The Root of all Evil: Campaign Finance reform

[OrangenBlueOhio]

Analysis: Koch brothers a force in anti-union effort

Share thisLink this
3diggsdiggEmailPrintBy Andrew Stern

CHICAGO | Sat Feb 26, 2011 2:19pm EST

CHICAGO (Reuters) - The billionaire Koch brothers -- whose deep pockets and small-government philosophy have made them conservative powerhouses -- are playing an influential role in the drive to strip public employee unions of their rights to bargain in several U.S. states.

Charles and David Koch, who both rank 24th on the Forbes list of the world's richest people with $17.5 billion each, are behind campaign donations of tens of thousands, if not millions, of dollars to Republicans leading the anti-union effort.

"They're the poster boys for the incredible out-sized influence that corporate America has on our government right now," said Mary Boyle of the left-leaning group Common Cause


Everybody knows about the Koch connections, but we will never have a government by the people for the people until candidates have to be elected completely by public money. And it does'nt have to cost 100's of millions of dollars.

In this day and age of the internet, candidates can get thier message across a lot cheaper. Who needs a million signs in our yards/landfills? Who needs a thousand different hate commercials every November? Let these guys fight it out over the web. With taxpayer money. Any other way of financing campaigns is simply not going to give you the "people's choice". You will only be getting the highest bidders choice. And that could be any of the special interests, including unions.

Some would say thier message would not be seen by as many constituients. First of all I would say who's fault would that be? If you don't care enough about who is up for election that you don't have time to check them out, don't complain. Second it won't be only those who actually visit the candidates websites who are exposed to thier message. Just like you see ads for car manufacturers, etc. on the sides of your screens, thier would also be ads for candidates.

Bottom line "we the people" have'nt been heard from for a long time. We need campaign finance reform.

[JJJ]

John McCain, is that you?

Yawn.

[Garcia Bronco]

I would personally like to see public election funded with a fixed public amount with no private donations of any kind. However, and James Madison would agree, that is an assault on liberty. The Supreme Court agrees as well.

On to public sector unions, only in the last 50 years have they beem able to collectively bargain with government. An abomination brought on by the Kennedy Administration. From TR to before Kennedy this was considered a bad practice.

So why did John Kennedy support this? It was kickback for public sector union votes. And is why public sector unions shouldn't be able to collectively bargain with government taxpayer funds. Its a conflicit of interest.

[epicSocialism4tw]

The root of all evil?

A little hyperbole maybe?

[epicSocialism4tw]

Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco

I would personally like to see public election funded with a fixed public amount with no private donations of any kind. However, and James Madison would agree, that is an assault on liberty. The Supreme Court agrees as well.

On to public sector unions, only in the last 50 years have they beem able to collectively bargain with government. An abomination brought on by the Kennedy Administration. From TR to before Kennedy this was considered a bad practice.

So why did John Kennedy support this? It was kickback for public sector union votes. And is why public sector unions shouldn't be able to collectively bargain with government taxpayer funds. Its a conflicit of interest.

Absolutley, as is evidence by their reluctance to relenquish control in Wisconsin, and their use of the strong arm tactic instead of getting it done with voters.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Originally Posted by OrangenBlueOhio

Analysis: Koch brothers a force in anti-union effort

Share thisLink this
3diggsdiggEmailPrintBy Andrew Stern

CHICAGO | Sat Feb 26, 2011 2:19pm EST

CHICAGO (Reuters) - The billionaire Koch brothers -- whose deep pockets and small-government philosophy have made them conservative powerhouses -- are playing an influential role in the drive to strip public employee unions of their rights to bargain in several U.S. states.

Charles and David Koch, who both rank 24th on the Forbes list of the world's richest people with $17.5 billion each, are behind campaign donations of tens of thousands, if not millions, of dollars to Republicans leading the anti-union effort.

"They're the poster boys for the incredible out-sized influence that corporate America has on our government right now," said Mary Boyle of the left-leaning group Common Cause


Everybody knows about the Koch connections, but we will never have a government by the people for the people until candidates have to be elected completely by public money. And it does'nt have to cost 100's of millions of dollars.

