Obama vs. the Supreme Court.

[ziggy]

Labor Unions CANNOT compete with the large pockets of some of our largest corporations.  If a politician is running on wall street reform heavy a Goldman Sachs can pump unheard of dollars into the opposing candidate.  Now if a Pro-Business Candidate was running and his policies hurt workers would the labor unions really be able to spend as much as top multi-national corporations?  Let's be serious here.  It changes the landscape quite a bit.  The flood gates of money is going to open and so will the influence.  I don't get how you see this as either a good ruling or one that doesn't matter because 'it did nothing to change' the political landscape.

In Oregon we just had a 2 ballot measures to raise taxes on individuals earning more the $125,000 and couple earning $250,000, and on C Corporations by instituting a revenue tax for those C Corps that pay no income tax because they recorded a tax loss.  Both passed.

Total amount spent by the proponents of the tax increases was $6.8 million, total spent by the opponents was $4.6 million.  Here is a breakdown of the largest contributors.

For
Contributor     Amount
Oregon Education Association[29]    $1.65 million
SEIU Local 503    $850,000
Oregon AFT Political and Legislative Action Network PAC    $400,000
Oregon Health Care Association    $229,200
American Federation of Teachers    $100,000
Oregon School Employees Association    $75,000
Nurses United PAC    $30,000
Alida Rockefeller Mesinger[33]    $25,000
Senate Democratic Leadership Fund[44]    $20,000
Oregon Senate President Peter Courtney[34]    $10,000

Against
Contributor     Amount
Associated Oregon Industries PAC    $357,000
Oregon Bankers Association    $150,000
Nike Chairman Phil Knight    $150,000
Columbia Sportswear CEO Tim Boyle[33]    $75,000
Weyerhauser Company    $75,000
Qwest Communications    $65,000
Portland Business Alliance    $37,000
Oregon Restaurant Association[34]    $20,000

There were 7 union affiliated organizations on the list, and only 2 corporations.  Those 2 C Corps donated $140,000 compared to $3,334,000 from the seven unions.  So unions can and do compete with corporations in fund raising and political spending.

[westkoast]

Labor Unions CANNOT compete with the large pockets of some of our largest corporations.  If a politician is running on wall street reform heavy a Goldman Sachs can pump unheard of dollars into the opposing candidate.  Now if a Pro-Business Candidate was running and his policies hurt workers would the labor unions really be able to spend as much as top multi-national corporations?  Let's be serious here.  It changes the landscape quite a bit.  The flood gates of money is going to open and so will the influence.  I don't get how you see this as either a good ruling or one that doesn't matter because 'it did nothing to change' the political landscape.

In Oregon we just had a 2 ballot measures to raise taxes on individuals earning more the $125,000 and couple earning $250,000, and on C Corporations by instituting a revenue tax for those C Corps that pay no income tax because they recorded a tax loss.  Both passed.

Total amount spent by the proponents of the tax increases was $6.8 million, total spent by the opponents was $4.6 million.  Here is a breakdown of the largest contributors.

For
Contributor     Amount
Oregon Education Association[29]    $1.65 million
SEIU Local 503    $850,000
Oregon AFT Political and Legislative Action Network PAC    $400,000
Oregon Health Care Association    $229,200
American Federation of Teachers    $100,000
Oregon School Employees Association    $75,000
Nurses United PAC    $30,000
Alida Rockefeller Mesinger[33]    $25,000
Senate Democratic Leadership Fund[44]    $20,000
Oregon Senate President Peter Courtney[34]    $10,000

Against
Contributor     Amount
Associated Oregon Industries PAC    $357,000
Oregon Bankers Association    $150,000
Nike Chairman Phil Knight    $150,000
Columbia Sportswear CEO Tim Boyle[33]    $75,000
Weyerhauser Company    $75,000
Qwest Communications    $65,000
Portland Business Alliance    $37,000
Oregon Restaurant Association[34]    $20,000

There were 7 union affiliated organizations on the list, and only 2 corporations.  Those 2 C Corps donated $140,000 compared to $3,334,000 from the seven unions.  So unions can and do compete with corporations in fund raising and political spending.

Right but this is just in Oregon on one issue.  Not necessarily a candidate.  I am less worried about individual issues as I am with politicians being thrown under the bus because one corporation doesn't like them.    Imagine California, Washington, or New York, where large corporations reside in, putting up money.  The unions in New York and California do not have more money to battle out the Goldman Sachs and Exxon's of the world when it comes to running ads, providing staff, and ponying up money to keep someone from getting into office (or the reverse)

The bolded you have for the Oregon Health Care Association is not a labor union.  It is an association of businesses. 

[Joe Vancil]

Then again, 'koast, I'm against *ANY* funding *ANY* of these groups are doing.

I suggest this as campaign reform - see how you like it:

1)  Any INDIVIDUAL PERSON can contribute whatever amount they want to any political candidate for use in the primary elections.  It is *NOT* tax deductible, even if considered a business expense.

2)  Any politcal party can contribute to any or all candidates of their choosing, but only during PRIMARIES.  In other words, in the Republican primary, the Republican party is free to finance the election.

3)  Any company, corporation, or organization (other than a political party during a Primary) can ONLY contribute to the ELECTION FUND of ANY GENERAL ELECTION.  They may *NOT* contribute directly to any political candidate.  These types of organizations, excluding political parties, may not contribute money during primaries.

