Is this gov’t by the people, for the people?
In his historic Gettysburg Address, President Abraham Lincoln spoke somberly of the horrific sacrifice that had been made by so many so “that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”
I do not believe that this is the government of the people, by the people and for the people that Lincoln described, and that our Founding Fathers had earlier fought so hard to create:
Republican superPACs and other outside groups shaped by a loose network of prominent conservatives – including Karl Rove, the Koch brothers and Tom Donohue of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce – plan to spend roughly $1 billion on November’s elections for the White House and control of Congress, according to officials familiar with the groups’ internal operations.
That total includes previously undisclosed plans for newly aggressive spending by the Koch brothers, who are steering funding to build sophisticated, county-by-county operations in key states. POLITICO has learned that Koch-related organizations plan to spend about $400 million ahead of the 2012 elections – twice what they had been expected to commit.
Just the spending linked to the Koch network is more than the $370 million that John McCain raised for his entire presidential campaign four years ago. And the $1 billion total surpasses the $750 million that Barack Obama, one of the most prolific fundraisers ever, collected for his 2008 campaign.
As the piece notes, both Obama and Mitt Romney are expected to raise hundreds of millions of dollars on their own, to fund their own campaigns. As usual, much of that money will come from special interests seeking favors from those they help to elect, and neither party is immune to money’s gravitational pull.
However, that money will at least be traceable back to its source, and the campaigns and the candidates can at least be held accountable by the voter for how they conduct themselves in the public sphere. Neither is true of the money that will pour into superPACS. It is being raised anonymously and will be spent anonymously, with the clear intention of buying not just influence but control.
And while Democrats will attempt to compete — Politico reports that the main pro-Obama superPAC hopes to raise $100 million — the clear financial advantage will belong to conservatives. That advantage will loom particularly large in Senate and House races, where a few spare million can make a very big difference in the outcome.
If your goal is victory for a party calling itself “Republican,” that advantage is a wonderful thing. However, if by “Republican” you mean a small-government party that does not intervene in the marketplace on behalf of immensely powerful special interests, I would suggest that you look more closely at this Trojan Horse being welcomed inside your city walls. People who make billion-dollar investments have a funny way of expecting to profit from said investments.
In time, if the system is not reformed, Democrats too will be forced to bend a knee to those who believe that big money justifies having a big voice, and only the naive would believe that that such a power once unleashed can easily be reined in. It will be government of the people, by the people and for the people only in the sense that, well, corporations are people.
– Jay Bookman
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
562 comments Add your comment
That Black Guy
May 30th, 2012
1:49 pm
Brosephus™
May 30th, 2012
1:20 pm
The Democratic candidate will have 90% of the entire msm
Complete Bunk!!! As many Fox lovers always claims their ratings are better than CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC and others, I doubt very seriously that Fox only makes up 10% of the mainstream media. Contrary to popular conservative rhetoric, being #1 in ratings makes one a huge part of the mainstream media
___________________________________________________________________________
Bro, although Fox News beats CNN and the other cable news outlets, I don’t think they beat the broadcast news outlets (ABC, NBC, CBS).
Janney
May 30th, 2012
1:49 pm
Now you’ve gone and done it, Jay. Brought all the conservatives out of the woodwork with their crazy talk. I’m with Looney Bin. Will always read all your posts, but think I’ll have to refrain from reading the follow-up on the blog for a while to regain my faith in my fellow Americans.
John Birch
May 30th, 2012
1:49 pm
MrLiberty – Great post! 90% of the posters are so polarized they just spout party line dogma because it doesn’t require them to think.
Mary Elizabeth – Isn’t it hard to justify enjoying the standard of living capatalism has provided while cursing the evil corporations? Generation$crewed has a very good point. Zero corporate taxes then do away with the Super PACs. Personally, I don’t think corporations are people but I know they don’t pay taxes anyway, they’re just another expense added to the cost of goods and services and ultimately paid by the consumers. Take away a lot of motivation for offshoring too.
Peter
May 30th, 2012
1:49 pm
Sure to this statement……….If you don’t get a government FOR the people you VOTED for the wrong people.
I never voted for Bush and got crap back…. 2 Wars, tax cuts that bankrupted the US….all because “Special Interests ” lead by Dick Cheney and his War machine wanted to get rich before retirement, off the backs of the average citizen.
So what did the Iraq War do for the average citizen anyway ?
NOTHING AT ALL.but make all’s life worse off, if you were not in the small percentage that make a killing off Cost Plus contracts, and the Bilking of the US Treasury !
That Black Guy
May 30th, 2012
1:51 pm
josef
May 30th, 2012
1:26 pm
ken
Just for the record, I know of at least ONE black church not to visit if you think they’re promoting Obama…whoo-whee, I just wish you could’ve been a fly on the wall for one of my set-tos the other day with a black minister…made that guy up in NC seem like a liberal…
______________________________________________________________________________
Or the church my Mom attends. Her pastor is not an Obama fan.
And he’s *GASP* Black.
Adam
May 30th, 2012
1:52 pm
Actually WIngfield’s blog covered where and why Politifact was also wrong
And I am to believe Wingfield over Nutting and Politifact because…..?
Here’s the thing, Thulsa. YOUR mind is the one that is made up ahead of time, as are many of the articles you present (yes, I did read them) that “show” how “wrong” Nutting is (and just so we’re clear, I ALSO thought Obama was the biggest spender in modern history until I examined the evidence). Only the ones that say “Well, he’s not the MOST frugal, but he’s not the worst” in the end are the ones truly trying to approach the subject honestly (even if their conclusions are skewed). The ones that “debunk” the claim and attempt to make the opposite claim do a lot of contortions and twists and turns to make it happen.
It all boils down to each of the articles attempting to manipulate math to support a pre-existing conclusion – something that you yourself have shown that you are prone to. And now you want to claim *I* am the one doing that? It’s no wonder you support these folks, falling prey to the fallacy that your position must be right because it’s been repeated in your ear enough, and then projecting your own failings onto someone who disagrees. A lot of these politicians you support do the exact same thing.
Tales from the Script
May 30th, 2012
1:53 pm
Republicans are like prostitutes–it always comes down to settling on their price.
Thulsa Doom
May 30th, 2012
1:54 pm
“I challenge you to show me a private for profit company that hires a majority of minimum wage workers with the goal of helping minimum wage workers.”
