Buying Politicians, The Best Investment Your Company Can Make!
	found on The Pioneer Press written by JC65, edited by John (Plastic) [ read unedited ] posted Fri 7 Mar 5:44am
		"Before the 2002 elections, American Bankers Insurance was facing a $3.5 million fine from Minnesota. On March 5th, the State announced that American Bankers was being let off for $200,000 in fines (and $1.8 million to reimburse investigation costs.) What happened in the interim? Fifteen thousand dollars in campaign contributions to the state's Republican Party and a win in the November elections by an aggressively 'business-friendly' Republican," JC65 writes. "For their part, American Bankers says they gave the same amounts to both parties, and the Republican Party claims there was no 'tit for tat', but won't talk about it any further. So at what point is a bribe no longer a bribe, when you try to bribe both candidates in a race but only one wins? Or when your bribes of $30,000 only save you $1.5 million in fines?"

[ more plastic... ]    

show almost all: 49 commentsbest: 8 comments by oldest first (ignore threads) newest first highest scores first oldest first newest first (ignore threads)

1.  Update   by JC65       at Fri 7 Mar 6:22am score of 2 informative     Governor Pawlenty is now calling for a 'bipartisan' panel to investigate, rather than the (Democratically controlled) Senate hearing that's already been called. And to clear up some confusion my write-up caused in the subqueue, the donations were NOT to the state parties, they were to the RNC and to something called the Democratic Governors Association for use in the state of Minnesota. This is because it is illegal under Minnesota election law for parties to solicit corporate contributions but it IS legal for the parties to accept such contributions (wink wink). I left that part out for simplicity. I hope it doesn't cause too much confusion.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

2.  The case for public funding of political parties   by chatsubo       at Fri 7 Mar 6:39am score of 1.5 interesting     Sure, no taxpayer is going to be happy about his or her money going to a political party, especially if it is to one they don't oppose, but on the plus side you get rid of the best democracy money can buy. But that is only my 2nd favourite solution. My first would be to ban all donations from companies or organisations, be they non-profit or not, and limit any personal donation to $50,000 (or £50,000, as it is no better in the UK). You may not get as many attack ads on the TV, but political parties would become a lot more accountable to their grass roots members, rather than lobbyists. Every man is guilty of all the good he did not do   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

