It doesn't really matter too much where a persons interests lie. If you can't raise money, and you have a blitz of negative ads against you, posted by special interests, the person will not be elected or re-elected. If you really want political parties to represent "the People," it's time to give them more power than special interests. It won't eliminate political corruption, but it could make it easier for politicians to represent their constituencies.
Everyone seems to understand that Republicans are the party of business. So what are the Democrats for? Well, the foolish optimist in me seems to think that the purpose of the Democratic party is to be the party of the People.
The only purpose of "The People" is to help it get bigger and bigger.
This is an issue of greed and "getting mine", not an issue of doing what's best for the "people".
These legislators are elected to represent the people. Unfortunatly, both parties have, mostly, fallen into the trap of easy money and, in reality, bribes.
Real, meaningful campaign finance reform is the only way this will ever stop.
But, who has to make it happen? The same people who are getting the money.
Somehow, I don't think that will happen.
The "Government" has become the "elite class" in this country and until we get real candidates who want to be elected to "serve the people", not line their own pockets, it will NEVER change.
is just naive. Second, your article is a bad example for the point you're trying to make. What it actually does is show the damage of the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling and, yes, the gutlessness of the Dems. What a surprise!
Last, the Dems have been in the pocket of special interest groups for a long time. The best example is the trial lawyers. As a result of years of big $$ contributions from the trial lawyers, the Dems have blocked all efforts at much-needed tort reform.
The liberals think the Democrats are "gutless" and the conservatives think the Republicans are "gutless". So where the hell are we as a country?
-- Modified on 5/12/2011 5:21:11 AM
Don't you know my credentials as a "liberal" have been revoked by Willy? Now I wander in the political wilderness, aimlessly throwing bricks. I think he loves me.
That explains why you and Willy have been fighting like an old married couple. If it makes you feel any better I stil consider you a huge liberal.
My late mother will be pleased! But please don't tell her I actually have some quite conservative views. You just haven't noticed them or I haven't shared them.
For example:
I'm in favor of opening ANWAR for drilling.
I'm in favor of building more nuclear plants.
I'm in favor of a moment of silence at the beginning of a school day (Not prayer, just silence. You can pray, meditate or pick your nose for all I care).
I'm in favor of keeping our troops in Afghanistan until the Taliban is defeated.
I'm in favor of bringing the budget back into balance, including the cutting of social programs as long as they aren't singled out. Everything must be cut.
I'm in favor of term limits for Congressmen and Senators.
I'm in favor of both of the above getting exactly the same benefits as everybody else.
I'm in favor of cutting foreign aid.
That's all I can think of now. Sorry to actually give you a serious response.
I think hybrid cars are crap.
Damn, inicky, those are on my list also. Oh, btw, I HATE RINO's, (but not as much as I hate Maher and Maddow), lol).
I LOVE Bill Maher. His latest rant on the Republicans post Osama was one of the funniest things I've ever seen him do. Also loved "Religulous.
Oh, well...
are very similar. Mine is still kicking in her 80s, and is a life long FDR liberal. Three of my four siblings are die hard liberals as well, and I love to fuck with them (figuratively). I'm the executor of my mom's estate. Makes sense, you need a fiscal conservative to manage money (lol). It's not a big estate, but I keep telling my mom to enjoy life and spend it, spend all of it. Something about the depression area that made my mom and probably yours very frugal. Well that just pisses off my liberal siblings, because they don't have a pot to piss in, and are looking forward to their little inheritance. Boy this entitlement mentality we have in this country runs real deep.
My mother proudly called herself "the daughter of an old Socialist" and was a classic liberal till the day she died. We used to get into arguments because I thought she was naive. But she was kind enough to leave my sister and me a nice little inheritance, which I still enjoy.
If you want to get elected or re-elected, you must play by the rules of the game. If we don't like the game, we must change the rules.
Neither party is really interested in anything but themselves and how they can increase their chances at making personal money or maintaining their position in office. The "machine" what controls everything. They all lie, cheat, and steal. Only difference is that one party caters to the so-called deep pockets of big business, and the other caters to the poor folks in the hope that their large numbers will outdo the big pockets of the the rich. Our form of government was predicated on a fundamental of honesty in purpose. Once upon a time that was true and things worked well for all. But, our society has changed and our form of government no longer works when the fundamental basis for most politicians is dishonesty.
-- Modified on 5/12/2011 8:28:00 AM
It doesn't really matter too much where a persons interests lie. If you can't raise money, and you have a blitz of negative ads against you, posted by special interests, the person will not be elected or re-elected. If you really want political parties to represent "the People," it's time to give them more power than special interests. It won't eliminate political corruption, but it could make it easier for politicians to represent their constituencies.
And they all come down to "your ass is OWNED."
http://www.opensecrets.org/revolving/index.php
You know, I consider prostitution to be a noble profession. How many people can say their jobs make others happy?
