you do not wish to comply, move along or face trespassing charges.
"participants who used wearable devices reported an average weight loss of 7.7 pounds, compared to the 13 pounds lost by those who didn't use the devices and only used health counseling"
Undermines?
Both A (fitbit) and B (counseling) are better than doing nothing (as well as many other alternatives), but A is somewhat less effective than B on average.
Now if people with a fitbit had gained 7.7 pounds...
And quicksand.
First of all, some 2/3s of US corps. don't owe any taxes in any given year, since they aren't profitable enough to have positive tax rate.
But the OP is probably talking about the elasticity of corporate taxes means that by and large, individuals pay the taxes be they shareholders, employees, or consumers.
The CBO produced a report "THE INCIDENCE OF THE CORPORATE INCOME TAX" in which it states
"A corporation may write its check to the Internal Revenue Service for payment of the corporate income tax, but that money must come from somewhere: from reduced returns to investors in the company, lower wages to its workers, or higher prices that consumers pay for the products the company produces."
And it goes on to say
"Although economists are far from a consensus about exactly who bears how much of the burden of the corporate income tax, the existing studies highlight the significant types of economic mechanisms as well as the empirical estimates necessary for further quantifying the burdens. CBO's review of the studies yields the following conclusions:
o The short-term burden of the corporate tax probably falls on stockholders or investors in general, but may fall on some more than on others, because not all investments are taxed at the same rate.
o The long-term burden of corporate or dividend taxation is unlikely to rest fully on corporate equity, because it will remain there only if marginal investment is not affected by those taxes. Most economists believe that the corporate tax system has some effect on investment decisions.
o Most evidence from closed-economy, general-equilibrium models suggests that given reasonable parameters, the long-term incidence of the corporate tax falls on capital in general.
o In the context of international capital mobility, the burden of the corporate tax may be shifted onto immobile factors (such as labor or land), but only to the degree that the capital and outputs of different countries can be substituted.
o In the very long term, the burden is likely to be shifted in part to labor, if the corporate tax dampens capital accumulation.
Otherwise plus plus.
"Capitalism in the US requires silencing dissent and anti-free speech when it comes to a sport player sitting for the national anthem"
Not sure how the former implies the later or even what connection there may be between capitalism and protesting using the national anthem.
As for the "requires silencing..." I think you'd be hard to pressed to find anyone who thinks the athletes should be deprived of their free speech rights or not be allowed to express their dissenting opinion. What you will find are lot of people who are offended by the actions of the athletes, primarily along the lines of "there's a time and a place" and who think that protesting against cops by disrespecting the flag and anthem during a 9/11 ceremony is just beyond the pale. Also a large number of people who feel that the athletes protests are largely nothing more than hypocritical attention-getting antics (i.e., coddled multi-millionaires paid to play a game, worshiped for their athletic prowess all their lives complaining about oppression?).
Perhaps there is a capitalistic connection, because a lot of people are now boycotting the NFL for their actions for allowing its employees to execute this protest on "company time" effectively supporting the protesters while at the same time fining athletes who wore commemorative gear (e.g., shoes with 9/11 painted on them).
Here's the story: A bunch of right wing think tanks were campaigning for Republican politicians and calling themselves charities. They weren't even trying to hide it. The IRS went after them because hey, low hanging fruit. That didn't change a damn thing about how illegal their actions were. There's a reason it's illegal to pretend to be a charity. A good one. And you're being disingenuous (read: lying through your teeth) when you suggest otherwise.
------------------
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB...
May 18, 2009 12:01 a.m. ET
Barack Obama owes his presidency in no small part to the power of rhetoric. It's too bad he doesn't appreciate the damage that loose talk can do to America's tax system, even as exploding federal deficits make revenues more important than ever.
At his Arizona State University commencement speech last Wednesday, Mr. Obama noted that ASU had refused to grant him an honorary degree, citing his lack of experience, and the controversy this had caused. He then demonstrated ASU's point by remarking, "I really thought this was much ado about nothing, but I do think we all learned an important lesson. I learned never again to pick another team over the Sun Devils in my NCAA brackets. . . . President [Michael] Crowe and the Board of Regents will soon learn all about being audited by the IRS."
Just a joke about the power of the presidency. Made by Jay Leno it might have been funny. But as told by Mr. Obama, the actual president of the United States, it's hard to see the humor. Surely he's aware that other presidents, most notably Richard Nixon, have abused the power of the Internal Revenue Service to harass their political opponents. But that abuse generated a powerful backlash and with good reason. Should the IRS come to be seen as just a bunch of enforcers for whoever is in political power, the result would be an enormous loss of legitimacy for the tax system.
-----------------
Fast forward to 2012 when Lois Lerner and her minions sought out politically disfavored groups for targeting. And of course lots of potential evidence magically disappeared right after Congressional subpoena.
You also characterize the targeted groups incorrectly, perhaps in an attempt to paint them as somehow more worthy of your contempt.
The groups in question were not presenting themselves as "charities". Under point of law, they presented themselves as 501(c)(4) tax-exempt organizations. Such organizations are not charities, and donations to them are not deductible. Organizations like Greenpeace and Obama's own Organizing for Action (to promote President Obama's legislative priorities) are 501(c)(4) organizations. Such organizations cannot donate to campaigns, but are free to pursue issue-based initiatives, which may align with or be opposed to positions taken by one or more politicians or candidates and thus by indirect extension "support" or "oppose" candidates.
