Does Corporate Money Lead to Political Corruption?

[ResearchMonkey]

Once you get past the hysteria of the commies, anarchist and those who don't quite understand or appreciate the Constitution, you find that freedom of speech is not as evil as they would like you to believe.

Whether it's symbolically burning your draft card on the steps of the courthouse or passing out anonymous fliers in the neighborhood, it is your right to (and duty) to have your say in these United States.

We ignore voter fraud and bribery influences from the ilks of ACORN and SEIU. We allow tax cheats and people who benefit from earmarks to govern and create laws. Yet we have silenced millions of people who also have a vested interest in these United States: that is the people who provide jobs, produce the oil, food and other goods that has made this nation great.

The source of this article, while esteemed, has been known for its bias; but bear with me, as it points out:

And what about the corporations that contributed so much of that money? A review of the biggest corporate donors found that their stock prices were unaffected after they stopped giving to the parties. The results suggest that those companies did not lose their influence and may have been giving “because they were shaken down by politicians,” said Nathaniel Persily, a professor at Columbia Law School who has studied the law’s impact.

“There is no evidence that stricter campaign finance rules reduce corruption or raise positive assessments of government,” said Kenneth Mayer, a professor of political science at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. “It seems like such an obvious relationship but it has proven impossible to prove.”

<s>

Opponents of restrictions, on the other hand, point out that Australia barely regulates political money. Individuals and corporations can give without limit. Parties can spend freely. And there is not much disclosure about who gives what to whom. But political corruption has not threatened a vibrant democracy there.

In the United States, studies comparing states like Virginia with scant regulation against those like Wisconsin with strict rules have not found much difference in levels of corruption or public trust, several scholars said. Jeff Milyo, an economist at the University of Missouri, has compared states with strict bans on corporate contributions to political parties against those with no limits at all. “There is just no good evidence that campaign finance laws have any effect on actual corruption,” he said.



More to be read at the " old gray lady" .

Just like global warming, its hysteria represented as proof.

Free speech must be preserved. (RUN! PepsiCo is going to get me!!!!).

 

[Gonz]

Does Corporate Money Lead to Political Corruption?

Yep.

However, any money from any group is legal & free speech as it is now.

I would be willing to accept a campaign finance law that limits individuals to a (relatively low - say $1000.) maximum donation. It would then outlaw any monetary gift from any organization whatsoever.

If the Board of Directors of Citi-Group wants to donate, they write a private check, from each individual that wishes to donate, but Citi-Group, as a corporation & not a human, could not donate. NRA or SEIU, Wal-Mart or ACORN....no money from a non human.

 

[Altron]

Yep.

However, any money from any group is legal & free speech as it is now.

I would be willing to accept a campaign finance law that limits individuals to a (relatively low - say $1000.) maximum donation. It would then outlaw any monetary gift from any organization whatsoever.

If the Board of Directors of Citi-Group wants to donate, they write a private check, from each individual that wishes to donate, but Citi-Group, as a corporation & not a human, could not donate. NRA or SEIU, Wal-Mart or ACORN....no money from a non human.

I agree.

I really don't understand the people that support this new ruling. Do you want your decisions made by politicians who have received large amounts of money from a corporation that could stand to benefit from those decisions?

Speech isn't the same thing as money. This is bribery, but in a roundabout way. You can't directly give your politicians money (except here in New Jersey), but you can just throw money at their campaign?

 

[catocom]

money 'can' corrupt..

It matters not where it comes from.

If they want it, they will get it.
Might as well let us see where it's really coming from.

It's all about personal responsibility, and trust.
Don't lose it, you stay. Lose it, and your gone.

 

[Cerise]

http://www.nasdaq.com/aspx/stock-ma...Supreme Court Ruling On Political Advertising

WASHINGTON -(Dow Jones)- U.S. President Barack Obama used his weekly radio address on Saturday to assail a Supreme Court ruling this week clearing the way for corporations to spend freely on political advertisements, calling it a big victory for special interests and "devastating to the public interest." He added that his administration is working with Congress to develop a bipartisan legislative solution to override the ruling.

"The last thing we need to do is hand more influence to the lobbyists in Washington, or more power to the special interests to tip the outcome of elections," Obama said in his address.

"This ruling strikes at our democracy itself," said Obama.

Transcript

"Tip the outcome of elections?" Who does he think he's fooling?

It's how he got elected.

"Striking at our democracy?" He's got to be kidding.

That's all he's done for the last year.

"I can’t think of anything more devastating to the public interest." The answer is: "yourself."

 

[Gonz]

I really don't understand the people that support this new ruling.

I fully support this ruling. McCain-Feingold rules are, the Teamsters could run ads but McDonalds couldn't. What a load of shit. Money is free speech. Tea-Party members-no ad, NEA- ads. A million gun owners get together, agree on a topic & ask the NRA to pay for ads. They are pooling their assets. Same for a million carpetnters & their union.

I'm against unbalanced speech. However, I'd support dropping provisions for any group to run ads.

 

[ResearchMonkey]

Does Corporate Money Lead to Political Corruption?

Yep.

However, any money from any group is legal & free speech as it is now.

EXACTLY.

I agree.

I really don't understand the people that support this new ruling.

We have established an equality where no longer one large entity can speak and another cannot. That means they need to find
another route.

"Tip the outcome of elections?" Who does he think he's fooling?

It's how he got elected.