They helped them by giving them a job and paying them wages for their work. That was easy. And if the employee doesn’t like it then he can simply offer his labor to someone else for more money.
Heck, bonus points if you can show more than one. How about every company out there that pays the wages thus helping the employee.
” Then I want you to tell me what percentage of all corporations in the US that is.’
All of them that pay the wage. You’re making this just wayyyyyy too easy Adam.
PJ
May 30th, 2012
1:55 pm
Who said businesses aren’t hiring? They are spending billions of dollars to hire one person.
That should put a dent in the unemployment number.
Adam
May 30th, 2012
1:56 pm
TBG: Bro, although Fox News beats CNN and the other cable news outlets, I don’t think they beat the broadcast news outlets (ABC, NBC, CBS).
This is true. But what is not true is that everything not Fox is liberal, or behind Obama. The broadcast outlets actually do a much better balancing job than anything I’ve seen on cable.
Generation$crewed
May 30th, 2012
1:57 pm
mm
May 30th, 2012
1:48 pm
What does it matter if we know exactly who gives what?
We used to know, and it seems politicians were caving to special intrest then too. The attack ads happened too, go look back to elections during the 1800s.
As far as a limit…. Why do we limit the amount of taxes or profits of a corporation all of the sudden?
Hey I say eliminate all money donations…..but then the one who promised to give more would not be able to raise more
Adam
May 30th, 2012
1:57 pm
Thulsa: They helped them by giving them a job and paying them wages for their work. That was easy. And if the employee doesn’t like it then he can simply offer his labor to someone else for more money.
What complete liberatarian bullsh*t. Come back to me when you can address what I was actually asking for. Twisting what I was asking for into such nonsense may be “easy” for you, but it’s not approaching the subject honestly at all, and only further shows everyone here why you so easily support the politicians you support.
td
May 30th, 2012
1:58 pm
willie lynch
May 30th, 2012
1:47 pm
So you are telling us that all union members are in agreement with the leadership in supporting Democratic candidates only? I think it is the same situation that 10 or 12 elected officers of the union decide where the union money is going. The corporation has to consider the will of its share holders as well because any money they spend will be less return on investment for them in a given year. As far as the AARP, do you think all the members want them to support democrats when the majority of the members have been voting Republican?
This is all the same situation.
Mick
May 30th, 2012
2:01 pm
I gotta give the right wing credit; after reading through five pages of commentary, there is no doubt that the propaganda has been catapaulted beyond their wildest dreams. Here you have all these rubes expounding no truths and lies as if the past decade had not even existed! We are a deeply divided nation and I can only pray that my side prevails. If not, we will be moving backwards…
Generation$crewed
May 30th, 2012
2:02 pm
Tales from the Script
May 30th, 2012
1:53 pm
Everyone is a prostitute to a level, just varying price ranges, and it doesn’t have to be money
Thulsa Doom
May 30th, 2012
2:02 pm
oe Hussein Mama
May 30th, 2012
1:48 pm
Doom — “Corporations represent people.”
No, they don’t.- Joe mama
Yes they do. Doom
“People work for them and people own them.”
“Irrelevant.”- Joe mama
Relevant- Doomy
“The guys that did my roof worked for me, but I don’t represent them and they don’t own me.”
Incorrect. No. 1 I’m not referring to customers as you were a customer. I am referring to the owners of a particular company. Corporations are owned by people whether it be a single large shareholder or joe and jane main street who own shares through their 401ks or public employee pension fund.
“If labor unions represent unionized employees via political donations then why shouldn’t corporations be allowed to represent their employees and owners interests by being able to contribute to candidates.”
“Because union employees have the right to *vote on* actions taken by the union. Corporate employees enjoy no such right.”- Joe Mama
Irrelevant distinction. And besides there are plenty of union members whose union dues go to support dem candidates that that particular union member does not support. No fairness in that is there?
“Their donations are after all on behalf of people- the very people who work for and own the company.”
“I know you have a better understanding of labor unions than this, Doom.”
Yes. I do. Just as I also know that labor unions often support and send money to political parties and candidates that a good deal of their members may not support. And I suspect you know that also.
Don't Forget
May 30th, 2012
2:03 pm
Thulsa, if those companies hire those people to “help” them, then why don’t they pay more than minimum wage? Let’s ditch the “corporate altruism” bunk ok?
That Black Guy
May 30th, 2012
2:04 pm
Adam
May 30th, 2012
1:45 pm
TBG: Jay, if I sell 1lb of dope and Bill sells 10lbs, aren’t we both still dealers, and worthy of scorn?
Put TBG down as against ANY campaign contributions whatsoever in a zero tolerance policy.
____________________________________________________________________________
How about this?
“Put TBG down as being able to speak for himself and does not like CHILDISH attempts to have words put into his mouth” – THAT is more accurate.
JamVet
May 30th, 2012
2:04 pm
I fear that Lincoln would be utterly dismayed at what has happened in this representative democracy.
We the people’s government is almost totally paralyzed.
Washington, D.C. is without any doubt, corporate-occupied territory.
Virtually every department agency is controlled by the overwhelming presence of corporate lobbyists. 10,000 of whom descend on them every day from K Street and elsewhere.
(BTW, who lobbies with briefcases full of money for the common schmoes like you and me? You’re right, no one.)
Corporate executives dominate high government positions.
And they have turned OUR government against its own people.
OUR SOVEREIGNTY IS NOT FOR SALE!
End the corporatocracy.
Tales from the Script
May 30th, 2012
2:04 pm
If Republicans give me all of my income tax-free, I might hire one of them to wash my feet, part-time.
Joe Hussein Mama
May 30th, 2012
2:05 pm
td — “The corporation has to consider the will of its share holders as well because any money they spend will be less return on investment for them in a given year.”
I’d like for you to tell me the percentage of shareholder-led petitions that actually get adopted and acted on each year at US corporations. Go ahead.
“As far as the AARP, do you think all the members want them to support democrats when the majority of the members have been voting Republican?”
If any given retired person doesn’t want to join AARP, they certainly don’t have to. I seem to recall that the elder President Bush left the NRA when they said something he found offensive.
Don't Forget
May 30th, 2012
2:07 pm
I guess “trickle down” economics means the money trickles down to the politicians who practice it.
JamVet
May 30th, 2012
2:10 pm
Many times, industry lobbyists write the legislation – word for word – that gets passes by a servile congress and signed off by a spineless president.
