Seems historically the Reps do a lot better than the Dems. That said corporate America will seek to gain favor with whoever is in power and, as the below shows, Dems look to have closed the gap very recently.
ETA: What is sickening is if you divide that $214 million among all the members of Congress it amounts to $397,770 each.
I’m not talking about that. I’m talking about the widespread American belief-system in which the rich are rich and the poor are poor because they deserve it, because of life-choices they’ve made, and in which even such a moderate regulatory-welfare state as the New Deal is an instance of Stalinism. It’s not only the rich who believe all that.
So we say.
I don’t see why people would find these articles persuasive. The Greenwald one is almost entirely fluff. The first huge paragraph is devoted to pointing out that people tend to favor analysis that favors their position. Duh. The next four paragraphs (plus a quote) make the point that while detractors complain that corporations are treated as persons not a single dissenting justice takes this stance. In the final sentence of this section he concludes that this doesn’t prove the detractors wrong… then why devote the bulk of your article to such a digression? Corporate personhood is firmly ingrained in our jurisprudence. It would be jaw droppingly suprising for one of the Supremes to have disputed it. I didn’t click the Countdown link so perhaps there is some substance there but in his paragraph on it Greenwald only includes vague assertions about the conclusions of others. The final paragraph is just whining about detractors bemoaning a legalistic method of interpretation. I agree with him but it does nothing to support the decision itself. Fluff, pure and simple.
Spitzer’s analysis is ridiculous. He believes that there is a quid pro quo issue if someone gives money to a candidate to help them get elected but that there somehow isn’t if someone spends the money themselves to get the candidate elected. Dumb. He also ignores the real people/corporation distinction. Individuals don’t lose their right to voice their opinion when corporate money is limited.
I’m not sure if you noticed (perhaps you did), but the one you linked to is a follow-up. The original was published the day before. Greenwald also links (in one of the updates) to a direct response/rebuttal by Kevin Drum.
Just in case you missed them, in the chance that you’d find them more substantial.
I didn’t notice, thanks. That article was much better. I didn’t like how he waved away stare decisis concerns or failed to consider that outcome based objections here may be legitimate “compelling state interests” but overall he made a good job of it.