Not all of the 1%'ers are like the Koch brothers and the fossil fuel executives

[CajunBlazer]

When are people going to wise up to the fact that some of the 1% are on our side, Some of the very rich actually have a conscious. Not all of the executives on Wall street are trying to buy votes with their contributions. Some have stated publicly that they are more than willingly pay higher taxes. Others don't need the government tax breaks and cozy deals; they have too much money to worry about such BS. Some billionaires are teaming up with other billionaires to give away most of their fortunes to charity.

A progressive candidate would be foolish not to set up a Super PAC and not take their money, especially when the Koch Brothers and other evil billionaires are funding the opposition with hundreds of millions of dollars in this election cycle alone. Wouldn't that be better than extracting $27 contributions from folks who really can't afford it.

[Warren Stupidity]

1. Do you understand that the system as it is now is completely corrupted by the money?

[CajunBlazer]

4. My point -in case you mised it - was no, not completely corrupted

Nothing is completely clean and nothing is completely corrupted. Only absolutest see the work in nothing but black and white.

[progressivesonly]

2. Brainwashed

Nice to see the billionaire apologists stand up for their masters.

[CajunBlazer]

6. That's insulting!

I am in no way apologizing for those whose entire intent is to game the system with their money. I am simply pointing out that there some very rich folks whose intent is as good as yours or mine.

[marions ghost]

44. And where are all these rich folks

with good intentions?

Busy protecting their assets and their power.

[gcomeau]

3. It's not corruption when they're helping US!

Listen To Jon.

[EmperorHasNoClothes]

5. That doesn't mean their Super PAC contributions don't buy influence

[CajunBlazer]

7. And in like manner it doesn't mean that they do.

[gcomeau]

9. Except... they do.

Unless you think Scalia and his buddies were *totally correct* about their Citizens United reasoning.

[CajunBlazer]

12. Except .... sometimes they don't

I think that the Citizens United ruling was an abomination! I also think nuclear weapons are an abomination, but in neither case am I a proponent of unilateral disarmament.

[gcomeau]

13. Uh-huh...

I think that the Citizens United ruling was an abomination!

And yet here you are making an IDENTICAL argument as the one used by Scalia and his ilk to make their ruling. Massive amounts of money given to politicians cannot be proven to be influence buying from them (therefore it should not be limited). It is rather simply an expression of free speech to show support for your preferred candidate!


Which is, as we all know, bullshit.



So why don't you consider the company you are keeping and give your position a little think?

[CajunBlazer]

19. NO!

All I'm saying is that only a fool or an ideological purest would unilaterally disarm when there are Billionaires who are more than ready to fund the campaigns of progressive candidates because they are progressives themselves.

Many of Bernie's biggest backers are well off liberals who live in some of our most liberal states. I'm sure that they would be more than willing to fund a PAC for Bernie, but he is trying, and has succeed in to gaining election capital by not forming a PAC in order to differentiate himself from the completion. And it has worked to some extent - but not enough to gain the nomination.

I actually hate money in politics for all of the reasons given, but I am glad that Hillary has a PAC that I can contribute to because she is going to need it in the general election.

I would favor the government funding of all electoral campaigns so that no candidate would be beholding in any way to anyone. But I take the world as I find it - and try to change it - not as I want it to be.

I vote only for pragmatic politicians because ideological purists cannot be trusted to make the most important decisions in a world that is not black and white, but is really a continuum of shades of gray.

[gcomeau]

32. That's a big loud looking all caps denial

...considering what you followed it up with.

No matter how you want to try and make excuses for it, no matter how you twist and turn, there are one of two options here:

1. You disagree with Citizens United and recognize that large payoffs to politicians are a corrupting influence.

2. You agree with Citizens United that large payoffs to politicians cannot be proven to be corrupting/influence buying (which is essentially the entire basis of the ruling.)


So which is it? Is Citizens United right and it's ok for politicians to take large payments from the ultra wealthy because that's NOT a corrupting influence? Or is Citizens United wrong, and that is a corrupting influence?


(And if you want to argue Citizens United is both wrong AND it's still ok for our politicians to take the money because they're somehow magically immune to corruption, see Jon Stewart)

[islandmkl]

8. Tim Allen, is that you?

it is definitely 'Tool Time'...

[CajunBlazer]

10. Must be an inside joke...

In that case I am proud to be " utside".

[madinmaryland]

11. "Not all of the executives on Wall street are trying to buy votes with their contributions."

You know damn well that is what they are doing. Regardless of whether they are George Soros or Sheldon Adelman.

They all have the ability to buy influence in the government.

MONEY IS NOT FREE SPEECH.

[CajunBlazer]

14. I don't anything of the kind....

If I were rich and was looking for influence for pay I dang sure would not have contributed to Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton. That would be a poor use of my money. Like the Koch Brothers I could be contributing my millions to Republicans who have proven that they can be bought in order to ensure that they won.

[azurnoir]

17. lol not in 2008 back then it was almost a given that a Dem would take the WH

there for a truly smart oligarc would contribute to both, just one more than the other, depending on who was expected to win

ps it ain't 2008 no more and Hillary isn't Barack Obama, she doesn't represent hope for anything

[CajunBlazer]

20. I guess the Koch brothers are not smart, they just want their side to win.

And there are progressive contributors, like me, who do the same thing, just in the other direction.

