2012 Tuesday: Newt on work, and the scourge of super PACs
By the time we’ve reached the third state in the Republican primary process and are witnessing the umpteenth debate, expectations for hearing something novel at one of these forums are pretty low. A debate at this stage might be best compared to a NASCAR race — in which a sizable segment of the audience is watching in case there’s a wreck — or a heavyweight boxing match — in which many viewers are hoping to see one guy deliver a knockout blow to another.
Nevertheless, Monday night’s debate in Myrtle Beach was notable for two moments. One came when debate panelist Juan Williams asked Newt Gingrich if he could see that Gingrich’s past comments about work ethic and food stamps are “viewed, at a minimum, as insulting to all Americans, but particularly to black Americans,” and the former speaker responded with a flat “No” — and proceeded to rip apart the meme bit by bit:
The other one came after a verbal brawl among the candidates about the charges leveled by various candidates’ “super PACs” toward other candidates. Mitt Romney suggested the problem lies with the campaign-finance laws that led to the creation of super PACs in the first place:
ROMNEY: We all would like to have super PACs disappear, to tell you the truth. Wouldn’t it nice to have people give what they would like to to campaigns and campaigns could run their own ads and take responsibility for them? But you know what, this campaign is not about ads, it’s about issues.
DEBATE MODERATOR BRET BAIER: So, Governor Romney, in the general election, if you are the nominee you would like to see Super PACs ended?
ROMNEY: Oh, I would like to get rid of the campaign finance laws that were put in place — McCain-Feingold is a disaster, get rid of it. Let people make contributions they want to make to campaigns, let campaigns then take responsibility for their own words and not have this strange situation we have people out there who support us, who run ads we don’t like, we would like to take off the air, they are outrageous and yet they are out there supporting us and by law we aren’t allowed to talk to them.
I haven’t spoken to any of the people involved in my super PAC in months, and this is outrageous. Candidates should have the responsibility and the right to manage the ads that are being run on their behalf. I think this has to change.
Now, many observers are skeptical about the actual lack of coordination between campaigns and super PACs and believe the Chinese wall is more like a leaky dike without the little Dutch boy. But we are only having this discussion about whether campaigns talk to super PACs because the effort to “get the money out of politics” only led to less accountability. Romney is right: It would be better to eliminate, or at least raise, the government-imposed limits on contributions; have clear and immediate transparency about contributions; let candidates defend their decisions to take money from whoever is giving it to them; and let voters make up their minds.
—
P.S. – At this point, some of you will ask why I take this position on campaign finance while advocating a limit on gifts from lobbyists to our state legislators. Let me explain, briefly.
As the Supreme Court recognizes, contributions to candidates are a manifestation of political speech, which in our political system must be protected vigilantly. And as Richard Cohen details well, campaign contributions are sometimes the best, or only, way for those opposed to the current political leaders to bring about a change. (One problem with moving totally toward public financing of campaigns is that, in the name of not wasting taxpayer dollars, there inevitably will be thresholds of support that candidates must clear to qualify for public funds — and history teaches us that elected officials set such thresholds to minimize competition, not increase it.)
Political campaigns cost money to run, and it is appropriate that Americans be able to help finance the campaign of a candidate they support. While some people — including, it seems, Romney — support eliminating limits completely, it strikes me as more prudent to increase the limit first and, after examining the results, determine whether it makes sense to keep moving in that direction.
Lawmaking, on the other hand, does not require financial contributions, particularly ones that come in the form of dinners, tickets to sporting events and concerts, or travel. In the vast majority of cases, there is no reason a lobbyist can’t communicate the same point about legislation without buying something for the legislator. For those cases when circumstances dictate otherwise, modest expenses covered by a cap of perhaps $100 should suffice to avoid incriminating people unnecessarily. And I am open to discussion about where the limit should be set in order to minimize such unnecessary problems and to avoid creating new problems as much as is practical.
(Note that we are not talking about the right of a person, group or company to spend money to hire people and pay those employees’ expenses to make said point. That, not gifts, would be the appropriate analogy to campaign contributions when it comes to political speech; lobbying per se is not a problem.)
– By Kyle Wingfield
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
192 comments Add your comment
JF McNamara
January 17th, 2012
4:17 pm
Here is what Newt said,
“And so I’m prepared, if the NAACP invites me, I’ll go to their convention and talk about why the African-American community should demand paychecks and not be satisfied with food stamps. And I’ll go to them and explain a brand new Social Security opportunity for young people, which would be particularly good for African-American males because they are the group that gets the smallest return on social security because they have the shortest life span.”
