"corporations commonly account for 3 of every 4 political donations to congressional campaigns"

[welshTerrier2]

let me put this succinctly: YOUR CANDIDATE SUCKS. the following chart from a popular political indicator was posted by DU'er GreenPartyVoter in this thread ...

some have complained that the candidates never actually took the test, and hence, the projection of how they might have responded is speculative. this is an inadequate criticism. it is perfectly appropriate to use a candidate's track record and speeches to assess how they would have responded had they taken the test. the only valid defense would be to show how their actions and statements were not properly applied. no one has done this yet. to take the "best available data" and apply it to an indicator is a perfectly appropriate method. here are the results of the test:



and here are the compiled and summarized results of the same test taken by DU'ers as posted by DU'er TahitiNut:



now, one little test proves nothing all by itself. but what do the test results indicate? what issue, what single issue, must be more important than all the other issues combined? under what umbrella does every issue reside? what is it that ultimately determines the policies and actions of our government on all issues? the answer should be very simple: fundamental DEMOCRACY; unfortunately, that is just NOT the case.

To land in the upper right quadrant in the above political test empowers a corporatocracy that renders citizen empowerment impossible. It creates a system of governance that yields to such disproportionate power that the vote of the individual, even the best efforts to effect change by the individual citizen, becomes virtually meaningless. Our representatives are funded by the corporatocracy. The laws they pass and the policies they enact are obliged to serve only one master and it clearly is NOT We the People. I say YOUR CANDIDATE SUCKS because, with perhaps only one or two exceptions, your candidate has not acknowledged this democratic defect as the central core of their campaign. What we are left with are pseudo-solutions that cannot ultimately bring about the changes we need. The system as it stands today has been built for and by the corporate state. Status quo enablers, with their hands out for campaign contributions, will never change the underlying corruptions of our democracy.

I am currently reading one of the most powerful non-fiction books I've ever read. BTW, Al Gore's book has finally arrived at my library and that's in the on deck circle. The current book is entitled: America Beyond Capitalism: Reclaiming Our Wealth, Our Liberty, and Our Democracy. The author is Gar Alperovitz. Here are a few excerpts, especially relative to my discussion above, from the chapter I just read:

"The influence that corporations wield over government and the economy is so vast and obvious that the point needs no elaboration ... Democratic governance, at the federal, state and local levels, goes on. But its ability to affect our lives is limited." <skip>

A 2002 Gallup poll found that 2/3 of respondents believe that "no matter what new laws are passed, special interests will always find a way to maintain their power in Washington." The deeper issue is thus profoundly challenging: even the most far reaching reforms are unlikely to succeed, it appears, given the underlying pattern of inequality. <skip>

A host of studies have documented some of the most obvious realities. The large corporation regularly:

1. influences legislation and agenda setting through lobbying
2. influences regulatory behavior through direct and indirect pressure
3. influences elections via large-scale campaign contributions
4. influences public attitudes through massive media campaigns
5. influences local government choices through all of the above - and adds the implicit or explicit threat of withdrawing its plants, equipment, and jobs from specific locations.

It all boils down to this: either your candidate sees the massive defect corporations represent in our democracy and speaks against them and fights against them, or, regardless of what little bandaid solutions they might propose, no real change will be possible. I've heard elements of this recognition from Kucinich and to a lesser extent from Gravel and from Ron Paul. I've heard nothing on this subject, certainly not as a central theme, from any of the other candidates. If I've missed statements from your candidate, please feel free to provide some details. I'd consider it very good news. In the absence of such information, your candidate is a corporate enabler. And corporate enablers, regardless of the pretty words and programs they might offer, are serving someone other than you and me.

[redqueen]

1. VOTE FOR KUCINICH IN THE PRIMARY!

PLEASE, DAMMIT!

PLEASE!

[welshTerrier2]

2. i did in 2004

i expect to next year based on the current candidates ...

[redqueen]

3. Me too... and worked for the campaign.

And I will again.

I just wonder why people see what's needed - *significant* change - but are SO willing to settle for less.