8.  Re: The case for public funding of political   by David Flores       at Fri 7 Mar 8:49am score of 2.5 funny   in reply to comment 2     and limit any personal donation to $50,000 F*ck that. I say limit personal donations to $100.00 The limit should be something that almost all citizens can afford, in the spirit of "one man, one vote." And donations should further be limited to state or district residents for senate and congressional races. And all political and "issue" advertising should be paid for by the candidate from those same $100.00 contributions. This country's supposed to be a Democracy, not a Plutocracy. We need to get the money out of politics, and hand our government back to the people. GAFB and GAFB2   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   11.  Re: The case for public funding of political   by tdahnsn       at Fri 7 Mar 10:04am score of 2 interesting   in reply to comment 8     "And all political and 'issue' advertising should be paid for by the candidate from those same $100.00 contributions." How, exactly, would you enforce such a rule? Let's say I'm running for an office, and my opponent and I disagree on a particular issue. Can't my brother, who is not running for office, run any damn ad he wants? Can't some complete stranger run any damn ad they want? What about their rights to free speech? Or do only candidates get that right? What about "fringe" parties or opinions? Can't get on the ballot in a place where the restrictions on getting on the ballot are pretty steep? Too bad, no speech for you! You cannot preserve a thing by destroying it. "The limit should be something that almost all citizens can afford, in the spirit of 'one man, one vote.' And donations should further be limited to state or district residents for senate and congressional races." But then a very wealthy candidate who doesn't need any donations has a real advantage over a dedicated public servant who just happens to be poor. If you limit it to 100 dollars a donation, then it takes 10,000 donations to match $1,000,000 of a wealthy man's assets. Let's say it's a poor district, one specifically created by a well meaning state government to give voice to the concerns of the poorest residents of the state. A wealthy man could move there, buy up some land to make himself a resident of the district, and spend a fortune to buy himself a seat in congress. "This country's supposed to be a Democracy, not a Plutocracy." No, it's supposed to be a republic. And your proposal would make it much more of a plutocracy than it already is. If you want to get money out of politics then get politics out of money. Stop government from being able to so dramatically affect the bottom-line of each and every business and industrial concern and they'll stop buying your politicians. Why? What's the most callous thing you've said today?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   22.  Re: The case for public funding of political   by deeluxx       at Fri 7 Mar 12:13pm score of 1   in reply to comment 8     Don't you think they'd find a way around that? They'd simply make $100 contributions on behalf of all of their employees, the party would know where it came from.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   48.  Re: The case for public funding of political   by Koop       at Mon 10 Mar 12:58am score of 1   in reply to comment 8     Why does it really matter how much money these weasels get in 'campaign contributions'? No matter how many ads they put on TV, you still have a perfect right to vote for whoever the hell you please. My suggestion would be to quit bickering over how much dirty money should be allowed and not vote for these corrupt fucks. They can try to 'buy your vote', but you are under absolutely no obligation to sell. Great ideas are a dime a dozen and good ideas are free.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   23.  Re: The case for public funding of political   by David Flores       at Fri 7 Mar 12:30pm score of 1.5 funny   in reply to comment 11     How, exactly, would you enforce such a rule? Let's say I'm running for an office, and my opponent and I disagree on a particular issue. Can't my brother, who is not running for office, run any damn ad he wants? Can't some complete stranger run any damn ad they want? No. Not at the height of an election (say, six months leading up to the election). Before that time people can spend as much as they want to educate the public about their particular concerns regarding their pet issues. What about their rights to free speech? Their right to free speech is subservient, during the 6 months leading up to the election, to the Democratic principle of "one man, one vote." In other words, they have exactly the same free speech prerogatives as any schmo down at the bar who doesn't have $1,000,000 to burn on TV ads. What about "fringe" parties or opinions? Fringe parties would benefit greatly, since a $100.00 limit on campaign contributions would force all campaigns to become much more grass-roots oriented. Fringe parties will never be able to compete with Democrats and Republicans otherwise. Consider that George W. Bush burned through $100,000,000 in the primaries before he was even facing a Democratic opponent. No fringe party or idea con compete against that. But then a very wealthy candidate who doesn't need any donations has a real advantage over a dedicated public servant who just happens to be poor. If you limit it to 100 dollars a donation, then it takes 10,000 donations to match $1,000,000 of a wealthy man's assets. Yeah, but under my proposals the wealthy man would be barred from buying advertising with his own money. He could only spend what he raises. "This country's supposed to be a Democracy, not a Plutocracy." No, it's supposed to be a republic. Do you know what a Republic is? It's simply a nation with a head of state who is not a king. Yes, this nation is supposed to be a Republic. But it is also supposed to be a Democracy. And your proposal would make it much more of a plutocracy than it already is. No it wouldn't. You just didn't read my proposal closely enough. I repeat: "And all political and 'issue' advertising should be paid for by the candidate from those same $100.00 contributions." That means Donald Trump can't run $100,000,000 worth of ads to promote himself (unless, of course, he raises $100.00 from 1,000,000 people and spends the money only on advertising). Stop government from being able to so dramatically affect the bottom-line of each and every business and industrial concern and they'll stop buying your politicians. The government writes the laws, and some of those laws regulate businesses. So by definition, what you ask for is impossible without the dissolution of government itself. GAFB and GAFB2   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   24.  Re: The case for public funding of political   by David Flores       at Fri 7 Mar 12:34pm score of 1.5 funny   in reply to comment 22     Don't you think they'd find a way around that? They'd simply make $100 contributions on behalf of all of their employees, the party would know where it came from. That would be illegal. Only an individual could contribute to a candidate, and no "lump sum" contributions would be accepted. Any attempt to coerce contributions from employees would be punishable by fines and imprisonment. GAFB and GAFB2   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   25.  Re: The case for public funding of political   by tdahnsn       at Fri 7 Mar 12:44pm score of 1   in reply to comment 23     "Their right to free speech is subservient, during the 6 months leading up to the election, to the Democratic principle of "one man, one vote." In other words, they have exactly the same free speech prerogatives as any schmo down at the bar who doesn't have $1,000,000 to burn on TV ads." Which fucking part of "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; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." is confusing? You cannot abridge people's rights to express their opinions, particularly about politics. "Yeah, but under my proposals the wealthy man would be barred from buying advertising with his own money. He could only spend what he raises." Oh, so in addition to abridging the 1st Amendement you want to tell me I can't spend my money on something that is constitutionally protected? Fuck that! It's my money and I can spend it any way I want. I can go to a stripjoint and get my jollies, I can go to the bookstore and buy me some books, I can even go to a print shop and print my own, but you wanna tell me I can't spend money trying to get me some electing done? Nope. Not a fucking chance you can get that one stand up. "The government writes the laws, and some of those laws regulate businesses. So by definition, what you ask for is impossible without the dissolution of government itself." So Government is supposed to make protective tarrifs, write farm subsidies, give tax breaks for specific types of companies to make them more competitive against foreign companies, and tell a company how to keep their books? Why? What the hell has that got to do with government? It must be nice to have all the answers, but once in a while could you try to actually answer the questions you're asked? Why? What's the most callous thing you've said today?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   27.  The general welfare clause to the rescue!   by throwawayhack       at Fri 7 Mar 12:56pm score of 1.5 funny   in reply to comment 25     So Government is supposed to make protective tarrifs, write farm subsidies, give tax breaks for specific types of companies to make them more competitive against foreign companies, and tell a company how to keep their books? Why? What the hell has that got to do with government? with its friend, the interstate commerce clause ... okay, it's a bit of a stretch to funnel everything through those two clauses, but the Supreme Court says it's okay :)   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   28.  Re: The case for public funding of political   by gengee       at Fri 7 Mar 1:34pm score of 1   in reply to comment 11     How, exactly, would you enforce such a rule? Let's say I'm running for an office, and my opponent and I disagree on a particular issue. Can't my brother, who is not running for office, run any damn ad he wants? Can't some complete stranger run any damn ad they want? What about their rights to free speech? Or do only candidates get that right? What about "fringe" parties or opinions? Can't get on the ballot in a place where the restrictions on getting on the ballot are pretty steep? Too bad, no speech for you! You cannot preserve a thing by destroying it. Precisely. Under McCain-Feingold, which has just recently gone into effect in the U.S., they CANNOT run any ad they like. 60 days before the election, ONLY THE CANDIDATES can run ads. As I've railed many times in the past, it's a clear abridgement of free speech, one I hope will be struck down shortly.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   31.  