The argument being that they are the “experts’ in these matters.
Of course, they are the experts!
At profiteering and putting their narrow interests before the people’s.
As Mark Twain noted, “There is no distinctly native American criminal class except Congress.”
willie lynch
May 30th, 2012
2:10 pm
td
May 30th, 2012
1:58 pm
The membership of these organizations do vote for whom they will throw their support behind. My company has never asked us if we supported their right leanings or their monetary efforts to support those who are running to further this agenda.
When did the unions stop supporting republicans?
Adam
May 30th, 2012
2:12 pm
TBG: “Put TBG down as being able to speak for himself and does not like CHILDISH attempts to have words put into his mouth” – THAT is more accurate.
Well, how about you admit your drug dealer analogy doesn’t apply because all campaign contributions are not the same?
JamVet
May 30th, 2012
2:13 pm
An overwhelming majority of Americans have said consistently for a long period of time that corporations have too much control over their government and over their lives.
Yet when enough people finally take a stand and take their redress of grievance to the streets, an underwhelming minority of miscreants and the misguided raise holy hell to do what?
Protect the very corporations that have too much control over their lives!
You figure it out. I cannot…
Senior Citizen Kane
May 30th, 2012
2:14 pm
A curious little fact I found:
In a new Gallup survey, 9 of the top 10 U.S. markets with the highest job creation are in red states, states with a Republican governor. While 7 of the lowest 10 markets in job creation are in blue states, those with Democratic governors.
Adam
May 30th, 2012
2:15 pm
One of the funny things about the Republican talking heads: They want to bash black people who vote Democrat as being unable to think for themselves, and unions for existing, yet they want those same groups to vote for them.
Joe Hussein Mama
May 30th, 2012
2:15 pm
Doom — “Yes they do. Doom”
Rejected. Corporations have no legal right of representation for either their employees or their officers. My employer has no legal right to speak for me, and I suspect your employer has no legal right to speak for you, either. Unless, of course, your employment agreement is *very* unusual.
“Relevant- Doomy”
Rejected. It doesn’t matter if people form any sort of organization, business or otherwise; that in and of itself does not grant the group any sort of power of representation over the group members or a group right to political representation. Read your Constitution.
“Incorrect. No. 1 I’m not referring to customers as you were a customer.”
No, correct. If you don’t like my answer, then be more specific in your requests.
“I am referring to the owners of a particular company. Corporations are owned by people whether it be a single large shareholder or joe and jane main street who own shares through their 401ks or public employee pension fund.”
Irrelevant. Human ownership of an organization does not automatically confer some sort of ‘associate human’ status on the organization.
“Irrelevant distinction.”
You asked for the difference, and I gave it to you. Don’t complain because you don’t like it.
“And besides there are plenty of union members whose union dues go to support dem candidates that that particular union member does not support. No fairness in that is there?”
Union members can vote on *many* decisions of the union as well as vote on the union’s leadership. Corporate employees cannot. Which is more fair?
“Yes. I do. Just as I also know that labor unions often support and send money to political parties and candidates that a good deal of their members may not support. And I suspect you know that also.”
I also know that members of labor unions have much more opportunity to exert control over those donations than do either corporate employees or corporate shareholders. You’re barking up the wrong tree here, Doom.
That Black Guy
May 30th, 2012
2:16 pm
Adam
May 30th, 2012
1:56 pm
TBG: Bro, although Fox News beats CNN and the other cable news outlets, I don’t think they beat the broadcast news outlets (ABC, NBC, CBS).
This is true. But what is not true is that everything not Fox is liberal, or behind Obama. The broadcast outlets actually do a much better balancing job than anything I’ve seen on cable.
___________________________________________________________________________
Thank God Adam is ther to point out something I did NOT say.
Adam, are your fingers all wrinkled and prunish from putting words in peoples mouth all day?
JamVet
May 30th, 2012
2:17 pm
When government is controlled by private economic power, that is fascism”. ~Franklin D. Roosevelt, 1938
Given that, welcome to the Fascist States of America.
td
May 30th, 2012
2:17 pm
Joe Hussein Mama
May 30th, 2012
2:05 pm
And how many union members can leave the union in a closed shop state and how many conservative union members can leave the union? Most people join AARP for the supplemental insurance and other benefits offered so in reality they are captive members as well.
mm
May 30th, 2012
2:18 pm
“When did the unions stop supporting republicans?”
When Reagan started attacking the unions.
josef
May 30th, 2012
2:18 pm
Joseph
@ 1:45
W imieniu naszego Prezydenta, ja przepraszam ciebie i innych Polaków którzy są obrażeni. Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.
Wasza Aplikacja na stanowisko tłumacza został przekazany do Departamentu Stanu.
Dziękujemy za zainteresowanie
And, who says Obama isn’t creating jobs!
Adam
May 30th, 2012
2:18 pm
In a new Gallup survey, 9 of the top 10 U.S. markets with the highest job creation are in red states, states with a Republican governor. While 7 of the lowest 10 markets in job creation are in blue states, those with Democratic governors.
Link please. I want to read this.
Thulsa Doom
May 30th, 2012
2:18 pm
Adam,
Sorry sir but its not just this one measure that shows O is a huge spender.
In absolute terms we are spending enormous sums compared to just 4 years ago. You cannot dispute the money being spent in absolute terms can you sir??? Nope. YOU CANNOT! Facts are facts.
Secondly another way to look at spending is as a percentage of GNP in which case under O we are spending significantly more- around 24% at last count vs the historical average of 18%. Can you dispute that govt spending as a % of GNP is significantly higher under O??? Um. Nope. YOU CANNOT. Facts are facts.
Now just to show you that I am fair I will take note of Jay’s comment that in 2009 when O took over govt spending as a % of the economy surged because the economy contracted and thus statistically it made govt spending as a % of the economy look worse. So I can look at misleading stats and take them into account. You on the other hand cannot due to willful blindness.
Now to bolster my point further the recession ended 6 months into O’s term and the economy has been growing albeit sluggishly for 3 years now. Jay can’t use that excuse about a contracted economy forever and 3 years later govt spending as a % of the economy is still 23-24% which is enormous. This falls squarely on Obama. He’s had 3 years of growth and 3 years to reduce the level of govt involvement in the economy and constrain govt spending. He has failed miserably by any measure. Plain and simple. Facts are facts.