In this day and age of the internet, candidates can get thier message across a lot cheaper. Who needs a million signs in our yards/landfills? Who needs a thousand different hate commercials every November? Let these guys fight it out over the web. With taxpayer money. Any other way of financing campaigns is simply not going to give you the "people's choice". You will only be getting the highest bidders choice. And that could be any of the special interests, including unions.

Some would say thier message would not be seen by as many constituients. First of all I would say who's fault would that be? If you don't care enough about who is up for election that you don't have time to check them out, don't complain. Second it won't be only those who actually visit the candidates websites who are exposed to thier message. Just like you see ads for car manufacturers, etc. on the sides of your screens, thier would also be ads for candidates.

Bottom line "we the people" have'nt been heard from for a long time. We need campaign finance reform.

You are buying the typical Alinsky tactic...isolate and attack.

They build these boogeymen up for you so you dont look at the ideas that are being debated...you dont look below the surface.

Look at the long list of boogeymen! You guys just hop from one to the next. Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld, Boehner, Christine O'Donnell, Palin, Bachmann, Koch, Armey, Beck, Limbaugh, O'Reilly...its always somebody.

This tactic has been a real dividing factor for our people, because it convinces your base that "conservatives are evil!", "look at that list of evil people!". They have detached your brains from the issues and made you personality cultists of hatred. Most lefties cant even debate the issues...theyre just waiting for the next personality cult of hate to form. You have seen the worst of it this year with the way the far left absurdly tried to tie Sarah Palin to the Arizona shooting. It was a laughable tactic for dunderheads, but the left ate it up...it became their talking point about the tragedy! It was all Sarah Palins fault because she was making everyone too mad! An unbelievably stupid and irresponsible thing to spin the story into, but they did it, and the armies of violent leftists ate it up.

The same thing is happening now with Scott Walker and the Kochs. The guy is just trying to do the job that has to be done for his state to crawl its way out of the gutter and these people have made it into a parade of hate.

[Boomhauer]

Originally Posted by OrangenBlueOhio

...Bottom line "we the people" have'nt been heard from for a long time. We need campaign finance reform.

Campaign finance reform is as hollow as tax code reform in that the biggest players can drive a cargo ship through the loopholes. The last round to limit donation size, which has come into legal problems, only moved funding to unregulated organizations. Public funding is an even worse idea. It doesn't solve the above issues, only adds to party slushfunds and dumps cash on minor parties.

What's needed is campaign reform, not finance reform. Consider these:
- No TV/Radio ads for or against a party, person or policy until 6mos before election.
- TV/Radio ads for or against a party, person or policy must be endorsed by a sitting or running party, politician or 50-state declared person to minimize bogus smear or promise ads from randome groups.
- TV stations must give equal planned time to each major party and 50-state declared person, creating strategy on when to appear and log minutes on various stations.

[JJJ]

Originally Posted by Boomhauer

Campaign finance reform is as hollow as tax code reform in that the biggest players can drive a cargo ship through the loopholes. The last round to limit donation size, which has come into legal problems, only moved funding to unregulated organizations. Public funding is an even worse idea. It doesn't solve the above issues, only adds to party slushfunds and dumps cash on minor parties.

What's needed is campaign reform, not finance reform. Consider these:
- No TV/Radio ads for or against a party, person or policy until 6mos before election.
- TV/Radio ads for or against a party, person or policy must be endorsed by a sitting or running party, politician or 50-state declared person to minimize bogus smear or promise ads from randome groups.
- TV stations must give equal planned time to each major party and 50-state declared person, creating strategy on when to appear and log minutes on various stations.

So you basically want to throw away the Constitution?

[Boomhauer]

Originally Posted by JJJ

So you basically want to throw away the Constitution?

Equally absurd comment: Why do you want to abolish the FCC?

[BroncsRule]

Originally Posted by Boomhauer

Campaign finance reform is as hollow as tax code reform in that the biggest players can drive a cargo ship through the loopholes. The last round to limit donation size, which has come into legal problems, only moved funding to unregulated organizations. Public funding is an even worse idea. It doesn't solve the above issues, only adds to party slushfunds and dumps cash on minor parties.

