I think we can do better

Better than the voters of Massachusetts?

Thank you, I'll be here all week. Don't forget to tip your waitress.

I will attempt to be less of a douchebag in this thread, but that's hard for me, since it's my natural orientation.

Anyway, analysis from SCOTUSBlog, which I think is a nonpartisan thing from Akin Gump. They mention that they think the opinion might open the door for a challenge that would allow corporations to donate directly to candidates. Also on the page they say the disclosure requirements were affirmed and only Thomas objected to that (OMG he didn't listen to his puppet master Scalia, patronizing liberals everywhere confused), so I'm not sure where TV was getting that angle from.

Okay, I'll allow myself one forward-looking comment/question about the Citizens United decision. And, as I'm not a lawyer, it's a question to which I honestly don't know the answer.

Who makes the decision within a corporation--or union, since they're apparently now set loose too--about political expenditures? Is it the CEO? The Board? Shareholders? Does every firm make that decision for itself? Is Congress categorically blocked from setting some rules about who gets to make that decision?

I'd have much less of a concern about this if I felt confident that, say, the CEO of ExxonMobil couldn't just funnel a million bucks to SarahPAC because she wants to get her drill on. Even if it takes his Board or (better) shareholders to approve, which they likely would, that seems like something of a safeguard. Ditto for unions having to go to their membership, which is often well to the right of leadership.

Bigger picture, there's probably a great opportunity here to advance the notion of "shareholder democracy." Of course, this from a guy who shreds or tosses pretty much anything mailed to me by the firms in which I've invested...

jerseyhoya wrote:I will attempt to be less of a douchebag in this thread, but that's hard for me, since it's my natural orientation.

Anyway, analysis from SCOTUSBlog, which I think is a nonpartisan thing from Akin Gump. They mention that they think the opinion might open the door for a challenge that would allow corporations to donate directly to candidates. Also on the page they say the disclosure requirements were affirmed and only Thomas objected to that (OMG he didn't listen to his puppet master Scalia, patronizing liberals everywhere confused), so I'm not sure where TV was getting that angle from.

A comment on a Hot Air. In the future, I will try to be more discerning.

Thinking about this more--I'm pretty sure this will lead to more government. People don't lobby and contribute to campaigns to get government to stop doing things, they do it to get government to do more things. We're gonna see more programs, and more regulations not less. So it's ironic that Cato is all excited by this decision.

I have to say that I am fairly sure that corporations are not required to get shareholder approval for political contributions. I have owned plenty of stock in my day and I have no recollection of ever having to vote on such an issue. And that is one of my main problems with the decision; generally speaking, if Ford Motor Company were to make a contribution to Sarah Palin's or Scott Brown's 2012 Presidential campaign (for whatever reason) they would be donating my money as a shareholder (perhaps against my own political convictions) and I receive no benefit from it.

Here is an interesting BusinessWeek article:

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/co ... 966156.htm

Thanks, Calvin!!

his name is scott brown. that is awesome though.

traderdave wrote:I have to say that I am fairly sure that corporations are not required to get shareholder approval for political contributions. I have owned plenty of stock in my day and I have no recollection of ever having to vote on such an issue. And that is one of my main problems with the decision; generally speaking, if Ford Motor Company were to make a contribution to Sarah Palin's or Scott Brown's 2012 Presidental campaign (for whatever reason) they would be donating my money as a shareholder (perhaps against my own political convictions) and I receive no benefit from it.

Here is an interesting BusinessWeek article:

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/co ... 966156.htm

Thanks, Calvin!!

Corporations don't contribute to candidates. Corporate PACs are supported by the "voluntary" contributions of employees--generally, top executives and managers of the corporation.

Corporations do of course lobby.

traderdave wrote:I have to say that I am fairly sure that corporations are not required to get shareholder approval for political contributions. I have owned plenty of stock in my day and I have no recollection of ever having to vote on such an issue. And that is one of my main problems with the decision; generally speaking, if Ford Motor Company were to make a contribution to Sarah Palin's or Scott Brown's 2012 Presidental campaign (for whatever reason) they would be donating my money as a shareholder (perhaps against my own political convictions) and I receive no benefit from it.

Here is an interesting BusinessWeek article:

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/co ... 966156.htm

Thanks, Calvin!!

I'm sure this is right. What I'm guessing, though, is that stakeholders can change those policies, if there's a movement and a good argument for them to do so. And again I'd be happy to see that apply to unions as well.

This is yet another reason I'd like to kick Eliot Spitzer in the junk. If he hadn't literally fucked away his career, he'd be all over issues like this.

jerseyhoya wrote:I will attempt to be less of a douchebag in this thread, but that's hard for me, since it's my natural orientation.

