I don't want to start a fight, but (0.00 / 0)

why shouldn't ATT, or any other corporation, be proud of the fact that they have the resources and ability to support their chosen candidates?


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

---

by: SpitBall @ Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 08:53:15 AM CST

it's actually a very good question (0.00 / 0)

There are two answers.  One, they should be smart enough to recognize that the public isn't happy about corporate support, and find another way to move the money that isn't so brazen.  It's a politically clumsy move.

Two, on the moral point, they are purchasing legislative influence in a regulated industry.  This is simply corruption.  Now obviously they are proud of what they do, and they believe it is principled to support your friends and an economy where the rules are organized for the benefit of moneyed interests.  This contradicts basic norms of democracy, but not everyone believes in democracy.  They happen to be proud of their subversion of democracy without even realizing that is what they are doing.  I find this tacky and wrong.  They don't.

---

by: Matt Stoller @ Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 09:12:40 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Are you gonna show up? ... (0.00 / 0)

and see if you can talk to any of the Reps. that will be there?

---

by: Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle @ Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 11:07:20 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Money, Influence, and Politics (0.00 / 0)

On your first point: It may be politically clumsy, but I'd rather have the political support by the corporations done in public.  I fear that, if the move were not so brazen, it would  not make it into the public debate - it would happen behind closed doors, or be covered up by some kind of sham business organization.

Besides, clumsy, or otherwise - the corporations have managed to work (buy) their way into the government.  That is: their methods work.  I'm not saying that they are GOOD, or MORAL - but buying influence has gotten the corporations what they want, hasn't it?  Otherwise, what's John Edwards talking about?

Secondly: Whether donating money and/or raising funds for a particular PAC that channels that money to candidates that are supportive of policies that favor, or help, the organization raising the funds is contradictory to the kind of representative democracy we practice in the US, is an interesting question.  One that applies as much to corporations as to any other large group - say labor unions.

No matter what form of government - the trick is to get influence and use that influence to benefit whatever you (or some group of people) think needs benefit.  That's politics at the root - a struggle for influence and power.  Money is a means to that end. 

When this site posts messages that encourage the readers to donate to particular campaigns - aren't you playing the same game?  When the "progressives", or "netroots" express the opinion that their work, money, and passion, for one cause, or some candidate (let's say, Howard Dean, for example) is not respected, or is over-looked, by the "powers that be" (let's say the democratic party leadship, for example) isn't the core of that argument that their influence was not felt?

I tend to agree that the goals of the corporations, at least in this instance, are suspect because they seem more directed toward maintaining their exclusive status, rather than aimed at improving the nation as a whole.  But, hey, that's what they want and they are employing tactics that are in accord with the political system we have.


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

---

by: SpitBall @ Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 11:29:56 AM CST

[ Parent ]

It's the employees, not the corporation itself (0.00 / 0)

Corporate PACs don't take money from the company, they raise money from the employees.  The PAC also has to justify their contributions to the employees that give to the PAC. Perhaps it would make sense to target the employees of these companies and make sure they know where their PAC dollars are going.

---

by: Livia @ Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 10:45:45 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Do you work at a large company? .. (0.00 / 0)

I'd be curious to see who gave money to the PAC ... I bet it is 98% officers and directors of said companies

---

by: Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle @ Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 11:08:44 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Employees (4.00 / 1)

from what I have heard, employees are often being extorted.  "I see you haven't contritbuted any money to our PAC, interesting" being said during reviews or conversations around the water cooler.  I can't imagine working for a company that would do that, but a lot of people aren't willing to risk their jobs.

---

by: sisterfish @ Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 11:10:23 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Egads! (0.00 / 0)

I have often agreed with your prior comments but this one takes me aback.

It is the corporate buying of legislative votes that has transformed our democracy into a plutocracy where the wealthy run the government and price gouge the citizenry into insolvency.

The invitation pictured in Matt's post is a gem. It shows just how corporations have bought Congress lock stock and barrel.

One organization that is fighting back against this type of corruption is MAPLight.org: Money and Politics: Illuminating the Connection. (Just click on the icon "U.S. Congress".)

It allows voters to track the connection between corporate campaign contributions and the votes of their elected representatives so they can see for themselves when and how their representatives sell their votes to their corporate campaign financiers. Once voters see this connection in black and white, they'll kick the bums out of office, as we are about to see in the Wynn/Edwards race in Maryland.

Now that we have the tools to document this connection and effective push-back strategies like Blue Dog Democrats to get rid of legislators who have sold their votes, their influence peddling is going to come to an abrupt end.

You, Spitball, may not see what is wrong with an invitation like this, but I predict the day will come in the not too distant future where no representative will dare to participate in such blatant corruption of the legislative process.

---

by: Nancy Bordier @ Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 11:09:07 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I see your points (0.00 / 0)

I'm not defending the policy goals of the corporations.

I was trying to expand the discussion a bit - is it just corporations that try to use their money to influence politicians?  If money is the problem, why just focus on the corporate funders? I'm not trying to absolve them - I'm pointing out that the corruption lies in the political system that is existent in this nation at this time - to focus on blaming the corporations for playing within the system won't change the system.

This statement, "...I predict the day will come in the not too distant future where no representative will dare to participate in such blatant corruption of the legislative process.", is one I hope will ring true.  But, keeping the discussion based on the "corporations are immoral" theme won't bring that change about.  If the political system is as corrupt as depicted here - how can ANY financial influence be pure, or moral? 