What's needed is campaign reform, not finance reform. Consider these:
- No TV/Radio ads for or against a party, person or policy until 6mos before election.
- TV/Radio ads for or against a party, person or policy must be endorsed by a sitting or running party, politician or 50-state declared person to minimize bogus smear or promise ads from randome groups.
- TV stations must give equal planned time to each major party and 50-state declared person, creating strategy on when to appear and log minutes on various stations.

Not a bad start, actually. I would probably include a strict cap on the total # of radio & TV minutes each candidate has to work with. Not just "equal time", but "equal time with strict limits"

I'd also cut the time frame to 90 days.

[JJJ]

Originally Posted by Boomhauer

Equally absurd comment: Why do you want to abolish the FCC?

I agree this question is equally as absurd as your post 7.

The FCC is fine. A bit too big, but fine. Someone needs to manage the spectrum or chaos would ensue.

[OrangenBlueOhio]

Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco

I would personally like to see public election funded with a fixed public amount with no private donations of any kind. However, and James Madison would agree, that is an assault on liberty. The Supreme Court agrees as well.

On to public sector unions, only in the last 50 years have they beem able to collectively bargain with government. An abomination brought on by the Kennedy Administration. From TR to before Kennedy this was considered a bad practice.

So why did John Kennedy support this? It was kickback for public sector union votes. And is why public sector unions shouldn't be able to collectively bargain with government taxpayer funds. Its a conflicit of interest.

Sorry I don't get the assault on liberty. The supreme court's decision is the worst thing to happen to fair and balanced elections. And not just because the republicans have more rich friends. Money should not have anything to do with who is the best person or persons to be elected to office.

As for your abomination, the ability to collectively bargain should be a right every employee has. All that means is your at the table. The company/government has the ability to say no to any negotiation. I have heard the argument government officials feel the need to appease the unions to keep government running smoothly, thereby keeping thier constituients happy, thereby keeping thier votes. If what the union is asking for is so out of whack, or can't be paid for there should be sufficient evidence to prove this point. Once again were back to the accountability. Just like the CEO's who are taking home multi-million dollar bonuses, the politicians don't want us to know exactly what they're doing with our taxes.

The problem is not collective bargaining. Could the way the public employee unions and government officials interact be handled better, sure. But you don't come to the negotiating table and pull a gun on the other guy. That is what walker is doing, and what kasich has done.

Now all of us union guys have to band together and get signatures to put this thing on the ballot in Ohio. And guess what is going to happen after that. Some of these people are going to realize they like being involved in the process. And they will be on the campaign trail in 2012.

So if I can't thank these two big business lacky's for much, I guess I can thank them for putting Obama back in office.

[DenverBrit]

Originally Posted by Boomhauer

Campaign finance reform is as hollow as tax code reform in that the biggest players can drive a cargo ship through the loopholes. The last round to limit donation size, which has come into legal problems, only moved funding to unregulated organizations. Public funding is an even worse idea. It doesn't solve the above issues, only adds to party slushfunds and dumps cash on minor parties.

What's needed is campaign reform, not finance reform. Consider these:
- No TV/Radio ads for or against a party, person or policy until 6mos before election.
- TV/Radio ads for or against a party, person or policy must be endorsed by a sitting or running party, politician or 50-state declared person to minimize bogus smear or promise ads from randome groups.
- TV stations must give equal planned time to each major party and 50-state declared person, creating strategy on when to appear and log minutes on various stations.

You're on track and following some of the procedures from a Parliamentary system, which has its own faults, but also some sound ideas.
I would add campaign finance reform so lobbyists can no longer 'buy' those sent to represent us. Or for that matter, buy the election via endless advertising
Borrow 'question time' from Parliament (have the Pres or vice pres answer questions from the floor of the house on a weekly/bi-weekly basis). One of the most entertaining political spectacles and Democracy in action.

Make these f@king politicians accountable.

[baja]

Originally Posted by epicSocialism4tw

The root of all evil?

I don't know that he is the root of all evil but I'll give ya he is a root of all evil.

[JJJ]

Originally Posted by BroncsRule

Not a bad start, actually. I would probably include a strict cap on the total # of radio & TV minutes each candidate has to work with. Not just "equal time", but "equal time with strict limits"

I'd also cut the time frame to 90 days.

