Koch Brothers to Spend $900 Million on 2016 Elections

[adaher]

@foolsguinea

So a political party made up of 20% of American households and another 15%-25% that are hangers-on should be grateful to be equal in influence to a half-dozen persons descended from a successful mineral-rights speculator of sixty years ago? :dubious:

The Kochs have more rights. They are people. The Democratic Party is not a person. As for individual Democrats, each Democrat can spend as much as each Koch. The rules have to apply to everyone the same. If candidate A can spend X, then anyone else can spend X. If a party can take in X amount in donations, a non-party organization can take the same amount in donations.

The main issue isn’t the limits, it’s that the law tries to make distinctions between favored speakers and disfavored speakers. You can’t do that. Charles Koch and Sheldon Adelson have a legal right to raise and spend as much as Hillary Clinton.

[doorhinge]

@foolsguinea

In the last month or so I saw the PBS NewsHour do a puff piece on the Koch Brothers, who after all, fund them. Apparently we should love and trust them because they are so influential and their fingers are in so many pies.

This was Gwen Ifill. On the PBS NewsHour.* I am not making this up.*

Good for her.

[doorhinge]

@GIGObuster

Real news flash: you are only pulling a straw man, I already said that me and many others will support more restrictions and that they will apply to all.

And I say that you, GIGObuster, and whomever you believe you speak for, do not have the votes, or the popular support, to pass your self-serving restrictions on political free speech.

[GIGObuster]

@doorhinge

And I say that you, GIGObuster, and whomever you believe you speak for, do not have the votes, or the popular support, to pass your self-serving restrictions on political free speech.

:rolleyes:

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/politics/229524-republicans-should-join-in-scuttling-citizens-united

Poll after poll shows that the majority of voters of all political stripes are alarmed at the record amounts of money pouring into elections. Voters feel they are being drowned out.

A bi-partisan poll conducted last year by my firm, Chesapeake Beach Consulting (Republican) and Lake Research Partners (Democratic), found that voters favor a constitutional amendment by a 61-28 percent margin. Presented with arguments for and against an amendment, Republicans strongly favor the amendment – by a 54-36 percent margin. Our poll also found that by a 6-1 margin, voters say that reducing the influence of money in politics is an important issue.

Sixteen states, and more than 550 cities and towns have supported an amendment, either by resolution or ballot initiative. Millions of citizens have signed petitions for an amendment; tens of thousands of people have called congressional offices demanding an amendment

Big-name conservatives have fought for campaign finance reform, including Barry Goldwater, who in 1983 said, “[O]ur nation is facing a crisis of liberty if we do not control campaign expenditures. We must prove that elective office is not for sale.”

Even Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) – who led the charge to defeat the amendment in September – once supported a constitutional amendment to curb campaign spending.

In a 2012 survey, two-thirds of the small business owners polled felt the Citizens United ruling had been bad for small businesses – likely because most money given to super PACs and independent groups come from a small pool of wealthy donors and giant corporations. Small businesses identify with Main Street much more than Wall Street.

Business executives don’t like being shaken down for cash either. According to the Center for Economic Development, 90 percent of business executives support full disclosure of political contributions made by individuals, corporations and labor unions to political committees or other groups that spend money in elections. Disclosing the sources of the torrent of political money can help curb the amount that flows in.

A growing number of corporations agree that secret corporate political spending is bad for business, and they are taking action. Half of the companies in the S&P 100 make their political contributions transparent and require their directors to oversee the process. Further, more shareholders are demanding to know what political campaigns corporations are spending shareholder money on.

Our democracy is supposed be of, by and for the people, and we’re all supposed to have an equal say over the decisions that affect our lives. But when billionaires and corporations can spend unlimited money in politics, their voices count more than those of the people who our elected officials are supposed to represent.

Republican voters know that. Republicans in Congress should get on board.

[adaher]

Find a way to do it that’s actually fair, and we’ll be on board. Try to empower the media and politicians at the expense of concerned citizens, and it’s not gonna happen.

[GIGObuster]

@adaher

Find a way to do it that’s actually fair, and we’ll be on board. Try to empower the media and politicians at the expense of concerned citizens, and it’s not gonna happen.

