To what extent has democracy in the US been subverted by money?

[CountDeMoney]

Government and lobbying cross-pollination is tricky, but private sector and government regulatory cross-pollination is even worse. 
The conflict of interest is obscene, and usually the only requirement is a financial statement and a divestiture of stock.

[dps]

How do you propose to get around the "free speech of corporations" issue?

I propose no restrictions for corporations that I don't propose for individuals, so no problems there.

You proposed no contributions to a campaign for an office for which the contributer can't vote.  The Supreme Court has equated contributions (and other forms of spending) to free speech.  Since we are free to speak about elections that we can't vote in, banning us from contributing to them wouldn't pass constitutional muster.  In this case, the contitutional problem has nothing to do with the issue of the corporation as a legal artificial person.

That said, I do like your idea, just don't think it would get by the Supremes.

[grumbler]

You proposed no contributions to a campaign for an office for which the contributer can't vote.  The Supreme Court has equated contributions (and other forms of spending) to free speech.  Since we are free to speak about elections that we can't vote in, banning us from contributing to them wouldn't pass constitutional muster.  In this case, the contitutional problem has nothing to do with the issue of the corporation as a legal artificial person.

That said, I do like your idea, just don't think it would get by the Supremes.

As i munderstand it (particularly Buckley v. Valeo and Citizens United) the supreme Court has ruled that campaign spending is speech, not campaign contributions.  The court upheld restrictions on contributions, but not on campaign or independent spending.  I think (though could be convinced otherwise by JR or someone else who is more knowledgeable than I) that my rules stay on the right side of the USSC's rulings.

[dps]

You proposed no contributions to a campaign for an office for which the contributer can't vote.  The Supreme Court has equated contributions (and other forms of spending) to free speech.  Since we are free to speak about elections that we can't vote in, banning us from contributing to them wouldn't pass constitutional muster.  In this case, the contitutional problem has nothing to do with the issue of the corporation as a legal artificial person.

That said, I do like your idea, just don't think it would get by the Supremes.

As i munderstand it (particularly Buckley v. Valeo and Citizens United) the supreme Court has ruled that campaign spending is speech, not campaign contributions.  The court upheld restrictions on contributions, but not on campaign or independent spending.  I think (though could be convinced otherwise by JR or someone else who is more knowledgeable than I) that my rules stay on the right side of the USSC's rulings.

Hm.  Yes, I think you are probably correct and I mis-remembered. 

[CountDeMoney]

Study: Citizens United elected more Republicans
WashingtonPost GovBeat


The 2010 Supreme Court decision that helped usher in a new era of political spending gave Republicans a measurable advantage on Election Day, according to a new study.

The advantage isn't large, but it is statistically significant: The researchers found the ruling, in Citizens United v. FEC, was associated with a six percentage-point increase in the likelihood that a Republican candidate would win a state legislative race.

And in six of the most affected states — Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, North Carolina, Ohio and Tennessee — the probability that a Republican would be elected to a state legislative seat increased by 10 percentage points or more.

In five other states — Colorado, Iowa, Texas, Wisconsin and Wyoming — Republican candidates were seven percentage points more likely to win.



"Citizens United has given corporations and labor unions new means of influencing political elections," researchers Tilman Klumpp of the University of Alberta, Hugo Mialon of Emory University and Michael Williams of Competition Economics wrote in their paper, "The Business of American Democracy: Citizens United, Independent Spending and Elections."

Before the ruling, labor unions were more freely able to spend on campaigns and elections. But by freeing corporations to spend their own money, the study found, "Citizens United has, on balance, increased the political influence of corporations relative to that of unions."

The study focused on 22 states where bans on independent expenditures by corporations and labor unions were overturned by the Supreme Court's ruling. The remaining 28 states, which never had bans on independent expenditures, serve as control states.

In the 22 states where independent expenditures were suddenly allowed, Republicans took advantage. The Republican State Leadership Committee raised about $30 million in 2010 through its RedMap program, targeting states such as Colorado, Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas and Wisconsin. The RSLC spent about $1 million each in Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania, all of which swung to Republican control after 2010.

Other conservative groups, organized under section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code, spent heavily in North Carolina, Montana, Colorado and Tennessee, all states where Republicans made gains. The bulk of those groups raised funds from corporations and other politically active groups, such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

The researchers also found evidence that the ruling led to an increase in the number of Republicans who ran for reelection, and a decrease in the number of Democrats who ran for office, especially in state House races. One Democratic candidate dropped out of about every 10th race in states affected by Citizens United, the researchers found.

Spending by outside groups, dubbed "super PACs" in the wake of the Citizens United decision, exploded between 2010, when those PACs were created, and 2012, when they established themselves near the top of the political hierarchy. Business contributions to the 10 largest super PACs multiplied from about $35 million in 2010 to more than $345 million in 2012, the researchers found.

The 2010 midterm elections were a huge boost to Republicans nationally, and at the state level. Republicans won control of 53 state legislative chambers that year, 20 more than they controlled before Election Day. Just 15 Republican state legislators lost reelection bids that year, compared with 492 Democrats who found themselves out of jobs.

[jimmy olsen]

Good question.  I have no plan.  But you shouldn't point your finger at something that's not a problem, because you don't know how to fix something that is a problem.

I guess I don't understand the problem with the people.  We were just as shitty a hundred years ago when the system functioned much better.  In fact we were far worse.  So if the people have not gotten worse and the system has become more corrupt how can you point your finger at the people?