The statement is both condescending and wrong headed. Black people are satisfied with food stamps? Really, I better go sign up and quit my job? Thank You Massr New. We need massr Newt to come save us from ourselves…
Also, Why bring up African Americans specifically? Aren’t there far, far more white people on food stamps (Yes). Does the fact that the elections are heading South play into that? African Americans aren’t stupid. We understand what Newt is doing…
Dusty
January 17th, 2012
4:22 pm
getalife,
You are so entertaining.
What a joker! A magician!
You can make facts disappear
And see things that aren’t there!
I hope you will approve Obama’s disappearing act.
People are already applauding.
Gonna be great!!
Hillbilly D
January 17th, 2012
4:31 pm
Any PERSON can take his checkbook downtown tomorrow & become incorporated. The day after you become incorporated, you still have all the rights you had the day before
But you no longer have the same liabilities.
Linda
January 17th, 2012
4:31 pm
The GOP candidates are pointing out what HAS happened during the Obama administration. Of all the pundits, analysts, etc., it was Peggy Joseph who best predicted on 10/31/08 what WOULD happen during the Obama administration.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36×8rTb3jI
lil' barry food stamps
January 17th, 2012
4:32 pm
We can’t wait!
America’s Food Stamp President mm, mm, mm.
lil' barry food stamps
January 17th, 2012
4:33 pm
We can’t wait!
Four dollar a gallon gas by spring mm, mm, mm
Somewhere over there
January 17th, 2012
4:38 pm
I’d take anyone in the GOP over Obama any day.
jconservative
January 17th, 2012
4:38 pm
Change of subject:
“1/17/2012, The Associated Press
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court has rejected an appeal from a North Carolina county commission over the mostly Christian prayers offered at the beginning of its public meetings.
The justices on Tuesday left in place a federal appeals court ruling that held that the predominantly Christian prayers at the start of Forsyth County commission meetings violated the First Amendment’s prohibition on government endorsement of a particular religion.
The commission said its doors have long been open to religious leaders of many faiths. But the appeals court in Richmond, Va., found that more than three-quarters of the 33 invocations given before meetings between May 2007 and December 2008 referred to “Jesus,” ”Jesus Christ,” ”Christ” or “Savior.” ”
——————–
Coupled with last week’s decision protecting a church;s right to appoint its own ministers, it appears the Roberts court is well on its way to protecting the Constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion.
Somewhere over there
January 17th, 2012
4:39 pm
Dusty
I suspect getalife is unemployed and has been for a very long time. The troll sits on Bookman’s blog 24/7 arguing with anyone and everyone.
lil' barry food stamps
January 17th, 2012
4:40 pm
We can’t wait!
Are you better off today than you were four years ago?
John
January 17th, 2012
4:40 pm
So according to Newt, janitors in New York city make at least $217.50 an hour…that’s $452,400 a year. That would be the annual salary total of the 30 kids you could hire to replace 1 janitor based on the $7.25 federal minimum wages.
Somewhere over there
January 17th, 2012
4:40 pm
“The only things progressives hate more than capitalism are corporations. ”
Ironically Obama got more corporate dollars than ANY GOPer in 2008. Libs are such hypocrites.
Somewhere over there
January 17th, 2012
4:41 pm
John
Union folk in NY make a lot of money. Heck, in Chicago, trash collectors make over 60 grand a year.
Somewhere over there
January 17th, 2012
4:42 pm
If libs hate corporations so much then they should get rid of their expensive hybrids, iphones etc and grow their own food.
Linda
January 17th, 2012
4:48 pm
Somewhere, add to that the components to their homes (lumber, shingles, etc.) as well as their appliances & furnishings, their vehicles & clothes. Liberals only hate corporations that make a profit.
Dusty
January 17th, 2012
4:51 pm
Trash collectors in Chicago make over 60 grand a year!
They must pay community organizers a lot, too. They never seem to live in the “community”.
MarkV
January 17th, 2012
4:52 pm
Dusty @3:06 pm
Dusty, if you want to point out false statements, you should be careful to write better statements yourself.
#1. “Corporations would not exist without people.” Does that prove they “are” people? Piloted planes could not fly without people. Does that make them “people?”
#3. “The terrorism of 9/11 that happened nine months after Bush became president was planned long years before that terrible event in NYC.” I do not agree with those who give Bush exclusive blame for not preventing 9/11, but whether it was planned long ago is hardly a good argument, and as for 9 months, you could just as well say that it happened when he was already fully 9 months in the office. There is a good case to make that he did not do enough to prevent it. But it is hardly an issue that makes any sense to reopen now.