GT
May 30th, 2012
2:19 pm
So much of the mistruth of Obama is sponsored by these superpacs and rowed to shore by the idol worshiping grunts that think they are in this cause for a higher purpose. It is so easy to see how Germany got its people into two world wars and if the red states were the only ingredient of this country America would constantly be fighting for its honor too. Imaginary enemies out to get us, a universal theme that make every man a hero that in a group of 100s speak against it.
The great hope here is that Republicans manage their money as poorly as they manage the country’s money while in office. It will take 400 million to compete with 100 million because the right will spend half of it on every boo they hear in the night. Put the same guy in charge of this as you had in New Orleans and the Democrats have won the election by default. Managing money or even having a plan outside the first inning of the game is not what GOPs do well at all.
td
May 30th, 2012
2:19 pm
JamVet
May 30th, 2012
2:17 pm
When government is controlled by private economic power, that is fascism”. ~Franklin D. Roosevelt, 1938
Given that, welcome to the Fascist States of America.
And when it is controlled by unions and bureaucrats then it is communism. Welcome to the UCSA.
Adam
May 30th, 2012
2:20 pm
TBG: Thank God Adam is ther to point out something I did NOT say.
Adam, are your fingers all wrinkled and prunish from putting words in peoples mouth all day?
In this case, I did no such thing. I was only making a point associated with your argument, not saying you said or implied the opposite of my statement.
That Black Guy
May 30th, 2012
2:21 pm
Adam
May 30th, 2012
2:12 pm
TBG: “Put TBG down as being able to speak for himself and does not like CHILDISH attempts to have words put into his mouth” – THAT is more accurate.
Well, how about you admit your drug dealer analogy doesn’t apply because all campaign contributions are not the same?
____________________________________________________________________________
Ok, it was a bad analogy.
Now, how about you admit that you have a habit of “putting words into others mouth”?
That Black Guy
May 30th, 2012
2:22 pm
Lunch.
I’ll be back to see if you admit it Adam.
Thulsa Doom
May 30th, 2012
2:22 pm
Adam,
One last thing about the politifact article. Kyle blew that one out of the water so I’ll let him speak on that nonsense. Moral of the story?- Omission and not telling the full story shows what BS Nutter’s article is.
“The Politifact article checks only Nutting’s claim that bottom-line spending has grown slowly. I acknowledged as much right from the top of my post — and then went on to explain why this is a superficial way to look at Obama’s spending record. (Fwiw, I would argue that, at the very least, Politifact should have done a better job of looking for other FY09 spending bills Obama signed, which distorts his record vis-a-vis Bush’s.)
Let me use this analogy:
1. Nutting wrote the equivalent of “Joe drove home from work.”
2. I, noting that Joe made some stops along the way, wrote the equivalent of “Joe drove home from work, but stopped at a strip club on the way.”
3. Now, Joe’s friends are pointing to what Nutting wrote and saying, “See? Joe is a great family man because he drove straight home from work!”
In neither Nutting’s actual article nor the sentence I attributed to him in my illustration is there an actual falsehood. (Although, as noted above, I do think he overlooked some critical facts about FY09 spending.) But nor does his writing, in either case, tell the entire story.”
Peter
May 30th, 2012
2:22 pm
When was America not run my the Rich and powerful…….. “All men are created Equal”…….really the guys signing that didn’t have slaves ?
Please this country has ALWAYS BENN FOR the few the Rich the Powerful, and all are kidding themselves if you think it has been any other way !
td
May 30th, 2012
2:22 pm
willie lynch
May 30th, 2012
2:10 pm
Are you a stock holder in your company? If not then you are an employee and as such have no say so and just have to trust that while the company is looking out for its best interest then it is also looking out for your best interest to stay employed at that company.
td
May 30th, 2012
2:25 pm
JamVet
May 30th, 2012
2:10 pm
Many times, industry lobbyists write the legislation – word for word – that gets passes by a servile congress and signed off by a spineless president.
The argument being that they are the “experts’ in these matters.
Of course, they are the experts!
At profiteering and putting their narrow interests before the people’s.
Kind of like when Pelosi said we would all have to read the bill after it is passed and written (by the healthcare lobbyist). It works both ways.
Adam
May 30th, 2012
2:26 pm
Thulsa: In absolute terms we are spending enormous sums compared to just 4 years ago. You cannot dispute the money being spent in absolute terms can you sir??? Nope. YOU CANNOT! Facts are facts.
Secondly another way to look at spending is as a percentage of GNP in which case under O we are spending significantly more- around 24% at last count vs the historical average of 18%
So which is it? Absolute dollar amounts, or percentage of GDP? Are we including every dollar spent since a certain date, or are we including spending only signed off on by Obama? Seems to me those actually make a huge difference tot he argument of whether or not it’s Obama that’s spending the money.
So I can look at misleading stats and take them into account. You on the other hand cannot due to willful blindness.
Right. Which is why you presented those same stats in support of your argument.
Jay can’t use that excuse about a contracted economy forever and 3 years later govt spending as a % of the economy is still 23-24% which is enormous. This falls squarely on Obama. He’s had 3 years of growth and 3 years to reduce the level of govt involvement in the economy and constrain govt spending.
What you are saying here is that in order to reduce spending, Obama must have proposed and signed off on slashing to the automatic increase in outlays due to baby boomers retiring and more people qualifying for federal aid and taking it. Because you know that’s where a good portion of the difference in GDP% came from right? Since you “look at misleading stats and take them into account”, right?
JamVet
May 30th, 2012
2:26 pm
When Reagan started attacking the unions.
It started before him with the infamous and highly destructive Lewis Powell. Ronnie just up the destruction of the middle class by degrees of magnitude.
Based in part on his experiences as a corporate lawyer and as a representative for the tobacco industry with the Virginia legislature, he wrote the Powell Memorandum to a friend at the US Chamber of Commerce. The memo called for corporate America to become more aggressive in molding politics and law in the US and may have sparked the formation of one or more influential right-wing think tanks.
In August 1971, prior to accepting President Nixon’s request to become Associate Justice of Supreme Court, Lewis Powell sent the “Confidential Memorandum” with the title, “Attack on the American Free Enterprise System.” Powell argued, “The most disquieting voices joining the chorus of criticism came from perfectly respectable elements of society: from the college campus, the pulpit, the media, the intellectual and literary journals, the arts and sciences, and from politicians.” In the memorandum, Powell advocated “constant surveillance” of textbook and television content, as well as a purge of left-wing elements.
