Why is it bad if the Koch brothers want to give $ to a political campaign, but good if a union wants to give money?

because the Kochs are anti-SEMITES

I believe they are both equaling corrupting but the Union side would argue that the union money represents a less specific or broader voter base than the trust-fund anti-Semite Kochs...

Citizens United should be repealed but the GOP led Congress is considering de-regulating campaign contributions even more.

The Koch's target the most ignorant segment of our society with lies about freedom when their agenda is simply to protect the mega profits of big business at the expense of Middle Class America.

Because the Koch brothers are conservative and unions are liberal. Any conservative causes are bad and all liberal causes are good.

runn wrote:

The Koch's target the most ignorant segment of our society with lies about freedom

You could replace "The Kochs" (not sure why the apostrophe) with "Unions" in this sentence and it would make no less sense.

If you think the unions aren't targeting ignorant people with lies about freedom to protect their agenda/profits, you're nuts.

I'm not saying I support the Koch's agenda (I don't), but acting like one of these two groups is honorable is ignorant. They're both in it for their own reasons, they both have free speech, let them both spend, and for the love of god can we just get on with it?

CowardswithGunsRCool wrote:

I believe they are both equaling corrupting but the Union side would argue that the union money represents a less specific or broader voter base than the trust-fund anti-Semite Kochs...

Citizens United should be repealed but the GOP led Congress is considering de-regulating campaign contributions even more.

correctomundo

It's not bad for the Koch Brothers to contribute to a political campaign, it's the actions they've been linked to

- putting out hateful personal attacks and leaflets on Dem and independent candidates independently of the local Rep party, even in small town Mayoral elections. One Republican Mayoral candidate withdrew in disgust (featured on The Daily Show).

- funding Global Warming denial groups to defend their business (while almost every other energy company has accepted the phenomenom).

- funding opposition to the unionization of companies like WalMart

- funding a campaign to promote and provide legal costs for the fingerprinting of voters

- funding supposedly independent think tanks, to ensure their forecasts support the Republican cause

- almost wholly funding the Tea Party.

The second largest informal voting bloc in the US after the american homeowner is the State-salaried/dependent citizen. Show me the HUD employee or the welfare recipient actively seeking small government politicians - again small government politicians doesn't so necessarily equal republican.

Hint: they don't exist.

In effect, the state is bank-rolling citizens that will vote for more state. The Koch brothers' activities provide a nearly insignificant counterbalance to state-influenced voters.

I don't agree with everthing Romney said but he was right about Russia and he's right about "takers".

runn wrote:

The Koch's target the most ignorant segment of our society .

In an age of obamaphone recipients, welfare abusers, Al Sharpton followers, obama sons like Trayvon and Michael Brown, Ferguson rioters and ghetto whores with 6 kids by five different guys, you refuse to call them what they are. YET, you call me, a father, a husband to his mother, small business owner who pays my lowest paid employee $18.64 per hour and does pay taxes even though I know my government wastes what I pay, to ignore our border laws, refuses to prosecute knockout game thugs expect the lone white guy who did it, refuses to indict al sharpton but sends the IRS to target conservative groups, has a president that threatens gun ownership and refuses to call terrorism what it is "the most ignorant segment of our society" shows what a p*ssy the young white American male has become. Your forefathers must be so proud.

The unions fight to have publicly financed campaigns where no one's money makes a difference, but where they do give money, they represent the voices of many workers and indeed an entire very large sector of the population (unionized or non-unionized workers), whereas the Koch Brothers represent only their own very self-interested, environmentally destructive voices but get far more pull in determining the politicians' views than those millions of workers.

I am pretty liberal but I have to agree that the Democrats do target a lot of ignorant people.

I think the liberal Democratic party at this point is a thing of the past. It's merely the corporate party left, and the Republican party are the corporate party right.

Since both parties are inherently corrupt at this point, we have to ask how to keep corruption out of government.

I think that the Koch brothers' contributions to politicians on both sides, followed by subsequent deregulation of contributions to campaigns is a direct threat to democracy. This goes for Democrats taking money too.

At the heart of things, Walmart takes advantage of economy of scale and their average worker, ensuring the growth of the poorer class.

Urine idiot is a true American here, paying a fair wage to his workers. But I think you are misguided to take the side of the people who want to funnel all the money to the top.

I've said it before and will again, I don't see any solution to this. I think we are deeply, genuinely screwed as democracy is attacked by those who tell us we have upward mobility, yet only offer 8 dollar an hour jobs while making billions.

How does Walmart take advantage of their their average worker? Have you seen those people? They're lucky to have jobs at all. Liberals should be praising Walmart for hiring the bottom of out society.

I have recently heard that there is a new dominant force in the running universe. His name is Brock and he is an ultra runner beyond compare. He has successfully FINISHED several ultra races. He is such an athletic fiend that he runs marathons as training 'fun-runs'. He is so dominant that he does not even dabble with the beginner races (i.e 5k or 10k). He has even COMPLETED a 100-miler.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it fellas!!

jjjjj wrote:

The unions fight to have publicly financed campaigns where no one's money makes a difference, but where they do give money, they represent the voices of many workers and indeed an entire very large sector of the population (unionized or non-unionized workers), whereas the Koch Brothers represent only their own very self-interested, environmentally destructive voices but get far more pull in determining the politicians' views than those millions of workers.

haha, lol

Responding to a few of the posters above who are either complete idiots or agenda-driven (you choose)...

The Koch brothers are NOT conservatives and are NOT supporters of the tea-party, etc. They are solidly libertarian. I am a conservative and the Koch brothers side with the liberals as often as they do with me on different issues.

Koch Pac is around #8 on the superpac list by spending and is a fraction of union spending. George Soros would top the list but fails to disclose most of his contributions calling a large portion of the $8 billion he has spent as "donations"

Aren't the "Sons of Obama" black unlike Obama who is mulatto?

OP: who said this, exactly? Setting up an absurd statement to attack is a basic propaganda technique.

Campaign finance limits would apply to all entities. Your elite masters are just upset about it because corporations give MUCH more than unions.

It's another effective propaganda technique on your part to set it up as if union donations and corporate donations are in any way equivalent in effect.

In 2014, the Koch brothers spent more than twice what the top-10-highest-spending unions spent on campaigns. That's just the Koch brothers alone; forget about other corporations.

http://www.republicreport.org/2014/unions-koch/

You're comparing elephants to ants, Mr. Goebbels.

Just put reasonable limits on both.

Any issue with that?

L L wrote:

Just put reasonable limits on both.

Any issue with that?

Yes. Who are you to limit how I spend MY money?