From hot dogs to slick ads: Corporations spent $4.4 billion on politics in past six years
Clips:
...report to the Federal Election Commission and to Congress, totaled $1.1 billion from 2005 through 2011, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics...
...reports to the Labor Department capture an additional $3.3 billion...
le is wrong, read the article's own headline
From hot dogs to slick ads: Unions spent $4.4 billion on politics in past six years
get back to us when the WSJ reports on what corporations spent.
My bet is that, OBVIOUSLY, corporate/1% spending is vastly larger than union spending, but of course the Murcoch's WSJ, another Murdoch sheet, doesn't do anything but hype the right-wing talking point scandal of how much only unions spend.
4.4b is a small price to pay when the benefits outweigh the costs.....
politicians work for the highest payer, and that's not unions, but UCA/1%
Last edited by boutons_deux; 07-10-2012 at 07:16 PM.
Really
That kind of report is totally useless now that UCA/1% can donate in total secrecy, thanks to extreme activist JINO SCOTUS.
I like the chart they have. You don't see an elephant until the 19th place.
Unions:
Percentage of workforce
▪ Total: 12.4%
▪ Public sector: 36.8%
▪ Private sector: 7.6%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_u..._United_States
WSJ/Fox Repug Propaganda network/VRWC lies. There's no way those (now hidden) numbers are correct, because they leave out the "free (but secret) speech" from Corporate-American $100Ms through USCoC, UCA, Kock Bros, "social welfare" fronts, etc, etc.
Don't forget Soros.
Yes, but generally 40% or more of the workers in a union do not want their money going to a party or candidate they are going to vote against. At least when a corporation spends money, the major shareholders have either control or oversight. If shareholders don't like how their money is being spent, they can invest elsewhere. It's hard for a teacher to move on to a non NEA union job. Same with other union professions. What do you say to the people who pay union dues when their union acts in opposition to their will in politics?
"At least when a corporation spends money, the major shareholders have either control or oversight"
You Lie
"If shareholders don't like how their money is being spent"
Your an idiot..it's not hard for teachers to move to a non-union job, most teaching jobs are non-union jobs...It's hard for a teacher to move on to a non NEA union job.
No they don't. When a corporation pledges funds to Karl Rove's PAC the stockholders have no say on how much or even how often..At least when a corporation spends money, the major shareholders have either control or oversight.
Don't join the union....What do you say to the people who pay union dues when their union acts in opposition to their will in politics?
What do you say to a mother who makes minimum wage working 40 hours at Walmart...who's benefits are being cut, who is being forced to have even more children...all because Sam Walmart gave millions to some tea bagger candidate to keep his taxes low? Did she have any say?
Was this $190K in the above compilation?
Revealed: JPMorgan Paid $190,000 Annually to Spouse of Bank's Top Regulator
“In addition, please note Mr. Dudley’s spouse previously worked at J.P. Morgan Chase (JPMC) and as a result received certain deferred income distributions from JPMC in the aggregate amount of approximately $190,000 annually. These disbursements will wind down and cease in 2021. We are currently in discussions with Mr. Dudley, representatives from the Board of Governors and JPMC regarding these financial interests. These interests would only give rise to a conflict in the event that Mr. Dudley were to work on a matter having a direct and predictable effect on JPMC’s ability or willingness to continue paying these amounts to Mr. Dudley’s spouse. Currently, no such matter exists. We hope to come back to you with an update on this issue in the near future to let you know how it has been resolved.”
The New York Fed carries the following statement about conflicts on its web site:
“New York Fed employees are subject to the same conflict of interest statute that applies to federal government employees (18 U.S.C. Section 208). Under Section 208 and the New York Fed’s code of conduct, a Bank employee is prohibited from participating personally and substantially in an official capacity in any particular matter in which, to the employee's knowledge, the employee has a financial interest if the particular matter will have a direct and predictable effect on that interest. Participation in a particular matter may include making a decision or recommendation, providing advice, or taking part in an investigation.”
http://www.alternet.org/story/156259...fsNW&rd=1&t=18
=========
OBVIOUSLY, there 1000s of paths not listed above by Murdoch's totally politicized WSJ sheet for UCA money to buy influence and legislators.
WSJ sees unions as THE PROBLEM only because they aren't giving to the REPUG/1% side. If unions gave to the WSJ favorites, there would have been no report.
WSJ just following the VRWC strategy of demonizing govt and unions as THE problem (for 1%'s continuing corruption and takeover of USA, and the planet)
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