THERE'S NO CRYING IN THE TRUCK YOURSELF POLITICS THREAD

besides, how would we recognize you otherwise?

Debate's over folks, Senator Lesnar (MMA) has spoken:

I love Canada," said Lesnar. "Some of the best people and best hunting in the world, but I wasn't in the right facility."

"They couldn't do nothing for me," he added. "It was like I was in a Third World country, I just looked at my wife and she saved my life and I had to get out of there."

[snip]

"The only reason I'm mentioning this, I'm mentioning it to the United States of America because President Obama is looking for health care reform and I don't want it ... I'm speaking on behalf of Americans, I'm speaking on behalf of our doctors in the United States that don't want this to happen and neither do I."

pacino wrote:Debate's over folks, Senator Lesnar (MMA) has spoken:

I love Canada," said Lesnar. "Some of the best people and best hunting in the world, but I wasn't in the right facility."

"They couldn't do nothing for me," he added. "It was like I was in a Third World country, I just looked at my wife and she saved my life and I had to get out of there."

[snip]

"The only reason I'm mentioning this, I'm mentioning it to the United States of America because President Obama is looking for health care reform and I don't want it ... I'm speaking on behalf of Americans, I'm speaking on behalf of our doctors in the United States that don't want this to happen and neither do I."

And the mental midgets among us will take the word of a professional wrestler over that of the President.

TenuredVulture wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:I will attempt to be less of a douchebag in this thread, but that's hard for me, since it's my natural orientation.

Anyway, analysis from SCOTUSBlog, which I think is a nonpartisan thing from Akin Gump. They mention that they think the opinion might open the door for a challenge that would allow corporations to donate directly to candidates. Also on the page they say the disclosure requirements were affirmed and only Thomas objected to that (OMG he didn't listen to his puppet master Scalia, patronizing liberals everywhere confused), so I'm not sure where TV was getting that angle from.

A comment on a Hot Air. In the future, I will try to be more discerning.

Thinking about this more--I'm pretty sure this will lead to more government. People don't lobby and contribute to campaigns to get government to stop doing things, they do it to get government to do more things. We're gonna see more programs, and more regulations not less. So it's ironic that Cato is all excited by this decision.

Unless these corporations want government to lessen or overturn regulations and ensure they never pass future ones that are against their interests. I work for a corporation but I find most people in upper management are a bunch of assholes and the whole corporate entity evil and I don't want them having any MORE influence over my life then they ALREADY have.

Huffington Post:

TOTAL AMOUNT OF BONUSES PAID OUT BY GOLDMAN-SACHS, 2009: $16 billion

TOTAL AMOUNT OF BONUSES PAID OUT BY JPMORGAN CHASE, 2009: $27 billion

TOTAL AMOUNT OF BONUSES PAID OUT BY MORGAN STANLEY, 2009: $14 billion

TOTAL AMOUNT OF BONUSES PAID OUT BY CITIGROUP, 2009: $25 billion

In the Massachusetts Senate election, Martha Coakley raised about $5 million and spent about $4 million -- obviously not particularly well, considering Scott Brown only spent about one-fifth of that amount. But! Imagine what might have happened if that election, in which America's insurance companies believed they had tens of billions of dollars at stake, took place in the environment created by this Supreme Court decision. Yeah, that feeling is the hair standing on the back of your neck.

Huffington Post is proper stupid if they think Scott Brown only spent 1/5 of $4 million dollars

and more on the healthcare bill (politico.com):

“This is garbage,” Salon editor Joan Walsh said of the bill Wednesday during an appearance on MSNBC’s “Hardball.” “This is a corporate bill, with corporate giveaways that the left is pissed about.”

“President Obama has simply not led. He let the Republicans run this health care agenda,” Walsh said. “People want to blame Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi? [Obama] turned it over to the Senate Finance Committee. He gave Republicans their marching orders. He gave them the rope to hang him, and that’s what they did. That’s why we are still talking about this a year after his inauguration.”

My brother in law got a piece of that citibank action. Last summer, my sister was going on about "people don't understand what we're going through."

Those bonus amounts alone make the hair on the back of my neck stand up let alone what they might have done with it. This whole situation makes me think of one of my favorite lines from Wall Street:

"Now you're not naive enough to think we're living in a democracy, are you Buddy?"

Not to defend Wall Street whores and pimps, but a some of that is contractually obligated. Second, bonuses are part of the compensation system.

I still laughed at my sister though when she was crying poor. But I wasn't so mean to say something like, "your lucky ### still has a job." I like my brother in law. He's a good guy, and a pretty good liberal. Voted for Obama, I think. I'm pretty sure he voted for Kerry.

Which pundit speculated that the new Republican Senator elect from the great Commonwealth (not state) of Massachusetts might kill an intern?