4 ms·

Goldman Sachs has many well-documented connections to the US government & White house. https://prof77.wordpress.com/politics/an-updated-list-of-goldman-sachs-t

Goldman Sachs has many well-documented connections to the US government & White house. https://prof77.wordpress.com/politics/an-updated-list-of-goldman-sachs-ties-to-the-obama-government-including-elena-kagan/ https://prof77.wordpress.com/politics/an-updated-list-of-gol... http://www.whiteoutpress.com/articles/q42012/list-of-goldman-sachs-employees-in-the-white-house/ http://www.whiteoutpress.com/articles/q42012/list-of-goldman...

alanwatts 11y ago
Goldman was Obama's 2nd biggest campaign contributor in 2008
- rayiner 11y ago
  Goldman, the company, is not allowed to contribute to candidates. What OpenSecrets means when it says that is Goldman employees contributed. Which is unsurprising. Goldman has tens of thousands of well-payed employees in a heavily Democratic state. Who would they contribute to?
  - jchendy 11y ago
    Thanks for saying this. I really wish the media would stop talking about candidates receiving donations from companies, which, as you point out is not possible.
    - patrickk 11y ago
      You could look at the Clinton speaking fees, and contributions to the Clinton foundation as buying access and favour from large companies. Also, corporations can contribute unlimited funds to a candidates SuperPac (which we swear doesn't coordinate directly with the campaign! Wink, wink!)
      - astazangasta 11y ago
        The Clintons made hundreds of millions off speaking fees and donations to their foundation, Presidential library, etc. We've perfected many avenues for graft here in the US.
    - ZenoArrow 11y ago
      > "I really wish the media would stop talking about candidates receiving donations from companies, which, as you point out is not possible." Sadly, that's incorrect... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC "The United States Supreme Court held (5–4) that the First Amendment prohibited the government from restricting independent political expenditures by a nonprofit corporation. The principles articulated by the Supreme Court in the case have also been extended to for-profit corporations, labor unions and other associations. By allowing unlimited election spending by individuals and corporations, the decision has "re-shaped the political landscape" of the United States."
      - rayiner 11y ago
        Citizens United did not affect the ban on corporations donating to candidates. Subsequent to Citizens United, the Supreme Court denied certiorari to Danielczick vs. U.S., which would have implicated that issue. Contributions to candidates implicates very different concerns. The biggest difference, in my opinion, is that in Citizens United the law targets people who are not running for office. The ban on corporate contributions to candidates can be seen as a regulation on the candidate who may be required to bear such additional regulation as part of running for office.[1] [1] That is not the orthodox explanation for the distinction. The orthodox explanation invokes Buckley v. Valeo's balancing test, and notes that the free speech concerns are less in the case of direct campaign contributions and the corruption risk is greater. I don't like balancing tests so I don't find that persuasive.
        ZenoArrow 11y ago
        "Citizens United did not affect the ban on corporations donating to candidates." It clearly has an impact on donations to candidates, just not in an official manner. See my response to Lazare.
      - Lazare 11y ago
        Citizens United was not about, and did not change, the restriction on "candidates receiving donations from companies", which is what OP was discussing.
  - mcv 11y ago
    Why do we know where contributions come from? Why are they not anonymous? I think it'd be better if candidates had no idea where all that money came from.
    - astazangasta 11y ago
      If it were anonymous only we would not know where it came from. You can be damn sure the candidates would be told.
    - alanwatts 11y ago
      >Why are they not anonymous? The concept of a nation-state depends upon closed-source sovereignty. Anonymous money could be coming from anyone or any foreign nation-state, thus usurping and subverting the sovereignty nation state. However, this is a problem that already exists because it is easy enough for a foreign entity to use a third party shell to do this (i.e. AIPAC).
      - mcv 11y ago
        What I mean is that it should be anonymous to the candidate. One way to accomplish that is to have all donations pass through a central fund that passes it on to the candidates. Some government organization could check whether the donation meets the rules and do something else with it when it doesn't. That would make it an unaccountable black box, though. That would not be good in the interest of transparency. On the other hand, there are plenty of unaccountable black boxes already.
  - alanwatts 11y ago
    >Who would they contribute to? The candidate who would be most likely to make sure they keep their jobs and are not prosecuted for fraud. >Goldman, the company, is not allowed to contribute to candidates. What OpenSecrets means when it says that is Goldman employees contributed. This is a null distinction. "Goldman Sachs" is not a person, it is a brand name: words on a piece of paper or on the front of a building. Though I understand how this could be confusing as the law (once again, words on paper) says that articles of incorporation (words on paper) are literally people. When someone says "Goldman" they are of course referring to the persons who work or invest together under the banner name "Goldman Sachs". Like when someone says "the US did x" they are of course referring to citizens, and not the flag.