*sigh*

[Totally Committed]

4. 3 out of 4??? It's really that high?

Worse than I thought.

And, look at all those RW Authoritarians. :wow: No wonder I don't want to vote for any of them!

TC

[GreenPartyVoter]

5. Yes. Big biz has a stranglehold on our politicians.

[welshTerrier2]

6. corporate left versus corporate right

here's as close as I could get to a link to the 3 out of 4 statistic: http://www.opensecrets.org/overview/blio.asp?cycle=2006

the author provided a link to year 2000 data that apparently is no longer available - the link he provided shows the page I provided above.

the upper right quadrant makes a disturbing case that what we're left with is a choice between corporate left versus corporate right. I strongly disagree that there is no difference between the parties. both the republican party and the corporate wing of the Democratic party will sell you and me down the river; the difference is that corporate Democrats will at least provide us with a life raft. I suppose that's better than nothing.

when we focus on certain "social issues" like freedom of choice, separation of church and state, or various welfare support systems, Democrats are clearly preferable in most instances. But these are NOT issues the power elite really care about at all. If you are running a major oil corporation, you focus on getting the government to invade Iraq and not on whether little Susie decides to have an abortion. But, there's a really key understanding you have to add to that analysis ...

the social issues are used by the power elite to manipulate voter sentiments. when the masses awaken to the harsh punishments imposed by republicans, e.g. torture, removal of habeas corpus and spying on private citizens, a "liberalizing alternative" must be provided lest an anti-corporate populist gain momentum. the election of an anti-corporate populist would threaten the corporate state. so, instead, even though "social issues" are "non-issues" to corporate America, we are offered "liberal" candidates. in fact, they are even pushed on us with an underlying threat of blackmail. "if you don't vote for Hillary, the balance of the Supreme Court will tip and we'll lose all our civil liberties." the reality is, given the current backlash against the harsh republican corporatocracy, the power elite are demanding a "tempering candidate", i.e. a "corporate tempering candidate." Hillary fills the bill perfectly: pro corporate and liberal on social issues.

and it's not that the social issues she'll push aren't real; they're very real and very important. but, and it's a really, really, really big BUT, the underlying paradigm, i.e. the corporate status quo, won't move a single millimeter. TC, when you rail against the DLC, you have it dead right. I'm sorry to say this, actually it pains me to say it, but I cannot support corporate Democrats ever again. The way I see the world is that we have lost our democracy by allowing corporations to grow too large and powerful and by allowing them to become the major actors in the political process. It will take far more than campaign finance reform to repair the defect in our democracy. that's what the book I'm reading is all about. I haven't read the proposed solutions yet but I have a sense that it argues we must have greater equality, i.e. greater economic equality, if, as a nation, we are going to even strive for the ideals or democracy.

[Totally Committed]

14. I knew it was bad, you know I did, but THIS BAD? 3 out of 4 is 75%!

No wonder the little guy doesn't stand a chance, and the DLC is thriving.

We have GOT to get this message across to the rank and file Democrats who don't think there's anything wrong with voting for the DLC candidate, or even know what the DLC is.

This is OBSCENE.

TC

[welshTerrier2]

21. read the post by antigop in this thread

it links to a post that gives a specific instance of how the process of corruption works ...

[Totally Committed]

23. Ugh. I'm sick.

Re: The DLC: How do we stop them? Is it already too late? If it is too late, where do we go from here.

I am just now starting Sirota's book, "Hostile Takeover", but I feel absolutely no hope for the future of this Party, or my future with it.

TC

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[redqueen]

29. Hmm

from the link antigop posted:

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=how_the_dlc_does_it

"Congressman Dooley helped bring in businesses who otherwise Congressman Meeks would not have known, and didn't have a relationship with, to knock on his door. As a result, scores of meetings were held with the congressman," says an aide to Meeks, citing sit-downs with the CEOs of American Airlines and New York Life Insurance Company. High-tech executives helped ensure that Meeks would be one of two undecided members to accompany President Clinton on his high-profile trip to China before the vote, the aide said; and Meeks also won significant backing from industry political action committees, which ended up nearly matching labor's donations to Meeks's campaign treasury. Included were $5,000 PAC contributions from American Airlines and New York Life. And in the end, Meeks voted business's way.

