Skip to main content

View Diary: AT&T Donates 75K To Anti-Gay Greg Abbott For His Campaign For Texas Governor (21 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  If that's true, (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    AJayne

    it's very odd that it is called "AT&T Pac."

    •  It is true, by law (0+ / 0-)

      There are no corporate contributions to company PACs. For candidates for federal office, and in many states, corporations are prohibited by law from making contributions to the campaigns of candidates for office. On the federal level The Tillman Act of 1907 outlawed corporate contributions for candidates for federal office, and is still on the books and rigorously enforced. What corporations can do is fund independent expenditures. Those are direct corporate actions using corporate cash. ALL corporate PACs consist of only employee contributions so that they can give to actual campaign committees.

      Campaign finance can be highly complex, but this is 101 level rules and regs.

      "let's talk about that" uid 92953

      by VClib on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 08:58:45 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I think that is irrelevant here. (0+ / 0-)

        It doesn't matter whether the contributors are employees, executives and shareholders. The contributions from this PAC (and, I'm sure others of a corporate nature) are to further AT&T business interests (just as their lobbying efforts do). And, the corporation (in the form of its management) approves the expenditures/contributions.

        •  Rick - it's very relavant (0+ / 0-)

          because PAC contributions, and even individual campaign contributions to candidates, are routinely described or implied as corporate contributions. It's a false characterization and when people write about campaign contributions they should clearly state that X amount was given by the AT&T PAC and Z amount by other employees of AT&T. How people typically write about it is to  lump together the PAC and individual contributions and state candidate Y received the total of X plus Z from AT&T. That isn't accurate, if true the contributions would be illegal, and makes a statement or inference that is misleading.

          Staying true to our fact based standards here all I ask is that when people write about campaign finance they do so accurately.

          "let's talk about that" uid 92953

          by VClib on Tue Aug 19, 2014 at 04:43:03 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I don't agree with you. (0+ / 0-)

            This is an AT&T contribution for all intents and purposes, regardless of whether or not the corporation actually contributed to the PAC -- that's why they call it the AT&T PAC. If it walks like a duck ...

            You and I simply do NOT see eye to eye on this.

            •  It's not the same at all for numerous reasons (0+ / 0-)

              It's called the AT&T PAC because it is made up of exclusively AT&T employees. The key difference is that the PAC is not under control of the corporation and CANNOT include corporate cash. It is inaccurate to describe the AT&T PAC, or any other similar PAC, as a corporate entity. They are not legally or in how they are managed. In any event people who write about campaign contributions should be clear that contributions are from PACs and individuals, and NOT corporations. Most writers here, and on the Internet, try to blur the distinction.

              "let's talk about that" uid 92953

              by VClib on Wed Aug 20, 2014 at 05:45:42 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site