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

[alfred russel]

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

1989-2014 is 25 years of data, and the laws struck down by CU in 2009 went in effect in 2003. Do you really think that~6 year period would change things?

If you want 2014, here you go:

http://www.opensecrets.org/overview/toporgs.php

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

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

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.

Then let's compare to the current election cycle: http://www.opensecrets.org/overview/toporgs.php

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

Looks oddly similar.

[frunk]

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.

Then let's compare to the current election cycle: http://www.opensecrets.org/overview/toporgs.php

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

Looks oddly similar.

Top 2 spend about as much as the next 6 combined.  After that it flattens out considerably.  Positions 21-50 are dominated by Corps.

[Barrister]

Top 2 spend about as much as the next 6 combined.  After that it flattens out considerably.  Positions 21-50 are dominated by Corps.

And the top 6 (including the top 2 you identified) give their money almost exclusively to democrats.

[The Brain]

Top 2 spend about as much as the next 6 combined.  After that it flattens out considerably.  Positions 21-50 are dominated by Corps.

And the top 6 (including the top 2 you identified) give their money almost exclusively to democrats.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4a6YdNmK77k

[frunk]

Top 2 spend about as much as the next 6 combined.  After that it flattens out considerably.  Positions 21-50 are dominated by Corps.

And the top 6 (including the top 2 you identified) give their money almost exclusively to democrats.

Who the money is spent on is a different issue from that it being spent at all.  I'll also note that these amounts don't count 501(c).

For the record I'm not a fan of Unions being able to spend money on these types of contributions either, but the amount that they can throw around is dwarfed by the companies, and in practice their percentage of contributions is going down fast.

[The Brain]

CdM hasn't fit into his 501s since '94.

[MadImmortalMan]

Not a lot of republican money in that list. Corps tend to give to both sides too. Also, ActBlue spent fifteen times as much as Koch.

If I had money in a hedge fund and i found out they were giving to politics I'd call in my redemption asap.

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

For the record I'm not a fan of Unions being able to spend money on these types of contributions either, but the amount that they can throw around is dwarfed by the companies, and in practice their percentage of contributions is going down fast.

If you count Tom Steyer's hedge fund contribution as corporate it is $101,078,205 for corporations in that list vs. $68,260,195 for unions.  Remove Steyer[1] and the corporate slice drops to $80,732,613.  That is hardly "dwarfing" unions.

[1] Arguably, Steyer is running his own personal PAC rather than making corporate contributions.  I'm not sure which column his money should really go in.

[frunk]

If you count Tom Steyer's hedge fund contribution as corporate it is $101,078,205 for corporations in that list vs. $68,260,195 for unions.  Remove Steyer[1] and the corporate slice drops to $80,732,613.  That is hardly "dwarfing" unions.

[1] Arguably, Steyer is running his own personal PAC rather than making corporate contributions.  I'm not sure which column his money should really go in.

They have the potential to dwarf unions, I didn't say they are doing that right now.  I'm pretty sure that GE could spend much more on politics than the $2 million they are right now.  I doubt that most unions could spend much more.

[CountDeMoney]

CdM hasn't fit into his 501s since '94.

'98, fuck you very much.

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

They have the potential to dwarf unions, I didn't say they are doing that right now.  I'm pretty sure that GE could spend much more on politics than the $2 million they are right now.  I doubt that most unions could spend much more.

Of course they could, but why would they?  Corporations exist primarily to make money.  They aren't going to spend more money than they expect to gain from the action.  They certainly are not going to spend shitloads of money on social or moral issues that do not hit their bottom line, which unions will.

[frunk]

Of course they could, but why would they?  Corporations exist primarily to make money.  They aren't going to spend more money than they expect to gain from the action.  They certainly are not going to spend shitloads of money on social or moral issues that do not hit their bottom line, which unions will.

Of course not, they are primarily interested in taxation, zoning, things that effect corporations.  That's why their spending is usually pretty balanced between parties, and probably targeted pretty well at committee chairs for things that they are concerned about.  Who said that campaign contributions are only about social or moral issues?

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

Of course not, they are primarily interested in taxation, zoning, things that effect corporations.  That's why their spending is usually pretty balanced between parties, and probably targeted pretty well at committee chairs for things that they are concerned about.  Who said that campaign contributions are only about social or moral issues?

Nobody did, including me.  My point is that unions have more issues they want to spend money on than corporations.  Additionally, they raise money from people who want certain positions on those issues voiced rather than from people who want more money back in return.  Thus, the rational limit for spending on, and the money available specifically for, political contributions by corporations is lower than for unions (who are still concerned with taxation, zoning, and other such issues).

[alfred russel]

For the record I'm not a fan of Unions being able to spend money on these types of contributions either, but the amount that they can throw around is dwarfed by the companies, and in practice their percentage of contributions is going down fast.

If you count Tom Steyer's hedge fund contribution as corporate it is $101,078,205 for corporations in that list vs. $68,260,195 for unions.  Remove Steyer[1] and the corporate slice drops to $80,732,613.  That is hardly "dwarfing" unions.

[1] Arguably, Steyer is running his own personal PAC rather than making corporate contributions.  I'm not sure which column his money should really go in.

The difference in our categories seems to be that you considered hedge funds corps while I put them in their own category: because they aren't actually corporations.