Not a bad start to socialism. As much as I would love the election cycle to last only 3 to 6 months there is no way you can madate that by law in this country.

You don't serve justice by limiting speech.

The reality is all your little rules would crumble at the first legal challenge under the 1st ammendment and rightfully so.

[Boomhauer]

Moving OT here;

Originally Posted by OrangenBlueOhio

... But you don't come to the negotiating table and pull a gun on the other guy. ...

I guess you're unfamiliar with how Unions work, or as Obama and the Mob say, "they bring a knife, we bring a gun."
Getting back OT; one predictable move of a losing candidate or party is to ratchet up the smear, especially from outside groups so the party involved won't look as dirty. My thought to require approval of an involved candidate/party could minimize swiftboat, cokehead, baby seal clubber, hates grandma attacks and the empty "stop warcrimes" or "chicken in every pot" promises.

[OrangenBlueOhio]

Originally Posted by Boomhauer

Moving OT here;


I guess you're unfamiliar with how Unions work, or as Obama and the Mob say, "they bring a knife, we bring a gun."
Getting back OT; one predictable move of a losing candidate or party is to ratchet up the smear, especially from outside groups so the party involved won't look as dirty. My thought to require approval of an involved candidate/party could minimize swiftboat, cokehead, baby seal clubber, hates grandma attacks and the empty "stop warcrimes" or "chicken in every pot" promises.

As well as getting rid of the smear tactics, how about some way of knowing whether these commercials contain any truth. They come on spouting all sorts of statistics and other info that are skewed in thier candidates favor. The television companies who get paid to air these things should have to provide some form of disclaimor or something.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by baja

I don't know that he is the root of all evil but I'll give ya he is a root of all evil.

QFT!

[BroncsRule]

Originally Posted by JJJ

Not a bad start to socialism. As much as I would love the election cycle to last only 3 to 6 months there is no way you can madate that by law in this country.

You don't serve justice by limiting speech.

The reality is all your little rules would crumble at the first legal challenge under the 1st ammendment and rightfully so.

Private citizens have a (relatively) unabridged right to free speech, protected by the 1st ammendment. Many persons in public service (members of the armed services come to mind) do not. Or rather, more precisely, they have intentionally and voluntarily set asside their free speech rights for their time of service - and they do this willingly - for a higher purpose.

The same could be expected, under law, of any person seeking high office.

[orinjkrush]

The Koch Brothers: a study in petrochemical ethics and national visionary leadership:

In March 1999, Koch Petroleum Group, a Koch Industries subsidiary, pled guilty to charges that it had negligently dumped hundreds of thousands of gallons of aviation fuel into wetlands near the Mississippi River from its refinery in Rosemount, Minnesota, and that it had also illegally dumped a million gallons of high-ammonia wastewater onto the ground and into the Mississippi River. Koch Petroleum paid the Dakota County Park System a $6 million fine and $2 million in remediation costs, and was ordered to serve three years of probation.[29]

In 1999, a federal jury found that Koch Industries had stolen oil from government and American Indian lands, had lied about its purchases more than 24,000 times, and was fined $553,504.[30]

In January 2000, a Koch Industries subsidiary, Koch Pipeline, agreed to a $35 million settlement with the U.S. Justice Department and the State of Texas. This settlement, including a $30 million civil fine, was incurred for the firm's three hundred oil spills in Texas and five other states going back to 1990.[31][32][33] The spills resulted in more than three million gallons of crude oil leaking into ponds, lakes, streams and coastal waters.[34]

In 2001, the company reached two settlements with the government. In April, the company reached a $20 million settlement in exchange for admitting to covering up environmental violations at its refinery in Corpus Christi, Texas.[35][36] That May, Koch Industries paid $25 million to the federal government to settle a federal lawsuit that found the company had improperly taken more oil than it had paid for from federal and Indian land.[37][38]

In June 2003, the US Commerce Department fined Koch Industries subsidiary Flint Hill Resources a $200,000 civil penalty. The fine settled charges that the company exported crude petroleum from the US to Canada without proper US government authorization. The Commerce Department’s Bureau of Industry and Security said from July 1997 to March 1999, Koch Petroleum (later called Flint Hill Resources) committed 40 violations of Export Administration Regulations.[39]