Re: The case for public funding of political   by David Flores       at Fri 7 Mar 5:08pm score of 1   in reply to comment 25     Which fucking part of... blah, blah, blah My proposal would probably require a constitutional amendment. The jury is still out on that one. But, yes, the current supreme court would most likely strike such a radical proposal down. That's because the constitution as written has stronger guarantees for speech than for the principle of democratic equality as embodied in the idea of "one man, one vote." My proposal recognizes the fact that financially powerful individuals have an inordinate and disproportionate influence over the electoral process, and attempts to correct that injustice. So Government is supposed to make protective tarrifs, write farm subsidies, give tax breaks for specific types of companies to make them more competitive against foreign companies, and tell a company how to keep their books? Why? What the hell has that got to do with government? When did I say that government was "supposed" to do any of that? All I said is that any body that has the power to make laws will, perforce, be able to do that sort of thing. Don't put words into my mouth. You're arguing against a straw-man of your own invention. It must be nice to have all the answers, Yeah, it is pretty cool. GAFB and GAFB2   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   32.  Re: The case for public funding of political   by gordon shumway       at Fri 7 Mar 5:31pm score of 1   in reply to comment 31     What if the media is more sympathetic to one candidate over another, and gives him more favorable and more frequent coverage? Under your proposal a person couldn't compete by purchasing ads. "the constitution as written has stronger guarantees for speech than for the principle of democratic equality as embodied in the idea of "one man, one vote." My proposal recognizes the fact that financially powerful individuals have an inordinate and disproportionate influence over the electoral process, and attempts to correct that injustice." It's not an injustice, it is deliberate counterweight to the threat to democracy by 'tryanny of the mob'.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   34.  Re: The case for public funding of political   by David Flores       at Fri 7 Mar 6:19pm score of 1.5   in reply to comment 32     What if the media is more sympathetic to one candidate over another, and gives him more favorable and more frequent coverage? What if the media refuses to sell ads to one particular candidate? All the money in the word wouldn't do your candidate any good in that case. This is why it's important to avoid media consolidation. When half a dozen large corporations own 90% of media outlets the scenario you describe is much more likely than if there are a plurality of media outlets and columnists. It's not an injustice, it is deliberate counterweight to the threat to democracy by 'tryanny of the mob'. Giving the wealthy a greater voice in the political process than ordinary voters is in no way a counterbalance to the 'tyranny of the mob' whatever that is supposed to mean. GAFB and GAFB2   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   35.  Re: The case for public funding of political   by gordon shumway       at Fri 7 Mar 6:33pm score of 1   in reply to comment 34     Media consolidation is a separate issue, but it seems that if you decide to regulate the speech of candidates, corporations and individuals for the sake of 'fairness' then you also have to regulate the media for the same reason.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   38.  Re: The case for public funding of political   by David Flores       at Fri 7 Mar 9:28pm score of 1   in reply to comment 35     Media consolidation is a separate issue, but it seems that if you decide to regulate the speech of candidates, corporations and individuals for the sake of 'fairness' then you also have to regulate the media for the same reason. Media consolidation is a regulatory issue. GAFB and GAFB2   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   40.  Re: The case for public funding of political   by tdahnsn       at Sat 8 Mar 6:40am score of 1   in reply to comment 31     My proposal would probably require a constitutional amendment. Let's be very clear, your proposal would require the alteration of the first amendment protections for individual and press speech, freedom to assemble (since that's also involved with media presentations), and the right to air grievances (since that's what issue ads are against an incumbent candidate). Are you sure you want to be fucking with that? The freedom of speech is more important than 'one man, one vote', at least in our society. We have many groups which are not given the right to vote: children, some prisoners, some ex-convicts, some victims of mental illness. Interestingly, even a 15 year old developmentally impaired ex-convict is allowed to speak his opinion on any issue. Freedom of expression is and always has been more important, constitutionally. Why? What's the most callous thing you've said today?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   45.  Real problem: Corporate personhood   by crcreitz       at Sun 9 Mar 4:55pm score of 1   in reply to comment 11     Stop government from being able to so dramatically affect the bottom-line of each and every business and industrial concern and they'll stop buying your politicians. Insightful, but problematic. It is in the nature of government to have power over its citizens, corporate and private. Denying government coercive power over corporations leads to debacles like export processing zones or, for that matter, pre-revolutionary Cuba. Even the foamiest-at-the-mouth libertarian will probably agree that limiting national authority over corporations to be less than that exercised over individuals will mean abuses of corporations as shelters from the law. We already see some of that in the US as things stand. Limiting governmental power to levy tax burdens and crippling fines against abusive corporations would just make things much worse than they already are. Now the better strategy here is to decide that corporations really are not persons, contra Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad (1866). They would no longer have free-speech rights. Ban contributions from corporations. Problem solved, without any Constitution-amending hijinks ("But if we change the Constitution - " "We can make all kinds of crazy laws!"). entirely safe and fun: Very helpful!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   47.  Re: The case for public funding of political   by dolohov       at Sun 9 Mar 9:04pm score of 1   in reply to comment 11     How, exactly, would you enforce such a rule? Let's say I'm running for an office, and my opponent and I disagree on a particular issue. Can't my brother, who is not running for office, run any damn ad he wants? Can't some complete stranger run any damn ad they want? That's perfectly OK by me. As long as they don't hide behind some kind of political action group and have the guts to put their name on any ad, then by all means. But all these monetary contributions are getting ridiculous. What reason is there for a company to give a whole lot of money to both parties, and keep quiet about it, if not as a bribe?   If you want to get money out of politics then get politics out of money. Stop government from being able to so dramatically affect the bottom-line of each and every business and industrial concern and they'll stop buying your politicians. And how exactly does it affect your bottom line? By forcing car manufacturers to include seat belts? By building military bases near your factory and driving up the cost of labor? By gasp collecting taxes? Everything any government does affects somebody's bottom line, and those people are going to want to buy politicians, and we're still going to have this problem. "Carthago delenda est" -- Cato (in the world's first .sig)   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   49.  Re: The case for public funding of political   by tdahnsn       at Mon 10 Mar 6:37am score of 1   in reply to comment 47     Yes, but there's clearly a difference between valid regulation and pork-barrel spending and protective tarrifs. Taking your example of seat belts, we can see several things: first, that all companies are equally affected so it gives no auto manufacturer a competitive advantage to require seatbelts; second, it has demonstrable benefit to all consumers; lastly, it is not so outrageously expensive as to outweigh the benefit provided. Taxes, when properly calculated also pass similar reasonability tests. When some industries pay significanly lower taxes than others on the same income you have issues. Right now, it's much more cost effective to lobby congress than to pay your accountants to file your taxes. Bribing congress is less expensive than paying taxes. That's really the problem. The positioning of military bases is a great example of where the buy-ability of government is the problem, not the solution. Congress-critters want bases in their area to bring jobs. Industries want fewer bases in their area to prevent competing for jobs. But the purpose of a base should be - since it's a military base - military. Bases should be placed for logistic and strategic reasons, not to benefit a specific area's economy or to reduce competition for labor. The pentagon ought to be allocated a budget for bases and build where it makes sense, rather than where someone wants the base. Right now, because of the reach of our government, companies feel compelled to donate to candidates, pay for ads, and get involved in elections all so they can protect or create competitive advantages. Government should be much smaller. It shouldn't be able to create an environment where people grow unprofitable and unneeded crops because of the subsidies. It shouldn't be in the business of attempting to manipulate markets. In short, it should stick to national defense, the welfare of the people, and maintainance of public infrastructure. Why? What's the most callous thing you've said today?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   50.  Re: The case for public funding of political   by dolohov       at Mon 10 Mar 9:46am score of 1   in reply to comment 49     Yes, but there's clearly a difference between valid regulation and pork-barrel spending and protective tarrifs. You're right, although the definition of "pork-barrel" tends to vary. It would help a lot to know what, exactly, this bank was being fined for. Bribing Congress will always be less expensive than paying taxes for American corporations. Even if taxed at only 1% of revenue, most businesses will still be paying more in taxes than it would take to give bribes to multiple Congresscritters if they really are $20k a pop -- and that's assuming that only one corporation out of thousands has any desire for reduced taxes. So, while it would be nice to have a structural solution (Setting things up so that nobody wants to give bribes) that's unfortunately not the answer. Besides, we can't let our government policies be held hostage to the fear of bribery, keeping all taxes as low as possible, keeping trial awards as low as possible, reducing regulatory oversight, etc. There are legitimate reasons for doing all those things, but they need to be argued on their own merits and not on the basis of, "If we even consider this course of action, then we may be bribed one way or the other by people who are affected." It would be far better to have a good prevention and enforcement mechanism in place so that we can debate these issues only on the merits. "Carthago delenda est" -- Cato (in the world's first .sig)   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

