Liberal/Progressive Answer to the Koch Brothers

[Frodo]

Tom Steyer may be liberals' answer to the Koch brothers

By Evan Halper
December 21, 2013, 6:21 p.m.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-steyer-20131222,0,6539543.story#ixzz2oBb5KMko

[politicallefty]

I don't know why rich liberals haven't used the current campaign finance scheme to their advantage yet. There are plenty of rich liberals in the Bay Area, LA, and NYC. Conservatives will of course point those like George Soros, but they really don't compare to the donors on the right. We can at least put up a good fight.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

The progressive answer to the Koch Brothers should be campaign finance reform with incredibly strict limits on political donations, not some palette-shifted billionaire.

[Redalgo]

We want no condescending saviours
To rule us from their judgement hall.
We workers ask not for their favours.
Let us consult for all.

[Antonio the Sixth]

The progressive answer to the Koch Brothers should be campaign finance reform with incredibly strict limits on political donations, not some palette-shifted billionaire.

Yes, but this requires an amount of political power which will be out of reach for many decades.

[Vosem]

The progressive answer to the Koch Brothers should be campaign finance reform with incredibly strict limits on political donations, not some palette-shifted billionaire.

Yes, but this requires an amount of political power which will be out of reach for many decades. hopefully ever

[Zioneer]

The progressive answer to the Koch Brothers should be campaign finance reform with incredibly strict limits on political donations, not some palette-shifted billionaire.

Yes, but this requires an amount of political power which will be out of reach for many decades. hopefully ever

Why do you want corruption and the rule of money over the rule of the people?

[Frodo]

The progressive answer to the Koch Brothers should be campaign finance reform with incredibly strict limits on political donations, not some palette-shifted billionaire.

Why wouldn't full, mandatory, public disclosure of all campaign donations and expenditures have much the same effect in keeping corporate America in check? 

[Redalgo]

Why wouldn't full, mandatory, public disclosure of all campaign donations and expenditures have much the same effect in keeping corporate America in check?

Four reasons come to mind right away, Frodo, though there may be more:

1. Many voters will not seek out that information, nor will all of it be put right in front of them.
2. Many who see the data will not know how to interpret and derive astute conclusions from it.
3. Many who benefit from the knowledge will not vote differently due to how U.S. elections are held.
4. Many who benefit from the knowledge will, for any of several reasons, not do business differently.

I reckon this would only punish corporations who consistently help politicians caught up in scandals they knew about, with the major donors themselves becoming subjects of controversy for a few weeks before fading out of relevance to the public again - possibly after firms sack whoever was responsible (or a convenient scapegoat, perhaps) to save face. And even if this did start to affect the behaviour of people, can you imagine how facepalmworthy it would be if Americans extended their Republican / Democratic or conservative / liberal rivalries, prejudices, and toxic discourse into matters of where they shop, work, go out to eat or drink, which movies they watch, and so on?

No - checks and balances of this importance have to be institutionalized or else they will probably gather dust, figuratively at least, from lack of use. At most I see it being a promising arrow to add to the quivers of interest groups and candidates eager to take shots at opponents and distort facts in ads to their own political advantage. And although that may occasionally achieve something good for the public, it really isn't how I think campaigns ought to be run.

[Frodo]

Why wouldn't full, mandatory, public disclosure of all campaign donations and expenditures have much the same effect in keeping corporate America in check?

Four reasons come to mind right away, Frodo, though there may be more:

1. Many voters will not seek out that information, nor will all of it be put right in front of them.
2. Many who see the data will not know how to interpret and derive astute conclusions from it.
3. Many who benefit from the knowledge will not vote differently due to how U.S. elections are held.
4. Many who benefit from the knowledge will, for any of several reasons, not do business differently.

I reckon this would only punish corporations who consistently help politicians caught up in scandals they knew about, with the major donors themselves becoming subjects of controversy for a few weeks before fading out of relevance to the public again - possibly after firms sack whoever was responsible (or a convenient scapegoat, perhaps) to save face. And even if this did start to affect the behaviour of people, can you imagine how facepalmworthy it would be if Americans extended their Republican / Democratic or conservative / liberal rivalries, prejudices, and toxic discourse into matters of where they shop, work, go out to eat or drink, which movies they watch, and so on?

No - checks and balances of this importance have to be institutionalized or else they will probably gather dust, figuratively at least, from lack of use. At most I see it being a promising arrow to add to the quivers of interest groups and candidates eager to take shots at opponents and distort facts in ads to their own political advantage. And although that may occasionally achieve something good for the public, it really isn't how I think campaigns ought to be run.

Given the makeup of the Supreme Court (especially if Republicans capture both the Senate and White House by 2016), it is the best that can be hoped for. 

[Redalgo]

Ya - I'll give you that. The electoral reforms I want would require constitutional amendment.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Shadow puppetry. A system of governance controlled by megacorporations and their avatars (or should that be, a handful of hyperwealthy and their tools?) is not in the interests of the vast majority of Americans - giving it two masks instead of one changes precisely nothing.

