I think this is a perfect example (4.00 / 7)

of why we need to pass the Employee Free Choice Act.

---

by: adamterando @ Tue Jan 27, 2009 at 22:27:49 PM CST

first amendment = corruption? (4.00 / 2)

tarp did not come with strings which say that the participants cannot engage in first amendment activities!  what if liberal recipients of federal assistance could not advocate a viewpoint that we appreciated....oh -- that was the global gag rule!  sorry, but this is neither a scandal nor corrpution.

---

by: damitajo1 @ Tue Jan 27, 2009 at 22:46:21 PM CST

if it's not legally corrupt (4.00 / 3)

it is morally corrupt because of the blatant hypocrisy .. TARP did not come with strings which say participant cannot buy luxury jets or lavish million dollar bonus or buy up all your competitors but the greed and corruption is plain to see.

---

by: T Maysle @ Tue Jan 27, 2009 at 23:02:33 PM CST

[ Parent ]

and obama fought the imposition of strings (0.00 / 0)

it's hypocritical for a bank to take a position that the left perceives as anti-labor, while participating in an asset investment scheme with the federal government which democrats, including obama, supported.....ok. just following the logic.  

---

by: damitajo1 @ Tue Jan 27, 2009 at 23:19:31 PM CST

[ Parent ]

following the logic (4.00 / 1)

not all Dems supported TARP .. the opposition was a combination Repub "free marketers" and Dem progressives who wanted stricter oversight. Obama supports some policies that are not progressive, that does not mean there is not corruption in how TARP money is being used.

---

by: T Maysle @ Tue Jan 27, 2009 at 23:33:21 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Is it "morally corrupt" to donate to political campaigns? (0.00 / 0)

I admit the line saying those who are not contributing should be shot is inappropriate, but I've read similar comments about those not of the left on this site (untroll rated comments).

Does this anger extend to an autoworker whose job was saved by bailing out the car companies sending money to the Democratic candidates that supported the bail-out and telling his buddies that they should be contributing, too?

Was I "corrupt" when I donated money to Democratic campaigns after getting my "stimulus check" from GWB?

I'm not trying to be difficult. I'm trying to understand why it is surprising, or an example of corruption, when companies try to push, promote, or quash legislation that that interests them.  

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

---

by: SpitBall @ Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 08:16:23 AM CST

[ Parent ]

because (0.00 / 0)

the hypocrisy, "all for me and none for thee", taking gov't money to keep yourself in business, then trying to keep others from organizing to get a fair wage.

.. and the size of it, taking $25 billion of TARP, then using BoA's real power to change elections, a lot bigger influence on elections than you or some autoworker have.

Surprising, no it isn't surprising.

---

by: T Maysle @ Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 08:42:56 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I agree that BOA is acting in the manner you claim (0.00 / 0)

I'm not defending their corporate actions that seek to increase their profits at the expense of their workers (unionized or otherwise). Clearly, they have a political agenda that differs from mine, but I can't say that they are corrupt for trying to work the existant political system to attain their desired outcome.  

I was glad to see some hint that the proper response to this "news" is to work on reforming the political funding system and, minimally, including provisions in TARP that preclude such actions (although these will be weak, I suspect).

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

---

by: SpitBall @ Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 09:03:25 AM CST

[ Parent ]

The first amendment is for people, (4.00 / 2)

not corporations. They never fought or died for it.

Montani semper liberi

---

by: Sadie Baker @ Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 05:48:24 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Who runs corporations (0.00 / 0)

if not people?

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

---

by: SpitBall @ Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 08:17:12 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I'm a little off topic (0.00 / 0)

but we have a basic problem in this country where corporations have been legally recognized by the courts as citizens.

This, naturally, leads to a lot of illogical stuff, like arguments that corporate activity is protected by the first amendment.

Tim Wolfe

---

by: bruorton @ Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 11:33:29 AM CST

[ Parent ]

True enough (0.00 / 0)

However, the meeting sponsored by BOA (admittedly a corporation) was attended by people who were working to accomplish the political goals that will help their businesses. Were they working as a corporate entity?

I belong to a number of professional associations and I pay dues. Some of that money goes toward their lobbying efforts. Efforts that I support. Now, when the American Association of Molecular Biologists goes to DC and lobbys, or when they hold a session at our annual meeting where we discuss lobbying tactics, are they protected by the First Amendment?

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

---

by: SpitBall @ Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 12:49:19 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I'm sorry... (4.00 / 5)

But as someone who has worked in the labor movement my entire adult life, I fail to see the scandal here.  

Virtually all businesses which do not have a substantial proportion of their employees already unionized are die-hard anti union.  I'm not shocked to see they are participating in a conference call - even leading one.  

However, there is no indication that they are using bailout money to help defeat the EFCA, except perhaps the lost time and money it took to organize the conference call itself, along with the prospective future time employees will spend lobbying.  

Now, an argument can be made (which I agree with) that TARP should be strengthened to forbid any company which receives money from engaging in lobbying, but that's not how TARP is currently constructed sadly.    