This memo foreshadowed a number of Powell’s most notable[neutrality is disputed] court opinions, especially First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, which shifted the direction of First Amendment law by declaring that corporate financial influence of elections through independent expenditures should be protected with the same vigor as individual political speech. Much of the future Court opinion in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission relied on the same arguments raised in Bellotti.
This was arguably the very beginning of the destruction of the Republican Party and the USA Chamber of Commerce as forces for good for American working class families…
Adam
May 30th, 2012
2:27 pm
TBG: Now, how about you admit that you have a habit of “putting words into others mouth”?
I did that exactly once to you today and you call it a habit. I’ll admit that I did that to you once today. I apologize.
Joe Hussein Mama
May 30th, 2012
2:28 pm
td — “And how many union members can leave the union in a closed shop state”
Closed shops have been outlawed since the 40s, though a few have been grandfathered in. There are hiring halls in some areas (mostly dealing with construction trades), but if you don’t want to join the union, you can pay a hiring hall fee and still be eligible to work in the trade in that area.
“and how many conservative union members can leave the union?”
You need to do more reading. You’re clearly operating on outdated information. About 70 years out of date, actually.
“Most people join AARP for the supplemental insurance and other benefits offered so in reality they are captive members as well.”
Come now. AARP has no monopoly on supplemental insurance policies of any type,
Adam
May 30th, 2012
2:29 pm
Thulsa: Moral of the story?- Omission and not telling the full story shows what BS Nutter’s article is.
Actually the moral of the story is that there is no level of statistical information that will satisfy you unless it supports the position you already have. And btw, what’s this about omission? Many of the articles “debunking” the Nutting article omit many spending items in order to make their point.
They BOTH suck
May 30th, 2012
2:30 pm
“Adam, are your fingers all wrinkled and prunish from putting words in peoples mouth all day?”
No doubt, funniest post of the month……….
hahahahahah
TBG: Hope you had a great holiday weekend and this week is going welll
josef
May 30th, 2012
2:31 pm
BOTH
That was a good one, wasn’t it?
Amercia
May 30th, 2012
2:32 pm
Ya really want to vote for the man who must have outsourced his app creation to China – “Amercia, Land of the Freaks”
willie lynch
May 30th, 2012
2:33 pm
td
May 30th, 2012
2:22 pm
Thank you for acknowledging my point. As an employee of a corporation you are not a part of this “people” designation they have been assigned. As a member of a union or AARP you do have a say in whether your organization contributes to one thing or another. Of course not all members of AARP or a union are going to vote the same but they are afforded an opportunity to exercise their right to have a say as part of the “people”.
I’m sorry it took so long to get here but we do agree.
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
May 30th, 2012
2:33 pm
Actually WIngfield’s blog covered…
There’s your sign.
Adam
May 30th, 2012
2:34 pm
Thulsa: To put it another way, it’s Wingfield’s “analysis” that is BS, not Nutting’s article. Nutting presents everything and shows exactly how he came to his conclusion. People using that and picking it apart by saying it’s not detailed enough aren’t really willing to go as far down each rabbit hole as is necessary to get to the bottom of it all – they are looking for ways to justify that Obama is a big spender, the biggest ever, BECAUSE THAT’S WHAT THEY ALREADY BELIEVE.
You can’t claim the same for Nutting. NO ONE would have started an analysis of spending by President with the premise that Obama is the most frugal in decades.
Common Sense
May 30th, 2012
2:34 pm
“President Obama on Wednesday signed a reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank that would raise its lending authority 40 percent to $140 billion by 2014 and pressed Congress to pass a list of other top White House priorities aimed at creating jobs and boosting the economy.
Enough Republicans came to the 78-year-old bank’s aid to move the bill to the president’s desk earlier this month after conservatives in Congress assailed it for meddling in the free market.
Increasing the bank’s lending power ensures “that we’re not just known as a nation that consumes,” the president said Wednesday at a signing ceremony. “We’ve got to be a nation that produces.”
Republicans quickly accused the president of hypocrisy, pointing out that he had called the bank “little more than a fund for corporate welfare” during the 2008 campaign and promised to eliminate it.
They also reminded voters that despite Mr. Obama’s longtime disdain for corporate jets and corporate jet owners, the bill includes $1 billion in subsidies for corporate jet manufacturers, which have experienced a steep decline in demand for the jets in recent years.
“I’m sure you all remember the good old corporate jets the president used to rail against on the stump — he must have forgotten about that bright shiny object already because the reauthorization includes $1 billion for corporate jet manufacturers,”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/may/30/obama-reauthorizes-export-import-bank-despite-earl/
Nobody covers both ends like Obama does….
They BOTH suck
May 30th, 2012
2:35 pm
josef
I almost spit tea allover myself
Oblama
May 30th, 2012
2:35 pm
Amercia? Do you mean America? Another pre school drop out developed by “educators”.
td
May 30th, 2012
2:35 pm
Joe Hussein Mama
May 30th, 2012
2:28 pm
Make all the excuses you want but my analogy is correct. There is no difference between corporations, unions and other associations. They are all like minded individuals looking out for their own self interest and give accordingly to candidates.
JamVet
May 30th, 2012
2:36 pm
This is a citizens’ agenda for cracking down on corporate crime.
Establish a public online corporate crime database at the Dept. of Justice, and produce an annual corporate crime report.
Increase Corporate Crime Prosecution Budgets of the SEC, which have been chronically under funded.
Ban Corporate Criminals from Government Contracts – including corporate contracts in Iraq.
Punish corporate tax escapees by closing the offshore reincorporation loophole and banning government contracts and subsidies for companies that relocate their headquarters to an offshore tax haven.
Restore the Rights of Defrauded Investors in seeking restitution.
Require shareholder authorization of top executive compensation at annual shareholder meetings.
Enact corporate sunshine laws that force corporations to provide better information about their records on the environment, human rights, worker safety, and taxes, as well as their criminal and civil litigation records.
http://tinyurl.com/83lrwgb
Adam
May 30th, 2012
2:36 pm
Also for the record, if I put something like “you seem to be saying” that is my attempt at understanding your argument. I will not apologize for or stop this way of attempting to understand just because SOME PEOPLE think it means I’m putting words in their mouth. You can either get butthurt over that or choose to not be offended by it.
