Good Layman's guide to the financial crisis

[Ken White]

Quoted:

“Parties will sort of shrink in the relative importance of things...”

and

“It could be traced back to you,” he said. “That is no longer a concern.”

The first is great news -- the Parties are the far more significant problem. The second is true only in the legal sense -- that factor will affect the way the market treats the Company or organization. The American body politic, collectively, is a lot smarter than the media and the so-called educated elite -- and the Politicians -- think they are.

The upshot is that things will change but not much and as much or more for the better as for worse. Consider also that the Federal Government treats Corporations as citizens in a great many respects. (LINK - .pdf; Scroll down to Section I).

[tequila]

The second is true only in the legal sense -- that factor will affect the way the market treats the Company or organization. The American body politic, collectively, is a lot smarter than the media and the so-called educated elite -- and the Politicians -- think they are.

Please explain what you mean by this. Somehow I don't think the average American voter has telepathy that will allow him to suss out which front organization gets funding from what source. That doesn't happen now and shooting the disclosure rules in the kneecaps will not help them do so in the future.

[Watcher In The Middle]

Originally posted by Tequila:

This is not about contributions to candidates. This is about running ads. For instance, Goldman Sachs can now run all the ads it wants against whatever candidate it wants. Before they had to form PACs or whatever, which were limited themselves, but now that doesn't matter, and they can spend whatever they wish.

Sounds more like an excellent tool of intimidation, rather than outright bribery.

In politics, depends upon what your defination is of "contribution" is. If it's a $1 mil advocacy ad campaign that I as the candidate don't have to fund, that's one really nice "contribution" in practice.

It may not legally be classed as a "contribution", but it sure barks like one.

The bigger point to me is that this ruling really has the potential to simplify the process instead of making compliance with campaign finance rules even more mind numbingly complex.

Re: The PAC limits. They just went out and formed more PAC's, 527's and all the others.

About PAC's

About 527 Organizations

I'm just looking for more transparency from everybody involved, and this SCOTUS ruling didn't hurt that at all.

Can one result of this ruling provide an excellent tool of intimidation? Yes, but truthfully, the intimidation tool has always been there, it just wasn't quite as obvious - see the 527 Organizations listed above.

Worked very well at the primary level, not so well in a general election.

[Watcher In The Middle]

Originally posted by Ken White:

The second is true only in the legal sense -- that factor will affect the way the market treats the Company or organization. The American body politic, collectively, is a lot smarter than the media and the so-called educated elite -- and the Politicians -- think they are.

Agreed. These days in particular, once the voters/potential voters get even a whiff of a potential campaign to manipulate their vote by an "outside entity", they'll turn and you've (if you are running the advocacy campaign) just lost them, and there doesn't seen to be any evidence out there (to date, at least) of anybody getting them back.

Btw, just as an aside, if I wanted to kill off anybody's chances at getting elected to a congressional office in this election cycle, I'd have some of the big advocacy groups from the 2006/2008 election cycles run big style ad campaigns for them - likely be the Kiss of Death.

[Ken White]

Please explain what you mean by this. Somehow I don't think the average American voter has telepathy that will allow him to suss out which front organization gets funding from what source...

Essentially proves my point.

No telepathy to it; they just look up from their navels -- or LiLo's -- or the BBQ Grill on occasion to see what's going on and they can spot BS from a mile away. I've watched 'em do it and gotten a lot of laughs over many years watching it happen. See Massachusets, 19 Jan 10...

See also Watcher in the Middle below. See NJ, VAS and others earlier. I'll bet you laugh at or deride the Tea Party folks; the Media certainly has. Missed that boat, they did.

That doesn't happen now...

Of course it happens now. Why do you think John Kerry got beaten? Why did McCain get beaten? How did Obama win -- and now what's happening to Obama. The great unwashed may get scammed but they figure it put fairly quickly and will repay you for chicanery...

...and shooting the disclosure rules in the kneecaps will not help them do so in the future.

Disagree, it will make some differences but most will be offset by increased money in the process.

Newt Gingrich is a twit IMO and doesn't need to be elected to any office but he's right in that elections are grossly underfunded -- that deliberately by Congress in an effort to protect incumbents. They'll be the losers -- and should be. The Republicans think that the Corporations will outspend the Unions and thus the Democrats will be discomfited. They're right but the Unions will work harder and offset that advantage.

Again see Watcher in the Middle. The decision will change techniques but will have little effect on results.

[slapout9]

The Republicans think that the Corporations will outspend the Unions and thus the Democrats will be discomfited. They're right but the Unions will work harder and offset that advantage.

Don't know if they can Ken. Corporations have a lot deeper pockets and there are a lot more of them then Unions. Playing field is not even close to being level in that respect.

[Ken White]

Unions will. I won't even start on the pernicious influence and abilities of the NEA and AFT...

The big hurt on this will be on incumbents -- as it should be. The McCain-Feingold incumbent protection bill was a bad bill and a poor scam on the unwary. The Court should have knocked it down long ago.

This is whole deal hilarious IMO not least because the Congress will go berserk to craft a new law to restore their protection and the hypocritical NYT slams the decision -- but doesn't mention that they, a corporaton had no muzzle at all...

This is a long way from the Thread topic, "Financial Crisis."

[Ski]

There's a clear linkage to the financial crises, Ken. We're talking about multi-billion dollar corporations here and now they have additional powers to influence the political process even more than they have been.

I have a gut feeling that a number of second and third order effects that no one anticipated are going to arise from this decision. Some will be beneficial, some will not.

In one sense, I guess this good because it does introduce an additional amount of transparency to the donation process. But on the other hand, there was enough concern over this kind of donation policy a century ago that the Supreme Court had to get involved and make it illegal.

[tequila]

Newt Gingrich is a twit IMO and doesn't need to be elected to any office but he's right in that elections are grossly underfunded -- that deliberately by Congress in an effort to protect incumbents. They'll be the losers -- and should be. The Republicans think that the Corporations will outspend the Unions and thus the Democrats will be discomfited. They're right but the Unions will work harder and offset that advantage.

Well, Ken, you are probably the only person I know who has ever said that the problem with our elections is that there isn't nearly enough money in it.

I'd like to hear exactly how unlimited donations from both foreign and domestic private interests is going to help our democracy or our institutions.

I agree with Ski that the result decision has an enormous amount to do with financial crises. One of the largest problems revealed by the current crisis was the degree of institutional and regulatory capture by private interests. This decision will only further accelerate the process.