US Politics - Even an Aussie can start a thread about it

[Shryke]

Where's the evidence?

Test 1:

If the alternative possibility is that donations are given to a candidate who already supports a position, please provide evidence that would support the hypothesis that donations are given "in exchange for" action (ie: that the action would not be taken were it not exchanged for the donation) as opposed to the hypothesis that donations are given to a candidate because they have already pledged to support, or are known to support, a position (ie: that the action would be taken regardless of whether any particular campaign contribution was received are not).

Bonus point:

Millions of people donated money to Barack Obama's presidential campaign. How did Obama know what each of those people "exchanged" for their donation for? How did he know what each of those people actually believed in? Where's the proof that Obama took a position in "exchange" for someone donating to his campaign?

Each of those donors, at the very least, exchanges their money in return for political action by the candidate on the issues said candidate has outlined.

It's not suddenly not an exchange just because they told you what they were offering first. Especially since candidates define their positions based on how much people will pay them in money and votes and support and all that good stuff.

And of course, the more you spend or can spend, the more you can get what you want.

In exchange for general action that you support from one your representatives in a representative democracy. I don't see that as a transaction. A transaction would be a promise for a specific action in exchange for donations.

At the same, when certain individuals give so much more than anyone else, obviously that can have corrosive effects, including the appearance of corruption undermining citizens' faith in democracy; which is why I absolutely support campaign donation limits.

Again, how are these two things different. "General action" is just a fancy way of saying "alot of specific actions".

Attempting to draw a distinction here just doesn't make sense. Christie bowing on his knees to Adelson for daring to say something he didn't like it no different then the standard shifting in the winds politicians do in order to secure votes. It's only a matter of scale.

Which is why campaign donation restrictions make sense. It's not a difference in kind, it's a difference in quantity.

[ThinkerX]

What I'm waiting to see...

Corporation X makes a million dollar 'donation' to the campaign of candidate Y.

Candidate Y gets elected. Legislation critical to Corporation X comes up for a vote. As a direct result of Candidate Y's actions, said legislation tanks big time.

Corporation X takes candidate Y to court for breach of contract...which is upheld.

[Inigima]

I wish Matt Yglesias weren't involved with Vox. I would be 1000% more interested. All of his evidence is a wish and a song, and he writes the most bizarre articles. "Company X did this thing that's bad for them, but great for us as consumers! Company X is very smart!"

[Lord Mord]

TGU,

I know what you're saying...but surely there is a point where a donation stops being "just a donation" and starts becoming about access. If you donate $50, you're right, you're not going to get access. If you're Sheldon Adelson, or the Koch bros., and you donate $3.6 million to the Republican party, can you as convincingly argue that they're not getting more access?

More to the point, the SCOTUS ruling was to say that it wouldn't matter if it did buy you access. It's okay. Access should be for sale. Freedom and Democracy demand it. That's the outrageous part.

[Fez]

Again, how are these two things different. "General action" is just a fancy way of saying "alot of specific actions".

Attempting to draw a distinction here just doesn't make sense. Christie bowing on his knees to Adelson for daring to say something he didn't like it no different then the standard shifting in the winds politicians do in order to secure votes. It's only a matter of scale.

Which is why campaign donation restrictions make sense. It's not a difference in kind, it's a difference in quantity.

By that logic simply voting for someone is a form of bribery because you expect the people you vote for to uphold the campaign promises that made you vote for them in the first place.

Blocking specific quid pro quo, and having donation restrictions to prevent anyone from gaining too much influence, are the only possible protections.

[TrackerNeil]

Sebelius has resigned. Can't wait to see the spin on this one. The right-wing will undoubtedly try to argue that this is some kind of proof that Obamacare is still doomed.

Honestly, the right-wing doesn't need any reason to make this claim. Anything that happens in the world - the tides go in and out, the sun rises, milk tastes like milk - serves as proof that the ACA is the End of Freedom.

[Shryke]

By that logic simply voting for someone is a form of bribery because you expect the people you vote for to uphold the campaign promises that made you vote for them in the first place.

Sorta. Rather, bribery is basically indistinguishable from any other kind of political support in what's going on. The only difference is the level of influence.

What separates your vote from Adelson's potential donation is his is big enough for Christie to target him specifically for pandering.

Blocking specific quid pro quo, and having donation restrictions to prevent anyone from gaining too much influence, are the only possible protections.

I agree. I just find the attempts to justify this on differentiating one type of donation or supporting action from another not terribly consistent. The restrictions have to be based not on what people do, but on the level of political power it confers.

It's not about free speech, it's about the public good. It's about the appearance of corruption.

[Shryke]

Undoubtedly so, although I will be curious to watch as time goes on. We've seen a few somewhat prominent folks on the right like Ponnuru try to tell people it's over. I suspect that there must be more over time.

