Skip to main content

View Diary: Huff Post breaks ANOTHER bailout story: Reform groups demand investigation! (168 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Dead Wrong (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    slinkerwink, bronte17, swampus

    It's a handout to corporate treasuries.  And corporate treasury money can not be used as donations to candidates or parties.  It CAN be used to lobby or run PR campaigns, and that issue should be addressed, but it's not an issue addressed in the Durbin-Specter legislation, which is focused on funding candidate campaigns.  

    "Dignified people, without a whimsical streak, almost never offer fresh insights, in economics or anywhere else." Paul Krugman

    by Dana Houle on Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 12:39:48 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Compare and contrast: (5+ / 0-)

      Mataliandy: "If we ever want the government to prioritize the needs of rank and file citizens, we must make those citizens the campaign donors."

      Huff Post: "Donations of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars were needed, it was argued...'If a retailer has not gotten involved in this, if he has not spent money on this election, if he has not sent money to [former Sen.] Norm Coleman and all these other guys, they should be shot. They should be thrown out their goddamn jobs,' Marcus declared...Earlier he argued: 'As a shareholder, if I knew the CEO of the company wasn't doing anything on [EFCA]... I would sue the son of a bitch... I'm so angry at some of these CEOs, I can't even believe the stupidity that is involved here.'"

      Fact: Corporations pay CEO's (including paying them bonuses, sometimes post-bailout money). There are a multitude of other ways corporate money finds its way into campaigns.

      Overly literal comment from DHinMI: "corporate treasury money can not be used as donations to candidates or parties."

      Me: That's the kind of argument I expect from the Chamber of Commerce. The poo-poo'ing by a blogger I respect of this obvious example of special interest money being used to buy political influence is kind of astounding.

      •  "Overly Literal" (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        slinkerwink

        Aren't laws and legislation literal?

        Are you trying to connect feel good nostrums or a need for a legal solution to a concrete problem?

        I can't wait for the law professor to take issue with my insistence on clarifying how the legislation is irrelevant to the problem.

        "Dignified people, without a whimsical streak, almost never offer fresh insights, in economics or anywhere else." Paul Krugman

        by Dana Houle on Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 12:53:14 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  yes! (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Data Pimp, JVolvo, dewley notid

          "Hey everybody! The law says corporations can't give to campaigns. So, trust that. There's no way corporations can give to campaigns! Issue over!"

          Right... see opensecrets.org for the millions of dollars and multitude of ways money flows from corporations to campaigns.

          •  Now You've Descended In to Stupidty (0+ / 0-)

            So, is your argument that no laws are ever enforced?  Or the substance of the law doesn't matter?  

            Do you even retain an argument anymore?

            Don't insult our intelligence.  If you think corporations give money directly to candidates, you've obviously never worked on a campaign, because there's no way any campaign would cash a check from a corporation; it's an obvious and easily found campaign finance violation and would be flagged in a nanosecond by the FEC.  

            And if you think that corporations do whatever they want, regardless of the law, there's no reason for you to advocate any legislation.  

            And I ask yet again, where's Lessig?  Is he in a six hour meeting?  

            I sure hope he has a better argument in favor of this stupid donor strike than the weak shit you're bringing to the table.  

            "Dignified people, without a whimsical streak, almost never offer fresh insights, in economics or anywhere else." Paul Krugman

            by Dana Houle on Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 03:50:56 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  geez (5+ / 0-)

              Already answered this. (Are you reading the comments? Ignoring them?)

              This was a meeting of corporate EXECUTIVES who ARE ALLOWED TO GIVE money to campaigns, and can give to corporate PACs who can give to campaigns...and who are paid by corporations (in some cases, who are paid in bonuses that come post bail-out).

              According to your logic, these millions of dollars from the financial industry to candidates on opensecrets.org do not exist. But guess what? You're wrong. You are flatly wrong. These contributions do exist. And the ability for them to continue is still there...until we fundamentally reform our system of funding congressional campaigns.

              P.S. Your willingness to throw insults is now formally unbecoming.

              •  Continuing to Avoid Answering How The Durbin... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                slinkerwink

                ...Specter bill would deal with the use/misuse of TARP funds doesn't mean that eventually the bill will deal with the TARP funds.  It simply means that you have done exactly what I said you've done, which is glom on to one problem and tout your solution, even though the solution doesn't address the proximate problem; iow, you've deceived people with a bait-and-switch.  

                And again I ask, where's Lessig?  Does he even know about the existence of this diary in which he hasn't yet participated?  

                Does he care so little about the Daily Kos community that he thinks he doesn't need to interact with kossacks in the comment threads?  Is he OK with using the good will of the community but not interacting with it?  Or are you making these decisions unilaterally, thus bringing bad attention to him?  Because this certainly makes him look like all those run-of-the-mill politicians who "post" diaries at DKos that are really nothing more than press releases written and posted by their staff.  

                "Dignified people, without a whimsical streak, almost never offer fresh insights, in economics or anywhere else." Paul Krugman

                by Dana Houle on Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 04:22:28 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  And If You Answer That the Linkage... (0+ / 0-)

                ...is that TARP money is being used to pay people who then use some portion of their pay for campaign donations, then you need to explain why you're not also calling for the end of pay, or profits, or whatever, because the Durbin bill doesn't prohibit people from maxing out to candidates and it doesn't require candidates to use public funding.  You may also explain how it deals only with contributions from corporate executives but not from lower-level corporate employees.  

                "Dignified people, without a whimsical streak, almost never offer fresh insights, in economics or anywhere else." Paul Krugman

                by Dana Houle on Thu Jan 29, 2009 at 04:26:46 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site