Like if the current situation will not empower the media now, as pointed before this situation is a revenue gravy train for old media and the corporate media not reporting much about the implications and bad results of the Citizens United decision is clear:

Five Years After Citizens United, Media Coverage Of Its Sequels Is Lacking

Five Years After Citizens United, Media Coverage Of Its Sequels Is Lacking
Little Scrutiny Given To Legal Effects Of The Fall Of Campaign Finance Regulation And Rise Of Corporate Personhood

[doorhinge]

@GIGObuster

:rolleyes:

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/politics/229524-republicns-should-join-in-scuttling-citizens-united

Then you should have no problems passing your bill.

I can hardly wait for the bill to pass so I can see what’s in it.

[adaher]

GIGO, you’re a bit late on that one. Corporate personhood is no longer much of an issue. Now liberals want individuals to be restricted. Because somehow poiltical parties have free speech, but individuals don’t.

[elucidator]

@adaher

Find a way to do it that’s actually fair, and we’ll be on board. Try to empower the media and politicians at the expense of concerned citizens, and it’s not gonna happen.

Hey, guys, swell news! All we gotta do is make it “actually fair” by addy’s lights, and they are “on board”! Great, huh? Of course, the “we” part of that isn’t precisely defined…

How about this? We fix all of this campaign finance shit, but we write a special dispensation for the Koch Brothers so that they get to ignore anything the EPA says! I mean, we remove the stifling effect of government regulation and they get to take a dump in our water and air whenever it can make them a couple more bucks.

Republican compromise is like Republican poker, where they get seven cards, we get five all of ours are face up, plus they get to draw twice.

[adaher]

Fairness isn’t hard to define. If there are exceptions to your rules, they aren’t fair. Simple, right? Just write a campaign finance bill that doesn’t make exceptions. Couldn’t be easier.

[iiandyiiii]

@adaher

Fairness isn’t hard to define. If there are exceptions to your rules, they aren’t fair. Simple, right? Just write a campaign finance bill that doesn’t make exceptions. Couldn’t be easier.

Fairness can be hard to define, and sometimes exceptions are needed for fairness. The issue is not this simple.

[BrainGlutton]

@adaher

GIGO, you’re a bit late on that one. Corporate personhood is no longer much of an issue. Now liberals want individuals to be restricted. Because somehow poiltical parties have free speech, but individuals don’t.

In the U.S., political parties almost never run campaign ads. That’s left up to the individual candidates.

[adaher]

@iiandyiiii

Fairness can be hard to define, and sometimes exceptions are needed for fairness. The issue is not this simple.

In campaign finance, the exceptions are not for fairness, but to establish a special class of people with privileges to spend more than other people.

[iiandyiiii]

@adaher

In campaign finance, the exceptions are not for fairness, but to establish a special class of people with privileges to spend more than other people.

I’m not sure if it was always this way, and it certainly doesn’t have to be.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@adaher

GIGO, you’re a bit late on that one. Corporate personhood is no longer much of an issue. Now liberals want individuals to be restricted. Because somehow poiltical parties have free speech, but individuals don’t.

Of course it’s an issue. The question is not whether a corporation can have rights, but whether those rights are as extensive as those enjoyed by natural persons.

[Terr]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Of course it’s an issue. The question is not whether a corporation can have rights, but whether those rights are as extensive as those enjoyed by natural persons.

According to the Constitution, is “free speech” an individual right? That is, does the Constitution specify the source of the speech that is being protected? Or does it protect all speech, regardless of the source?

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

Well, the default position would be that it is. The Constitution never mentions corporations anywhere in its text, or makes reference to them by implication.

[Terr]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Well, the default position would be that it is. The Constitution never mentions corporations anywhere in its text, or makes reference to them by implication.

It doesn’t mention individuals anywhere in the text of the First Amendment either. In fact, the First Amendment, where it protects free speech, doesn’t protect any individual or collective right. It doesn’t mention any right. It protects the speech itself. Without specifying its source. Correct?

[elucidator]

What an interesting point! Well, maybe it is, not really sure. Anybody have any idea what Terr is trying to say, here?

I mean, the Constitution starts right out with “We, the people…” so I always pretty much assumed it was talking about people. In a broad, general sort of way, not robots, androids, or corporate entities. Zombies are right out!, of course…

[adaher]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Of course it’s an issue. The question is not whether a corporation can have rights, but whether those rights are as extensive as those enjoyed by natural persons.

The Kochs are natural persons. It should not be in dispute whether or not they can spend as much as they like.