3.  Cause and effect?   by eeksypeeksy       at Fri 7 Mar 7:16am score of 2.5 funny     So at what point is a bribe no longer a bribe, when you try to bribe both candidates in a race but only one wins? No matter who won, the winner was guaranteed to have received a generous donation from the company. A first payment. The winner might look forward to similar payments in the future -- politicians are always desperate for more campaign money -- but only if he was careful to stay friendly with that company. It's not a matter of a one-time payment, but the beginning of a long-term financial partnership. BUT: though I agree that politicians are bought and that it is bad and should be stopped and so on, in this case I'm not sure that the payment was a direct cause. The "aggressively business-friendly" (OK, eagerly business-fellating) Republicans would have reduced the fine with or without a contribution from that particular company. I would be more suspicious of the fine reduction if the winner (and fine-reducer) had been a Democrat.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

4.  Bribes or "protection"?   by rdww       at Fri 7 Mar 7:43am score of 1.5 witty     The news article is frustratingly vague on what made this company's insurance policies "illegal" in Minnesota, so we should reserve judgment for now. That having been said, bear in mind that corporate and special interest political "donations" have increased in direct proportion to swelling government intrusiveness in all aspects of our lives and livelihoods.       By the logic of most campaign finance reformers, merchants bullied into paying protection to the local Mafia don should be the only ones punished, for "corrupting the system."   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

