# Wall Street Firms Funnel Millions to Bush **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 25, 2004, 10:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wall-street-firms-funnel-millions-to-bush/246965 "2004-05-25T10:19:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 16\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2004, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wall-street-firms-funnel-millions-to-bush/246965/61 "2004-05-27T14:24:31Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Permit the speaker? Is it the government which “permits” us to speech? I thought it was supposed to “protect” speech. Must have been a Freudian slip… And how would the government \*\*equalize \*\* this benefit without \*\*suppressing \*\* the speech of those with more money than average? Read the sentence again, **John**. I think you missed it. To “permit” or “protect” or “encourage” free speech is one thing. A crucial element of our American philosophy, to be sure. But to “permit” one citizen unequal access to speech over another is a different kettle of piranha. How to realize this laudable goal without suppressing anyone’s free speech rights? A tricky and difficult question, to be sure. I cheerfully invite any insight you may have in that regard. Personally, I think the McCain-Feingold laws are a stumbling and rather inept move in that direction, clearly not the ideal, and needful of much refinement. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2004, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wall-street-firms-funnel-millions-to-bush/246965/62 "2004-05-27T14:40:16Z")
The money tends to follow the better arguments, I believe. Thjat’s how groups like the AARP and the NRA grow so powerful - by convincing people to join, and support their goals financially. I think, **elucidator** , that you’re arguing for the subsidization of less popular political views. How that equates to freedom of speech is really beyond me. ---
**Author:** ![hawthorne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@hawthorne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hawthorne)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2004, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wall-street-firms-funnel-millions-to-bush/246965/63 "2004-05-27T14:56:19Z")
> [@Dewey Cheatem Undhow](#): > > I’m really not sure what your [hawthorne’s] point is. Both unions and groups like the NRA and AARP have members who consistently toe the line even if they might vote differently on other issues […] I As a result, their needs are carefully considered by legislators who wish to remain in office. > > Yes, elections are won and lost by voters in the middle, voters who likely aren’t affiliated with political groups. But that’s only true if you’re competitve in the first instance, and you can’t be competitive by ignoring groups who can mobilize large blocs of people to go to the polls. Real political power for advocacy groups comes not from campaign fundraising, but from an ability to put bodies in front of a ballot box. > > […] > > Investment banks have money. Unions have votes. Ergo, unions are more politically powerful. For the most part I agree, but political power really comes from being able to make a credible threat to _withdraw_ - or at least substantially vary - support. _Really_ rusted-on voters have little power, since they can always be counted upon to hold their noses. I suppose this is more important in my system (compulsory preferential voting) than yours. My point was about the role of money in campaigns. If you have a really decisive advantage in rusted-on voters, the campaign is not important. But if you don’t, money matters a great deal: you can use it to appeal to the undecideds without much alienating your natural support base - important for turnout and longer-term party viability. Without money you can only appeal to the middle by shifting your major policy positions (further) away from those liked by your natural support base. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2004, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wall-street-firms-funnel-millions-to-bush/246965/64 "2004-05-27T15:05:07Z")
> [@Mr. Moto](#): > > The money tends to follow the better arguments, I believe… An extraordinary proposition, **Moto** to be sure! So when groups like the NAACP formed to combat racial inequality, the skies rained money down upon them in torrents? An exceptional view of history. > [@](#): > > …I think, **elucidator** , that you’re arguing for the subsidization of less popular political views… You may think what you like, of course. The example I actually used would belie your assertion, in that one political party enjoys a considerable monetary advantage over the other, despite irrefutable evidence of equal popularity. > [@](#): > > …How that equates to freedom of speech is really beyond me. We know. We’re working on that, and have great faith in you. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2004, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wall-street-firms-funnel-millions-to-bush/246965/65 "2004-05-27T15:16:30Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Read the sentence again, **John**. I think you missed it. To “permit” or “protect” or “encourage” free speech is one thing. A crucial element of our American philosophy, to be sure. But to “permit” one citizen unequal access to speech over another is a different kettle of piranha. My access to a soapbox does not equate to your denial of one. Speech is not a finite quantity that needs to be rationed, and so the only way to equalize speech is to suppress it for those most vocal. > [@](#): > > How to realize this laudable goal without suppressing anyone’s free speech rights? A tricky and difficult question, to be sure. I cheerfully invite any insight you may have in that regard. Personally, I think the McCain-Feingold laws are a stumbling and rather inept move in that direction, clearly not the ideal, and needful of much refinement. I don’t see “speech equalization” as a laudable goal, so I’m not really interested in exploring ways to get there. And, fortunately, our constutution doesn’t set that as a goal either, so good luck in finding a method to reach your goal that is also in accord with the constitution. ---
