5 ms·

With notable exceptions, today's political campaigns are often financed by wealthy individuals and companies. The type of politicians which receive contribution

With notable exceptions, today's political campaigns are often financed by wealthy individuals and companies. The type of politicians which receive contributions are, unsurprisingly, the type whose views best align with those individuals and companies. This funding is instrumental in lifting many of these politicians into office. When a question of political control or regulation of companies arises, it is also unsurprising that these politicians often see things from a certain perspective.

rayiner 8y ago
Corporations aren’t allowed to “finance” “political campaigns.” When OpenSecrets says stuff like “Google” contributed $X million to Democrats, it’s lying. What really happens is Google employees contributed that money.
- torpfactory 8y ago
  While on paper there is are still limits on direct contributions to campaign organizations, the Citizen's United decision (combined with SpeechNOW vs. FEC) enables companies to instead donate to SuperPACs which are in theory independently controlled. I personally believe the distinction is for all intents and purposes meaningless. Doubly so when considering how little enforcement of the separation has actually been pursued. So, yes, I do believe companies finance political campaigns. Whether the money flows through campaign organizations is not an important distinction to me.
  - rayiner 8y ago
    It’s not a matter of what you “believe.” In election law, the “campaign” is a specific thing and financing it is something with specific meaning. Having an independent entity run ads because it happens to support that candidate is not “financing the campaign.” Leaving that aside, SuperPACs account for just 15% of election spending in 2016. It’s inaccurate to even suggest that corporate money and money from wealthy donors is the dominant factor in campaigns.
- harpastum 8y ago
  While this is technically true, it's de facto false. With the Citizens United ruling, corporations can donate unlimited funds: "[Super PACs] can raise funds from individuals, corporations, unions, and other groups without any legal limit on donation size."[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_action_committee https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_action_committee
  - rayiner 8y ago
    SuperPACs can’t use that money to “finance campaigns.”
- joeyo 8y ago
  For most intents and purposes this changed with Citizens United v FEC.
- tptacek 8y ago
  What about when the FEC says that Google's PAC donated to particular Republican politicians?
  - rayiner 8y ago
    Google’s PAC is just a way to pool donations from Google’s employees. That money can’t come out of the corporate treasury.
    - tptacek 8y ago
      That's ostensibly true, but if you talk to people who actually donate to these PACs you find they break down into high-level management (ie: the company itself; people with more-than-normal control over compensation) and "employees who sort of opt-in as a show of support for the company but who have no real idea what the PAC does". I think it's more than fair to attribute the Google PAC to Google, and not to a diffuse group of Google employees.

rayiner 8y ago

Corporations aren’t allowed to “finance” “political campaigns.” When OpenSecrets says stuff like “Google” contributed $X million to Democrats, it’s lying. What really happens is Google employees contributed that money.

torpfactory 8y ago
While on paper there is are still limits on direct contributions to campaign organizations, the Citizen's United decision (combined with SpeechNOW vs. FEC) enables companies to instead donate to SuperPACs which are in theory independently controlled. I personally believe the distinction is for all intents and purposes meaningless. Doubly so when considering how little enforcement of the separation has actually been pursued. So, yes, I do believe companies finance political campaigns. Whether the money flows through campaign organizations is not an important distinction to me.
- rayiner 8y ago
  It’s not a matter of what you “believe.” In election law, the “campaign” is a specific thing and financing it is something with specific meaning. Having an independent entity run ads because it happens to support that candidate is not “financing the campaign.” Leaving that aside, SuperPACs account for just 15% of election spending in 2016. It’s inaccurate to even suggest that corporate money and money from wealthy donors is the dominant factor in campaigns.
harpastum 8y ago
While this is technically true, it's de facto false. With the Citizens United ruling, corporations can donate unlimited funds: "[Super PACs] can raise funds from individuals, corporations, unions, and other groups without any legal limit on donation size."[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_action_committee https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_action_committee
- rayiner 8y ago
  SuperPACs can’t use that money to “finance campaigns.”
joeyo 8y ago
For most intents and purposes this changed with Citizens United v FEC.
tptacek 8y ago
What about when the FEC says that Google's PAC donated to particular Republican politicians?
- rayiner 8y ago
  Google’s PAC is just a way to pool donations from Google’s employees. That money can’t come out of the corporate treasury.
  - tptacek 8y ago
    That's ostensibly true, but if you talk to people who actually donate to these PACs you find they break down into high-level management (ie: the company itself; people with more-than-normal control over compensation) and "employees who sort of opt-in as a show of support for the company but who have no real idea what the PAC does". I think it's more than fair to attribute the Google PAC to Google, and not to a diffuse group of Google employees.