In 2006, Koch Industries’ subsidiary Flint Hill Resources was fined nearly $16,000 by the EPA for 10 separate violations of the Clean Air Act at its Alaska oil refinery facilities, and required to spend another $60,000 on safety equipment needed to help prevent future violations.[40]

In 2007, Koch Nitrogen's plant in Enid, Oklahoma, was listed as the third highest company releasing toxic chemicals in Oklahoma, according to the EPA, ranking behind Perma-Fix Environmental Services in Tulsa and Weyerhaeuser Co. in Valliant.[41] The facility produces about 10% of the US national production of anhydrous ammonia, as well as urea and UAN.[42]

In 2009, Koch subsidiary Invista agreed to pay a $1.7 million civil penalty and spend up to $500 million to correct self-reported environmental violations at its facilities in seven states.[43][44] Prior to the settlement, the company had disclosed to the EPA more than 680 violations after auditing 12 facilities acquired from DuPont in 2004.[45][46]

Political activity


The neutrality of this section is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (March 2011)
See also: Political activities of the Koch family
Koch Industries is known for its sponsorship of free market foundations and causes.[47]

From 2005 to 2008, Koch industries spent $5.7 million on political campaigns and $37 million on direct lobbying to support fossil fuel industries.[citation needed]

Greenpeace says that between 1997 and 2008 Koch Industries donated nearly $48m to groups which doubt or oppose the theory of anthropogenic global warming.[48] According to Greenpeace, Koch Industries is the major source of funds of "climate denial".[49]

Koch Industries and its subsidiaries spent more than $20 million on lobbying in 2008 and $12.3 million in 2009, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan research group.[50][51]

[chadta]

Originally Posted by JJJ

Not a bad start to socialism. As much as I would love the election cycle to last only 3 to 6 months there is no way you can madate that by law in this country.

You don't serve justice by limiting speech.

We never used to have fixed election dates up here, and guess what, the guys running government actually ran government, until an election was called, then they had 35 days to go run around. Now we have fixed election days, and the last year in office nothing gets done, as all the parties do is position themselves on what they will do if re elected, well if you want to do it how about starting it now, you know, while you are still in power ? what the hell do you plan on doing for the last year in office ? It is a huge advantage for the incumbent who gets the free press, and i think it has made things worse. Id really rather go back to the way it used to be.

[OrangenBlueOhio]

They're making so much money they don't even care what they do to the land they rape. Just pay another fine, who cares. I hope they're getting plenty of bonuses for such stellar work.

[Rohirrim]

Those Koch brothers are real winners. And not in the "Sheen" sense, either.

[Missouribronc]

Originally Posted by chadta

We never used to have fixed election dates up here, and guess what, the guys running government actually ran government, until an election was called, then they had 35 days to go run around. Now we have fixed election days, and the last year in office nothing gets done, as all the parties do is position themselves on what they will do if re elected, well if you want to do it how about starting it now, you know, while you are still in power ? what the hell do you plan on doing for the last year in office ? It is a huge advantage for the incumbent who gets the free press, and i think it has made things worse. Id really rather go back to the way it used to be.

Call me oblivious to Canadian style of governing, but how and who "called" an election?

[JJJ]

Originally Posted by chadta

We never used to have fixed election dates up here, and guess what, the guys running government actually ran government, until an election was called, then they had 35 days to go run around. Now we have fixed election days, and the last year in office nothing gets done, as all the parties do is position themselves on what they will do if re elected, well if you want to do it how about starting it now, you know, while you are still in power ? what the hell do you plan on doing for the last year in office ? It is a huge advantage for the incumbent who gets the free press, and i think it has made things worse. Id really rather go back to the way it used to be.

Very intersting. Certainly a great way to shorten the election cycle. I can't get used to being able to just call an election though. A bit too arbitrary for my liking. But I bet you get much better men and women running for office as a result. No megamillions needed to run a campaign and you get a month to make your case.

I understand what these other guys want to do and would support it wholeheartedly if it would hold up in court, but it won't. 1st ammendment is the first one for a reason I guess.