The Wisconsin Cheese Showdown

[cinyc]

Remember kids: Unfettered corporate and millionaire money flowing unchecked into the GOP coffers = good . A fraction of that amount flowing from middle class union members to the Democratic Party to counteract corporation and millionaire money = undermining the political system.

Here's a list of the top 20 political donors from 1989-2010.  10 of them are unions.  But of course, their contributions are just "a fraction"of the amount "flowing" from "middle class union members" who are forced to join or pay the union regardless of whether actually want to do so.

Does that chart capture all the money that goes into third party advocacy groups, Republican astro-turf groups with big advertising budgets, etc.? How was the ratio after Citizens United blew the doors off any restrictions on corporations financing ads to elect people who will cut checks to them in office?

I believe that chart shows money from PACs.  I'm not sure whether that chart shows the type of third party advocacy groups you are looking for.  But for every Republican-leaning one of those groups, there are also Democratic third party advocacy groups, Democratic astro-turf groups with big advertising budgets, etc.  Remember MoveOn.org and complaints about George $oro$ trying to buy the 2008 elections?  The system is not tilted toward either party.

[cinyc]

All 20 of the 20 largest industries donated more to Democrats in 2010 than Republicans.

Give us a link, so we can tear apart whatever bogus assumptions underlie that argument.

I'm going to guess that oil and natural gas now aren't among the 20 largest industries in America, despite Exxon breaking profit records for any corporation, past or present—or that they donated to Dems in 2010?

Employees in 18 of the 20 industries that gave the most money to political candidates in 2010 contributed more to Democrats than Republicans.  The only exceptions were commercial banks (barely) and oil and gas (by a wider margin).  

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/mems.php

[cinyc]

All 20 of the 20 largest industries donated more to Democrats in 2010 than Republicans.

Give us a link, so we can tear apart whatever bogus assumptions underlie that argument.

I'm going to guess that oil and natural gas now aren't among the 20 largest industries in America, despite Exxon breaking profit records for any corporation, past or present—or that they donated to Dems in 2010?

Employees in 18 of the 20 industries that gave the most money to political candidates in 2010 contributed more to Democrats than Republicans.  The only exceptions were commercial banks (barely) and oil and gas (by a wider margin). 

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/mems.php

I didn't know "Retired", "Leadership PACs", "Democratic/Liberal", or "Public Sector Unions" were considered industries. Also, some of these are not industries themselves but individuals that happen to be in the industry (and there's going to be a big difference between, say for example, how Ford employees vote and who their company supports).

Even then, a cursory glance shows that a lot of the partisan breakdowns are skewed because many companies would be heavily Republican if you discount the huge donations they gave to Reid, Schumer, and the Democratic chairman of the committee that regulates whatever industry they're in.

Even if you remove "Retired", "Leadership PACs" and "Democratic/Liberal", employees in 18 of the 20 top industries still contributed more to Democrats than Republicans.  Public Sector Unions are an industry - they represent government workers.

People contribute to those who run subject committees?  Money goes to those in power, regardless of which party is in power?  Who knew!  But I've been told by some with red avatars that evil big business and millionaires ONLY give to Republicans...

[cinyc]

All this shows is that people who work support Democrats.. while those who don't and business interests (like CEOs, lobbyists, and since 2010, the companies themselves) donate to Republicans.

Nice spin.  Do you have any actual evidence of that or are you repeating yet another MSNBC or Talking Points Memo talking point?

The fact at the link I provided is that lobbyists themselves funneled about 69% of their contributions to DEMOCRATS in 2010.  And lobbying groups gave DEMOCRATS double what they gave to Republicans in 2009, the last year for which the Center for Responsive Politics has data.  

Politicians are like whores.  The most corporate money usually goes to the most attractive ones - those closest to the levers of power.  Always has.  Always will.

[cinyc]

And, again, no accounting of the money plowed into "Citizens for Health Care Choice", "Citizens Against Food Taxes," "Taxpayers for Coal Warmth," "Bald Eagles For A Balanced Environmental Policy," "Patriots for Job Growth" etc. which pound Democrats with millions of dollars in ads funded by industries who oppose Democratic policies.

Or the money of MoveOn.org or EMILY's List or America Votes, or the various unions, etc. which pound Republican with millions of dollars in ads funded by industries who oppose Republicans policies.

But wait...  There's a list of who the 527s supported, too.  Care to guess who had more support from 527s the past four cycles?  Hint.

[cinyc]

All this shows is that people who work support Democrats.. while those who don't and business interests (like CEOs, lobbyists, and since 2010, the companies themselves) donate to Republicans.

Nice spin.  Do you have any actual evidence of that or are you repeating yet another MSNBC or Talking Points Memo talking point?

The fact at the link I provided is that lobbyists themselves funneled about 69% of their contributions to DEMOCRATS in 2010.  And lobbying groups gave DEMOCRATS double what they gave to Republicans in 2009, the last year for which the Center for Responsive Politics has data. 

Politicians are like whores.  The most corporate money usually goes to the most attractive ones - those closest to the levers of power.  Always has.  Always will.

Of course lobbyists gave to the Democrats in 2010.  They give to the party in power.  They know both parties will pretty much bend to their will.  Who did lobbyists give most to in 2004?

You are arguing with yourself, not me.  You initially wrote "All this shows is that people who work support Democrats.. while those who don't and business interests (like ... lobbyists, and since 2010, the companies themselves) donate to Republicans."  Either lobbyists always donate to Republicans or give to the party in power.  Which is it?

[cinyc]

How insane is it that we have to assume the political leanings of the justice will determine how they would rule on a case that is purely about procedure under the law where there is no undefined gray area. I don't even know what Walker's argument would be. He's clearly in the wrong on Open Meetings, hence the steamroller approach to establish facts on the ground.

If you only read the left wing blogosphere echo chamber, which is often uncritically regurgitated by the mainstream media, Walker has no argument.  In the real world, there is a very good argument that no violation occurred.   Under the open meetings law, Senate rules trump the Open Meetings Law.  And those rules were followed.

[cinyc]

How insane is it that we have to assume the political leanings of the justice will determine how they would rule on a case that is purely about procedure under the law where there is no undefined gray area. I don't even know what Walker's argument would be. He's clearly in the wrong on Open Meetings, hence the steamroller approach to establish facts on the ground.

If you only read the left wing blogosphere echo chamber, which is often uncritically regurgitated by the mainstream media, Walker has no argument.

I admire the craftsmanship in this sentence.

I wonder if you can google up a link from a conservative blog that proves that Walker was right to pretend the law had passed because the LRB published it, too.

I never said that anything proves anything.  I said that your claim that Walker has no arguments is simply incorrect.

The people who brought the lawsuit never sued the person responsible for publishing Michigan's laws.  As such, the injunction did not apply to him.  Moreover, a Wisconsin judge has no power whatsoever to stop a law from being published.  Court challenges can only be brought after a law has gone into effect.  Otherwise, there is no case or controversy to begin with, as there is no law on the books to sue about.