Showing posts with label political bribery. Show all posts
Showing posts with label political bribery. Show all posts

Thursday, June 14, 2012

Resolve to Overturn 'Citizens United' Spreads Through the States | The Nation

Resolve to Overturn 'Citizens United' Spreads Through the States | The Nation:

'via Blog this'




Writing for the majority in the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, Justice Anthony Kennedy argued that independent expenditures by corporations “do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.”
Since then, Super-PACs and corporations have spent record amounts of money in elections nationwide. Corporate spending soared during the 2010 election cycle to $294 million, 427 percent over the previous midterm elections in 2006. Supreme Court Justices Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Stephen Breyer both suggested that given these “huge sums currently deployed to buy candidates’ allegiance,” Kennedy’s assertion doesn’t hold and the court should reconsider its ruling.
It will have the opportunity to do just that on Thursday when it considers the Montana Supreme Court’sdecision in December to uphold the state’s century-old ban on corporate political expenditures in state elections. In February the US Supreme Court informed Montana that it could no longer enforce that law until further notice, and now it must decide whether to hear the state’s case. This is perhaps the most serious challenge to date to the Citizens United decision.
In a recent New York Times op-ed, Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer writes that the effects of not being able to enforce the state’s anti-corruption statute “are already being felt here.” He describes “corporate front groups funneling cash into our legislative races,” and bills “ghostwritten by a host of industries looking to weaken state laws,” including overturning a state ban on the use of cyanide to mine gold, and developers seeking “to build condos right on the edge of our legendary trout streams.”
Schweitzer notes that he vetoed the bills but “these big players will eventually get what they seek” if they are allowed to continue their efforts to buy the electoral process.
It is that kind of corruption—which Justice Kennedy minimized—that has moved dozens of local communities across the country to speak out during Resolutions Week, an effort to pass local and state resolutions calling for a constitutional amendment to get money out of politics. Over 100 resolutions have already been proposed.
People don’t want to see a repeat of Wisconsin, where more than $63 million was spent in the recall election ($50 million went to Walker)—much of it from out of state, including $24 million from outside groups. Local public officials also realize that they can’t raise the kind of resources a handpicked, corporate-favored candidate can now access. There is also an obscenely exorbitant presidential campaign on the horizon with a price tag expected to reach $2 billion or more, including hundreds of millions of dollars flowing in from wealthy and corporate interests. In May alone, conservative groups spent $20 million in just nine swing states and Michigan.
Legislators have clearly reached their own conclusion that there is an “appearance of corruption.” Twenty-two states and the District of Columbia have joined Montana in asking the Supreme Court to uphold the state’s ban on corporate expenditures. This coalition is a mix of red, blue, and purple states, including New York, Arkansas, California, Idaho, Kentucky, Mississippi, Nevada, North Carolina, Utah, Vermont and West Virginia. Senators John McCain and Sheldon Whitehouse also filed an amicus brief in support of Montana,writing, “Evidence from the 2010 and 2012 electoral cycles has demonstrated that so-called independent expenditures create a strong potential for corruption and the perception thereof.”
This Resolutions Week, many members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, including co-chairs Raúl M. Grijalva and Keith Ellison, are supporting city and town councils and state legislatures as they push for a Constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United. Local efforts will be held across the nation: from Baker City, Oregon, to Huntsville, Alabama; Wichita, Kansas, to Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania; Provo, Utah, to Corpus Christi, Texas. Dozens of localities have already approved similar resolutions.
Original post: http://www.thenation.com/blog/168346/resolve-overturn-citizens-united-spreads-through-states

Jessie Ventura on Stephanie Miller: Stephanie's comment I just stick to the parts we agree on. Good philosophy

Thursday, May 24, 2012

How The Banks Bought The Tea Party

How The Banks Bought The Tea Party:

 "The 15 freshmen Republican representatives in the House Tea Party Caucus each ran in 2010 on a populist anti-Wall Street message, highlighting their opposition to bank bailouts like the 2008 Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) and criticizing Washington for enabling the banking sector as it became “Too Big to Fail.” After winning, all fifteen received significant PAC contributions from the banking industry — and have become a reliable vote and mouthpiece for the financial industry, a ThinkProgress analysis of campaign contributions, voting records and public statements reveals.

Rather than campaigning on a typical pro-business platform, the Tea Party freshmen tapped into public resentment of big banks and bailouts. For example, then-candidate Sandy Adams (R-FL) said on her campaign website that she “opposes government bailouts” and “would have voted against TARP and the auto bailout.” Jeff Landry (R-LA) said bailouts of private businesses had “corrupted our free market system by rewarding the irresponsible and penalizing the responsible,” blasting “bank bailouts, which led to taxpayer money directly or indirectly going into multi-million dollar bonuses.”


