McCain says campaign finance reform is dead
WASHINGTON – Sen. John McCain says the movement he led to reform how political campaigns are financed is dead.
McCain says the Supreme Court has spoken on the constitutionality of political contributions by corporations. The Arizona Republican had sought to regulate them with a landmark campaign finance law he wrote with Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis.
Last week the Supreme Court ruled that corporations may spend as freely as they like to support or oppose candidates for president and Congress.
McCain says there's not much that can be done about campaign financing now. Still, he predicts a backlash over time from voters once they see the amount of money that corporations and unions pour into political campaigns.
McCain spoke Sunday on CBS' "Face the Nation."
This is what I said, I predict a backlash from the voters once the airwaves are saturated with negative ads. The corporations will have to add their names to the commercials so we will know who to boycott won't we! The people are tired of corporate America and this will only make them madder. As we saw in Massachusetts, the voters will exercise their rights, I believe this will backfire on the republicans, and I say republicans because it is their party who will benefit from this terrible ruling from the Supreme Court. IF that was not the case then explain the 5-4 vote!
I will be interested in hearing from Sen. Feingold on this ruling.
Edited: Linda said the ruling will make a level playing field for both sides, not according to Laura Chapin and this article from U.S. News and World Report,
According to the Center for Responsive Politics, business and corporate interests accounted 70.8 percent of the total U.S. political contributions in 2007-2008, while only 2.7 percent came from labor. Political Action Committees (PACs) show a similar disparity: 69.5 percent from business, 15.7 percent from labor. The center does issue this caveat: "CRP uses employer/occupation information to categorize donors, and because just about everyone works for a business, contributions from members of labor unions and ideological groups are often classified under business."
Still, the gap is big enough that it's clear corporations have both the will and the ability to vastly outspend unions. And yes, this includes "527s"--tax-exempt organizations that engage in political activities. Republican-leaning 527s spent almost $13 million in 2008, Democratic ones about $8.3 million.
If the GOP and its corporate allies have their way, you can kiss the will of Colorado voters goodbye. And no, the fact that the Supreme Court ruling would potentially lift the limits on union contributions doesn't make things equal. The checkbook for corporations dwarfs that of labor. It's not a level playing field in any sense of the phrase--corporations versus unions is like the Texas Longhorns going up against an NCAA Division III team.
And at least that contest would involve real persons.
28 comments:
Sue ~ I can explain the 5-4 vote...it is to insure freedom of speech to all Americans, including corporations and unions. The unions go 100% for democrats, so that will balance any funding that comes to republicans by way of corporations. It seems to me that corporate America tends to support BOTH parties. The Supreme Court is upholding the Constitutional right to free speech...it's as simple as that.
sorry Linda, I don't buy one word of it! There will be NO balance.
Corporate America "donates" to both parties. Correctomundo.
Except now they can go to candidate X and tell him if you do not do as we say, we will give candidate Y the money.
Then they go to Y and tell him the same thing.
Foreign Corps will not be allowed to do this. But do not let that fool you. Their [subsidiaries] can. Same thing. Sovereign Wealth Funds will be all in on this.
The For Sale sign is up.
Who will over turn this? No one. The highest LAW in the land just gave away our democracy.
The MIC will now be assured of unfettered endless wars without borders. The purse strings will be controlled by the MIC PROSTITUTES [OUR CONGRESS].
SCOTUS is now the founding fathers of The United Corporate Fascist States of ChiMeriKa.
Unions have NEVER EVER had the money big corporations have. So what the hell is "fair" about that?
Because of the economy union membership dropped %10 this past year, so now they have even less money.
only the right thinks this is fair and balanced, Hmmm, where have I heard that phrase before??
Linda,
Unions generally go Democrat although the Teamsters are often an exception.
40 years ago you'd be right, unions were 30-35% of the workforce and with high corporate tax rates the two sides balanced out.
Unions are on the run and financialization/high end tax cuts have greatly favored corporations.
One other thing to consider is-the 2008 election was the first time ever corporate contributions to Democrats exceeded contributions to Republicans.The administrations economic policy reflects this.
I'm not trying to make the point "The Democrats are winning", don't misunderstand me. I'm trying to make the point that Wall St and possibly foreign financiers are winning, and the American people lose out.
That's the cogent analysis of a guy wearing a Dodger hat anyway.
I like your analogy Oso, but the Dodgers??? Come on now, I'm a Phillies girl! :-)
Sue,
I used to have a Robin Roberts glove!
tnlib ~ Unions do contribute a lot of money:
"According to FollowTheMoney.org unions were some of the most generous with donations to political candidates and causes during the 2007-2008 donation cycle, the last cycle full reporting is known for. A close second place goes to the energy industry with Indian interests coming in third.
Out of the top 50 highest amounts given to political efforts unions donated $223,533,678 to political causes showing that, while unions make up less than 20 percent of the American work force, they account for some of the largest in political donations.