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

---

by: SpitBall @ Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 11:47:13 AM CST

[ Parent ]

The only "pure" campaign contributions come from voters and public financing (0.00 / 0)

We are more in agreement than not on the points you raise above.

But we do disagree on one main point. I believe that only public financing of elections or campaign contributions from individual voters should be allowed.

Corporations are not individuals and are not entitled to vote.

Why should they be allowed to dominate campaign financing and determine which candidacies become viable and ultimately win because they can saturate the media with their message and drown out candidates with fewer resources?

With corporations piling on with their campaign contributions and corporate-owned media giants piling on with their propaganda and demogoguery, candidates like John Edwards are denied a fair chance to get their message across.

Corporations should not be able to do this, and the day is going to come when the public overturns all the laws allowing corporations to substitute their interests for those of the voters in electoral and legislative decision-making.

---

by: Nancy Bordier @ Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 12:07:32 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Publically Funded Campaigns (0.00 / 0)

While I agree that public funding might take some of the influence peddling out of the process, I can't see spending my tax dollars on these ridiculously expensive and horrendously long political campaigns. Two months should be long enough for a campaign.

Certainly, there is absolutely no reason for any public money to go to support the primaries and caucuses.  Especially if there are only two parties that will be legitized by the funding mechanism. These are party functions and should be funded by the parties. 

Its true that corporations are not persons - they are an organization.  Yet, corporations are not the only organizations that seek to gain political influence by donating to, or supporting, particular candidates.  Myself, I'm a working research scientist and I belong to various professional organizations. Some of these are politically active and, from time to time I get a message, or an invitation, from these organizations to contribute to particular policy causes (generally, not particular candidates).  I can give money, or I can volunteer to help them lobby politicians. 

The point is that the goal is to influence the political system with a lever that is a bit bigger than any one of us could managed on our own.  Is this immoral?  I have the same goal as the members of a corporation - I would like to influence the politicians to do what I want, and I'm attempting to gain those ends by influencing politicians.

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

---

by: SpitBall @ Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 12:33:58 PM CST

[ Parent ]

There's more to it. . . (0.00 / 0)

Of course, there is more to it than just the financing piece.

But it is the first place to start, i.e. election financing, to ensure that:

a) There is a limit to what the candidates can spend

b) All candidates are playing on a level playing field.

I do not oppose the funding that interest groups like MoveOne.org elicit from individual suppoers to lobby for issues. But I am opposed to the $4 billion that wealthy individuals and corporations are going to contribute to this presidential election to fund and buy the winning campaign.

This is a dyed-in-the-wool plutocracy at work. It is not a democracy.

I also disagree with you that it is up to the political parties and caucuses to fund the nomination process.

Right now, in both major political parties, we have horrible slates of mostly anti-progressive self-nominated and party-backed candidates (with the exception of Edwards and Kucinich) who ignore the opinion polls that clearly articulate the progressive policies the large majority of voters prefer.

Anybody who wants to run for office should receive a minimum of public financing to enable them to collect the signatures they need to get on the ballot and get their message out locally without having to get in bed with one of the established parties and sell their votes in order to buy hugely expensive media ads.

I am only slightly less sickened by the Democratic candidates than by the Republican candidates when it comes to the vacuous, innuendo-laden debates to which we have been subjected. If financing were not the determining factor and public funding were available from the get-go in the nominating process, we would see a whole different slate of candidates some of whom might actually speak for the people.

---

by: Nancy Bordier @ Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 13:35:21 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Someone needs to video this (4.00 / 1)

Capture these guys going into the building on video. That's a sight my neighbors in Maryland need to see.

---

by: Paul Blumenthal @ Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 10:07:42 AM CST

So when do we get them to promise to back our nominee? (0.00 / 0)

When do we get to call Clyburn et al and get them to commit to supporting our nominee?  I doubt we can talk them into backing off their support for Wynn pre-primary, but it's probably not a terrible idea to get them on-record promising to back the Democratic candidate in November, should Wynn decide to run without the nomination (write-ins can declare up until six days before the General without paying a filing fee in MD, but I don't know the requirements for getting on the ballot as an independent--in any event, there's always a chance he runs after Donna kicks his sorry ass).  In '04 the Republican running against Wynn got 20%.  If his Democratic and Indy supporters stick with him and he pulls a Lieberman, he might jus tbe able to hold out, and the Republicans might be able to get him to either caucus with them or promise to back them on some key bills in the nest Congress.

I know there's a world of difference between Wynn and Lieberman in the eyes of the Republicans, but considering that they considered beating Ned Lamont as one of their biggest victories in 2006, they might be willing to cheer similarly for Wynn in 2008.

Yeah I blog.

---

by: JR @ Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 11:23:52 AM CST

Seems less likely (0.00 / 0)

Lieberman is a very senior figure and the Senate was looking like it'd be balanced on a knife edge, so supporting him had real worth. Plus he wouldn't be up again for six years, by which time the stink of his actions might have dulled, and he might not want to run again anyway. So it made sense for him to try running as an independent.

Wynn's less senior and much younger. The House doesn't look likely to switch, so if he ran as an independent Democrats wouldn't need to be nice to him. That'd put him in the minority. Then he has to run for re-election every two years in a massively Democratic district. He can't keep that up forever. As a Democrat, he can have this seat as long as he keeps winning primaries. As a Republican or independent his chances of four more years are pretty damn small.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

---

by: Englishlefty @ Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 13:18:52 PM CST

[ Parent ]