Adam
May 30th, 2012
2:37 pm
Amercia? Do you mean America? Another pre school drop out developed by “educators”.
This, coming from a Romney supporter, is absolutely hilarious today.
Mighty Righty
May 30th, 2012
2:38 pm
If you think Obama can’t influence the price of oil, cannot control government spending, cannot improve employment, then you should work to nominate another candidate who can. If you don’t think he can fix the economic problems we have then there is no point in reelecting him. I am confident Romney CAN fix these problems and therefore I will vote for Romney. If I felt about Romney the way most of you Democrats feel about Obama, I wouldn’t bother to vote.
Oblama
May 30th, 2012
2:39 pm
Jay – the current administration follows a long held tradition. Politicians of, by and for themselves. Tell the people what they want to hear and slide the cash under the table.
Adam
May 30th, 2012
2:40 pm
Common Sense: You mean Obama promised to get rid of the Export-Import bank, a bank that, if eliminated, would cause an immediate and damaging loss of jobs to the entire country, and he DIDN’T DO IT? And he included corporate jet money? Wow. Guess I’ll go vote for the guy who would do the opposite…. oh wait….
td
May 30th, 2012
2:40 pm
willie lynch
May 30th, 2012
2:33 pm
You missed my point. It is the shareholders of the corporations that have the same stake as the union members. As an employee you are contracting you intellectual and physical labor to a company in exchange for an agreed amount of money. You are not a driver of the direction of the company unless you are a shareholder also.
Thulsa Doom
May 30th, 2012
2:42 pm
“Rejected. Corporations have no legal right of representation for either their employees or their officers. My employer has no legal right to speak for me, and I suspect your employer has no legal right to speak for you, either. Unless, of course, your employment agreement is *very* unusual.”
It would appear the Supreme court disagrees with you.
“Rejected. It doesn’t matter if people form any sort of organization, business or otherwise; that in and of itself does not grant the group any sort of power of representation over the group members or a group right to political representation. Read your Constitution”
Tell it to the Supreme court Joe.
“Incorrect. No. 1 I’m not referring to customers as you were a customer.”- Doomy
No, correct. If you don’t like my answer, then be more specific in your requests.- Joe mama
Or you can improve your reading comprehension. -Doomy
“I am referring to the owners of a particular company. Corporations are owned by people whether it be a single large shareholder or joe and jane main street who own shares through their 401ks or public employee pension fund.”- Doomy
“Irrelevant. Human ownership of an organization does not automatically confer some sort of ‘associate human’ status on the organization._ – Joe mama
No. It doesn’t. But the interests of that corporation and its owners can often be the same. The roofer that you spoke of has quite an interest in the success of his company and laws which may affect his business. To deny that is to deny the reality of the sun rising tomorrow morning.
“Irrelevant distinction.”
You asked for the difference, and I gave it to you. Don’t complain because you don’t like it.- Joe mama
Still irrelevant.
“And besides there are plenty of union members whose union dues go to support dem candidates that that particular union member does not support. No fairness in that is there?”
Union members can vote on *many* decisions of the union as well as vote on the union’s leadership. Corporate employees cannot. Which is more fair?- Joe mama
Somehow or another you forgot that corporations do not extract dues from their employees. Forgot that one did ya Joe???
“Yes. I do. Just as I also know that labor unions often support and send money to political parties and candidates that a good deal of their members may not support. And I suspect you know that also.”- Doom
“I also know that members of labor unions have much more opportunity to exert control over those donations than do either corporate employees or corporate shareholders. You’re barking up the wrong tree here, Doom.”- Joe mama
Is that a fact or just your opinion Joe? Because I was a teamster at UPS and I had little if any opportunity to exert control over my donations. I think where you need help here is in the distinction between rank and file individual members having influence and control over their donations and union leadership. The union leadership controls the decisions as to where political donations go. The rank and file have little or no say in the matter. Even you know that.
And if you think a rank and file union member is going to go strolling into Mr. Hoffa’s office and tell him how he thinks or wants his union dues to go to then bring me back one a them chocolately unicorns from liberal fantasyland. Considering that he pays dues his influence in on union matters is practically nil- not much if any more influence than a corporate employee and no more influence than a corporate shareholder who like a union voter can also vote.
Common Sense
May 30th, 2012
2:42 pm
So even when he does not do what he said he would do, you support is endless, Adam.
Seems like true love.
Amercia
May 30th, 2012
2:42 pm
@ Oblama
Hey, I was just using the spelling provided by Romney – you must be calling him a “dropout” from his private school.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/romney-app-misspells-amercia/2012/05/29/gJQAgN8K0U_blog.html
Joe Hussein Mama
May 30th, 2012
2:42 pm
td — “Make all the excuses you want but my analogy is correct.”
I’m sure you think so, but sorry, nothing doing.
“There is no difference between corporations, unions and other associations. They are all like minded individuals looking out for their own self interest and give accordingly to candidates.”
Once again, as a member of a union or an organization like AARP, I have *much* more control over the policies and behaviors of my group than I do as an employee or a shareholder of a publicly traded company.
That said, I don’t think that *any* groups should be able to make political donations at ALL. Corporation, union, club or civic group; they’re not people and IMO have no right to political speech, political activity or the vote.
Mighty Righty
May 30th, 2012
2:43 pm
JamVet
May 30th, 2012
2:36 pm
I am in favor of everything on your list. I think there is nothing new on your list but if there is I am in favor of it. If they violate the law, throw the bast…. in jail. Politicians too.
Don't Forget
May 30th, 2012
2:43 pm
Oblama
May 30th, 2012
2:35 pm
Amercia? Do you mean America? Another pre school drop out developed by “educators”.
No, it’s from the app that the dipship you guys nominated put out.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/30/tech/mobile/amercia-romney-iphone-app/
Brosephus™ - Fact Assassin
May 30th, 2012
2:45 pm
Failed to factor in the contested Republican primary did you not?
Nope, I did not. The fact remains that there has been more corporate money flowing to Republicans in this election as opposed to union money going to Democrats at this point. Therefore, the whole premise of union funds is nothing but specious bullsh*t at this point. That may be relevant in July or August, but not today.
—————————–
Bro, although Fox News beats CNN and the other cable news outlets, I don’t think they beat the broadcast news outlets (ABC, NBC, CBS).
