4 ms·

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.

by jchendy 10y ago

patrickk 10y 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 10y 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 10y 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 10y 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 10y 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 10y ago
  Citizens United was not about, and did not change, the restriction on "candidates receiving donations from companies", which is what OP was discussing.
  - ZenoArrow 10y ago
    Yes it did. You have to look more broadly than just direct contributions to candidates. Large contributions to PACs would still buy influence. Consider the Koch brothers. They're expected to spend around $889 million in the current US election cycle: http://theweek.com/speedreads/535882/koch-brothers-plan-spend-889-million-2016-election http://theweek.com/speedreads/535882/koch-brothers-plan-spen... Considering the maximum campaign contribution is $2,700 per candidate, I think it's safe to say they plan on influencing the election without relying on directly funding candidates. That does not mean that the candidates aren't responsive to these alternative funding streams. Another example of how this money corrupts the position of politicians can be seen in the Clinton Foundation. https://www.rt.com/usa/340480-clinton-donors-panama-papers/ https://www.rt.com/usa/340480-clinton-donors-panama-papers/ "Giustra is a Canadian mining magnate who became a large donor for the Clinton Foundation 11 years ago, going on to set up the ‘Great White North’ chapter of the foundation. He currently sits on the board. The billionaire later became an example of the foundation’s murky ties between donors and apparent political favors, due to the 2005 dinner with Giustra, Bill Clinton, and Kazakhstan president Nursultan Nazarbayev – and the deal that “stunned the mining industry, turning an unknown shell company into one of the world’s largest uranium producers in a transaction ultimately worth tens of millions of dollars to Mr Giustra,” wrote the New York Times, quoting analysts."
    - Lazare 10y ago
      > You have to look more broadly than just direct contributions to candidates No. Citizens United only covered direct contributions to candidates, and while it is correct that you should look more widely to ascertain the overall workings of the American electoral system, the second you do so you are no longer evaluating the impacts of Citizens United. > Consider the Koch brothers [...] Giustra is a Canadian mining magnate who became a large donor for the Clinton Foundation You are now talking about independent expenditures by individuals, which ALSO was not impacted by Citizens United. Neither example you give is something which was illegal prior to Citizens United, but legal afterwards. (And in fact, one of the examples took place before Citizens United, so um...) As a result, your post just underscores how unimportant (and overhyped) Citizens United was, once you "look more broadly than just direct contributions to candidates".

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.

by jchendy 10y 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 10y 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 10y 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 10y 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 10y 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 10y 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 10y ago
Citizens United was not about, and did not change, the restriction on "candidates receiving donations from companies", which is what OP was discussing.
- ZenoArrow 10y ago
  Yes it did. You have to look more broadly than just direct contributions to candidates. Large contributions to PACs would still buy influence. Consider the Koch brothers. They're expected to spend around $889 million in the current US election cycle: http://theweek.com/speedreads/535882/koch-brothers-plan-spend-889-million-2016-election http://theweek.com/speedreads/535882/koch-brothers-plan-spen... Considering the maximum campaign contribution is $2,700 per candidate, I think it's safe to say they plan on influencing the election without relying on directly funding candidates. That does not mean that the candidates aren't responsive to these alternative funding streams. Another example of how this money corrupts the position of politicians can be seen in the Clinton Foundation. https://www.rt.com/usa/340480-clinton-donors-panama-papers/ https://www.rt.com/usa/340480-clinton-donors-panama-papers/ "Giustra is a Canadian mining magnate who became a large donor for the Clinton Foundation 11 years ago, going on to set up the ‘Great White North’ chapter of the foundation. He currently sits on the board. The billionaire later became an example of the foundation’s murky ties between donors and apparent political favors, due to the 2005 dinner with Giustra, Bill Clinton, and Kazakhstan president Nursultan Nazarbayev – and the deal that “stunned the mining industry, turning an unknown shell company into one of the world’s largest uranium producers in a transaction ultimately worth tens of millions of dollars to Mr Giustra,” wrote the New York Times, quoting analysts."
  - Lazare 10y ago
    > You have to look more broadly than just direct contributions to candidates No. Citizens United only covered direct contributions to candidates, and while it is correct that you should look more widely to ascertain the overall workings of the American electoral system, the second you do so you are no longer evaluating the impacts of Citizens United. > Consider the Koch brothers [...] Giustra is a Canadian mining magnate who became a large donor for the Clinton Foundation You are now talking about independent expenditures by individuals, which ALSO was not impacted by Citizens United. Neither example you give is something which was illegal prior to Citizens United, but legal afterwards. (And in fact, one of the examples took place before Citizens United, so um...) As a result, your post just underscores how unimportant (and overhyped) Citizens United was, once you "look more broadly than just direct contributions to candidates".