On that note, Krauthammer today tried to tell people it's over on Benghazi too. And he tried some hedge like "we needed to investigate harder, earlier" (paraphrasing) or something. Hilarious. Let me translate that: "I cannot actually come out and admit that there was never any there there, so I have to try to find another way to get you people that I don't actually respect to move on from this nothingburger you became obsessed about."

Fezra's alter ego Ezra suggests that Sebelius resigned because O'Care finally got over the hump.

No, BENGHAZI!!! must continue. It's too entertaining.

[ThinkerX]

Went out to the Homestead tonight for dinner, where the television is always turned to Fox. Big deal on the O'Reilly Show was the equating of the IRS targeting right wing groups as a scandal ranking with Watergate, and attempting to paint Attorney General Holder as a racist. The other talking heads didn't really buy into either point, despite the repetition and hand having.

[Fez]

Fezra's alter ego Ezra suggests that Sebelius resigned because O'Care finally got over the hump.

I think that's probably accurate. Being a cabinet secretary is hard work, and she's being doing it for almost six years now, far longer than most, and under even more stress and pressure then probably anyone outside of a Defense Secretary during a war or a Treasury Secretary during an economic collapse. It makes sense that she'd be ready to leave, but also that she wouldn't want to leave until she felt that her big legacy was in a secure position.

ETA:

It's not about free speech, it's about the public good. It's about the appearance of corruption.

I'm 100% on board with the concept of the public good trumping free speech; I never said I wasn't. However, it is still free speech that's being restricted, and people should acknowledge that, and not try to completely ban it instead.

[DanteGabriel]

Honestly, the right-wing doesn't need any reason to make this claim. Anything that happens in the world - the tides go in and out, the sun rises, milk tastes like milk - serves as proof that the ACA is the End of Freedom.

Remember, as far back as 1961, Undead Republican Hero Ronald Reagan was telling us about how Medicare would be the end of freedom.

One of these days, the Freedompocalypse that the Republicans have warned us about for 80 years will come... and then we'll be sorry.

[TrackerNeil]

I think that's probably accurate. Being a cabinet secretary is hard work, and she's being doing it for almost six years now, far longer than most, and under even more stress and pressure then probably anyone outside of a Defense Secretary during a war or a Treasury Secretary during an economic collapse. It makes sense that she'd be ready to leave, but also that she wouldn't want to leave until she felt that her big legacy was in a secure position.

And it will be a legacy; I'd suggest that Kathleen Sebelius is one of the most important HHS heads since the department was created.

[Prince of the North]

Sebelius has resigned. Can't wait to see the spin on this one. The right-wing will undoubtedly try to argue that this is some kind of proof that Obamacare is still doomed.

Yep. Caught this just before checking in here. Most everyone has probably already seen this but it is exactly as you say above. I was especially amused by this at the end of the article:

Shortly after news of Sebelius’ resignation broke, Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus took the opportunity to predict “that there are more problems on the way” for the president’s signature health care reform law.

“The next HHS Secretary will inherit a mess -- Americans facing rising costs, families losing their doctors, and an economy weighed down by intrusive regulations,” Priebus said in a statement. “No matter who is in charge of HHS, ObamaCare will continue to be a disaster and will continue to hurt hardworking Americans.”

Fezra's alter ego Ezra suggests that Sebelius resigned because O'Care finally got over the hump.

I think that's probably accurate. Being a cabinet secretary is hard work, and she's being doing it for almost six years now, far longer than most, and under even more stress and pressure then probably anyone outside of a Defense Secretary during a war or a Treasury Secretary during an economic collapse. It makes sense that she'd be ready to leave, but also that she wouldn't want to leave until she felt that her big legacy was in a secure position.

This is basically what I thought upon first hearing that Sebelius was stepping down. If you want to leave anyway why not go out on a high note?

And it will be a legacy; I'd suggest that Kathleen Sebelius is one of the most important HHS heads since the department was created.

I agree.

[Bonesy]

Since I've seen next to nothing about it in 8 pages is it the consensus here that Clinton will be the Dem nominee?

[Guy Kilmore]

Pretty much.

I think that most assume she's going to run even if there's been no official announcement yet (I suspect few will fully announce until after the November 2014 elections).

Not so much in this thread but in older US politics threads we've speculated about who it even could be either in the off chance Clinton doesn't run or who could have a prayer of beating her if she does.

Here are some of the names thrown out as mere chances:

-Joe Biden

-Elizabeth Warren

-Andrew Cuomo

-Brian Schwietzer (sp)

-Martin O'Malley

-Kirsten Gillibrand

-Bernie Sanders (technically not a Dem, but whatever)

-Jerry Brown

-Amy Klobuchar

Warren and Gillibrand are both serious up-and-coming female Dems, but they've both nominally signed on to some kind of pledge to draft Hillary Clinton, so it seems like any hopes for Warren getting in this time are unrealistic. It sounds like Kobuchar is serious, but I don't really understand why she'd have a chance. She does not have the star power of the aforementioned two. Uncle Joe just finished a distant 3rd in an Iowa poll. If by chance Clinton gets out, he all of the sudden would have more of a chance. Bernie Sanders might run a quixotic campaign to drag Clinton leftward. O'Malley and Cuomo I could both see getting into it but not fighting with Clinton all that much as they don't want to piss of the likely future winner.