[azurnoir]

33. so you're a billionaire like the Kochs? The Kochs can afford to lean to one side politically

after all they made their money the old fashioned way-they inherited it

[0rganism]

26. that's not how it works -- the billionaires can afford to buy into *both* sides

they donate to the GOP SuperPACs and to the Democratic SuperPACs.
maybe much more to one then another in any given year, but Big Money either way.
and when the time comes you can be damn sure they collect their payouts, usually in the form of policy details or appointments of flunkies to key government posts.

[CajunBlazer]

30. Exactly, how are they going to "demand" that they be paid back.

Once they have contributed their money they lose all leverage. If a office holder says "hell no, I took your money because you offered it without strings attached, but I didn't consider it a bribe, did you?" What the contributor going to do - go public that he was trying to bribe the President? The most that he could do is make damn sure that that person doesn't get his money in the next election.

Contributions for influence work best when the candidate must run for office time and time again like most US Representative and Senators in order to retain their positions. Then the threat of a cut of of contribution can be effective.

With a Presidential candidate, not so much. A President can only hold office for two terms and they no good and well that that if they are elected for a first time and they do a good job, they will have a tremendous advantage the second time around. Threatening to not fund a second campaign is simply not that effective.

[0rganism]

34. their ongoing leverage goes by the name of "next time"

Presidents are term-limited. Congresscritters come and go.
But SuperPACs, as currently constructed, are immortal.

"You guys want my help again in 2 years, right? You know, I could free up a lot of capital to help you out if you allocated a few thousand more H1B's in my sector."

individually, influence will wain with a position like the presidency over time, especially if that president doesn't feel overly loyal to their political party. influence over SCOTUS justices is likewise designed to be minimal. congressional reps will be extremely vulnerable.

[madinmaryland]

31. But there are billionaires contributing millions to the Democratic Party. Get billionaires

and their billions out of our government.

[NCTraveler]

15. You are of course spot on.

You also won't find me preaching it.

[gcomeau]

16. About what part?

That they're not all the Kochs? Absolutely.

That some of them are on our side? Yuppers.

That therefore we should just embrace this whole "grab for all the money you can get from any 1%er willing to finance you!" strategy? I refer you to Jon Stewart in reply #3.

[NCTraveler]

18. And I will refer you to a progressive victory...

In the general over that of Trump taking away rights and destroying the country.

[gcomeau]

28. I'm depressed you even think that's a response.

Corruption is acceptable so long as it is deployed in favor of our immediate goals!

[CajunBlazer]

21. Some things just need to be said

Notice that no one disagrees with my facts and logic, they just don't like my conclusions.

[NCTraveler]

22. I fully support the message.

[hobbit709]

23. Not too many 1% progressives on Hillary's donor and funding list.

What's in the air that you breathe on Planet Hillary?

[CajunBlazer]

25. So you think that Barack Obama was influenced by those same donors

So go ahead and do your nitpicking and tell all of us Democrats who give Obama extremely high approval rates exactly how our President went wrong. Waiting ......

[hobbit709]

37. We're not talking about Obama, we're talking about a willing partner of the power structure.

Gpldman Sachs is just SO altruistic.

[Skwmom]

24. Like Good Old Boy Warren Buffett who always bemoans how billionaires should pay more taxes?

What a guy....

Hillary backer Buffett loves Wells Fargo that targeted Blacks and Hispanics for Dangerous Loans

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251580271

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/times-watchdog/minorities-exploited-by-warren-buffetts-mobile-home-empire-clayton-homes/

[CajunBlazer]

27. If you don'gt like the subject go start your on OP

Otherwise quit trying to change the subject.

[Wilms]

29. LOL!

Big Oil hates me. Wall Street hates Big Oil. Therefore, Wall Street loves me.

[Todays_Illusion]

35. The only difference in the Koch libertarians and the Tech libertarians is climate change and LGBT.

And there are no more liberal billionaires, they have all gone greeddy libertarian.


And all these conservative Democratic belong to them. Hail your corporate lords, that includes Warren Buffett who loves the tax paid wage program called E.I.T.C. and Bill Gates who has spent the last 10 years trying to prove that private wealth will solve the education and health crisis. It has not.

[marions ghost]

45. Right, there are no liberal billionaires

------

[valerief]

36. Now I understand why people vote for Trump. They're sick of BS like this.

[CajunBlazer]

40. Have we have spotted a future Trump voter?

[valerief]

41. If you were a star member, you could do a search on my posts and analyze them.

But you're a pretty new poster and a Hillary Clinton favorite grouper, so I don't expect you'll do that. That wouldn't be part of your agenda.

Feel free to donate, though!

[CajunBlazer]

42. I am a star member of DU, and no I don't want to look up your past posts

I'm not fond of the ones I see now.

And I give my money to Hillary

[valerief]

43. The star didn't display when I made my post. My apologies. I'll wait for hell to freeze over for

yours.

[Avalux]

38. Ummm....no.

When are people like you going to understand that big money comes with a price, no matter which entity gives it. They don't practice charity - it's business and they want a return on their investment.

Be care when you decide to sell your soul, you may not like the new owner.

[CajunBlazer]

39. Unilaterally disarming has a larger price

Defeat!

I agree that we have to reverse Citizens United, but every politician who sets up a Super PAC is not on the take, unless of course you are implying that President Obama is on the take.

[PowerToThePeople]

46. I truly need to add you to my ignore list.

This post belongs on a republican forum.