alanwatts 11y ago

Goldman was Obama's 2nd biggest campaign contributor in 2008

rayiner 11y ago
Goldman, the company, is not allowed to contribute to candidates. What OpenSecrets means when it says that is Goldman employees contributed. Which is unsurprising. Goldman has tens of thousands of well-payed employees in a heavily Democratic state. Who would they contribute to?
- jchendy 11y ago
  Thanks for saying this. I really wish the media would stop talking about candidates receiving donations from companies, which, as you point out is not possible.
  - patrickk 11y ago
    You could look at the Clinton speaking fees, and contributions to the Clinton foundation as buying access and favour from large companies. Also, corporations can contribute unlimited funds to a candidates SuperPac (which we swear doesn't coordinate directly with the campaign! Wink, wink!)
    - astazangasta 11y ago
      The Clintons made hundreds of millions off speaking fees and donations to their foundation, Presidential library, etc. We've perfected many avenues for graft here in the US.
  - ZenoArrow 11y ago
    > "I really wish the media would stop talking about candidates receiving donations from companies, which, as you point out is not possible." Sadly, that's incorrect... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC "The United States Supreme Court held (5–4) that the First Amendment prohibited the government from restricting independent political expenditures by a nonprofit corporation. The principles articulated by the Supreme Court in the case have also been extended to for-profit corporations, labor unions and other associations. By allowing unlimited election spending by individuals and corporations, the decision has "re-shaped the political landscape" of the United States."
    - rayiner 11y ago
      Citizens United did not affect the ban on corporations donating to candidates. Subsequent to Citizens United, the Supreme Court denied certiorari to Danielczick vs. U.S., which would have implicated that issue. Contributions to candidates implicates very different concerns. The biggest difference, in my opinion, is that in Citizens United the law targets people who are not running for office. The ban on corporate contributions to candidates can be seen as a regulation on the candidate who may be required to bear such additional regulation as part of running for office.[1] [1] That is not the orthodox explanation for the distinction. The orthodox explanation invokes Buckley v. Valeo's balancing test, and notes that the free speech concerns are less in the case of direct campaign contributions and the corruption risk is greater. I don't like balancing tests so I don't find that persuasive.
      - ZenoArrow 11y ago
        "Citizens United did not affect the ban on corporations donating to candidates." It clearly has an impact on donations to candidates, just not in an official manner. See my response to Lazare.
    - Lazare 11y ago
      Citizens United was not about, and did not change, the restriction on "candidates receiving donations from companies", which is what OP was discussing.
- mcv 11y ago
  Why do we know where contributions come from? Why are they not anonymous? I think it'd be better if candidates had no idea where all that money came from.
  - astazangasta 11y ago
    If it were anonymous only we would not know where it came from. You can be damn sure the candidates would be told.
  - alanwatts 11y ago
    >Why are they not anonymous? The concept of a nation-state depends upon closed-source sovereignty. Anonymous money could be coming from anyone or any foreign nation-state, thus usurping and subverting the sovereignty nation state. However, this is a problem that already exists because it is easy enough for a foreign entity to use a third party shell to do this (i.e. AIPAC).
    - mcv 11y ago
      What I mean is that it should be anonymous to the candidate. One way to accomplish that is to have all donations pass through a central fund that passes it on to the candidates. Some government organization could check whether the donation meets the rules and do something else with it when it doesn't. That would make it an unaccountable black box, though. That would not be good in the interest of transparency. On the other hand, there are plenty of unaccountable black boxes already.
- alanwatts 11y ago
  >Who would they contribute to? The candidate who would be most likely to make sure they keep their jobs and are not prosecuted for fraud. >Goldman, the company, is not allowed to contribute to candidates. What OpenSecrets means when it says that is Goldman employees contributed. This is a null distinction. "Goldman Sachs" is not a person, it is a brand name: words on a piece of paper or on the front of a building. Though I understand how this could be confusing as the law (once again, words on paper) says that articles of incorporation (words on paper) are literally people. When someone says "Goldman" they are of course referring to the persons who work or invest together under the banner name "Goldman Sachs". Like when someone says "the US did x" they are of course referring to citizens, and not the flag.