Unfortunately, many of those top donors are public employees unions meaning that our tax dollars are caught in a revolving door with tax money going to public employees who then turn around and donate some of that tax money right back to politicians and their campaign funds in order for those politicians to themselves turn right back around and pass laws that give public employees unions more money!"
http://theunionlabelblog.com/2009/11/27/unions-energy-industry-tops-in-political-contributions/
Linda
the link you have is an ant-union site with bogus figures.
Like going to "I'm OJ's mom and he didn't do it.com" to see if the Juice was guilty.
open secrets.org is a non-partisan site.http://www.opensecrets.org/index.php
Unions gave around 74 million in the 2008 election cycle. F.I.RE gave 476 million.Health insurance 166 million. So right there you've got an 8 or 9 to 1 edge.
What's more interesting and the reason I use the site is it gives the breakdown by party.Pie charts so I can't be exact but a slight edge to the Democrats in corporate contributions like I alluded to in my previous response.
Point I'm trying to make is,the unions are the small fry.Corporations are the heavy hitters and they give to both parties. So who benefits from this decision? Certainly not the little guy.
Sue - nice post. As I said on TC's blog, after this ruling, it would be more beneficial to the candidates rather than the people who vote for them. The union contributions to candidates far out strip the most spent by corps giving to PAC. This will only ensure our further decline in buying off our Congressmen/women. As if it weren't bad enough not, this will only hasten that process.
1st Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..."
Nothing there about special interests, corporations, Unions. Congress may not make any law that abridges free speech, and for good reason.
The Constitution does not grant us rights. It protects them. The right to free speech is inherent in natural law, and if people band together in a union or corporation, they still have the right to speak.
Transparency and full disclosure is the answer here. If we can follow the money trail, we can cut through the BS. The American people are not stupid.
I think the Supreme Court had no choice but to rule the way it did. The language of the First Amendment merely says that no law may be made to abridge freedom of expression; it does not put any limitation on what range of entities have freedom of expression.
This is in contrast to some of the other Amendments which attribute rights specifically to "the people", in which case it could be argued that those rights are guaranteed only to individual persons and not to other entities (so, for example, one could argue that the Second Amendment only guarantees individual persons the right to own guns, and does not protect a right of corporations or unions to have their own armies).
Since the First Amendment contains no such specification, it seems pretty clear that the framers intended to allow free expression to apply to a broader range of entities.
The ruling probably won't make as much difference as many people seem to think, anyway.
As I understand it, this decision doesn't impact on PAC money, but to be honest, I'm not sure what that means exactly.
Oso: That's a great link you provided.
OK Oso, a Robin Roberts glove will do! lol
silverfiddle I guess it will have to come down to the people following the money trail. Like I said it will backfire because of big money and the peoples growing weary of the abuses.
thanks for the input Lisa G. always nice to see you!
Mornin' Leslie and Infidel. I'll be checking out those links today.
Infidel I read that article a few days ago. There's alot in it I could highlight but I'll do this one paragraph and ask readers to go to Politico and read the rest, its reassuring I guess....
[Running attack ads against political targets would create real risks of alienating customers and shareholders. And, given voters’ sentiments toward corporations today, most politicians would probably not welcome a glowing ad campaign on their behalf that was funded by Big Business]
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31878.html#ixzz0de7FywDv
Oso that is a great link and I'll be reading it today, Thanks!
We can't have companies like Halliburton or Checchi & Company Consulting buying off any politicians can we?
Sue,
you're welcome. it's a nice tool, you can search by industry and year, really get an idea of where the $ goes and to who.
Oso ~ Upon what basis did you judge Follow the Money to be anti-union and using "bogus" numbers? I looked at the people who are on their board and saw no one who would be considered to be partisan. What information did you use to make your dismissive judgement upon their integrity?
Hi Linda,
i read the articles and posts there.all detailed anti-union positions.an unbiased site doesn't take positions on issues but merely presents facts.
Also the figures provided were way off. that's why I checked opensecrets.they don't take a position,merely provide data.
another way to immediately tell was the name,lookfortheunionlabel.com which is a play on words on a union slogan.
Dum dee dum dum, driftwood. Just something I say when I don’t think anything I say would add, detract or make a difference. BJ
Oso ~ Your opinion of the posts on Follow the Money doesn't measure up to your accusation of bias. I read quite a few of them, and I saw no blatant bias. I respectfully disagree with your opinion of Follow the Money.
BJ ~ You can resume your "dum dee dum dum, driftwood" now. That is your prerogative. I'm just ever so devastated that YOU think I'm dumb...sniff, sniff.
Linda:
AAARRRGGGHHH!
I have had a real good lesson of late on how one’s “meaning” can be misinterpreted. I find myself having to clarify my words.
I read the 23 or 24 comments before mine, then left my comment.
Sue, tnlib and Infidel753 all know my perspective on this issue.
My comment had nothing to do with you and was not calling anyone “dumb.”
“Dum dee dum dum driftwood,” was an expression I picked up from college kids and means, “I’ve got nothing further to say.”
BJ
BJ ~ I'm sorry I jumped to the wrong conclusion. It is easy to do that, too! :0)
Post a Comment