#4 “The ultra rich are equal citizens in the USA just like everybody else and should have equal and fair taxation.” I do not see anybody denying the ultra rich equal citizenship. “Fair and equal” taxation is a very pliable concept. What is “equal” and what is”fair?”
Occupunks on Kyle's blog
January 17th, 2012
4:53 pm
What? ME? You want ME, to get a JOB!
Stop cussing me, you filthy mouth one percent’er.
Somewhere over there
January 17th, 2012
4:54 pm
“What is “equal” and what is”fair?”
There’s no such thing. If you suck at managing money, it’s your own fault.
Somewhere over there
January 17th, 2012
4:55 pm
“They must pay community organizers a lot, too. They never seem to live in the “community”.”
Obama’s wife was the bread winner when they lived in Chicago for years.
Michael H. Smith
January 17th, 2012
5:03 pm
MarkV@4:52 pm What is “equal” and what is”fair?”
Like you said, be careful of your statements. There is no constitutional amendment protecting “fair” and knowing you as most of us do we know you really don’t want equal in the least.
FEAR (False Evidence Appearing Real)
January 17th, 2012
5:03 pm
Dusty you clearly miss my point. I never said or implied that the poor should remain poor. That’s just silly. Nor will I ever believe that Newt doesn’t understand the impact of this economy on a hefty slice of our populace.
Here’s what I do believe. Most unemployed people – especially those that lost jobs to no fault of their own – would rather be working. I also believe that most poor people would rather have a job that provides the dignity that comes with supporting their basic needs without govt assistance. Of course there are those who will game the system, but that is not most people.
John
January 17th, 2012
5:04 pm
Somewhere over there,
$60,000 and $454,400 is a huge difference. Can Newt back up his claim? Where’s his proof? If that’s the janitor’s salary, how many millions per year are the teachers and principals making?
The Elite
January 17th, 2012
5:05 pm
Linda, most elitist liberal Democrats are extremely wealthy and well educated like me. Liberals prefer to hate corporations that don’t make stuff that they like. Starbucks, for example, is a popular mecca for liberals in urban areas and college campuses. Also exempt are: Apple, Birkenstock, Ikea, Target and Volvo. Wal-Mart, McDonalds, and Halliburton are not popular due to a wide range of reasons.
Somewhere over there
January 17th, 2012
5:06 pm
“$60,000 and $454,400 is a huge difference.”
Is it really?
“If that’s the janitor’s salary, how many millions per year are the teachers and principals making?”
What the hell are you talking about, John?
MarkV
January 17th, 2012
5:06 pm
Rafe Hollister @3:50 pm
“Corporations are people, but Unions are better than People. Just ask Barry Oblamer, … I am assuming that they now outrank people, at least in the eyes of this regime.”
A good argument can be made that corporations “are not” people. It requires a very confused mind to claim that unions are NOT people. A mind of people who call the President mocking names.
Somewhere over there
January 17th, 2012
5:07 pm
“Linda, most elitist liberal Democrats are extremely wealthy and well educated like me.
Yep, they get their degrees in Philosophy and poetry writing. Good luck making a living in that field.
Somewhere over there
January 17th, 2012
5:07 pm
“It requires a very confused mind to claim that unions are NOT people.”
Unions are pathetic little crybabies.
Jefferson
January 17th, 2012
5:08 pm
So who is the mad crowd ? Ever wonder why ?
MarkV
January 17th, 2012
5:09 pm
Michael H. Smith @ 5:03 pm “Like you said, be careful of your statements. There is no constitutional amendment protecting “fair” and knowing you as most of us do we know you really don’t want equal in the least.”
Is there any particular sense in your post?
Don't Tread
January 17th, 2012
5:12 pm
“It requires a very confused mind to claim that unions are NOT people.”
Oh, not really. A union is a group of people with a common agenda, just like a corporation is. If corporations aren’t “people”, neither are unions.
John
January 17th, 2012
5:16 pm
Somewhere over there
It’s simple math…you do know how to multiple, don’t you? Newt claims 30 something kids could be hired to replace 1 janitor for the same amount of money. In case you don’t know how to calculate, here it is for you…
minimum wage is $7.25/hr x the 30 kids = $217.50 (the minimum hourly salary Newt suggest janitor’s make).
$217.50 x 2080 (full times hours worked per year) = $425,400 (the minimum yearly salary Newt suggest janitor’s make).
Linda
January 17th, 2012
5:17 pm
Dusty, Be careful. If you don’t answer HIS way, he’s call you every dirty name in the liberal playbook.