5.  Not just Minnesota   by JC65       at Fri 7 Mar 7:58am score of 2.5 informative   in reply to comment 4     So far it's only Minnesota where alleged bribes took place, but ABIG is in trouble in more than one state: I am very gratified that American Bankers has now been held accountable for the previously agreed upon Compliance Plan which covers a wide range of business practices," Larsen said. "It is a testament to true cooperation, that 43 states and the District of Columbia worked together on this action to bring it to a successful conclusion. Now that the joint action is behind us, states can move forward to monitor their compliance issues with the company." States participating in the consent agreements are: Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington D.C., Washington state, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. The actions for which these states persued ABIG are (from the same source) During 1997 and 1998, a number of the states experienced similar regulatory problems with ABIG. As a result, the states began a multi-state market conduct action. In November 1998, the states jointly signed a Consent Order to resolve possible insurance code violations by ABIG. Under the Consent Order, ABIG agreed to pay states a monetary sanction of $15 million. Of this amount, $3 million was to be paid by ABIG after the states' on-site examination, if the results of the examination found that ABIG had not complied with the Consent Order. Based on the results of the most recent examination, ABIG will be sanctioned the additional $3 million. In addition to the monetary sanctions, ABIG agreed to conduct an audit of all transactions during the period of May 27 through Nov. 23, 1998, and pay any appropriate refunds or additional claim payments identified.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   14.  Re: Not just Minnesota   by rdww       at Fri 7 Mar 10:17am score of 1   in reply to comment 5     This grows more intriguing. Reading all of your information, we learn only that the insurer is in trouble for "regulatory problems." So what did ABIG actually DO?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   18.  Re: Not just Minnesota   by JC65       at Fri 7 Mar 10:40am score of 1.5 astute   in reply to comment 14     I was going to do more research, but then I had a second thought. What they did in the first place doesn't matter. I agree that all of the information seems vague, but that really isn't relevant to the fact that they seem to have bought their way into a more lenient settlement.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   7.  An offer they can't refuse.   by jbou       at Fri 7 Mar 8:42am score of 1.5 intriguing   in reply to comment 4     The government has regulations for a reason, calling it extortion is silly. Of course the politicians are to blame for catering to big business, they should have the guts to pass campaign finance laws that actually stop the flow of big money into politics, but we all know better then that. Arguments have no chance against petrified training; they wear it as little as the waves wear a cliff.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   15.  Re: An offer they can't refuse.   by rdww       at Fri 7 Mar 10:23am score of 1.5 astute   in reply to comment 7     "calling it extortion is silly." Actually it's surprisingly accurate. It provides a strong incentive for regulatory overreach. We see something similar in other aspects of our law enforcement environment, especially the War on Drugs. First, pass overlapping laws with hugely disproportionate penalties, and then dangle the prospect of dropping the more draconian punishments in return for "cooperation."       Aside from that, don't you think businesses really have better use for funds than being forced to buy "protection?"   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