So... these donations that you say are illegal... please explain... is the author of the article above lying, too? or is it perhaps that you are misrepresenting the facts?

[antigop]

7. Please see the article posted in this thread

because it is all related.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x295260

[welshTerrier2]

9. ugly when you see the details, isn't it?

that's a great post, antigop!! I hope others reading this thread check it out the link you provided.

the book I'm currently reading (see OP) puts a huge amount of emphasis on the decline of American labor and how it affects our democracy. current studies show that corporate campaign contributions are greater than contributions from labor by 15 to 1.

and it's not just that this imbalance helps elect pro business candidates but also that it has a huge influence on legislation and policy. too often, I think we see "big labor" as a highly effective political force solely during the campaign process. their influence used to extend to the halls of Congress as effective lobbyists; today, that is much less the case.

[antigop]

10. I would strongly recommend David Sirota's "Hostile Takeover" n/t

[welshTerrier2]

17. thanks. i'll add it to the list.

i've gotta take one of those speed reading courses one of these days. I wish I could just put a book under my pillow and absorb it overnight.

[Tom Rinaldo]

8. Meanwhile this is a good day to support Act Blue

Act Blue has made it easy for people like us to directly support the candidates we believe in, so they can have a revenue stream independent from corporations. There's another thread on this forum today by Wes Clark in recognition of (I think it's) the 4th annual Blogosphere Day, taken from the Diary that Clark posted on Huffington Post. Clark is asking us to give support to Act Blue today, for reasons consistent with the OP of this thread. Here is the link for the DU thread about it:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3387960

[welshTerrier2]

13. i found these comments disturbing

The United States is today engaged in a four-fold struggle in the Middle East, and each of the struggles is interconnected with the others. At the most benign level, the US is in hot competition economically, to capture its share of oil exports and earnings, and to sell its share of goods and services. Our long term dependability has been a winning factor in building enduring US influence and commercial penetration in the region. Second, the US works to assure to security and safety of the state of Israel, within the broader interest of seeking to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and helping Israel assure its long term survival and success within the region. Third, the United States is engaged in a three-decades long struggle against Iranian extremism, which has manifested itself through terror bombing against US forces, harassment of oil shipping lanes, the pursuit of a long range, nuclear strike capability, Iranian interference in Lebanon, and, of course, assisted by our topping of Saddam Hussein, within Iraq itself. Finally, the US is caught up in the almost ten-year-old struggle against Al Qaeda.

Is there any recognition here about the assassination of Mossadeq? Is there any recognition here about our primary motivation for invading Iraq? Are we the good guys with legitimate economic interests playing by the rules or are we an imperial force supporting a greedy corporate state? To speak against Iranian extremism without offering commensurate analysis of US conduct in the region fails to understand the regional dynamic or, perhaps worse, understands it all too well and elects to not comment on it. And to speak of the US as a legitimate economic actor pursuing legitimate economic interests in the region without talking about our methods of operation again fails to comment on the criminal and unfair role the US has played in the Middle East. Or do you disagree?

It seems to me that as long as we allow our government to cater to commercial interests without any obligation of good global citizenship, we will continue to see the great American empire decline while the wealthy bleed us dry and the average citizen loses hope. Leadership demands that those who know speak out to help us organize and fight against the status quo of a corporate-controlled government. I didn't hear that in the words quoted above.

[Tom Rinaldo]

27. First let me point out those comments are not from the Act Blue solicitation

Just so that no one gets confused about that. What you are quoting was part of Clark's 7/12/07 testimony in front of the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, and Clark's full statement can be found here:
http://securingamerica.com/node/2552

The heart of Clark's prepared statement I believe was actually this:

"The deeper truth is that we are engaged in a civil war inside Iraq aided and abetted by outside powers. It is not at all clear that the "surge" will, even were it to succeed in reducing the violence, bring this war to a successful conclusion. We are playing on others "home court." They own porous borders, language skills, long term relationships inside Iraq, and sufficient means to ratchet-up resistance and encourage divisiveness when and where it suits their purpose.

