Will Dems put their special-interests money where their special-interests mouths are?
Top Democrats have been demonizing lobbyists, special interests and shadowy outside groups ahead of next week’s election.
So here’s a question: How many of the 50-plus Democrats about to leave Congress involuntarily will pledge not to go to work as lobbyists or other representatives of special interests or shadowy outside groups?
Anyone? Anyone?
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
76 comments Add your comment
Not So Casual Observer
October 27th, 2010
3:15 pm
To nose into the discussion of others;
There are mutual funds available to follow almost any personal philosophy. Christian, green, etc. etc of companies who have vowed to be those very things.
For someone to claim, “…I have no idea what hundreds or thousands of companies that I’m invested in through my mutual funds, then it’s impractical for me to know what the politics of their executives are”, they must be the most uninformed of investors since the information is available on every mutual fund. Once you know the companies the politics are fairly easy to determine.
I will never shop at COSTCO nor buy a Dell computer as a result of the politics of the founders, Jeffrey Brotman and Michael Dell.
CJ
October 27th, 2010
3:16 pm
I know that you’re not detail-oriented Linda, but details matter.
Your husband is not incorporated; your husband’s business is incorporated. Even if it’s a one-man show, “Linda’s Husband, Incorporated” is not a person. It can have persons who own it, sit on its board and work for it. But it is not a person. In addition, specific corporate contributions are not all public and are not easy to find.
I’m well aware of the activist Supreme Court rulings that twisted the words “speech” and “person” to overturn legislation intended to limit the influence of money in politics, but I notice that “original intent” arguments go by the wayside when it comes to these issue.
Not So Casual Observer
October 27th, 2010
3:17 pm
Linda,
Hang tough, the arguments used against you here are the same “urban legend” stuff the ACLU has used to destroy the morals of the US.
AmVet
October 27th, 2010
3:36 pm
Top Democrats have been demonizing lobbyists, special interests and shadowy outside groups ahead of next week’s election.
DEMONIZING?
I read the complete articles in all three of your links and perhaps you can show me this alleged demonization.
Sir, you do this democracy an enormous disservice by playing political games while decrying those who play political games.
Our republic has been horribly stained by mountains of dirty money that fuel these parallel incumbency protection rackets.
And rather than speak to that enormous problem in any serious way, and the subsequent wholesale sell off of we the people’s sovereignty, you try to score silly political points by using inflammatory and patently false language.
And for those of you with difficulties in understanding standard, written English, NO, I do not condone campaigns rife with legalized bribes by either the Tweedledee or Tweedledium Parties…
Kyle Wingfield
October 27th, 2010
3:39 pm
AmVet: Calm down, and read this: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/19/opinion/19brooks.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
Then tell me why campaign finance is such an “enormous problem.”
Kyle Wingfield
October 27th, 2010
3:49 pm
Btw, the total campaign-spending figure for this election that Brooks reports in the column linked above is $1.4 billion. How much is $1.4 billion? For one, it’s roughly the same amount of revenue that the 15 richest college athletics programs alone earned in 2007-2008.
http://bit.ly/AG68k
Linda
October 27th, 2010
3:54 pm
CJ @ 2:33, The section of the Constitution you partially quoted actually ended slavery. When the Constitution was written, slavery in the US was a grim reality with slaves in every state except two. Many of the Founding Fathers condemned slavery at the Constitutional Convention & a compromise was reached. Article I, Section 9, paragraph 1 also included, “prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight,” which officially ended slavery in 20 years.
Your quote of Jefferson was his response to a letter he received. He had a deep religious conviction & believed that the fed. govt. had no business getting involved in religion, but did believe in the states’ establishment of religion.
The goal of the progressives is to destroy our churches, our Constitution & our history. Our youth today are being taught a different history than older Americans were taught or what some of us actually experienced/lived thru. Good luck!
AmVet
October 27th, 2010
3:58 pm
I bring up a valid and serious point and your response is for me to calm down?
That retort is presumptuous, sophomoric and rude.
And in reference to your link, what if anything does that have to do with the fact that I demonstrated that none of your three previous links provide anything to corroborate your claim of Democratic demonization?
Again I implore you to show me wherein it is, if I have missed it.
And strangely enough, neither does the fourth one…
No More Progressives!
October 27th, 2010
4:06 pm
Given that this appears to be the first time you’ve brought up the topic in recent weeks, could you explain why you appear to find this line of attack distasteful?
Bad form to answer a question with a question.
CJ
October 27th, 2010
4:09 pm
“The goal of the progressives is to destroy our churches, our Constitution & our history.”
Linda, you can’t lecture me on civil discourse, as you once did, and then spout rubbish like this about your fellow Americans. This attitude is as false, hateful, and yes, dangerous as it gets.
(Incidentally, when did slavery officially end? That clause said that Congress can prohibit slavery after a period of time, as if that makes it okay, but it did not prohibit it. You might recall that we had a Civil War over the issue.)
Cutty
October 27th, 2010
4:10 pm
I’m with retiredds. The PSC is bought and owned by the utilities.
Linda
October 27th, 2010
4:15 pm
CJ @ 3:16, My husband has 2 corporations. His 1st one was in his given name. He is the owner, manager, worker, etc. I am a mere director. He is no “it.”
If I hang a business sign on the front door of my home, it’s still my home. If I deduct part of my home & an auto for business expenses, they are still my home & auto.
The main difference being incorporated & owning a business in another means is limited liability.
Linda
October 27th, 2010
4:31 pm
CJ @ 4:09, We’ve got “fellow Americans” in prison, convicted for terrorism, murder, rape & torture. Am I hateful & dangerous to spout my opinions about them?