I can see the Democratic party taking a stab a Klobuchar if some of the bigger names are not interested. She is a pretty moderate Democrat (I think on power rankings she is ranked like the 50th most Conservative and the 50th Most Liberal, right in the middle), but supports Democrats on the Big Issues that need her support. Plus, she has been pretty scandal free. I don't see her getting voted out of office here in Minnesota any time soon. Heck, there were even Republicans supporting her in her re-election.

[Fez]

I'd love to see Warren run, if for no other reason than to pull the political discussion to the left.

I think Sanders has already said that he'll be doing that. I'm not sure he's remotely a credible enough threat to Clinton to do much though.

[Commodore]

this is revolting

In 2007 Podesta Matoon became the Podesta Group. Heather formed Heather Podesta + Partners, establishing two prongs of the Podesta family empire. The third prong was the Center for American Progress, founded in 2003 by John Podesta, who would oversee President Obama’s transition team in 2009, and join the Obama administration as a senior adviser in 2014. The Podestas had become the most important non-elected family in the Democratic Party.

In 2009, with the inauguration of Obama and the dawn of unified Democratic control of Washington, business boomed. Revenues at Tony’s firm close to doubled, and revenues at Heather’s firm increased by 50 percent. The money has continued to roll in. The Podesta Group had some $13 million in lobbying income in 2013, sporting clients such as Lockheed Martin, Wells Fargo, U.S. Airways, Walmart, and the National Biodiesel Board. Heather Podesta + Partners made some $4 million, lobbying on behalf of health companies, the American Beverage Association, Brookfield Power, DeVry University, and others. A portion of that money was recycled, contributing to Democratic campaigns, opening up avenues of influence: Tony gave some $45,500 in 2013, all to Democrats; Heather some $95,798 to Democrats, Democratic committees, and liberal groups.

As government expands, extending its reach to every aspect of business, every sector of the economy, private citizens and corporations require sherpas to lead them through the mountains of regulations and tax provisions, to discover exemptions and special favors and other forms of relief or favoritism to improve the bottom line. And who better to act as sherpas than the relatives of the Democrats who impose the regulations and tax provisions in the first place, who better than the lively proprietors of a family business operating in the luxurious and morally uncomplicated world of the caste of limousine liberals who dominate politics, culture, news, and finance.

Corporations give to Democratic politicians, avoiding the scrutiny of liberal attack dogs in the media and nonprofit sectors, and enjoying the ego boost that comes with being on the “right side of history.” Then those corporations hire the Podestas to get them out of the Rube Goldberg traps the Democrats have enacted into law. John’s innovation was to establish a corporate-funded think tank where the burdensome policies would be concocted, and whose staff would go on to man the regulatory agencies that put their wool-headed ideas into practice. And to whom do the corporations turn when they find themselves on the receiving end of all this uplift, all this do-goodery, all this progress, hope, and change? Why, to the man in the red Prada loafers, and to his flamboyantly patterned wife.

We need a constitutional amendment outlawing all corporate bailouts, subsidies, and guaranteed loans. It won't completely stop rent seeking (companies will always get regulations written to favor them and crush smaller competitiors), but it would still be a strong restraint on crony capitalism.

[Commodore]

I certainly agree, but surely it is the height of irony that you're complaining about this in the same political thread where you were cheering on the removal of total contribution limits and further championed the removal of all contribution limits whatsoever.

Money flows to influence power. People have a right to dispense their property/wealth as they see fit.

The power of DC is the problem.

[aceluby]

Money flows to influence power. People have a right to dispense their property/wealth as they see fit.

The power of DC is the problem.

Why is it fundamentally better that corporations have direct power to do whatever they want as opposed to buying representatives to pass laws so they can do what they want?

The result is the same, except that if DC does something that is absolutely outrageous the people can vote them out, which can't happen if corporations directly have the power due to how much money they have.

[TrackerNeil]

Since I've seen next to nothing about it in 8 pages is it the consensus here that Clinton will be the Dem nominee?

I am not part of that consensus, no. I think she's in a strong place right now, but nobody's going to declare until 2015, and much can happen by then. She could have a scandal, she could have a health issue, she could decide she's just not interested - the list goes on and on. That being said, I suspect that if she gets into the race a lot of Democrats are going to stay out.

I'd vote for her in 2016; hell, I'd have voted for her in 2008 if Obama had missed his shot.