But in Congress, the Tea Party has toed the line for big banks. Eleven of the 15 have become co-sponsors of H.R. 3461a top priority for the ABA. According to Americans for Financial Reform, the legislation would “tilt the playing field further in the direction of excessive deference to industry interests and tie the hands of regulators attempting to protect the public interest.” The bill would make it harder for bank examiners to do their job, giving regulatory responsibilities to an industry that’s already shown it can’t police itself.
Here is what happened:


"

'via Blog this'

Wednesday, July 20, 2011

Who they work for?



Sometimes I wonder why when I vote for somebody different I end up getting more of the same. The key to understanding this as best as I can tell is to look at who contributed to whom in the last election cycle. Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, JP Morgan, and the US government contributed lots of money to both sides. I guess Goldman Sachs is not satisfied with contributing a bevy of executives right into the US treasury they also feel they need to buy both sides too. In the election cycle before, you could add Bank of America to that list. Who knows what Obama did to piss of BOA?

"They’ve got a set of Republican waiters on one side and a set of Democratic waiters on the other side, but no matter which set of waiters brings you the dish, the legislative grub is all prepared in the same Wall Street kitchen." -- Louisiana's Huey Long 1936.

The Democrats has plenty of large university money coming (Harvard, University of California, Columbia) as well as intuitions who have a lot to gain from the whole "supposed education accountability" movement (Microsoft, IBM, Kaplan testing (who is really just the Washington Post) This mean that you could expect little action that would restrict these companies or institutions from getting their hands on the "free" public school dollars. All educators need PDPs (Professional development Points) which is direct money right into the university coffers. Now some universities are even directly taking over school systems look at BU taking over Chelsea's school system (Massachusetts)

The Republican are in hock to just about every financial institution there is . Which leads one to wonder why the Democrats are even sweating the debt ceiling. The banking industry is unlikely to let the US default on the debt ceiling. They'll just bring in their Republican employees and give them a good talking to.

Also contributing to the the Republicans was Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearn. I guess the two bankrupt companies felt obligated to write checks to their political benefactors write to the bitter end. One has the feeling that the people writing those checks might not have been the ones in front of the computer screen who lost their jobs. They just disappeared and will reemerge under another guise. As Don Draper from Mad Men said

Don Draper: "The product is good. It's high quality. Dogs love it, but the name is poisoned."
Client: "That name got us where we are. Do you think that was just luck?"
Don Draper: "I'm not saying a new name is easy to find. And we will give you a lot of options. But it's a label on a can. And it will be true because it will promise the quality of the product that's inside." -- Mad Men, episode 3.11

One man or one woman is cheap: it adds up to just one vote. Money is everything. As long as some of the policies aren't too odorous, you can flood the airwaves with endless BS to dupe the voters and keep the same unchanging system in place.


From Open Secrets website:

Democrats Obama’s leading contributors

University of California
$1,591,395
$994,795
Harvard University
$854,747
$833,617
Google Inc
$803,436
$701,290
$695,132
$590,084
Sidley Austin LLP
$588,598
Stanford University
$586,557
National Amusements Inc
$551,683
$543,219
Wilmerhale Llp
$542,618
$530,839
IBM Corp
$528,822
Columbia University
$528,302
$514,881
$499,130
US Government
$494,820
Latham & Watkins
$493,835

Republican McCain’s leading contributors

$373,595
$322,051
$273,452
$230,095
$228,107
US Government
$208,379
$201,438
$195,063
$192,493
$183,353
$167,900
US Army
$167,820
$166,026
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher
$159,596
Blank Rome LLP
$154,226
Greenberg Traurig LLP
$146,437
US Dept of Defense
$144,105
$131,974
$117,498
$114,357


Democrat Kerry Presidential Contributors 2004

University of California
$622,925
Harvard University
$355,359
$305,824
$303,250
$288,631
$278,597
$264,077
US Government
$229,976
UBS Americas
$219,700
JP Morgan Chase & Co
$207,065
DLA Piper Rudnick et al
$204,353
Wilmer, Cutler et al
$203,386
Stanford University
$195,899
IBM Corp
$189,390
Viacom Inc
$182,996
$180,979
Robins, Kaplan et al
$177,650
Columbia University
$175,592
$169,502
$159,031


Republican Bush Presidential Contributors 2004

$600,480
$580,004
$513,750
UBS Americas
$472,075
$390,600
$356,350
$331,040
$329,725
$320,620
$309,150
$305,140
Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu
$290,450
US Government
$287,636
$275,310
Ameriquest Capital
$250,650
Blank Rome LLP
$223,900
$218,261
$212,920
Cendant Corp
$207,443
JP Morgan Chase & Co
$205,900