6.  Business as usual   by iarnuocon       at Fri 7 Mar 8:18am score of 3 interesting     Chatsubo hits the nail squarely on the head when he says, "ban all donations from companies or organisations, be they non-profit or not, and limit any personal donation to $50,000 (or £50,000, as it is no better in the UK). You may not get as many attack ads on the TV, but political parties would become a lot more accountable to their grass roots members, rather than lobbyists." Throughout American history, the career of politicians has largely be self-enrichment through legislation and donations. This particular instance doesn't necessarily equate to "bribery" as in a direct payment for a specific action, but it certainly points out the general folly of pretending that corporations are engaged in "free speech" by unduly influencing campaigns with cash. Corporations are artificial persons that owe existence to the largesse of government (and, by extension, the people-- as we're supposed to be the ones from whom government derives power.) As artificial persons, corporations are no more owed a right to free speech than is a dog. In general, campaigns have been hijacked by these "persons" who have almost perpetual life and virtually unlimited funds when compared with the average citizen. Their decisions are based not so much on the desires of the individuals who work for them as on the desires of the few who stand to get rich from them. It's understandable that "personhood" should be extended to these organizations for the purposes of indemnity (otherwise you might find a janitor the target of a multi-million dollar lawsuit), but it does not necessarily follow that they be extended every benefit of the bill of rights. For example, do we want corporations extended the right to bear arms? It appears a much more fair solution (and more representative of the will of the people, to boot) to keep corporations out of politics, and turn the political process back over to individual citizens. And while we're at it, we could reign in some of the extensive cost of campaigning simply by forcing the television broadcasters to provide free air time to politicians. For god's sake, the airwaves belong to the people, not TV corporations. It's time they returned a little public service. Their broadcasting licenses aren't owed to them. Of course, these changes are as likely to happen as massive funding for alternative energy, universal healthcare, or GW Bush and Saddam Hussein attending a barbecue together at a gay rights rally. A history of Campaign Finance Reform insanus omnis furere credit ceteros... ecce signum   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