4)  Any candidate running for the general election may *ONLY* use funds from the ELECTION FUND.  ALL CERTIFIED CANDIDATES DIVIDE THE MONEY FOR THE DESIGNATED ELECTION EQUALLY.  *HOW* they use the money is up to them.  Candidates may not use any contribution from any donor for any purpose during the general election, but only the primary.  They may not use their own money in the general election, but only in the primary.  The election will be financed 100% from the election fund, and candidates must report the expenses that they incur.  (Shows how fiscally responsible they are, and gives an idea of what kind of bang they get for their buck - two things I'd like to know about ANY politician.  And makes for great ammo the next time around.)

5)  Any candidate found to be using money from outside of the Election Fund is automatically removed from office, and may not run for any elected office for a period of not less than 20 years.  I'd also like to see jail-time used to enforce this, but I'm willing to compromise on that.

Now - sure, these are some *STRICT* guidelines.  But before you say they are "too strict," let me ask you - could *YOU* run a campaign under these guidelines?  I certainly could.  If they're not "too strict" for any of us, why should they be "too strict" for any of Congress?

So if you want to make sure your candidate gets face-time on TV, you can contribute to the general Election Fund;  just remember that you're also funding your opposition....and the final result is left up to the people.  Better make sure your message is good enough for scrutiny;  if it isn't, you're just wasting your money and my time.

[westkoast]

Then again, 'koast, I'm against *ANY* funding *ANY* of these groups are doing.

I suggest this as campaign reform - see how you like it:

1)  Any INDIVIDUAL PERSON can contribute whatever amount they want to any political candidate for use in the primary elections.  It is *NOT* tax deductible, even if considered a business expense.

2)  Any politcal party can contribute to any or all candidates of their choosing, but only during PRIMARIES.  In other words, in the Republican primary, the Republican party is free to finance the election.

3)  Any company, corporation, or organization (other than a political party during a Primary) can ONLY contribute to the ELECTION FUND of ANY GENERAL ELECTION.  They may *NOT* contribute directly to any political candidate.  These types of organizations, excluding political parties, may not contribute money during primaries.

4)  Any candidate running for the general election may *ONLY* use funds from the ELECTION FUND.  ALL CERTIFIED CANDIDATES DIVIDE THE MONEY FOR THE DESIGNATED ELECTION EQUALLY.  *HOW* they use the money is up to them.  Candidates may not use any contribution from any donor for any purpose during the general election, but only the primary.  They may not use their own money in the general election, but only in the primary.  The election will be financed 100% from the election fund, and candidates must report the expenses that they incur.  (Shows how fiscally responsible they are, and gives an idea of what kind of bang they get for their buck - two things I'd like to know about ANY politician.  And makes for great ammo the next time around.)

5)  Any candidate found to be using money from outside of the Election Fund is automatically removed from office, and may not run for any elected office for a period of not less than 20 years.  I'd also like to see jail-time used to enforce this, but I'm willing to compromise on that.

Now - sure, these are some *STRICT* guidelines.  But before you say they are "too strict," let me ask you - could *YOU* run a campaign under these guidelines?  I certainly could.  If they're not "too strict" for any of us, why should they be "too strict" for any of Congress?

So if you want to make sure your candidate gets face-time on TV, you can contribute to the general Election Fund;  just remember that you're also funding your opposition....and the final result is left up to the people.  Better make sure your message is good enough for scrutiny;  if it isn't, you're just wasting your money and my time.

I don't have a problem with that.  While it is strict it addresses a concern I have about this ruling and what it can do.  I am worried politicial candidates will leave more authentic, more down to earth grass roots campaigning in the dust because they can rely more heavily on a large corporation to make up the gap with their large pockets.  While plenty of our elected officials on both sides take large sums of money from the various industries in the state imagine if they were able to support even further.  This also shifts politics even more into 'marketing' than it already is.  The larger the budget the more staff you take on.  That means more PR and marketing people inbetween the people and the REAL candidate.

Also I might add that I might not as worried about this rulling if we had more than a 2 party system.  I think having 3 or more legit candidates for political offices really keeps the playing field more even and the campaigning more honest.  In the current two party system if a large corporation ran ads throwing one candidate under the bus then people just default to the other even though he may not fully support their needs or views.  We've been roped into this whole 'Good Vs Bad' one side or the other debate because there is no 3rd party or multiple other parties with ideas that people may be drawn to.  If Exxon wanted to throw Attorney General Brown under the bus for his more environmentalist views by tossing major money towards radio stations like KFIAM640 and on local television stations  then people would default to Meg Wittman for Governor just because there is no one else and they think Brown is 'bad' based on some great marketing company doing a tough public image campaign.  You play anything enough on the radio and people side with it (look at mainstream musics horrid down fall) and the same goes for TV (look no further than For The Love Of Ray J being a popular show).

[Joe Vancil]

And, obviously, my proposal is more friendly to 3rd party candidates.

But that's the problem with the 2-party system of today.  If I'm in favor of education spending and against school vouchers, I'm forced to be in favor of gun control, government health care, and pro-choice. And part of the problem I had was there was *NO* party that was anti-bailout that was represented in Congress.  (Granted, Democrats were more pro-bailout than Republicans were, but for the most part, both parties were in favor of it.)

I was just against the raising of the debt ceiling.  It passed bi-partisanly.

About the only thing I'm ever in agreement with Congress on is funding our troops.  In fact, other than that, in general, I'm finding that if both parties agree on something, I'm firmly against it.

[rickortreat]

Rick,

Are you just as upset that this decision also allows labor unions to spend as much as they want?

Did you believe the President when he said this decsion opens up contributions by foreign corporations?  (BTW it doesn't)

Yes. I want all special interests out of influencing the choice of candidates.  These interests are free to lobby after these officials are in office, but until then, they should only be beholden to the voter.