When well-trained and equipped troops are thrown into stabilization missions, they normally do succeed in temporarily tamping down violence. This is the historical record of occupying armies, from Europe to Asia. Local opponents watch for vulnerabilities, redeploy to elude the occupier’s grasp, and deepen their structures in preparation for the resumption of hostilities. But unless mechanisms for political reconciliation take hold, violence seems inevitably to resume and escalate as aggrieved parties find ways and means to pursue their aims despite the presence of an occupying force.

In the case of Iraq, these tendencies are exacerbated by the competitive struggle between Iran and its Shia surrogates, and the Saudi and Jordanian support for the Sunni's. The Iraqi government itself lacks the legitimacy and capability to resolve this struggle, whatever its "legality.". And so, no matter the vicissitudes in civilian deaths, or car-bombings, or disappearances in Baghdad, the underlying dynamics of the struggle continue. This Administration has refused to address their strategic causes and has left our brave soldiers and Marines hostage to a regional power struggle."

As to your questions WT2; the first one is easy to answer assuming that one recognizes that Clark was NOT asked to speak on the history of America's relations with Iran, and that he was allotted very few minutes to addresse that committee on the topic that he was asked to speak on; the current situation in Iraq. In the section you quote from, Iran was referenced in Clark's third point, and he framed the current challanges facing America in that regard dating back to Ayatollah Khomeini coming to power there. While the Shah was in power in Iran, the U.S. was not confronted by active Iranian islamic extremism, and had not been for decades.

Wes Clark was only one of three persons on a panel giving testimony about the mess we are now in in Iraq. His time was limited and the context of that panel did not allow for a half century plus examination of the history between the U.S. and Iran, especially since Clark is often alone in pointing out that the failure of the U.S. to deal directly with Iran has a direct negative impact on Iraq. Clark was straying off the defined reservation to even inject a discussion of overall American strategic issues in the Middle East into his testimony to begin with. I think it both unfair and unrealistic to expect that Clark would have used those few minutes on a panel discussing America's current options in Iraq to launch into a whole scale historic review and scathing critique of the history of American imperialism in the Middle East region.

Clark acknowledged the reality of current of U.S. foreign policy covered by the bipartisan over arching agenda that both the Democratic and Republican Parties have adhered to for in most cases decades regarding the Middle East. His point in bringing all that up was that it is foolhardy to discuss American options regarding Iraq outside of the broader Middle Eastern context.

I think you have read enough of Clark's comments regarding Iran when a discussion about Iran was in fact the central topic, to know that Clark more than any other national Democrat speaks at great length about Iran's legitimate interests and valid reasons for relating to the U.S. as if the U.S. is Iran's sworn enemy, and why the U.S. needs to change course in that regard. Here are but a few examples:

Clark took on two advocates for bombing Iran recently on MSNBC's Kudlow & Co:

"GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Larry, the invasion of Iraq and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein done by the Bush administration was a victory for Iran. HE was their big enemy. We got rid of him. We did the Iranians a huge favor. Now, the truth is that Iran came, has come to us at least three times since 2002 looking for an opening and a way to talk, and we've rebuffed them. So, we haven't tried diplomacy. This administration's not trying. This administration is-

Jed Babbin: (sigh)

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: -on a countdown, and here's what's waiting at the end of the road: a nice air strike, 14 days or so of air strikes, Special Forces operations. We've already got SF going in there. We've got over-flights, at least that's what I'm told. So, we're, as far as the Iranians are concerned, we're doing to them what they're-

Jed Babbin: (sigh)

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: doing to us. And at the end of it, if we are able to execute this strike and we've really got Iran then up in arms against us, what is accomplished other than a five year or so delay in the nuclear.