9.  Almost by Definition Bribery   by Philosawyer       at Fri 7 Mar 9:34am score of 3 compelling     By law the directors of a corporation owe the shareholders a fiduciary duty of loyalty. When expending money they must have made a determination that is in the interest of the shareholders to do so. By definition the money is given by a corporation with the intent and expectation that it be a quid pro quo, and that the return be greater than the investment. Now you might argue that the the donation is to the candidate that already favors their position and therefor isnt bribery, but even if you buy that, then it still doesnt work here since they were paying both sides of the election. Those corporations and wealthy individuals who donated in record amounts seem to have gotten there money back at the expense everyone else and huge debts passed on to future generations. The Bush administration apparently expect to reap the dividends of its own policy choices with political dontations expected to easily surpass the record set by Bush in 2000. Some Bush advisors believe they can raise more than twice as much as the 100 million record shattering amount raised in 2000. The marketing division of the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation defines a robot as "Your plastic pal who's fun to be with."   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

10.  not to put to fine a point on it....   by TurboDog       at Fri 7 Mar 9:41am score of 2.5 clever     Majority of Plasticians: Republicans are evil, they will sell us all to greedy corporate America. Minority of Plasticians: Oh yeah well democrats suck too, they will tax us to death and sell us out to labor unions. Turbodog: Politicians are all corrupt. Who the hell spends millions of dollars to get elected to an 80k a year job? Reduce the power, size and scope of the government and then far fewer people would be interested in buying these corrupt politicians. Your government should only exist to protect your basic rights, and to regulate the use of force. Why give them any more power than that? You should read Road to serfdom by F. A. Hayek or Human Action by Ludwig von Mises. blah blah blah........ 100% of Plasticians: Shut the hell up Turbo, I need to government to run X Y or Z or the sky will fall.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

12.  Re: not to put to fine a point on it....   by tdahnsn       at Fri 7 Mar 10:07am score of 0.5 irrelevant   in reply to comment 10     tdahnsn: Does anyone have a Hershey bar? Anarchocapitalists make me need one real bad. Why? What's the most callous thing you've said today?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   13.  Re: not to put to fine a point on it....   by bitekman       at Fri 7 Mar 10:14am score of 1   in reply to comment 12     bitekman: mmm....Abita Turbodog I'm full of bees...who died at sea -- Sparklehorse   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   17.  Re: not to put to fine a point on it....   by TurboDog       at Fri 7 Mar 10:36am score of 1   in reply to comment 12     Turbodog No need for that Hershey bar, I've always considered my self a Minarchist   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   16.  I miss NOLA   by TurboDog       at Fri 7 Mar 10:27am score of 1   in reply to comment 13     I wish I could find Abita beer in MI.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   21.  Re: I miss NOLA   by bitekman       at Fri 7 Mar 11:28am score of 1   in reply to comment 16     Well, if you ever drive out to chicago and head into evanston, there's an excellent rib place Merle's on Maple street. They have turbodog -- and they serve it in jars. I'm full of bees...who died at sea -- Sparklehorse   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   19.  I'm Confused   by uncarved block       at Fri 7 Mar 10:42am score of 1.5 astute   in reply to comment 10     So 'protecting our basic rights' is not included in your "X, Y or Z"? That's a nice way to try and exclude opposition by definition, but I'm not buying it.       I'm sure you're going to get a lot of heat from other Polymers, so I'll just throw in this little snippet. Is part of our "basic rights" the pursuit of happiness? If so, is the use of technology to improve the security of your individual commerce one of them? No government program forced debit cards on the citizenry-- folks like not having to carry around large sums of money, for simple security. Cards are better than checks, because you can deny a thief access quickly, by invalidating a number, whereas a check kiter can go days writing bad checks (in theory; in practice, checks are pretty much treated as guilty until proven innocent any more). So is it an intrusion to have a government big enough to secure a commercial this complex? Say, big enough to prevent (or at least attempt to) identity theft? Or would you prefer prosecution be handed over to the banks-- yeah, business would never abuse an authority like that . . .       Oh, and to be snarky, if living in a nation where folks drive to pick up their welfare checks is "serfdom", then I suspect 'freedom' is going to be mighty unpopular with about three quarters of the world population.       Yes, all politicians are corrupt, but it's our own damn fault if we keep electing them on the basis of their 'integrity' or 'honesty'. Every human system is corrupt; the pressing question is whether it works, and how well. Right now, I posit US citizens get more service for less money than anywhere else on the planet. Is it so hard to admit that the present might actually be OK? Eschew Obfuscation Assiduously   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   20.  Re: I'm Confused   by TurboDog       at Fri 7 Mar 11:09am score of 1   in reply to comment 19     Lets review. You're government should only exist to protect your basic rights, and to regulate the use of force. Why give them any more power than that? So how the hell did you get from that the banks should take over prosecution of identity theft? The use of force is what our government would exist to regulate. This would still include the courts and the cops, etc. Yes you are snarky, but who here isn't ;-)   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   26.  Re: I'm Confused   by throwawayhack       at Fri 7 Mar 12:51pm score of 1   in reply to comment 20     The use of force is what our government would exist to regulate ... But everything is based on the threat of force at the end ... I pay my credit card bills because if I don't Wells Fargo will send bailiffs to take all my stuff and if I don't let them do that then I'll get arrested. The Government's threat of force lies behind our civil society ...   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   30.  Re: I'm Confused   by MC Nally       at Fri 7 Mar 4:26pm score of 1   in reply to comment 26     But everything is based on the threat of force at the end .. He didn't say "eliminate" the use of force, he said "regulate." The bank can come and take your stuff by threat of force only when the law allows; they're not permitted to hire goons to take it whenever they feel like it.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   36.  Re: not to put to fine a point on it....   by MAYORBOB       at Fri 7 Mar 7:05pm score of 1.5 funny   in reply to comment 10     MAYORBOB: This reminds me of the time I was in the Mekong Delta, down to my last two rounds... Tending to final details.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   43.  Re: not to put to fine a point on it....   by xinot       at Sun 9 Mar 2:15am score of 1   in reply to comment 36     I hate it when I get to the end of a bottle, too.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   37.  Re: not to put to fine a point on it....   by velo       at Fri 7 Mar 7:42pm score of 1   in reply to comment 10     TurboDog, Of course governments exist in different forms all over the world, large and small, those that intrude on the lives of their citizenry more or less than others. In what country do YOU live? And what nations would you say have an appropriately sized government aka not too big or wielding too many powers? your student in serfdom, velo ----- where's the glory   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   41.  Re: not to put to fine a point on it....   by stankow       at Sat 8 Mar 9:04am score of 1   in reply to comment 10     Okay, so tell us what you'll cut. And not "bad stuff." Give us a precise definition of what programs, departments and services you believe the government shouldn't bother with anymore.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   42.  Re: not to put to fine a point on it....   by TurboDog       at Sat 8 Mar 3:29pm score of 1   in reply to comment 41     Oh lets start with a couple easy ones, HUD, ATF, and SS. The things I would cut are to many to name here. Please see the Citizens Against Government Waste 2002 pork book for a good start. a www.cagw.org link   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   46.  Re: not to put to fine a point on it....   by Nameless Cynic       at Sun 9 Mar 6:16pm score of 1   in reply to comment 42     Well, that's cool. Until you're downsized and end up in sub-standard housing with an absentee landlord, and the crack-dealing counterfeiters downstairs (with their collection of assault rifles and military-issue rocket launchers) blow the place up while mixing wood alcohol into their bathtub gin. Sentio aliquos togatos contra me conspirare   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