If that’s the case, then the talking point needs to reflect that reality and not the dreamed up one where Fox is THE News channel. Also, that still does not negate the fact that, if Fox has higher ratings than CNN and other cable news outlets, they ARE in the mainstream media and not some fringe outlier as people try to portray them.
Adam
May 30th, 2012
2:45 pm
Because I was a teamster at UPS and I had little if any opportunity to exert control over my donations.
Jeez. The backflips must be stretching you quite a bit. I wonder if you feel this way about your vote for governmental offices.
Thulsa Doom
May 30th, 2012
2:45 pm
“They are all like minded individuals looking out for their own self interest and give accordingly to candidates.”-td
td,
That’s an obvious bit of common sense. Unfortunately it is going to fall on deaf liberal ears.
Mighty Righty
May 30th, 2012
2:47 pm
Joe H Mama
“That said, I don’t think that *any* groups should be able to make political donations at ALL. Corporation, union, club or civic group; they’re not people and IMO have no right to political speech, political activity or the vote.”
I agree.
Adam
May 30th, 2012
2:47 pm
Common Sense: So even when he does not do what he said he would do, you support is endless, Adam.
What is hilarious is how much you guys think you can gain traction AGAINST Obama by citing promises that I would prefer he did NOT keep, not being kept.
Thulsa Doom
May 30th, 2012
2:47 pm
Adam,
Sorry dude but between myself and my fellow union workers everyone knew that we really had no say in how things were really run. Not in a large union like the teamsters anyway. Could be different in smaller unions but certainly not in the teamsters.
John Birch
May 30th, 2012
2:48 pm
Adam and Jamvet – So if we tax the evil rich and corporations to the breaking point and redistribute all that ill gotten gain to the crack ho baby mommas would we still have a $15T economy ten years from now? Or would we be a lot more like Greece? The biggest failures of the Democratic party are: 1) failure to reverse the Reagan and Bush tax cuts, and 2) thereby making the middle class finance their handouts to the poor. All in all I’d rather see my money go the poor than the rich if those are the only choices but we can’t all be consumers with no producers as Greece is learning the hard way.
Brosephus™ - Fact Assassin
May 30th, 2012
2:48 pm
There is no difference between corporations, unions and other associations. They are all like minded individuals looking out for their own self interest and give accordingly to candidates.
….
That’s an obvious bit of common sense. Unfortunately it is going to fall on deaf liberal ears.
If that’s an obvious bit of common sense, why do conservatives whine like stuck little piggies when the word union is mentioned?
Oblama
May 30th, 2012
2:48 pm
Again you try to label me. I have never said I was a Romney supporter. What I am is a non supporter of the Oblama administration. Government of, by and for the politicians. Instead, I am for government of, by and for the citizens of the U.S.A. That leaves out Oblama. Can’t vote for more wasteful government spending. I am looking for someone with a clue of how turn this economy around. Oblama has had 4 years and several trillion dollars and he hasn’t shown what I need to see to vote for him. I’m looking for results – not fiction from our first “Reality Show” President.
Adam
May 30th, 2012
2:50 pm
Adam and Jamvet – So if we tax the evil rich
annnnnd I stopped reading. Try again without the straw man please, thanks.
Brosephus™
May 30th, 2012
2:50 pm
Also, if that’s an obvious bit of common sense, why are conservatives ganging up to dismantle unions but working hard as hell to give free reign to corporate campaign donations? If they are one and the same, isn’t it a conservative principle to let people express their Constitutional right to free speech without government regulation or interference?
Adam
May 30th, 2012
2:51 pm
Again you try to label me. I have never said I was a Romney supporter. What I am is a non supporter of the Oblama administration.
Well good luck convincing independents to vote AGAINST someone rather than FOR someone.
JamVet
May 30th, 2012
2:52 pm
Rock on Righty.
Did you note the author?
More to chew on…
Only 40 percent of Americans think corporations make a positive contribution to the public good. And as for public trust, as the McKinsey Quarterly told The New York Times, large global corporations are at “the bottom of the list — beneath nongovernmental organizations, small regional companies, the United Nations, labor unions and the media.”
The ethical, legal, and business failings of Enron and WorldCom kicked off this descending spiral. Then came growing outrage over excessive corporate executive pay and the global financial meltdown. Greed and hubris – - not public trust – - were what many Americans came to associate with business.
And that was in 2007.
I would suspect that that 40% has NOT gone up since those dark days of September 2008…
Thomas
May 30th, 2012
2:53 pm
Yeah- the liberals have no shot here. They continue to be very transparent, honest, and do everything with the upmost integrity and will be trounced by satan and his mob of dragons.
Hey Cookie Bookie- wasn’t Obama blamed for “small” offshore donations last year?
Anyway- check under those beds at night-
Local Jay Local Jay
JamVet
May 30th, 2012
2:55 pm
John Birch, I did not make it past “crack ho baby mommas”.
Perhaps there is a forum that specializes in racist, enraged sophistry that you could find and to which you could “contribute”…
td
May 30th, 2012
2:55 pm
Joe Hussein Mama
May 30th, 2012
2:42 pm
“Once again, as a member of a union or an organization like AARP, I have *much* more control over the policies and behaviors of my group than I do as an employee or a shareholder of a publicly traded company.”
You have no rights as an employee because you are only contracting your labor and intellect to the corporation for a wage. You are not a stakeholder in the company. As far as shareholders goes they have as much say so as individual union members or as members of an organization because it is their risked money at stake. Where is the risk for an individual union member? Where is the risk of a member of the AARP?
“That said, I don’t think that *any* groups should be able to make political donations at ALL. Corporation, union, club or civic group; they’re not people and IMO have no right to political speech, political activity or the vote.”
The SCOTUS disagrees with you and by your definition then the rich will even have more influence then they do now. I belong to several groups that have more influence with legislation then I would as an individual because we pool our resources.
stands for decibels
May 30th, 2012
2:55 pm
annnnnd I stopped reading.
You missed a real classy “crack ho baby mama” reference, then.
Adam
May 30th, 2012
2:56 pm
stands: You missed a real classy “crack ho baby mama” reference, then.
Actually yes I did. I wish I still had. Gah.
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
May 30th, 2012
2:59 pm
…redistribute all that ill gotten gain to the crack ho baby mommas…
Why, it was just the other day when I was standing in line at Walgreen’s when this big fat __________ lady had two shopping carts filled with crack and she was paying for it with food stamps….
