Democracy

[kalm]

How government works:

Big PACs contribute $83,000 to super committee members
By Bill Allison Oct 06 2011 9:30 a.m.
The political action committees of Lockheed Martin, the National Association of Realtors, Pfizer and Chevron all reported making contributions to members of the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction--better known as the super committee--in the roughly 20 days of August after House and Senate leadership appointed them to the panel.

PACs for 19 of the biggest political donors in the country, as determined by Center for Responsive Politics, have reported contributing more than $83,000 to 10 of the 12 members of the super committee or their leadership PACs, Federal Eelection Commission filings show. It's the first glimpse available of fundraising by super committee members as they wrestle with their mandate to recommend at least $1.2 trillion in cuts to the debt, increased revenues, or a combination of both.

http://reporting.sunlightfoundation.com ... e-members/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Ivytalk]

Free speech in action, kalm!

I still predict a 6-6 standoff.

Anyway, to my Palouse brother from another mother, provocative way to start a Saturday!

[D1B]

Free speech in action, kalm!

I still predict a 6-6 standoff.

Anyway, to my Palouse brother from another mother, provocative way to start a Saturday!

Palouse this, Jerkoff!

[kalm]

Free speech in action, kalm!

I still predict a 6-6 standoff.

Anyway, to my Palouse brother from another mother, provocative way to start a Saturday!

Bribery in action! Of course it will be a standoff, theyre donating to both sides. Course the Dems aren't smart enough to get as much money as the Rep's.

But since you're such a fan of limiting democracy and the speech of the average Joe, do you mind if I make contribution in your name to a PAC that shares your values?

http://colbertsuperpac.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[TwinTownBisonFan]

oy...

Limiting INDIVIDUAL donations IS absolutely a restriction on free speech. These PAC's wouldn't be needed if the FEC would allow what is constitutional.

More to the point - a lot of people make the mistake of assuming that the donation=action... it doesn't. What it generally buys is "access". Show up at a fundraiser for an incumbent with a couple thousand bucks and you'll get to bend their ear on your pet issue.

From the outside it's easy to assume that PACs and lobbyists just buy politicians... not true. PACs and lobbyists behave in what can only be described as "invest and defend" tactics. They put their money behind candidates who already support their positions against incumbents who don't - and defend incumbents who support their agenda. Nothing surprising, nor frankly untoward about it.

[kalm]

oy...

Limiting INDIVIDUAL donations IS absolutely a restriction on free speech. These PAC's wouldn't be needed if the FEC would allow what is constitutional.

More to the point - a lot of people make the mistake of assuming that the donation=action... it doesn't. What it generally buys is "access". Show up at a fundraiser for an incumbent with a couple thousand bucks and you'll get to bend their ear on your pet issue.

From the outside it's easy to assume that PACs and lobbyists just buy politicians... not true. PACs and lobbyists behave in what can only be described as "invest and defend" tactics. They put their money behind candidates who already support their positions against incumbents who don't - and defend incumbents who support their agenda. Nothing surprising, nor frankly untoward about it.

I could believe that if companies and PAC's didn't play both sides of the fence, or the threat of your district being targeted, or difference between rhettoric and voting regard.

These aren't coincidences.

[TwinTownBisonFan]

oy...

Limiting INDIVIDUAL donations IS absolutely a restriction on free speech. These PAC's wouldn't be needed if the FEC would allow what is constitutional.

More to the point - a lot of people make the mistake of assuming that the donation=action... it doesn't. What it generally buys is "access". Show up at a fundraiser for an incumbent with a couple thousand bucks and you'll get to bend their ear on your pet issue.

From the outside it's easy to assume that PACs and lobbyists just buy politicians... not true. PACs and lobbyists behave in what can only be described as "invest and defend" tactics. They put their money behind candidates who already support their positions against incumbents who don't - and defend incumbents who support their agenda. Nothing surprising, nor frankly untoward about it.

I could believe that if companies and PAC's didn't play both sides of the fence, or the threat of your district being targeted, or difference between rhettoric and voting regard.

These aren't coincidences.

?

not sure what you are trying to say here... clarification?

[Ivytalk]

Free speech in action, kalm!

I still predict a 6-6 standoff.

Anyway, to my Palouse brother from another mother, provocative way to start a Saturday!

Bribery in action! Of course it will be a standoff, theyre donating to both sides. Course the Dems aren't smart enough to get as much money as the Rep's.

But since you're such a fan of limiting democracy and the speech of the average Joe, do you mind if I make contribution in your name to a PAC that shares your values?

http://colbertsuperpac.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Wrong, kalm. Actually, I disagreed with the SCOTUS decision that limited individual contributions as well. (part of Buckley v. Valeo).

[kalm]

Bribery in action! Of course it will be a standoff, theyre donating to both sides. Course the Dems aren't smart enough to get as much money as the Rep's.

But since you're such a fan of limiting democracy and the speech of the average Joe, do you mind if I make contribution in your name to a PAC that shares your values?

http://colbertsuperpac.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Wrong, kalm. Actually, I disagreed with the SCOTUS decision that limited individual contributions as well. (part of Buckley v. Valeo).

The point you and TTBF are missing is that if I accumulate enough wealth and power I can in turn limit everyone else's free speech. I can guarantee the outcome of elections.

Not democracy.

[Ivytalk]

Wrong, kalm. Actually, I disagreed with the SCOTUS decision that limited individual contributions as well. (part of Buckley v. Valeo).

The point you and TTBF are missing is that if I accumulate enough wealth and power I can in turn limit everyone else's free speech. I can guarantee the outcome of elections.

Not democracy.

You cleverly feint right and go left. You pretend that the issue is between Chauncey Moneybags and Joe Sixpack. Your beloved unions were freed up by Citizens United to do their worst on behalf of the workers. And they certainly have. It's a level playing field.

[kalm]

The point you and TTBF are missing is that if I accumulate enough wealth and power I can in turn limit everyone else's free speech. I can guarantee the outcome of elections.

Not democracy.

You cleverly feint right and go left. You pretend that the issue is between Chauncey Moneybags and Joe Sixpack. Your beloved unions were freed up by Citizens United to do their worst on behalf of the workers. And they certainly have. It's a level playing field.

I don't think it's a left/right thing at all. I don't think groups of people are the same as people. It would be idiotic to think so and correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the founders thought that way either. The point is entrenched power/monopolies which certain founders recognized as a legitimate threat having experienced the power of the throne and the East India Tea Company. Unions should be limited in their campaign contributions as well.