[bullmoose88]

The progressive answer to the Koch Brothers should be campaign finance reform with incredibly strict limits on political donations, not some palette-shifted billionaire.

Yep. The answer hopefully isn't to dirty one's hands.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

>criticize other party for being beholden to the interests of a few billionaires
>are beholden to the interests of a few billionaires

[TNF]

>criticize other party for being beholden to the interests of a few billionaires
>are beholden to the interests of a few billionaires

[traininthedistance]

The progressive answer to the Koch Brothers should be campaign finance reform with incredibly strict limits on political donations, not some palette-shifted billionaire.

Why wouldn't full, mandatory, public disclosure of all campaign donations and expenditures have much the same effect in keeping corporate America in check? 

I agree that this is ideal, and we should certainly not stop pushing for it even in the face of a hostile SCOTUS.

However, until then I am not willing to demand unilateral disarmament.  It would be a far better world if we didn't need the money of a Tom Steyer to fund campaigns for climate/fiscal sanity, but in the world we actually live in I'm glad someone's on our side.

[TNF]

The progressive answer to the Koch Brothers should be campaign finance reform with incredibly strict limits on political donations, not some palette-shifted billionaire.

Why wouldn't full, mandatory, public disclosure of all campaign donations and expenditures have much the same effect in keeping corporate America in check? 

I agree that this is ideal, and we should certainly not stop pushing for it even in the face of a hostile SCOTUS.

However, until then I am not willing to demand unilateral disarmament.  It would be a far better world if we didn't need the money of a Tom Steyer to fund campaigns for climate/fiscal sanity, but in the world we actually live in I'm glad someone's on our side.

There are plenty of "people" on the Democrats' side, though. "People" like Google, Apple, Microsoft, General Electric...

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

The progressive answer to the Koch Brothers should be campaign finance reform with incredibly strict limits on political donations, not some palette-shifted billionaire.

Why wouldn't full, mandatory, public disclosure of all campaign donations and expenditures have much the same effect in keeping corporate America in check? 

It's supposed to be one man, one vote. Your suggestion is far closer to one dollar, one vote.

[TNF]

The progressive answer to the Koch Brothers should be campaign finance reform with incredibly strict limits on political donations, not some palette-shifted billionaire.

Why wouldn't full, mandatory, public disclosure of all campaign donations and expenditures have much the same effect in keeping corporate America in check? 

>implying that the average person has the time or energy to look up campaign donations and expenditures

lolberalism at it's finest

[Cassius]

The progressive answer to the Koch Brothers should be campaign finance reform with incredibly strict limits on political donations, not some palette-shifted billionaire.

Yes, but this requires an amount of political power which will be out of reach for many decades. hopefully ever

Why do you want corruption and the rule of money over the rule of the people?

'Rule of the people'? There can be no 'rule of the people'. Certainly certain sections in society can rule, but not everybody at the same time, which is what  'rule of the people' seems to imply. Of course, when a lot of left-wingers talk about the above concept, what they're really talking about is rule by the trade unions and left-wing academics. Which, of course, is fine, its no different to my vision of rule (although at least I don't call it the rule of the 'people'). But all the same, at least acknowledge that under anybody's rule there are always going to be losers, rather than claiming to act in the common interest, and therefore the nation will not be ruled in the interests of all.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

The progressive answer to the Koch Brothers should be campaign finance reform with incredibly strict limits on political donations, not some palette-shifted billionaire.

Why wouldn't full, mandatory, public disclosure of all campaign donations and expenditures have much the same effect in keeping corporate America in check? 

I agree that this is ideal, and we should certainly not stop pushing for it even in the face of a hostile SCOTUS.

However, until then I am not willing to demand unilateral disarmament.  It would be a far better world if we didn't need the money of a Tom Steyer to fund campaigns for climate/fiscal sanity, but in the world we actually live in I'm glad someone's on our side.

There are plenty of "people" on the Democrats' side, though. "People" like Google, Apple, Microsoft, General Electric...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2h8ujX6T0A

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I thought George Soros was the one pulling the strings for the Left?

[muon2]

The progressive answer to the Koch Brothers should be campaign finance reform with incredibly strict limits on political donations, not some palette-shifted billionaire.

Why wouldn't full, mandatory, public disclosure of all campaign donations and expenditures have much the same effect in keeping corporate America in check? 

I'm for this, but I don't think it gets to the problem. It's the independent PACs that are the core issue, not traditional campaign accounts.

The loophole is that wealthy sources can advocate for positions that are not legally part of a campaign. Issue advocacy may involve issues that highlight an individual officeholder and as such can appear to be a campaign. The line that separates free speech about policy from campaign speech is nebulous. Just as foggy is the distinction between a corporate video newsletter to employees they place on their public web page, and one they pay for with cable TV time.

In 1976 SCOTUS basically said that limiting expenditures by individuals to make known their personal opinions was a limitation of free speech, and this was later extended to associations of individuals including corporations. Without a constitutional amendment that states that an expenditure of money to promote a position is not automatically protected under the first amendment, it's hard to see how one creates functional limits.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Labor unions that aren't beholden to the fortunes of the Democratic Party (true leftist)