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

[The Minsky Moment]

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 21-50 is likely indicative of a very long tail of corporate contributions.  There are only a few really significant unions, but there are lots and lots of corporations that are interested in swaying politicians on issues that matter to them.

The second fallacy with the list is that it excludes 501(c)'s - it even uses bold type to make sure everyone understands this.   That is kind of important considering Citizens United was a 501(c) organization.  The game here is that pseudo non-profits like CU don't disclose their donor lists, so the decision allows an end run around the usual requirement of transparency in political contributions.

[The Minsky Moment]

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

So?
How does that disprove the premise of this thread?

[frunk]

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).

The rational limit for spending is much higher than the amount that is currently being spent.  If a tax change can save a company billions it wouldn't have a problem with spending 100s of millions to obtain it.  Right now it doesn't have to, the going rate is much cheaper than that.

[Siege]

Ah dam it. I can't believe I missed this thread.

[Jacob]

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

So?
How does that disprove the premise of this thread?

Yeah, wasn't the premise that both the Democrat and Republicans ultimately serve some fairly similar moneyed interests, and if you disagree with those you're SOL?

[Berkut]

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

So?
How does that disprove the premise of this thread?

Yeah, wasn't the premise that both the Democrat and Republicans ultimately serve some fairly similar moneyed interests, and if you disagree with those you're SOL?

Of course - but as we've seen from both sides in this very thread, it is incredibly hard to get the tribe members to think about any of this objectively, which of course is exactly what the money wants.

It is part of the game where they buy politicians, and then let the gullible believe they are engaging in a meaningful political fight over critical issues.

[Siege]

What is the meaning of SOL?

Servant of liberty? Son of a leech?
Survivor of life?

[Savonarola]

What is the meaning of SOL?

Servant of liberty? Son of a leech?
Survivor of life?

Sorry out of luck

("Son of a leech" is great.  When I write the story of a 1920s mild mannered pharmacist by day, vigilante by night, that will be one of his insults.)

[Admiral Yi]

I use it to mean shit out of luck.

[DGuller]

It is part of the game where they buy politicians, and then let the gullible believe they are engaging in a meaningful political fight over critical issues.

  I think Berkut's level of argument sophistication has finally gone down to the "Ron Paulite spamming the Yahoo! news comments section" level.

[Ed Anger]

I'm willing to be subverted for a Klondike Bar.

[grumbler]

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.

$101 million to $68 million sounds like "dwarfing" to me.  Now, the argument that contributions to Republicans dwarf contributions to Democrats doesn't work, because not all unions contribute to Democrats nor all corporations to Republicans, but that's a separate issue.

The real concern on my part is that donations from artificial people dwarf donations from real people, creating the perception, and perhaps the reality, that politicians (of both stripes) are beholden to artificial people more than to real people. 

[garbon]

http://news.yahoo.com/shut-already-senate-dems-want-amend-constitution-stop-225020824.html

Democratic Senators said Monday the Constitution must be amended, because people like Charles and David Koch must be stopped from flooding TV with negative ads Americans don't want to see.

"A handful of super rich donors and giant corporations are now flooding our elections and determining entire narratives of closely contested races," Robert Weissman, president of Public Citizen, said in a press conference Monday. "The American people are furious with the state of campaign finance in this country. They can't stand the negative advertisements that are dominating the airways."

Senator Amy Klobuchar agreed. "This Congress forgets what the people really care about," she said. "They don't want to see these ads. They don't want to see this outside money."

"These negative, poisonous, untruthful ads have just proliferated," echoed Sen. Al Franken, and the American people "know this is wrong."

The proposed amendment, sponsored by Democratic Sen. Tom Udall, would give Congress broad power to shape campaign finance laws. It would effectively overturn the Supreme Court's 2010 ruling in Citizens United v. FEC and 2014 ruling in McCutcheon v. FEC, which struck down laws restricting when corporations and unions can spend money on elections, and how much individuals can donate to candidates in a two-year period.

This is "the most important issue to Americans in years," added Sen. Bernie Sanders. "If people think this is some kind of esoteric issue, not related to jobs, the economy, and wages, and women's rights, and income and wealth inequality, and healthcare and global warming, you are deadly wrong."

"Why do people like the Koch brother's spend hundreds of millions of dollars?" he continued. "If you understand what they stand for, and that is to end, do away with social security, do away with medicare, do away with medicaid do away with the concept of the minimum wage, do away with the environmental protection agency — that is the struggle. They have an agenda."

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse also pointed to the Koch Brothers as a reason for amending the Constitution, and accused them of coercing Republicans into giving up on climate change legislation. Before Citizens United, the Republicans had a candidate for president willing to have a climate change plan, he said, and brought a carbon regulations bill to the Senate floor. But now "the Koch brothers, the biggest polluters in this country have gotten together, and they've silenced them."

"That is not adding to debate," he continued. "That is not adding to democracy. That is the force of money, as bullying as coercion, as bribery, as influence peddling in all the wrong ways. It is not freedom of speech. It is not the first amendment."

Republicans have criticized the proposed amendment as an attack on free speech at a time Democrats are afraid of losing their Senate majority. "The proposal they want to consider would empower incumbent politicians to write the rules on who gets to speak and who doesn't," Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell wrote in an op-ed Monday. "And while no one likes to be criticized, the way for Senate Democrats to avoid it is to make better arguments, or even better, to come up with better ideas — not shut up their constituents."

Congress is scheduled to vote on the amendment Monday night, which has almost no chance of passing.

This article struck me as very strange. Americans don't want to see these ads and now "it is wrong" and yet we have no choice but to mindlessly watch/follow them?

Also, love that last bit. Glad to see Congress is spending its time wisely.

[Jacob]

I use it to mean shit out of luck.

Something we agree on! 

[frunk]

This article struck me as very strange. Americans don't want to see these ads and now "it is wrong" and yet we have no choice but to mindlessly watch/follow them?

Also, love that last bit. Glad to see Congress is spending its time wisely.

Yeah, it sounds like they are phrasing the amendment to insure maximum opposition while drumming up support for themselves.