New Group Pressures Companies To Forgo Campaign Spending Despite Citizens United Ruling

The Washington Post:

The Coalition for Accountability in Political Spending, spearheaded by New York City Public Advocate Bill de Blasio (D), aims to secure promises from major corporations to fully disclose any political spending and, ideally, to avoid spending corporate money directly on elections.

Read the whole story: The Washington Post

Comments

[blindhog]

02:23 PM on 10/04/2010

That is like what happened when I pressured my ex to never cheat.

[thecoffeegod]

03:36 PM on 10/04/2010

Like what happened when I asked my dog to guard my steak while I went for more iced tea.

[Renshai]

01:48 PM on 10/04/2010

Its a baffling disparity when I can find out personal donations for distant family and friends, but a corporate donation of millions is not recorded.

[imayes]

01:47 PM on 10/04/2010

Wow...file that one under:

"Good Luck With That"

Here's and idea. Since you are lawmakers, how about passing a law to make it illegal; or maybe even set dollar limits, say $500 per person or corporation for an entire year?

[freedom007]

01:45 PM on 10/04/2010

I wonder if they will pressure unions and environmental groups not to donate as well...

[rchwel]

01:57 PM on 10/04/2010

OMG you really are behind times, that was the repigLIEcon talking point 50 years ago, the unions blah blah blah . Use your lifeline to get the latest repig fear tactic.

[freedom007]

02:02 PM on 10/04/2010

Who's the most frequent visitor to obama's whitehouse again?

[chaya]

01:29 PM on 10/04/2010

A pretty useless attempt. It reminds me of the old push in the 80's to "Buy American!"

It all works just fine until a few years pass and people get used to the idea of buying Chinese--or a few individuals running our country through their mega-corporations.

[1110Awaits]

12:56 PM on 10/04/2010

WHATEVER!!! Like a company shouldn't provide financial support for a candidate who's agenda is more favorable to their industry. If I were a coal miner, I'd NEVER have voted for Obama or sent him money. That's just STUPID! You're going to support the campaign of a guy that said his goal was to bankrupt the U.S. coal industry?

[blueballs]

01:04 PM on 10/04/2010

Yep, if you were a coal miner, far better to give money to the Republicans, a political party with the sole aim of ending health and safety regulation in the mining industry.

[chaya]

01:30 PM on 10/04/2010

If you were a coal miner, you would be a human. You and all your fellow humans would go to the polls to vote. You would not be a company.

[freedom007]

01:46 PM on 10/04/2010

I still haven't seen any of those giant animated corperate logos the democrats keep talking about.

[carolina919]

01:55 PM on 10/04/2010

Well, guess what, a country investing in alternative and sustainable energy provides opportunities for new kinds of businesses and a lot more jobs than that provided by the Coal industry. But if corporations get to "buy" astro turf groups to shill for their agenda they ought to at least have to identify themselves and their agendas instead of adopting fake identities and misleading monikers....

[Dana1982]

12:54 PM on 10/04/2010

Money is free speech. Placing limits on money is the same as placing limits on free speech. Those who want to prevent corporations from spending their own money just want to reduce the first amendment and weaken the constitution.

[Nosybear]

12:49 PM on 10/04/2010

Time to begin a "Personhood" amendment push? I realize it has some dangers in it....

[Dana1982]

12:52 PM on 10/04/2010

Yea, maybe a compromise can be reached where corporations count as 3/5'ths a man.

[Dana1982]

12:43 PM on 10/04/2010

Why shouldn't corporations have a say in the elections? They are taxed and regulated by the government, they should have a say in who taxes and regulates them.

[Nosybear]

12:52 PM on 10/04/2010

I agree with you: They should have the same say anyone else has. The problem is not their "say" but the volume thereof, amplified by money and influence. What this amounts to is a small set of corporate "officers", not even the owners of the company, voicing their opinion and backing it up with money not their own. Corporations are documents, are papers filed in courts. The "say" you are talking about isn't that of the Corporation, but of those who benefit from the actions they take in the name of the Corporation.

[Dana1982]

12:58 PM on 10/04/2010

No - Corporations are a group of people with a common interest just like the AARP, NAACP, or Unions. Or you can look at the AARP, NAACP, and Unions as papers filed in court, not people.

Money doesn't buy elections. There is no relationship to the amount of money spent and people who win elections. If the relationship was there, Ross Peroit would have been president.

[Carl Caroli]

12:17 PM on 10/04/2010

Excellent, and the ones that don't sign should be exposed for their donations to front groups.

[I3addog]

12:17 PM on 10/04/2010

As far as I'm concerned and as long as it is made public who's supporting who I can chose to boycott those companies that back people I don't like. Lets say PE.PSI donates a big chunk to a Republican, well rest assured I would have purchased my last product from them. It's a slippery slope and in today's economy I'd be-careful of alienating any group of customers.

[rchwel]

02:08 PM on 10/04/2010

Thats why the bastards don't want their names revealed, they want to buy elections and expect the consumer to pay for it.

[hrc04]

12:00 PM on 10/04/2010

So we're putting corporations on the honor code? Good luck with that.

[warren stickney]

11:49 AM on 10/04/2010

'I WANT MY COUNTRY BACK'
ONE PERSON = ONE VOTE
GET COMPANIES TO AGREE OR BOYCOTT BOYCOTT AND PRESSURE PENSION PLANS TO FORCE THE SAME! GOLDMAN SACHS, KING OF CORPORATE WELFARE SHOULD BE FORCED TO COMPLY AND SPIRIT THIS TARP BABIES !

[Dana1982]

12:45 PM on 10/04/2010

So you would support forbidding groups like the AARP and Unions to contribute to elections as they are not a person as well? If so, maybe I could accept your point of view.

[rchwel]

02:10 PM on 10/04/2010

Link that proves AARP contributes to elections ?
As for the unions they are outspent by the corps and pacs 26 to 1 .

[HWNA]

11:42 AM on 10/04/2010

Yes, because we all know corporations can be trusted to keep their legally unenforceable "promises".

[TruEngineHearing]

11:33 AM on 10/04/2010

Since the Supreme Court pillaged the constitution to find a tortured reason to create synthetic citizens out of corporations, the rest of us have to find a way to thwart their efforts - and to use it relentlessly until something better happens.

American businessman don't believe that boycotts work - they aren't a real threat. They've been right for a long time, but maybe this time we can clean this fish and throw the ethical malfeasers over the side, because this time it's a fight for the survival of our culture.

I started with Target; it's easy to avoid a store when you know they're using their profit to defeat your political choices. Follow the news and find the bad guys, and "Just Say No To Thugs".