So, you must be a progressive. What I don’t understand is why anyone can be a progressive who is not a member of the political “class” or in the media. What would an individual hope to accomplish?
Linda
October 27th, 2010
4:41 pm
No More Progressives!, I gave my opinion of progressives @ 3:54 & got chewed out @ 4:09. You are the expert. Was I wrong?
CJ
October 27th, 2010
4:46 pm
So now you’re comparing anybody who disagrees with you on political issues to terrorists, rapists, and murderers, yet you somehow believe that you’re civil. Unbelievable.
Kyle Wingfield
October 27th, 2010
4:52 pm
AmVet: I didn’t mean to be condescending. My apologies.
And because of my apparent poor choice of links to explain what I mean by demonization, I offer the following:
It’s demonization because the president of this country and the speaker of the House of Representatives are assigning nefarious motives to people doing:
a) exactly what their own supporters are doing…see here: http://politi.co/bUxuxG
b) what was legal before the Supreme Court case (Citizens United) they want to blame for the “extra” spending…see here: http://bit.ly/dATukQ
They are distorting the facts of what’s going on and trying to tarnish the donors and recipients of the money, while doing essentially the same things themselves. All of that is what I call demonization.
Linda
October 27th, 2010
4:57 pm
Kyle, Thank you.
Linda
October 27th, 2010
5:02 pm
CJ, I meant nice try @ 4:46, not 3:54.
left wing
October 27th, 2010
5:35 pm
Kyle As long as you recognize that demonization of the other side is occurring on both sides, I can agree. And I think we should both agree that any political advertising should say who is funding the ads, and not just by some nebulus group calling itself ‘America for Americans’ or whatever. Name names. And yes, I’ve seen this in left leaning ads by AFSME.
While we’re on the subject of demonization, I’d like to point out how President Obama has been demonized, but some good things have gone unnoticed. Like having about $3 trillion dollars of wealth created in the stock market. This of course, was in large part due to TARP (started by Bush and continued under Obama) and the stimulus. We have also managed to have 4 consecutive quarters of positive GDP growth, and proper credit should be given to stabilizing the economy as well. The CBO has said between 1.4 and 3.3 million jobs have been created due to the stimulus.
“The evil men do lives after them. The good is oft interr’d within their bones. Thus let it be with Obama” to paraphrase Shakespere.
AmVet
October 27th, 2010
5:35 pm
Kyle, thank you.
I completely concur that hypocrisy is rife in both parties on this matter. And has been for a long time.
Both rely heavily on their historically friendly special interests to fund their campaigns.
90% of Americans believe America is in decline.
75% now think that corporations have too much control over our government and over their lives.
66% feel that the the two major political parties are failing them.
And most serious attempts at campaign reform and ethics reform have met enormous resistance by both parties.
I advocate for public funding of public elections. Clean money means clean elections.
Voter turnout in America is among the lowest in the western world; we rank in the bottom three of countries that hold free elections.
And I believe the biggest reason why that is so is due to the gargantuan expense of political campaigns. This creates a clear advantage for the highest spender. I believe it takes in the neighborhood of $100,000,000 to run a competitive campaign for US Senate now. BIG money dominates the dissemination of campaign messages, mainly waged on corporate-owned TV. More often than not in the form of sound bites and bumper sticker slogans.
And the complicit American Politburo, aka the Commission on Presidential Debates, ensures that NO voices other than the R and D voices are heard.
This economic stranglehold of campaigns makes politics a game for only the very rich or who have very rich cronies. And it effectively silences alternative viewpoints and makes our democracy utterly non-compettitive.
I believe this turns off millions of voters who do not feel in the slightest represented, or protected by only privileged candidates in our burgeoning plutocracy…
Shaun Mendenhall
October 27th, 2010
5:36 pm
I don’t think that we need any more lobbyists in the business… HBD.
left wing
October 27th, 2010
5:41 pm
And the complicit American Politburo, aka the Commission on Presidential Debates, ensures that NO voices other than the R and D voices are heard. – AmVet
You know why that is, don’t you? It used to be that presidential debates were run by the DAR. Then in 1992, Ross Perot became a serious threat. So, after the election, the Democratic National Committee and the Republican National Comittee got together to form the “Commission on Presidential Debates” to ensure that no third party candidate would ever get on the stage with them.
barking frog
October 27th, 2010
6:02 pm
Maybe we should encourage more billionaires like
Perot and the Koch Brothers to fund their own parties,
drags away money from the Terrible Two…
Not So Casual Observer
October 27th, 2010
6:49 pm
left wing,
So how does that $3 Trillion in “recovery”, not gain, in the market compare to the TENS of trillions of dollars lost in home and other real estate values? I will answer for you – not at all!
By the way, much of that market increase was due to comparisons between current and prior years operating results. How will the market respond in 2012 when there is not a “recession year” for prior comparison? POORLY!
No More Progressives!
October 29th, 2010
6:53 am
Linda
October 27th, 2010
4:41 pm
No More Progressives!, I gave my opinion of progressives @ 3:54 & got chewed out @ 4:09. You are the expert. Was I wrong?
I agree with you, Linda. The goal of the progressives is to have Harry Reid/Chuck U. Schumer & Nancy Lugosi at every viable poiltlcal position in the country, in order to tell the great unwashed, as Catie the Communist put it, how to live, breath, and exist.
Religion scares them, because when we commoners believe in a higher power than the benevolent Gub’mint, it concerns them.
Beavis
November 3rd, 2010
8:08 am
Why is lobbying even legal at all?