Jed Babbin: Well-

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: We don't have the capacity to occupy Iran. We don't have to capacity to calm down the Islamic world after the strike."
http://securingamerica.com/node/2530

And when advocates for military action against Iran attempt to exploit any indication of Iranian involvement inside of Iraq that is adversarial to American efforts there, Wes Clark has the guts to turn the tables and point out how the United States is already supporting conducting operations against Iran, and that the United States gives Iran every incentive to make Americans lives hell inside Iraq because the Bush Administration has long made it clear that their true intention has always been to overthrow Iran's government. Wes Clark recently made this comment in reply to that type of accusation against Iran on Diane Rehm's PBS show 7/12/07:

"GENERAL WESLEY CLARK We've known from the beginning that when we went into Iraq, as we told everybody, including a lot of the NeoCons who testified before Congress that Iraq was just the first step. So we gave Iran and Syria every reason to oppose us. If you were in the Iranian's position right now, you'd see themselves surrounded by US forces with US aircraft carriers there, an insurgency trying to be fomented from Baluchistan which would be hard-pressed not to blame on the United States, the continuing rumors of special forces operations inside Iran and perhaps overflights from unmanned aerial vehicles."
http://securingamerica.com/node/2544

Clark is constantly blasting the Bush Administration for refusing to engage in real negotiations with Iran, and he always points out that the U.S. has more than enough cards to play without being forced to use military force. He made the following comment during a speech at UCLA's Law School in January:

“We need to keep the threat of Iran in perspective. And in dealing with them we have to realize that we are the most powerful country in the world. We have incredible economic strength. We hold the key to the G-8, the World Trade Organization, International Monetary Fund...the key to advanced technology, energy development—We have that. So when I hear rumors that the President is unable to talk to Iran right now because we don’t have “leverage”...

--- If you have 1000 feet of leverage – do you need another half inch?

We have 1000 feet of leverage over Iran. We’re completely dominant over the country. Cant the most powerful nation in the world deign to speak to an aspiring regional power?"
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/10663


I'll post this now and start a second reply to you...

[Tom Rinaldo]

34. Again, assuming one accepts that this wasn't a conference examining U.S. history in the Middle East

What realistically could you ask of someone giving testimony about America's current options in Iraq? And beyond that, I don't think I've even heard Dennis Kucinich rail against the American empire in the type of ideological context that you yearn for, have you?

I have heard Clark directly talk to many important elements of good global citizenship in other settings. Here he didn't comment one way or another about whether the U.S. on the whole is a good guy or bad guy in the World, Clark simply stated the obvious as he ran down a check list of the major issues that any American President of member of Congress needs to acknowledge regarding the middle east today; one is that we have a national interest in assuring that our economy has adaquate access to Middle Eastern Oil while we remain dependent on it. So does Western Europe, so does China, so does Japan, and so does India. How we go about attempting to address that need can vary from acting with truly enlightened self interest to acting like Nazi Germany, but in any case the need is still real. Unlike France, the U.S. hasn't gone through several constitutions since the end of WWII. Unlike Russia, the U.S. has not dissolved a larger formal empire and reconstituted itself with much internal turmoil. Unlike China the U.S. did not have massive civil unrest that shook every layer of government during a Great Cultural Revolution. For better and for worse the U.S. has been relatively stable and dependable in the sense of consistency of professed interests and mechanisisms for pursuing them.

Clark wasn't there to discuss energy policy and/or trade policy and/or international regulation of corporate activities. He was listing the major issues that exist that will make it impossible for the U.S. to now be indifferent to what happens in the Middle East even were we to exit Iraq tomorrow. Clark has won some enemies in the Israeli lobby for opposing their push for war with Iran, but Clark acknowledges the obvious, it is U.S. policy, very very unlikely to change, to guarentee Israel's physical security. So that is another magnet pulling our attention to that region that can not be ignored. And every politician in America and the vast majority of our citizens agree that Al Qaeda poses a threat to America and Americans; they differ on the extent certainly, but not on whether there is a real threat that needs to be managed.