The commies groups said: we represent the people, we should be exempt. -- not any more.

 

[2minkey]

"Tip the outcome of elections?" Who does he think he's fooling?

It's how he got elected.

"Striking at our democracy?" He's got to be kidding.

That's all he's done for the last year.

"I can’t think of anything more devastating to the public interest." The answer is: "yourself."

more gripping commentary. no distracting comments on issues or policies. just "obama is a doo doo head." straight to the point. excellent.

 

[catocom]

I'll just put this little tidbit here...

Yep business as usual still, so far, but they are in for a farther rudeness in the awakening...

Well they didn't like the court ruling on lobbyist, nor on blackwater, but
Obama is going to Pound those wicked lobbyists....um except, only the ones
that oppose his views. He'll still heavily use his own. Hypocrite.

Bernanke Boasts
Now we know who those 'supporters are don't we.
I wonder if that's YOUR tax money being used to lobby with?
Is that money somehow ok to use, but corp money isn't?

yep business as usual...

President Barack Obama tried to relaunch his political agenda Friday with a populist attack on banks and insurance companies

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...202475530836.html?mod=rss_Politics_And_Policy
He still thinks people are stupid apparently.
He must be thinking..."Oh lets capitalize on this populous thing"....
What's the problem with that?
Like everything else we know what he Really means.....
He'll pound only on the ones that disagree with his agenda, that's what.

You didn't want to play ball on healthcare?...Time to put out the baseball bat,
and push again.


[obama]Yep, don't worry youz guyz, I got your back.[/obama]
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...l-chiefs-arrival-white-house/?test=latestnews

...
once one understand Chicago politics, this is just to easy to see through.

 

[Gonz]

with a populist attack on banks and insurance companies

Hey, there's that word again...and my definition still fits

 

[Cerise]

more......

Less is more.

 

[Winky]

Corporate Monies Lead to Political Power, Yea Capitalism!

What good is a coup d'état if its bloodless?

 

[Gonz]

cheaper cleanup?

 

[Winky]

It Takes Corporate Money to Lead the Political Process!

The lack of blood leaves room for doubt
as to the efficacy of the alteration that has transpired.

 

[Altron]

I fully support this ruling. McCain-Feingold rules are, the Teamsters could run ads but McDonalds couldn't. What a load of shit. Money is free speech. Tea-Party members-no ad, NEA- ads. A million gun owners get together, agree on a topic & ask the NRA to pay for ads. They are pooling their assets. Same for a million carpetnters & their union.

I'm against unbalanced speech. However, I'd support dropping provisions for any group to run ads.

It's a change, but it's a change in the wrong direction. Unions shouldn't be able to finance campaigns either.

 

[Winky]

Gee Kid you usually get these things right.

This issue seems so simple, so crystal clear cut
that I can not see how anyone can fail to see it properly.

Does the government have the right to preclude free speech
or not? Of course not. Case closed.

Let’s get back to whether the government owns your body
i.e. Deathcare no wait I think we’ve settled that one as well…?

 

[jimpeel]

"Does Corporate Money Lead to Political Corruption?"

No, but it might lead to a more business friendly Congress and the restoration of this nation to the global trade engine, and the envy of the world, it used to be.

 

[Winky]

Well said Fred.

 

[2minkey]

"Does Corporate Money Lead to Political Corruption?"

No, but it might lead to a more business friendly Congress and the restoration of this nation to the global trade engine, and the envy of the world, it used to be.

not when they spend more time trying to peddle influence and less time coming up with innovative ways to do business.

it's amazing to me that everything is this big government give-away and liberal conspiracy EXCEPT when it comes to corporate heroes.

well, i guess when you've never been in the kitchen, you just don't know how much filler goes in...

 

[catocom]

I'll just put this little tidbit here...

Yep business as usual still, so far, but they are in for a farther rudeness in the awakening...

Well they didn't like the court ruling on lobbyist, nor on blackwater, but
Obama is going to Pound those wicked lobbyists....um except, only the ones
that oppose his views. He'll still heavily use his own. Hypocrite.

Bernanke Boasts
Now we know who those 'supporters are don't we.
I wonder if that's YOUR tax money being used to lobby with?
Is that money somehow ok to use, but corp money isn't?

yep business as usual...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...202475530836.html?mod=rss_Politics_And_Policy
He still thinks people are stupid apparently.
He must be thinking..."Oh lets capitalize on this populous thing"....
What's the problem with that?
Like everything else we know what he Really means.....
He'll pound only on the ones that disagree with his agenda, that's what.

You didn't want to play ball on healthcare?...Time to put out the baseball bat,
and push again.


[obama]Yep, don't worry youz guyz, I got your back.[/obama]
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...l-chiefs-arrival-white-house/?test=latestnews

...
once one understand Chicago politics, this is just to easy to see through.

more business as usual, and just not getting it...

WASHINGTON -- Coming off one of the most difficult weeks of his presidency, Barack Obama has beefed up his political staff and is expected to deliver an uncompromising State of the Union address. Aides said Sunday that the White House wasn't making any abrupt policy shifts, even as the message was retooled to focus more sharply on job creation.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01/25/white-house-toughens-tone/

of coarse he's too arrogant to compromise

then there's the hypocrisy continuing...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...lucrative-bid-contract-afghan-work-dem-donor/

End no-bid contracts? oh he just meant for the opposition.