But it seems that Senator Mary Landrieu is a different kind of whore. Sure, there's pay for play going on, but the difference here, is that everyone else is getting fucked.
You certainly pegged this one right on the money. I'd also add all those dems/repubs who sold their healthcare vote for "special" privileges. I might even call them the "high priced whores". As a matter of fact, it occurs to me that I cannot think of one single person in Congress, not even one, who I think has not sold something for his vote. Could I be right? There aren't any non whores in Congress?
will leave her post after her term expires in June, 2011 to join as Senior Vice President of governmental affairs for NBC Universal which Comcast acquired in January. Why is this news? Four months ago the Federal Communications Commission approved the merger between Comcast and NBC.
Hypocrites and slimebuckets reside on both sides of the political aisles. Upon taking office in July of 2009 Ms. Baker signed the Obama's adminstration ethics pledge. This is what the adminstration had to say about Ms. Baker in showing their displeasure and said they were:
"unhappy in a generic sense that the door revolves in Washington," but "this one is no different, and no worse, than what happens all the time."
Yes, more bullshit. Willywonka it's time you stop making excuses for Obama and wake up to the reality you are being hosed by both Democrats and Republicans. Thank you Obama for higher cable fees and for diminshing the value of our freedom of the press..
defending President Obama. President Obama has failed the progressive branch of the Democrat party. Face the facts buddy, the Democratic party has been hijacked by the pinstripes of Wall Street. If the Democrats were truly for the people they would have not pushed for universal health care that requires every American to pay into a system they do not want. Furthermore if the Democratic ideal was to promote health care they would have advocated for a single-payer insurance system. I still would have disagreed but at least I would have respected the Democratic party for standing up to their values.
I could go on as I have in past threads how President Obama has betrayed the people who voted for him. Today though Ms. Baker FCC Commissioner highlights many of the myths of the Democratic party being for the people. In a time we need more views from more political spectrums being articulated we will have less because of President Obama and the Democratic party.
[
I find it an unbelievable stretch to blame Obama because a Republican FCC commish goes to work for Comcast. How's he supposed to stop that? The rules require her to have no contact with the FCC and she cannot talk to anyone in gov't. about the NBC/Universal-Comcast deal. I'm not saying it's an ideal situation but I don't see how you can blame Obama for it. In fact, as someone who once worked in cable and had contact with the FCC and Congress, I would never have hired her because there are too many limitations on her.
On health care, I do agree with you. I think the Dems were gutless for abandoning single payer when they had strong majorities in both houses. The Democrats need to grow a pair, though maybe it's too latte (pun intended).
him. Do not be naiive. You really think a merger the size of NBC/Universal and Comcast did not have the approval of the President. Come on. Ms. Baker was retained because the President needed her to push the merger through the FCC.
(2) Senator McCain spoke loudly about the revolving door of lobbyists in the 2008 presidential campaign. Candidate Senator Obama agreed regulators etc. should not work as lobbyists for a period of two years.
(3) What's the use of signing an ethics pledge as Ms. Baker was required to do when there are no consequences.
(4) Frankly Ms. Baker joining Comcast is a symptom of corrupt politics that Candidate Senator Obama said would change. He promised change and he has not delivered. Regulations my friend are meant to benefit the big corporation who can afford the lobbyists, the lawyers, the tax accountants etc. to comply with the law.
Sorry no common ground here.
I think it's a little more complex than that. First of all, the FCC is a classically independent agency. It's chief is a Republican but has been much too interventionist for most of his party. And because of the requirement to have members of both parties as Commissioners, Obama would have needed to replace Baker with another Republican anyway. So, yes, technically he appointed her but he far from "owns" her. To think Obama wanted to "push through" the merger is ludicrous. He had bigger things on his plate than expending political capital to oppose it. Thinking otherwise is just naive.
As for the ethics pledge, while it's true this is an example of politics as usual, she didn't technically violate her ethics pledge. Perhaps this means the pledge should be made air-tight, but not that she violated its terms.
As for Obama not delivering the change he promised, here and elsewhere, I agree with you there.
Sorry. But I think the rest of the post still holds up anyway.
and their lobbyists in the 2008 Presidential campaign per "Democratic Underground". Prior to her confirmation, Federal Communications Chairman Julius Genachowski, who was appointed by Obama and is a close personal friend of the president, said in his Senate confirmation hearing that he would pay attention to “excessive” media consolidation. Yea right? As a candidate President Obama promised to strengthen the diversity in TV, cable, radio etc. The communications sector per "opensecrets".org were the biggest contributors to Democratic party. So who is naiive now?
The FCC being independent. Please do not insult me,because then you really begin to piss me off. Control the content and the airwaves and you control the message and the election. This works for both parties and in this case it works for Obama. Face it, Obama lied and is not fullfilling his promises. He is a lackey for corporate media.
