Skip to main content

View Diary: One Man's Attempt To F*** Up The Planet (66 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  LaFem - but they didn't need CU to do that (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nextstep

    Media moguls in the US have been providing campaign benefits through their news, as well as their editorial, pages back to the time the Constitution was drafted and ratified. It's a long tradition interrupted by a short period from 1950-1990 when actual journalism prevailed.

    Is there any evidence that News Corp itself has been funding independent expenditures on behalf of candidates in the US?

    "let's talk about that" uid 92953

    by VClib on Thu Jul 24, 2014 at 10:09:19 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  It facilitates, and will lead to further (6+ / 0-)

      "I decided it is better to scream. Silence is the real crime against humanity." Nadezhda Mandelstam

      by LaFeminista on Thu Jul 24, 2014 at 10:16:37 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  LaFem - those aren't corporate contributions (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        nextstep

        Corporations can't make campaign contributions of any amount. They are prohibited by The Tillman Act of 1907, which is still in full force and effect. The data on OpenSecrets, which I admit is very misleading, are contributions by individual employees who work for News Corp, directly or through PACs. They aren't corporate contributions which would be illegal. Corporations can fund independent expenditures directly or through groups.

        "let's talk about that" uid 92953

        by VClib on Thu Jul 24, 2014 at 10:57:28 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I said above they cannot give directly (5+ / 0-)

          and the difference between private and corporate is often blurred in a corps Like News corps, they fund both sides for influence.

          Finding the money is very difficult as you well know and rulings such as citizens untited make it easier than ever.

          Just look  at how Heatland is funded and then their "research" is used its a money merry go round

          "I decided it is better to scream. Silence is the real crime against humanity." Nadezhda Mandelstam

          by LaFeminista on Thu Jul 24, 2014 at 11:14:19 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  dissent (5+ / 0-)

          1) The Tillman Act of 1907 is effectively moot in the wake of CU and McCutcheon.

          2) OpenSecrets is very detailed and specific. They do differentiate between corporate contributions and the aggregated contributions by individual employees. It is not very misleading. You just have to read it well.

          "As soon as the land of any country has all become private property, the landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never sowed, and demand a rent even for its natural produce." - Adam Smith: The Wealth of Nations

          by ozsea1 on Thu Jul 24, 2014 at 12:17:28 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  oz - the Tillman Act isn't moot at all (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ozsea1

            I wrote a diary about it which you can find here:

            http://www.dailykos.com/...

            I'll go back and take another look at Open Secrets. I may have misread the information on News Corp. However, as it related to candidates for federal office corporations cannot make any campaign contributions.

            "let's talk about that" uid 92953

            by VClib on Thu Jul 24, 2014 at 02:49:17 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I read that diary, and it was a good one! (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              patbahn

              But CU and McCutcheon make it much easier for corporations, through their front groups and thinktanks to end run around it, making it moot for all practical real world purposes.

              "As soon as the land of any country has all become private property, the landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never sowed, and demand a rent even for its natural produce." - Adam Smith: The Wealth of Nations

              by ozsea1 on Thu Jul 24, 2014 at 03:47:25 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  oz - McCutheon applies only to individuals (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                ozsea1

                because McCutheon is exclusively about individual contributions to formal campaign committees. Each contribution is limited to the two year maximum of $5,200. There is no way for corporations to play in the McCutheon game. There is no doubt that it further empowers the wealthy who can now contribute about $3 million each per campaign cycle.

                Citizens United clearly makes it much easier for corporations to engage in political activity, particularly in organized groups. They can spend unlimited amounts for independent expenditures although we really haven't seem corporations as big players yet as opposed to very wealthy individuals who have been. I personally don't think we will see many of the Fortune 500 active in funding independent expenditures.

                My only point was that if you have a media empire like Murdoch, in the US you don't need anything else to influence politics. CU doesn't add much to your arsenal.

                "let's talk about that" uid 92953

                by VClib on Thu Jul 24, 2014 at 04:01:39 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (131)
  • Community (66)
  • Elections (25)
  • Environment (24)
  • Media (23)
  • Culture (22)
  • Civil Rights (22)
  • Science (21)
  • Law (21)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (21)
  • Josh Duggar (20)
  • Labor (19)
  • Economy (17)
  • Marriage Equality (17)
  • Ireland (17)
  • Bernie Sanders (16)
  • 2016 (15)
  • Rescued (15)
  • Hillary Clinton (15)
  • Climate Change (15)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site