Clark's point was that what is happening now within Iraq does not exist in a vacuum, and Bush's unwillingness to openly deal with all the nations in that region around all of the outstanding interests that they eqach will come to the table with has caused undue American and Iraqi suffering.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

11. Speaking of corporate influence, Obama is dominating on Wall Street with HRC 2nd

Obama raised almost twice as much as HRC, more than twice as much as 3rd place McCain, and 17 times more than the populist Edwards.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3387446

I agree. We really need to end corporate influence in our elections.

[antigop]

12. Michael Moore's "Sickos for sale"

http://www.michaelmoore.com/sicko/sickos-for-sale/candidates/

[Totally Committed]

16. Hillary's #1.... knock me over with a feather!

Ugh.

TC

[welshTerrier2]

18. you're missing the key point though

you see, when republicans accept corporate money, they're in bed with big business.

when Hillary accepts corporate money, it's OK because she's a liberal. the fact that her health care "solutions" cater to the health insurance industry is merely a coincidence.

i'm glad we had this opportunity to clear that up ...

[redqueen]

30. i would laugh

but it's just too frickin sad

*sigh*


people are dying because other people won't even TRY to do something different

[Totally Committed]

35. Actually, I didn't miss that point at all....

I just expressed myself badly. I have been saying just that for a long time. And, when Hillary accepts corporate money, it's NOT okay (and she is no effing "liberal" either!)

This is a great thread. I'm so glad you posted it. People here need to know this before they get blithely in line behind Hillary -- or ANY of the current candidates. They need to make informed decisions. not just be bullied into supporting the "inevitable" candidate.

TC

[welshTerrier2]

36. i know you didn't

if anyone gets it, TC, you do ...

it would be interesting to ask all these candidate supporters whether they believe there is a "quid pro quo" for all these corporate contributions ... one wonders whether they would even reply ...

[Totally Committed]

46. Well, first they'd call us names, and then they'd say we weren't REAL Democrats...

then they'd cite a half dozen polls showing their candidate's invincibilty, and then tell us to go vote for Nader. You and I would end up fighting them back and forth about what the meaning of 'quid pro quo' really is, and then they'd start a thread about their candidate's healthcare plan, or their plan for ending poverty, or their plan for ending the Iraq occupation. Then they'd list every single latest endorsement, while deftly trying to ignore the 'quid pro quo' that probably went on there, too.

I don't know about you, but I'm tired of all that bullsh*t. The supporters of candidates who have corporate money and corporatist views are part of the problem,not part of the solution. The DLC needs to be shown the door, but of course, that will never happen. This Party needs to actually nominate a candidate that will not try and triangulate it to the Right of Attila the Hun, but that won't happen, either.

I don't know what the answer is, but it needs to stop. And 2008 is the year it stops for me.

TC

[welshTerrier2]

47. hiding threads

yesterday, for the first time ever, I actually started hiding threads in GDP. the forum is being spammed and it's gotten to be like a giant, free billboard. i wish the admins would create a separate forum for candidate threads that don't discuss the issues. they could call it something like General Discussion - Horseracing Horseshit. All the posts about polls and endorsements by somebody's bank teller and how much money someone raised could go into that forum. GD - Politics could be used to discuss issues including the positions of candidates on the issues.

I wonder if we put that to a vote whether other DU'ers, especially GDP posters, would agree.

In just one day, I've hidden about 40 threads. I can't stand the spamming in this forum.

One thing, and I recently changed my mind about this, that I would love to see is a "Boo it" to provide the opposite reaction to "recommendations". Maybe if these crappy candidate spammers got tons of "boo its", they wouldn't be so quick to spew their nonsense. the current system allows their threads to get recommendations from those who support the candidate while silencing the rest of us. if we comment in the thread itself, all it does is kick the thread. not much point in that ...

so, whaddya say? General Discussion - Horseracing Horeshit? we could nickname it GDHH ...

[Totally Committed]

48. The worst days are the days when the polls are released.

Three polls, a dozen different interpretations, all with their own thread, and all doing a one-upper on the other. Ugh.