**Author:** ![iamme99](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/57b2e6/32.png) [@iamme99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamme99)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2004, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wall-street-firms-funnel-millions-to-bush/246965/66 "2004-05-27T15:38:29Z")
> [@Mr. Moto](#): > > What can be realistically asked for, **iamme99** , is that unions and corporate officers obey the **law**. > > In George Gally’s case, the union did not properly notify him of his Beck rights when he asked about them. That was in clear violation of the law. I agree that politicking on the job crosses the line of bad taste. However, without any implied quid pro quo, there was no lawbreaking involved in the case you mentioned. > > Show me a case where there was such a quid pro quo, and we can discuss the horrible illegalities of that instance. But I can give you case after case where unions violate employees rights under the Beck decision. > > You’re trying to minimize what unions do routinely to violate the civil rights of employees, while conjuring up imagined abuses by one corporate official. Forgive me for saying, but that explanation reeks of hypocrisy. I don’t know if a union is required to inform you of your rights or in exactly what manner they may have to do that. The fine print may be so dense that you need to be a lawyer to understand it. BUT, the point is that there is a law to protect union members. There is legal recourse. OTOH, there is no law to protect anyone from subtle coercive pressures promulgated by a boss, such as issuing a letter that “requests” you support his favorite candidate/party. And there should be. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2004, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wall-street-firms-funnel-millions-to-bush/246965/67 "2004-05-27T15:45:50Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > An extraordinary proposition, **Moto** to be sure! So when groups like the NAACP formed to combat racial inequality, the skies rained money down upon them in torrents? An exceptional view of history. You have rather an exceptional view of history yourself. The fact is, the NAACP was able to recruit significant numbers of people to its organization, and raise a good bit of money. The organization today is quite large, and controls significant assets. [The NAACP, at the end of 2001, had assets totalling more than $28 million.](http://documents.guidestar.org/2001/131/084/2001-131084135-1-9.pdf) [The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, at the end of 2001, had assets totalling more than $41 million.](http://documents.guidestar.org/2001/131/655/2001-131655255-1-9.pdf) The NAACP state and local chapters control millions more. Incidentally, lots of this money comes from corporations, including Microsoft, Archer-Daniels Midland, Lockheed Martin and Heinz, among many others. All of this money was tempting enough to attract unscrupulous individuals. The scandals from several years ago were well publicized, and hurt the organization’s reputation considerably. Surely you remember this? At any rate, it proves the point admirably, that if an organization has a message that resonates with people, that organization will have no problem raising money and articulating its message further. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2004, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wall-street-firms-funnel-millions-to-bush/246965/68 "2004-05-27T15:55:14Z")
> [@iamme99](#): > > I don’t know if a union is required to inform you of your rights or in exactly what manner they may have to do that. The fine print may be so dense that you need to be a lawyer to understand it. BUT, the point is that there is a law to protect union members. There is legal recourse. That is true. However, dragging the union to court to demand they follow a law that they should have been following all along isn’t an ideal circumstance, don’t you agree? The fact is, unions routinely flout the law requiring them to notify employees of their Beck rights, and only correct the injustice when they are dragged before the NLRB or into court. They only obey the law when they’re caught in lawbreaking. And that’s not right. > [@iamme99](#): > > OTOH, there is no law to protect anyone from subtle coercive pressures promulgated by a boss, such as issuing a letter that “requests” you support his favorite candidate/party. And there should be. Well, where do you draw the line? Bosses have free speech rights as well. I find this part of your post quite amusing, because it’s a stock comedy routine - the flustered, indignant person, stamping his foot and saying, “There oughta be a law!” 😃 ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2004, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wall-street-firms-funnel-millions-to-bush/246965/69 "2004-05-27T16:01:10Z")
Oh, come on now, **Moto**. You serious, or just having a bit of fun with ol 'luce? Sure, everybody’s on your side when you win! In 2001, the NAACP was well funded, funded well enough to attract hypocrites and scoundrels. And to think it only took some ninety-five years! If, as you claim, money follows the better argument, it certainly seems to take its own sweet time in doing so! Perhaps what your really mean is “money follows the better argument…eventually.” ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2004, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wall-street-firms-funnel-millions-to-bush/246965/70 "2004-05-27T16:12:34Z")