29.  It could go the other way...   by Djerrid       at Fri 7 Mar 2:42pm score of 1.5 intriguing     I've thought of writing a short near-future dystopia where corporations would give blanket raises or bonuses to all of its employees if a favored candidate won, claiming that if that candidate went into public office, it would be "in their best financial interest". Imagine if Walmart proposed this, with its 1,383,000 US employees. Or a consortium of Fortune 500 companies did this jointly. Would there be any laws barring this? In terms of Freedom of Expresion, how would this be different from their financial contributions to campaigns? If it is legal, the only reason companies don't already do this, besides the political relations nightmare would be that it is cheaper to pay off the politicans than their employees. 'In cases of major discrepancy, it's always reality that's got it wrong.' -Douglas Adams   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

33.  Re: It could go the other way...   by gordon shumway       at Fri 7 Mar 5:39pm score of 1   in reply to comment 29     That's 1,383,000 employees spread over 50 states, I don't see how they could any difference. And if the candidate the company asked them to vote for lost anyway, they would be screwed (which is why corporations spread donations to both parties).   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   39.  The reason companies don't do this...   by esme       at Sat 8 Mar 6:39am score of 1   in reply to comment 29     ...is because they don't have to. Fear of displeasing the boss, or the desire to get in his good graces, is a much more motivating factor, and less costly for the company than the promise of raises. Of course, companies don't use this intimidation to get votes from line workers -- but they do use it routinely to get financial contributions from employees that are then "bundled" and sent off to the party or candidate the boss supports.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

44.  WOW!   by choodak       at Sun 9 Mar 8:42am score of 1     That's a lot of tit for very little tat.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]