RB from Gwinnett
May 30th, 2012
2:59 pm
Until you liberals show the same contempt for Soros, Clooney, and the rest of the Hollywood crowd with their millions going to Obama, you’re just a bunch of hypocritical whiners.
stands for decibels
May 30th, 2012
3:00 pm
Perhaps there is a forum that specializes in racist, enraged sophistry
But, enough about this outfit.
curious
May 30th, 2012
3:02 pm
I suggest all the posters here put down what they’re doing and go to DC to solve the country’s problems.
While you’re at it, help out Europe and eliminate Iran; forget N. Korea and China.
Oblama
May 30th, 2012
3:03 pm
Amercia – O.K. whatever. ……….. Don’t forget. See my above comment. I had nothing to do with nominating Romney. I’m not a Repub. Didn’t vote for “W” or Oblama. Our “Reality Show” President hasn’t produced results and with advisers like Nanny Pelosi I can understand why. If he had shown a serious effort to reduce government spending and the Fed debt I would consider him but he hasn’t and I won’t. This election is about the economy, jobs and reducing this alarming Fed debt….. Oblama is about race warfare/ sex warfare/ class warfare/ age warfare and dividing voters to get reelected. Can’t buy that.
Thulsa Doom
May 30th, 2012
3:04 pm
“Also, if that’s an obvious bit of common sense, why are conservatives ganging up to dismantle unions but working hard as hell to give free reign to corporate campaign donations?”
1- Corruption
2- Some union members are conservative and don’t like their union dues going to left wing political causes
3- Unions have a purpose but often can become so powerful as to bankrupt a company or even a state. Look at the auto companies bro. And look at what public sector unions have done to the state of California or New Jersey in the way of unreasonable and exorbitant benefits. Their benefits often grow to the point of unsustainability and are certainly out of line with comparable private sector work. I watched 60 minutes on CNBC last night and it was a special on NJ and gov. Christie. If I remember correctly the unfunded pension liabilities for public employee unions in that state were 46 billion and I think it was 25 billion for unfunded health care liabilities. The benefits got out of hand and its one of the things breaking these states.
Public unions work at the behest of their employers- the taxpayers. They do not have the right to extort taxpayers for unreasonable benefits that only end up bankrupting the states. Thank God for folks like Scott Walker in Wisconsin and Christie who are standing up to them and saying enough is enough.
Joe Hussein Mama
May 30th, 2012
3:05 pm
Doom — “It would appear the Supreme court disagrees with you.”
Citation, please. Show me where an employer has the right or authority to speak for you.
“Tell it to the Supreme court Joe.”
Citation, please. And please be specific; show me where individuals, forming a group of any sort, *automatically* grant that group the right to speak for and represent them as individuals.
“Or you can improve your reading comprehension. -Doomy”
My reading comprehension and writing skills are superior to your own, Doom. I can only do so much to help you if you can’t express yourself clearly, young man.
“No. It doesn’t.”
Thank you for that.
“But the interests of that corporation and its owners can often be the same.”
Can be, but are not *obliged* to be. Surely you recognize this.
“The roofer that you spoke of has quite an interest in the success of his company and laws which may affect his business. To deny that is to deny the reality of the sun rising tomorrow morning.”
And said roofer is a lot more likely to be an LLC or a Sole Proprietorship than a publicly traded corporation. Come now, Doom, you know what people on my side are objecting to here. Kindly stop muddying the waters.
“Still irrelevant.”
I know you think so, but actually it’s an inconvenient truth that you apparently don’t want to face. No matter.
“Somehow or another you forgot that corporations do not extract dues from their employees. Forgot that one did ya Joe???”
Not at all, and thanks for walking into that! It just demonstrates that union members have much more control over the organization they belong to than corporate employees do. Thanks for the assist!
“Is that a fact or just your opinion Joe?”
It’s a fact.
“Because I was a teamster at UPS”
So was I.
“and I had little if any opportunity to exert control over my donations.”
Not my fault if you didn’t stick around long enough to participate in the applicable votes.
“I think where you need help here”
I don’t need help on this from you, Doom. You’re quite simply wrong on this point.
“is in the distinction between rank and file individual members having influence and control over their donations and union leadership. The union leadership controls the decisions as to where political donations go. The rank and file have little or no say in the matter. Even you know that.”
Once again, since you seem to have trouble getting this, the rank and file in a union have FAR more control over the actions of their union than corporate employees do over the actions of their employer. And you cannot dispute this because — as you say — facts are facts.
You may not think that union members have *enough* control over the actions of their leadership, but that’s irrelevant to the point I’m making, which is — once again — that the rank and file in a union have FAR more control over the actions of their union than corporate employees do over the actions of their employer.
“And if you think a rank and file union member is going to go strolling into Mr. Hoffa’s office and tell him how he thinks or wants his union dues to go to then bring me back one a them chocolately unicorns from liberal fantasyland.”
No one said or thought any such thing, Doom. Once again, you make things up and dishonestly try to represent them as my position. I’d appreciate it if you’d stop doing that, please.
“Considering that he pays dues his influence in on union matters is practically nil- not much if any more influence than a corporate employee”
I accept your concession on that point, Doom. Thank you.
“and no more influence than a corporate shareholder who like a union voter can also vote.
I’m going to ask you the same question I asked td. I’d like for you to tell me the percentage of shareholder-led petitions that actually get adopted and acted on each year at US corporations. Go ahead.
Brosephus™
May 30th, 2012
3:06 pm
Until you
liberalsconservatives show the same contempt forSoros, Clooney, and the rest of the Hollywood crowdKoch, DeVos, and the rest of the CEO crowd with their millions going toObamaRomney, you’re just a bunch of hypocritical whiners.Funny how just a few words turn that one way street into an 16 lane superhighway…
AJC death watch
May 30th, 2012
3:07 pm
I notice Brave Jay still hasn’t addressed the multitude of corporations which ran untold millions worth of unpaid in-kind advertising for Obama in the last election–just as they do for all Democrats in all elections, to say nothing of serving as free oppo researchers and propagandists against conservatives and Republicans. He’s not going to, of course, because those corporations happen to be media companies, and they get a special “journalism” pass from other liberal mediots like Bookman. You see, they’ve been anointed with the special “media” perfume that turns them into higher beings who can’t possibly be biased towards a particular ideology and political party.
You really aren’t fooling anybody, Jay.