I've never noticed that feature.... you can actually hide whole threads? I'll have to look into that. I'm currently on bullsh*t overload, and it's making me cranky. ;)

TC

[welshTerrier2]

49. son of hiding threads

just click that little icon thingie right at the end of the thread title in the thread index and poooooooof ... if you go to "Options", you can then see all the threads you've hidden.

off to read the next chapter of "America Beyond Capitalism" ... perhaps that will lead to my next thread ...

[redqueen]

50. that bob dylan lyric just popped into my head again...

you just want to be on the side that's winnin

[draft_mario_cuomo]

20. Yes, but she is a distant second on Wall Street to Obama (although she beats all Republicans easily)

If HRC, as many say, is a "corporate whore" what does that make a candidate who beat her almost 2-to-1 on Wall Street?

[draft_mario_cuomo]

22. Thanks for the info. It isn't surprising to see HRC and BO in the top 3 on that list nt

[penguin7]

43. How did he get these number from the opensecrets site?

I can't find these breakdowns.

[welshTerrier2]

45. here are a couple of more current links

i've seen the numbers Moore referenced on OpenSecrets (Can't remember the link though). They showed that last year, Hillary was #2 behind Rick Santorum.

here are a couple of links that show contributions for 2008 from the insurance industry and from health care professionals:

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=F09
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=H01

Here's the closest I could come to Moore's reference: http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.asp?Ind=F09&cycle=2006

[welshTerrier2]

15. Does Edwards talk about taking corporate money out of campaigns?

making the case that Edwards gets 17 times less corporate money than Obama could just as easily make a case for his ineffectiveness as his commitment to ridding the political process of corporate money.

the fundamental question remains: has Edwards made this issue a central core of his campaign?

If so, that's great. Do you have any links to statements he's made on the issue? If not, I don't really see the point of your post although I'm glad you agree about the issue's importance.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

19. Sadly, none of the major candidates have

==making the case that Edwards gets 17 times less corporate money than Obama could just as easily make a case for his ineffectiveness as his commitment to ridding the political process of corporate money.==

Obama raised 3.5 more than Edwards overall. Yet the margin mushrooms to 17-to-1 on Wall Street. Reach your own conclusions.

Why is Edwards doing far worse than the two Third Way pro-corporate Democrats and Republicans? He is the biggest threat to corporate interests. Edwards is not perfect but, unless Kucinich suddenly surges past where he has been since 2003, he is by far the best among the top tier on economic fairness and other issues that Wall Street has a vested interest in preserving the status quo on.

[jefferson_dem]

38. And Edwards used to work for those types of firms that you now decry.

Remember?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/22/AR2007042201339.html

Sheesh. You really have pasted the board with this attack on Obama, eh.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

41. We know that. So does Wall Street. Guess what? They prefer Obama by 17-to-1

So if your argument is that Edwards is pro-corporate then what does that make Obama? :crazy:

It is hilarious that BO fans, who love to denounce HRC as a "corporate whore", are utterly silent or apologists for Obama being--by far--Wall Street's favorite.

P.S. you forgot to mention this: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/07/17/edwards-shows-dropoff-in-hedge-fund-donors/

Yes, Obama, like he is doing with Romney's old firm, is beating Edwards at Fortress.

[welshTerrier2]

42. this link says HRC leads in contributions from the "securities and investments" industry

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=F07

[Freddie Stubbs]

24. Bullshit. Corporations are forbidden by law from contributing to congressional candidates

As are unions.

[Totally Committed]

26. It's this kind of open-minded give-and-take that...

keeps my hope alive for this Party. :sarcasm: ---- NOT.

Did you read the OP, and accompanying documentation, links and articles -- as well as the info provided in the thread, itself, or did you just dismiss it entirely right out-of-hand?

TC

[Freddie Stubbs]

28. Yes.

And it is common knowledge that corporations are prohibited from doing this:

Corporations are expressly forbidden under federal election laws from making "contributions" or "expenditures" in connection with federal elections and candidates are expressly prohibited from knowingly accepting contributions made by corporations. A contribution or expenditure includes direct or indirect payments or "anything of value" to influence a federal election.


http://www.commondreams.org/pressreleases/June98/062998c.htm

[redqueen]

31. PAC's? Junkets?

Use of private planes?