Worse in what way?  Certainly not when it comes to partisanship, and tailoring your views on all issues to match the views of the party you favor more.  Look at presidential election maps from the beginning of 20th century to now.  Notice how they become incredibly more predictable as you get to 21st century?

I think that the brave new world of media is really damaging to democracy, ironically enough.  Media by its nature is extremely biased, in that it needs to report things that rile people up.  When you have much more of that media, you have much more of riling up.  Eventually you put people in echo chambers that way.

Are you historically illiterate? They people were much more partisan at the turn of the 20th century then they are now. The Solid South was far more democratic than it has ever been republican since Nixon.

[MadImmortalMan]

I was under the impression that CU treated unions and corporations as essentially the same.

[CountDeMoney]

Eric Cantor joins Wall Street investment firm, will open Washington office
washingtonpost.com

Former House majority leader Eric Cantor is joining a Wall Street investment bank as vice chairman and managing director, the firm announced this morning.

The firm, Moelis & Co., said Cantor will be based in the New York office of the global company and will soon open an office in Washington. Moelis, with 500 employees, is known as a fast-growing "boutique" firm that advises companies and investors on mergers, acquisitions and risk.

It will use Cantor, 51, to help it compete for business, according to the Wall Street Journal, which broke the story. He will also advise corporate clients on takeovers and "other deals," the Journal reported.

Cantor, a lawyer, does not have a Wall Street background, though he was considered a friend of Wall Street in Congress. According to data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics, individuals and committees associated with the securities and investment business were the leading donors among industries to Cantor's reelection bid, giving a combined total of about $1.4 million during the primary election cycle in 2013 and 2014.

The figure is not unusual for a member of the Republican leadership in Congress. Nor is it unusual for a former member or outgoing high-ranking official in an administration to go to work for a Wall Street firm or to represent banking interests in Washington law firms.

Cantor, a lawyer, worked in the family real estate development business before becoming a member of Congress in 2001.

Moelis & Co. describes itself as "a leading global independent investment bank that provides innovative strategic advice and solutions to a diverse client base, including corporations, governments and financial sponsors."

According to the company's Web site, its clients have included "entities" related to the government of Dubai, which it advised on debt restructuring. Since its founding in 2007, it has also advised on a number of mergers and acquisitions, including Berkshire Hathaway's purchase of Heinz, the sale of Anheuser-Busch to InBev and Hilton's sale to the Blackstone Group.

Cantor was unexpectedly defeated in his district's June primary election by a little-known college professor, David Brat.

According to the Journal, Cantor and Moelis have known each other for more than three years. Cantor told the paper the two men were having brunch with their wives in Los Angeles in July and began talks at that time that led to the job.

In a statement issued by the company early this morning, Cantor said: "When I considered options for the next chapter of my career, I knew I wanted to join a firm with a great entrepreneurial spirit that focused on its clients. I have known Ken for some time and having followed the growth and success of his firm, I have long admired his vision and leadership. The new model of independent banks offering conflict free advice, in a smaller more intimate environment, was a place where I knew my skills could help clients succeed."

[Jacob]

I was under the impression that CU treated unions and corporations as essentially the same.

That may be true, but it seems that there are order of magnitudes more cash available from corporations.

[alfred russel]

I was under the impression that CU treated unions and corporations as essentially the same.

That may be true, but it seems that there are order of magnitudes more cash available from corporations.

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php

Top political donors 1989-2014:

1. PAC
2. Union
3. Union
4. Corp
5. Trade Association
6. Union
7. Corp
8. Union
9. Union
10. Union
11. Union
12. Union
13. Union
14. Union
15. Corp
16. Union
17. Union
18. Corp
19. Corp
20. Trade Association

[frunk]

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php

Top political donors 1989-2014:

1. PAC
2. Union
3. Union
4. Corp
5. Trade Association
6. Union
7. Corp
8. Union
9. Union
10. Union
11. Union
12. Union
13. Union
14. Union
15. Corp
16. Union
17. Union
18. Corp
19. Corp
20. Trade Association

What's the point of munging data from before and after Citizens United rather than comparing the shift between the two?

[alfred russel]

What's the point of munging data from before and after Citizens United rather than comparing the shift between the two?

I just did a search and picked the first link that came up. My understanding is that it won't change the overall result, especially since what citizens united struck down was only in effect a short time.

[Barrister]

I was under the impression that CU treated unions and corporations as essentially the same.

That may be true, but it seems that there are order of magnitudes more cash available from corporations.

However corporations usually have to spend those orders of magnitude more on actually running their businesses.  Unions, however, have virtually no costs beyond their own staffs.  As AR has pointed out they are very big donors.

[frunk]

I just did a search and picked the first link that came up. My understanding is that it won't change the overall result, especially since what citizens united struck down was only in effect a short time.

The contention is that CU changed the landscape for Corps and political spending.  This is taking data from 21 years before the ruling and lumping it in with 4 years of data from after the ruling.  The issue isn't the total amount spent over this time (of which the predominance of the data points are from before the ruling), but the difference between the two periods.

[Jacob]

I just did a search and picked the first link that came up. My understanding is that it won't change the overall result, especially since what citizens united struck down was only in effect a short time.

The contention is that CU changed the landscape for Corps and political spending.  This is taking data from 21 years before the ruling and lumping it in with 4 years of data from after the ruling.  The issue isn't the total amount spent over this time (of which the predominance of the data points are from before the ruling), but the difference between the two periods.

And this is why Dorsey would never be mistaken for an actuary.