I think this story is strongest simply as an example of how messed up the priorities of business are right now.  They'll drive their companies into the ground to avoid a union, and now, they seem willing to band together and drive the U.S. into the ground if that's what it takes to defeat working people.  

There's no reason though to resort to hyperbole when the simple truth is nasty enough.  

---

by: telephasic @ Tue Jan 27, 2009 at 22:53:03 PM CST

bailout with boa (0.00 / 0)

most of the so-called "bailout" money for bank of america was used to help save merrill lynch.  the feds themselves believed that merrill was an important financial institution to keep around, and a huge chunk of that money went to complete that transaction. and the government owns a stake in the company as a result. so the suggestion that boa took "bailout" funds to conduct a conference call -- assuming that veracity of huffington's "scoop" -- is ridiculous.  

---

by: damitajo1 @ Tue Jan 27, 2009 at 23:05:54 PM CST

[ Parent ]

so I guess this is the plan (4.00 / 3)

1. I stop donating to politicians with my views.
2. * Magic *
3. Public financing passes
4. * Magic *
5. Good government.

I don't believe in steps 2 or 4, so I'll pass.  

New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

---

by: Hopeful in NJ @ Tue Jan 27, 2009 at 22:58:14 PM CST

What would you propose as an alternative? (4.00 / 1)

---

by: TravisDisaster @ Tue Jan 27, 2009 at 22:59:29 PM CST

[ Parent ]

appreciate the snark but... (4.00 / 4)

...you're wrong.

Small-dollar donors proved our power in 2008. But it makes no sense to give politicians our money just to have them continue listening disproportionately to the special interests.

We need to take that newfound power out for a spin and force the choice for politicians: You can have our money, or special interest money, but not both.

This is a threshold question. Progress will be blocked on every other issue until we get this problem fixed. So, "politicians with your views" should support this obvious reform. If the co-sponsor the bill, the strike for them is over. They've made the choice, and they chose to stand with us.

That's how this works. It's called asserting pressure. If we don't do it now, the chances will never be this good again for fundamental reform.

---

by: AdamGreen @ Tue Jan 27, 2009 at 23:19:02 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I hope you're right (4.00 / 1)

Thanks for responding.

New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

---

by: Hopeful in NJ @ Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 11:11:20 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I may be old-fashioned... (4.00 / 1)

... but I like to read OpenLeft for the insight it gives.

All I'm seeing here is a recycled HuffPo story with a heavy-breathing (and not entirely accurate) headline and some Reddit buttons on the bottom.

I very much respect the work that Lessig has done, but this is a classic case of bumping a post, not for its quality as a post, but because of whatever agitprop-style objective the post has to achieve. That makes everybody involved look bad -- including Trippi and Lessig, but more importantly (to me) OpenLeft. We need to think of the long haul, here. So what if some Reddit click-throughs don't happen?

Less of this, please. This deserved Quick Hits at the very best.  

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  

---

by: lambert @ Tue Jan 27, 2009 at 23:04:01 PM CST

What is this world coming to? (0.00 / 0)

I'm agreeing with Strether. The call was on October 17th. That was like a thousand years ago. Plus, BoA wasn't even lukewarm wrt the objective of blocking EFCA. With enemies like these, we don't need friends.

---

by: Mithras Invicti @ Tue Jan 27, 2009 at 23:14:21 PM CST

[ Parent ]

wow (4.00 / 3)

so...every whistleblower who comes forward about crazy stuff that happened in the Bush administration is peddling "old news"? I seriously don't get your argument. This is an important revelation. The fact that it took a while to rise to the surface is unfortunate, but doesn't diminish it's importance.

---

by: AdamGreen @ Tue Jan 27, 2009 at 23:23:16 PM CST

[ Parent ]

all roads lead back to bush? (0.00 / 0)

you cannot imagine this same phone call happening today? please....obama voted for the bailout and threatened to veto the release of additional funds with strings attached to it. there's no difference between bush and obama with respect to the bailout.....

---

by: damitajo1 @ Tue Jan 27, 2009 at 23:43:46 PM CST

[ Parent ]

don't insult quick hits! (0.00 / 0)

---

by: damitajo1 @ Tue Jan 27, 2009 at 23:20:54 PM CST

[ Parent ]

so.... (4.00 / 2)

So...blockquoting anything is "recycling" it? Really?

I don't really get the rest of your argument, starting with "agitprop-style objective" so I'll defer on that.

---

by: AdamGreen @ Tue Jan 27, 2009 at 23:21:05 PM CST

[ Parent ]

The best way to have stopped this (4.00 / 4)

Would have been to nationalize the financial institutions in trouble, and then sell the institution as a whole off later.  Then you could have busted executives from those firms for doing things like this.

As it stands this is legal and to be expected.  It makes a good peice of a story corporate greed, but that is about it.

---

by: PTM @ Wed Jan 28, 2009 at 01:48:13 AM CST