Are you playing ignorant or just parsing semantics to confuse those who haven't caught on yet, and keep the waters nice and muddy?

[welshTerrier2]

32. you barely deserve a response

first of all, before you go around calling other people liars, perhaps you might want to wander through the DU rules for a refresher course.

secondly, your assertion that this thread was posted to support any given candidate is totally wrong. if that's your assessment of my motivations, you're barking up the wrong tree.

now, as to your sad little point, start reading here: http://www.opensecrets.org/overview/blio.asp?cycle=2006

of course, the main point of this thread, a point you chose to completely ignore, is the influence of big money and corporate power on our democracy. would you care to discuss that? would you care to offer your analysis of bi-partisan silence on the Iraqi Oil Law? Would you care to discuss US imperialism and the political infrastructure that caters to it? Would you like to make some arguments about Hillary's corporate health care "solutions"? Would you like to discuss the Gallup poll cited in the OP that indicated 2/3 of Americans believe the "special interests" dominate our government?

[dmosh42]

33. Big corporations are the 'enemy of state', more than Al Qaida...

..They know how to beat down the public, as most people are very insecure. They know how to press the right buttons, and the voters fold. I can think of two events in my life where two huge corporations were totally negligent. But these corporations were quite blunt and said it would cost the state jobs and maybe shutdowns, so all the voters went against penalizing these corporations. One of these cases involved US Sugar in Florida, where we all knew, and it was documented, that they were responsible for the runoff into the Everglades, and eventually Florida Bay, causing all kinds of algae blooms, and environmental damage. So the state put up an amendment where that corporation would have to pay for the damages. But by the time the company finished publicizing what would happen to all those jobs, the people voted down that amendment, and the state, through the taxpayers had to pay for the cleanup. But this stuff goes on everyday in Washington, because their lobbyist have instant access to congress, whereas if you went down there, you had best hope to get an app't in the next few months! People do have the power, but they need to be smart enough to do some investigating on their own, and most won't bother. They wait for O'Reilly, or one of those other ass-licks to tell them which way to go.

[Jillian]

37. And the one candidate that has been advocating for public funding of elections for many years is

not even on there - :crazy:

http://campaignmoney.org/blog-tags/joe-biden
Joe Biden, on the campaign trail for the Democratic nomination for the Presidency, spoke in support of public financing for campaigns. He's sponsored past public financing legislation in the Senate, and been a vocal supporter of working to counter the influence of money in politics.

from the 2nd debate.
During the New Hampshire debate Joe Biden scored one of the best moments of the evening by calling for public financing of elections.
http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/06/07/biden-done-good/
(video of his comments on that site as well)

And Biden's comments in 2001
"Clearly there is too much money being pumped into our political system and because of that, the public's perception is that the entire electoral process and governmental system is corrupted," said Senator Biden. "Those of us who have worked over the years to reform our laws can claim some victory today, but we know that progress has been painfully slow and that we have a long, long way to go.

"McCain-Feingold is a good first step, but it is just that -- a first step on a long path to cleaning up our system. If there is consensus that there's too much money in the system, let's impose spending limitations. For those abiding by voluntary spending caps, there should be sizable incentives in the form of public financing and media vouchers. Finally, given that the cost of television and radio advertising is the primary factor driving up spending, make those ads more affordable to political candidates.

http://biden.senate.gov/newsroom/details.cfm?id=229522&&


Hello??????

[redqueen]

39. "the one candidate" is wrong. Kucinich has, as well. n/t

[Jillian]

40. sorry ! But at least Kucinich made it in the chart.

Everyone forgets about all of the good things Biden has done.

All I hear about is the usual crap..

[redqueen]

44. True, true.

That's a HUGE issue, and it's important that people are reminded that some Dems really DO dare to talk about it.

Peace. :)