-- Modified on 5/13/2011 8:04:07 PM
The article did not say Comcast contributed $6 million to Obama. It said Comcast's VP of gov't. affairs helped raise that amount, presumably from others he knew. You may pooh-pooh the difference but it is a big one. Neither you nor I know who these other people were (though it's in the public record if you want to find it), but your own article makes clear that Comcast and its owners' contributions were around $200K -- a lot of money, but nowhere near $6 million.
As for the FCC, I worked with them for years and they are no friend of the cable business. Like every other arm of government, they are regulators who want to find any excuse they can to regulate the industry they supervise. You are beginning to sound like Willy in your pro-regulation/anti-business stance.
As for Obama, like I said before, he could care less about all this and has bigger fish to fry. That's not a good thing, just reality.
PS: I've been involved with corporate contributions and gov't. affairs for the cable industry. They may contribute to Democrats but historically they are entrepreneurial Republicans and hold their noses when giving to Dems.
PPS: Try not to get "insulted" and "pissed off" by all this, it's just my fairly well-informed view of reality. Don't personalize it. Relax. We're just a bunch of mongers here.
where did this lobbyist get his six million dollars? I tell you where, from other similiar contributors. Of course Comcast are going to hide their contributions. Actually I am anti-regulation. I am anti-regulation because the regulators do not do their job and allow big corporations to get bigger at the expense of smaller businesses.
The FCC, the SEC, the EPA, OSHA, dept. of education et al are bunch of useless bureaucrats who justify their existence by enforcing their regulations on the small guy. The small guy does not have access to lobbyists, , politicians, lawyers such as Comcast does. Thus the regulators pick on the small guy. Regulators are too stupid to take on a corporate lawyer. Often times these corporate lawyers will know the regulations better than the regulator because they wrote the damn law. TV is full of crap because the FCC are allowing the communication conglomerates to acquire so much power. I am pro-business and if I was President I be like Teddy Roosevelt and would bust up Comcast/NBc Universal. Competition is the greAt regulator not some pencil geek paycheck collecting government bureaucrat.
If the FCC is no friend of the Cable business, prove it.
You really don't understand how the contribution game works. Fund raisers like this guy do, of course, raise $$$ from people they know, but generally not from the same company. If it's within the company it's done through a company PAC. So it's most likely the contributions he raised came from others he knows in the industry, including lawyers, vendors, etc. So yes, it is incestuous, just not the way you think. In any case, the law requires it all to be publically registered. (That's how you were able to read about the $6 million he raised). News flash: people actually do follow the law in such cases. For example, I can still Google my own name and find it associated with PAC contributions I made more than ten years ago. If you'd rather just argue, don't believe me. I really don't care that much.
As for how the FCC works, and how they "pick on the small guy," you are completely wrong as far as the cable business goes. The industry long ago lost virtually all its "small guys" through consolidation so there are only "big guys" to regulate. (Also, it's not worth their while to expend much in staff resources tofight with an operator who serves on 5,000 customers when they can go after someone who serves 1 million). When there were price regulations years ago the FCC was quite zealous in enforcing them. The FCC has also used its merger-approval authority to wring serious concessions from big cable operators. The reality is they usually go for concessions instead of denying merger approval because they know they'd be sued and lose. It's funny how some people say they hate regulation but then selectively pick an industry where they're all for it.
As for "prove it," you can either believe the above or just go read the history of the FCC since about 1985. There's only so much research I care to do for you. I was a player in the industry for years and directly involved with fund-raising, lobbying and the FCC. If that's not good enough for you then, be my guest, and keep believing your own incorrect assumptions. Hey, we're only a bunch of equal-opportunity mongers here.
to contribute 6 million or any money directly to Mr. Obama’s 2008 campaign.
At that time, federal law prohibited corporations and unions from using their general treasury funds to contribute money to advocate the election of a candidate.
The most they could do in 2008 was establish , a "separate segregated fund" (commonly known as a corporate political action committee, or a “connected PAC”) for these purpose. Nor could Comcast have made a 6 million donation to its PAC – the law prohibited corporations from doing that and limited the money received by the segregated fund to donations from stockholders and employees of the corporation.
So if Comcast established a pro Obama PAC for the 2008 election, that PAC could only be funded from employees and shareholders, not Comcast itself. Nor could they do it secretly as the law required contributions to be sourced and you better beliieve PACs are audited. I believe the law did allow Comcast to pay the operating expenses of the PAC.
Of course, Citizens United has changed the rules and Comcast or any corporation may spend from their general treasuries in 2012 to finance independent expenditures. I think direct contributions to fed candidates, however, are still prohibited.
So Mr. Obama and Comcast are not nearly in bed together as much as you seem to think.
The anti-labor union act.
Harry Truman's wife said it best...
Want a friend in Washington, GET A DOG!!