As previously stated, and much like the Clinton email server scandal, the Obama Justice Department investigated the Obama IRS and chose to file no charges.
The lack of transparency, destruction of evidence, and self-serving denial goes a long way in Obama's administration.
I hate to think what putting the IRS and Justice Department in either Hillary's or Donald's hands would look like. Make Obama look like a piker.
Isn't a bug pretty much by definition unexpected?
Just because I state an opinion that is anti-Hillary?
What I find very interesting is how George Bush who was, by all Democratic opinion, an idiot barely capable of remembering to breath was able to trick Hillary, Kerry, to vote for his war.
Similarly, how is it that Trump--by far the worst Republican candidate in memory--barely trails "the most qualified candidate ever" (really? more qualified than George Washington?) and even leads her in some polls?
This election is truly the giant douche vs the turd sandwich.
Alas, Gary Johnson has been sounding like Bernie Sanders and Bill Weld channeled his inner Michael Bloomberg on a gun-control chant. And Jill Stein? Seriously?
So not only giant douch and turd sandwich, but sides of dog vomit and cat hairballs.
" At-will employment needs to come to an end. "
Then you can't quit. You have to honor your contract. You're stuck working as long as they're paying you.
It's not just about lowering costs. It's about lowering costs by abusing a system, the H1B, that is specifically designed so as to not be about lowering costs but filling holes where there are too few workers. This situation does not track with the purpose of the H1B, so it is an abuse of the H1B process and should be stopped under the H1B rules. If you don't like the H1B rules, get them changed.
Don' t fire a bunch of employees after making them train their imported replacements, in violation of the visa clause...
The employer must attest, and may need to furnish documentation upon rest, to show that the non-immigrant workers on behalf of whom the application is being made will be paid at or above both these numbers:
The actual wage: This is the wage paid to other employees in the company who do the same work.
The prevailing wage: This is the wage for that occupation in the geographical area.
The employer must make similar attestation regarding non-wage benefits offered.
Bringing in workers under H1B to replace existing workers at lower cost violates the clause.
Those would be examples of escalating ongoing efforts. Now, dropping bombs on Venezuela would be "starting" a war.
You can take a losing case to trial and prosecute. Juries acquit all the time.
In this case, the reality seems to be more of choosing to not prosecute just to avoid the political outrage that would accompany the proceedings. A more cynical would say it was a decision based on partisan criteria--Obama and Lynch fixed it for Hillary when anyone else would be on trial for mishandling classified information, for destroying evidence (even after subpoena), and any number of other things.
Like so many others in the Clinton sphere. Lots of accidents and suicides for people who say bad things about Hillary.
An FBI director who realized that his only chance to assuage his guilt over his role in the charade was to go on TV and say she did it, anyone else would be in prison, but no "reasonable prosecutor" would indict. My bosses at Justice and the WH are reasonable prosecutors, and Brutus is an honorable man.
They found lots and lots and lots of grounds for her to be in Leavenworth, or at least put on trial for. They just chose to not prosecute.
And Bill's tarmac visit with Lynch had nothing at all to do with it...
Took the IRS to get him. Of course, these days he IRS is a political attack dog with a leash held by Obama, so it will not touch Hillary or the even the Clinton Foundation, which has recently had to redo taxes for several years due to “errors in the report of donations from foreign governments”.
Big corporations and billionaires.
Oh, no. My mistake. The correct answer is unions. Percentages are to Democrats and to Republicans, respectively.
1 Service Employees International Union $233,948,108 $231,783,862 $1,295,669 99% 1%
2 Fahr LLC $114,005,803 $113,755,803 $0 100% 0%
3 National Education Assn $109,427,714 $105,078,729 $3,452,808 97% 3%
4 American Fedn of St/Cnty/Munic Employees $98,678,433 $97,694,335 $676,830 99% 1%
5 Carpenters & Joiners Union $80,768,463 $75,823,760 $4,798,328 94% 6%
6 National Assn of Realtors $74,982,087 $26,027,003 $28,258,810 48% 52%
7 American Federation of Teachers $74,932,481 $74,120,164 $363,250 100% 1%
8 Renaissance Technologies $73,792,377 $36,170,416 $36,646,874 50% 50%
9 Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers $72,175,924 $70,714,074 $1,136,150 98% 2%
10 Las Vegas Sands $70,782,782 $53,240 $70,732,661 0% 100%
11 Laborers Union $68,330,958 $64,165,186 $3,679,066 95% 5%
12 AT&T Inc $65,956,335 $27,437,253 $38,360,404 42% 58%
13 United Food & Commercial Workers Union $65,832,840 $65,272,289 $327,750 100% 1%
14 Soros Fund Management $59,210,620 $54,524,165 $1,813,415 97% 3%
15 AFL-CIO $57,212,102 $52,305,234 $1,286,876 98% 2%
Depending on the source, but was soundly defeated on the issue.
Money doesn't buy votes. Ads seldom sway pre-formed opinions.