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

runn wrote:

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.

I thought the liberals targeted the jigs?

localunion137 wrote:

Unions work for the good of the people. Koch brothers work for the good of themselves.

Unions work for the good of the people....... who are in unions. Corrected that for you.

localunion137 wrote:

Unions work for the good of the people. Koch brothers work for the good of themselves.

If you think it's this cut and dry, at any point in history but especially in 2015, you have a strongly tilted view of reality.

So, in summary, you don't mind them contributing money, as long as you agree with their points of view?

Lib-tard wrote:

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 studies cited in Freakonomics has been somewhat contradicted by further study. But the message from that book is still true. Candidates do matter. A strong candidate will beat a better-funded weak candidate.

So who picks the candidates? The people with the money.

Why do they get to pick? It takes lots of money to run a campaign.

In the era of social media, money now matters even less. If a candidate is truly great, he can get his message out without spending a dime.

Edmond from Redmond wrote:

L L wrote:

Just put reasonable limits on both.

Any issue with that?

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

That's a fair point and the reason the changes on this issue.

But there are many reasonable limitations on how people are allowed to pend their money.

If a corporation uses its money to bribe a foreign official to advance their position to sell their product there are serious penalties for this.

You can't bribe a judge or a police officer.

Sports teams put limits on how much they can pay players.

There are many limitations on tax affected spending that you can do.

So some think there may be unfair influence by individuals or entities that have the means to greatly outspend those with opposing views that then has legal and political ramifications on society as a whole.

Government is designed to have fair representation of all.

The premise being that everyone gets a vote.

But who are our choices to vote for?

Well, those with dollars get to select who the people are that we get to vote for.

Does that seem like fair representation for all?

L L wrote:

Edmond from Redmond wrote:

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

Sports teams put limits on how much they can pay players.

You do realize that salary caps in professional sports are the internal rules of private organizations and not federal mandates, right? That is a huge and important difference that renders this example completely foolish. If I wanted to, I could start my own sports league and pay my players whatever I wanted.

Steve Holt wrote:

In the era of social media, money now matters even less. If a candidate is truly great, he can get his message out without spending a dime.

Can you please name an example?

I'll support removing private money from the election process when you support removing public money (if you work for the fed/state/local or receive >50% of you income/expenses paid from the state, you aren't allowed to vote). Deal?

The Koch brothers have funny noses.

Im liberal and I don't think any one entity should be able to give in unlimited amounts. Individuals, businesses, organizations, ... should all be limited in how much money they give any political party or specific candidate.

Edmond from Redmond wrote:

This seems to be a common line of reasoning, but I don't quite get it.

You say it's a "common line of reasoning". Can you give one example, even, of this line of reasoning being made by someone who's not trolling? Anywhere?

You Are What You Is wrote:

Edmond from Redmond wrote:

This seems to be a common line of reasoning, but I don't quite get it.

You say it's a "common line of reasoning". Can you give one example, even, of this line of reasoning being made by someone who's not trolling? Anywhere?

I think both are bad, just of the two the Koch's are worse because they're basically buying off politicians for their own personal interest and the Unions are buying off politicians for all their members. My sympathies always go to the guys actually working for a living as opposed to those trying to fuck them over.

In any case I think one simple change to campaign laws fixes the problem. You can give all the money you want, but you can't give to to anyone you can't personally vote for. Unions don't vote, corporations don't vote, and if the Koch's want to give a hundred million to their own senator or whoever they support for president that's great at long as everyone else knows where the money came from.

Well said, well said.

Keith Stone wrote:

My sympathies always go to the guys actually working for a living as opposed to those trying to fuck them over.

Are you kidding? The whole point of unions is to use collective bargaining to AVOID having to work for a living, as much as they possibly can get away with.

Cantankerous wrote:

You do realize that salary caps in professional sports are the internal rules of private organizations and not federal mandates, right? That is a huge and important difference that renders this example completely foolish. If I wanted to, I could start my own sports league and pay my players whatever I wanted.

A sports league is a subset of a nation which is a subset of civilized society.

The owners of these teams cannot pay their players whatever they want because they are part of a communal group that restricts this.

Stat your own sports league?

No individual owns any of these sports leagues.

They wouldn't be your players.

They are the owners players and they cannot pay them whatever they want.

A sports league is an example of a nation but on a smaller scale.

There is no rule earthlings have to do anything but nations do set up regulations for their citizens.

Please point to the US law that says that an extremely wealthy individual cannot start his own sports league and pay a player one billion dollars per year.