4 ms·

I used to work for BigCorp which had a PAC. Each year they had a campaign to drum up contributions to the PAC. Officers of the company would send emails and mak

I used to work for BigCorp which had a PAC. Each year they had a campaign to drum up contributions to the PAC. Officers of the company would send emails and make calls, letting everyone know how important it was to contribute to the PAC. The tactics were both carrot and stick. On one phone call I was told that it was important to donate because electing candidates favorable to the company "helped support all of our jobs". On the other hand, the company also would donate money to a charity of our choice for every dollar we gave to the PAC. So not only did they get the PAC funded, they also took a charitable contribution deduction. The PAC donated certain sums of money to various candidates at the state and federal level each election cycle. Curious, I called the person who ran the PAC and asked how they chose the candidates. He replied simply, "We'll support anyone who will vote consistent with the interests of BigCorp." And effectively, that's how corporations donate money to political candidates.

Lazare 13y ago
You might say this is a minor quibble, but: > And effectively, that's how corporations donate money to political candidates. Actually....no. Rules on PACs are different but still quite strict. They can donate a maximum of $5,000 to a candidate. In American politics, $5,000 is fucking nothing. In a contested senate election, that's a rounding error. The way corporations influence elections is the same way rich individuals influence elections: Not by donating money to politicians (which are heavily capped), but through independent expenditures, which have no caps.
- craftsman 13y ago
  If it was "fucking nothing," I doubt they would bother. Rather, they look at it as a good investment that pays off. I know this to be true because of the intense earnestness with which they encouraged me and so many others to donate. Of course, maybe all they wanted was the charitable contribution deduction, that could be true. But I listened to many talks by officers of BigCorp in which they talked about the importance of these contributions to swerve legislation at the local, state, and federal level to their favor, most often to reduce the cost of doing business in the many states in which this particular BigCorp did business.
  - Lazare 13y ago
    You misunderstand. Political financing in the US is very complex; all I'm saying is that the direct donations by corporate PACs to individual candidates is utterly trivial. Look at this list: http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contrib.php?id=N00009638 http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contrib.php?id=N00009638 "This table lists the top donors to this candidate in the 2012 election cycle. The organizations themselves did not donate , rather the money came from the organizations' PACs, their individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families." So if we look at Microsoft, $800k went from Microsoft and related entities to Obama's campaign. That's a lot of money, and I have no doubt it bought real influence with Obama. But out of that $800k, at most $5k was the money that went directly from Microsoft's PAC to the Obama campaign. And that's well...nothing. It is 0.625% of the total amount given by Microsoft, 0.0007% of the total amount given to candidate Obama. I have no doubt that BigCorp was very insistent about your contributing to the PAC; but they had no intention of using more than the barest fraction of that money to donate to the campaign of individual politicians. They couldn't, even if they wanted to. They would have been intending to spend it on much more effective (and unregulated) channels.

Lazare 13y ago

You might say this is a minor quibble, but: > And effectively, that's how corporations donate money to political candidates. Actually....no. Rules on PACs are different but still quite strict. They can donate a maximum of $5,000 to a candidate. In American politics, $5,000 is fucking nothing. In a contested senate election, that's a rounding error. The way corporations influence elections is the same way rich individuals influence elections: Not by donating money to politicians (which are heavily capped), but through independent expenditures, which have no caps.

craftsman 13y ago
If it was "fucking nothing," I doubt they would bother. Rather, they look at it as a good investment that pays off. I know this to be true because of the intense earnestness with which they encouraged me and so many others to donate. Of course, maybe all they wanted was the charitable contribution deduction, that could be true. But I listened to many talks by officers of BigCorp in which they talked about the importance of these contributions to swerve legislation at the local, state, and federal level to their favor, most often to reduce the cost of doing business in the many states in which this particular BigCorp did business.
- Lazare 13y ago
  You misunderstand. Political financing in the US is very complex; all I'm saying is that the direct donations by corporate PACs to individual candidates is utterly trivial. Look at this list: http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contrib.php?id=N00009638 http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contrib.php?id=N00009638 "This table lists the top donors to this candidate in the 2012 election cycle. The organizations themselves did not donate , rather the money came from the organizations' PACs, their individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families." So if we look at Microsoft, $800k went from Microsoft and related entities to Obama's campaign. That's a lot of money, and I have no doubt it bought real influence with Obama. But out of that $800k, at most $5k was the money that went directly from Microsoft's PAC to the Obama campaign. And that's well...nothing. It is 0.625% of the total amount given by Microsoft, 0.0007% of the total amount given to candidate Obama. I have no doubt that BigCorp was very insistent about your contributing to the PAC; but they had no intention of using more than the barest fraction of that money to donate to the campaign of individual politicians. They couldn't, even if they wanted to. They would have been intending to spend it on much more effective (and unregulated) channels.