> [@Mr. Moto](#): > > …Well, where do you draw the line? Bosses have free speech rights as well… At last! A worthy point! Indeed, the devil is in the legislation. I make no bones about this, it is crucial to the spirit and the intent that bosses, rich folks, mindless trust-fund slacker lounge lizards,…should be able to support the political party that panders to thier craven desires. As well, we must ensure that poor and working class folks do not sieze a disproportionate share of political power: power which exceeds thier actual cumulative political rights. I submit that, so far, this doesn’t seem to be a problem. All sarcasm aside, it is a thorny problem, and not amenable to easy formulae. I expect we will wrangle over this again and again. So be it. Well worth it. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2004, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wall-street-firms-funnel-millions-to-bush/246965/71 "2004-05-27T16:12:42Z")
Sorry, **elucidator**. I don’t have NAACP records from ninety-odd years ago, nor the means to place them in context. However, the NAACP was able, over these years, to build membership, raise funds from them, and help effect significant social change. They have been a remarkably successful organization, even in the face of significant political opposition and institutionalized racism. If you want to find an example of a struggling organization, that wouldn’t survive unless the rights of other organizations were curtailed, the NAACP wouldn’t be your best example. That’s all I’m saying. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2004, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wall-street-firms-funnel-millions-to-bush/246965/72 "2004-05-27T16:24:27Z")
And quite right you are, as far as that goes. Of course, since I’m making no such argument, it hardly matters. Were you to suggest that Hydrox cookies are vastly superior to Oreos, you would also be right, and just about as relevent. (Of course Hydrox is better than Oreos. Even a strict constructionist knows that!) ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2004, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wall-street-firms-funnel-millions-to-bush/246965/73 "2004-05-27T16:28:35Z")
You’re just indignant, **elucidator** , because the example you presented, the NAACP, proves my point far more strongly than yours. ---
**Author:** ![iamme99](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/57b2e6/32.png) [@iamme99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamme99)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2004, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wall-street-firms-funnel-millions-to-bush/246965/74 "2004-05-27T16:36:32Z")
> [@Mr. Moto](#): > > > [@iamme99](#): > > > > I don’t know if a union is required to inform you of your rights or in exactly what manner they may have to do that. The fine print may be so dense that you need to be a lawyer to understand it. BUT, the point is that there is a law to protect union members. There is legal recourse. > > That is true. However, dragging the union to court to demand they follow a law that they should have been following all along isn’t an ideal circumstance, don’t you agree? > > The fact is, unions routinely flout the law requiring them to notify employees of their Beck rights, and only correct the injustice when they are dragged before the NLRB or into court. They only obey the law when they’re caught in lawbreaking. And that’s not right. Agreed. But similar situations happen all the time, for instance with insurance companies and HMO’s. The solution is to make the penalties for disobeying the law tougher. > [@Mr. Moto](#): > > > [@iamme99](#): > > > > OTOH, there is no law to protect anyone from subtle coercive pressures promulgated by a boss, such as issuing a letter that “requests” you support his favorite candidate/party. And there should be. > > Well, where do you draw the line? Bosses have free speech rights as well. I draw the line where I drew it previously. The boss is free to tell anyone who he supports. However anything that directly requests people who work for him/her to follow in his footsteps should be construed as potentially coercive and therefore illegal. I’m only trying to be reasonable here. OTOH, seems to me you are flailing about, trying to support your case beyond all logic and reason. This is of course, not untypical of Repub’s these days, forever constrained to flounder around in Bush’s muck 😃 . btw: shouldn’t you be working at whatever defense project you do instead of posting here during work hours? 😛 ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2004, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wall-street-firms-funnel-millions-to-bush/246965/75 "2004-05-27T16:51:17Z")
> [@Mr. Moto](#): > > You’re just indignant, **elucidator** , because the example you presented, the NAACP, proves my point far more strongly than yours. Well, no, not exactly. But if it pleases you to think so, it would be churlish and ungenerous of me to contest the point. Freak freely. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2004, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wall-street-firms-funnel-millions-to-bush/246965/76 "2004-05-27T17:13:14Z")
You’re not being reasonable, though, **iamme99**. You’re arguing as if there’s an equivalence between what Mr. O’Neal did and what unions routinely do, when it’s clear that the union behavior is far, far worse. As far as where the line should be drawn, I think that if there is a clear quid pro quo, or if the politicking contributes to an intolerably bad workplace, then there is a clear case of someone’s rights being violated. However, existing laws on harassment and fair hiring seem quite up to the task here. And you’ve not been able to cite a case where these laws were broken. Mr. O’neal’s example clearly doesn’t make the cut, however distasteful you find it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wall-street-firms-funnel-millions-to-bush/246965.md?page=3)