The corporations that liberals hate most are those that produce cleaning supplies. There was one nasty-mouth liberal kid in my elementary school. His dad was in a union. His mother started with soap. When that didn’t work, she used dishwashing detergent. When that didn’t work, she used dishwasher detergent. Then she tried a few Brillo pads. It was Draino that finally did the trick. The kid is now a preacher & drives a Honda.
Somewhere over there
January 17th, 2012
5:20 pm
“It’s simple math…you do know how to multiple, don’t you? Newt claims 30 something kids could be hired to replace 1 janitor for the same amount of money. In case you don’t know how to calculate, here it is for you”
Again, what the hell are you talking about?
John
January 17th, 2012
5:21 pm
Somewhere over there
Watch the video above and educate yourself.
MarkV
January 17th, 2012
5:23 pm
Linda @5:17 pm “Dusty, Be careful. If you don’t answer HIS way, he’s call you every dirty name in the liberal playbook.”
Linda, January 15th, 2012 @11:39 pm: “Why don’t you go over there & f@#t & belch?”
Jefferson
January 17th, 2012
5:25 pm
It seems new wants kids to be janitors, not his kids mind you.
John
January 17th, 2012
5:27 pm
Jefferson@5:25 pm
That’s because they have Newt as their father…he gave them good work ethics so they don’t need to be janitors.
Dusty
January 17th, 2012
5:28 pm
Well, MarkV, I see you are home and ready to fight.
I love my generalizations! They are better than YOURS! How’s that for a start?
#1 Yes, corporations = people, their major component. No people. No corporations. Just pieces of paper.
#3 9/11 was planned for years. Clinton had years to prevent it. Why blame Bush? For propaganda!
#4 Taxation pays America’s living expenses. The only fair and equal way to tax is for everyone to pay the same percentage of their income. Wealthy people are taxed at a higher percentage than others. Therefore they are not treated equally which I consider unfair. Since the “rich” have made no objection to their higher tax rate that I know about, I assume they are willing to give more for their country. That does not make it “equal”. Just generous.
PS–Is your heated birdbath frozen yet? Mine is not frozen although the solar heating is not working too well. But not a bird in sight anyway.
John
January 17th, 2012
5:31 pm
Only poor black kids need to be janitors and learn good work ethics…that’s why he would go to the NAACP convention if he’s invited.
I Report (-: You Whine )-: mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin...
January 17th, 2012
5:36 pm
Stop picking on Romney, Kyle, you’ll make him flip flop.
Linda
January 17th, 2012
5:37 pm
Elite@5:05, Education does not make one intelligent & intelligence is not synonymous with common sense. Wealth is a mere accumulation & elitism is where you nose is. Anyone who pays $5 for a cup of coffee is not intelligent, has little common sense & won’t be wealthy much longer.
Somewhere over there
January 17th, 2012
5:38 pm
“Watch the video above and educate yourself.”
bless yer heart.
Somewhere over there
January 17th, 2012
5:39 pm
“Only poor black kids need to be janitors and learn good work ethics…that’s why he would go to the NAACP convention if he’s invited.”
The NAACP is still around? I forgot they even existed.
GodHatesTrash, Superstar
January 17th, 2012
5:41 pm
Well, Newt’s little speech went over real well with the white racists that make up the South Carolina GOP.
It seems to have gone over pretty well with Kyle’s Kooky Konservatives here, too!
Somewhere over there
January 17th, 2012
5:47 pm
GodHatesTrash, Superstar
Get. A. Life. And. A. Job.
MarkV
January 17th, 2012
5:50 pm
Dusty @5:28 pm
Well, Dusty, I am home and ready to fight, for a while at least. As for who’s generalizations are better, let’s see.
#1. To be clear, I think the question is simply silly. There is no doubt that a corporation IS NOT people. When we say that something is this or that, we normally mean that it is the same thing. Whether a corporation cannot exist without people is besides the point. But I call the question silly because what is really being argued is not whether corporation IS or IS NOT people, but whether certain right of people should apply to a corporation. Actually, I do not have a strong opinion on that. I lean against the Supreme Court ruling, but the court has made it and it is therefore the law of the land.
#3 “9/11 was planned for years. Clinton had years to prevent it. Why blame Bush? For propaganda!” Part right, part wrong. Clinton carries some blame for not preventing it. So does Bush, The question of the relative proportion is not something I want to answer, and inn my view nobody here is competent to do.
#4 “The only fair and equal way to tax is for everyone to pay the same percentage of their income.” I am willing to argue this, but not right now. It would take too long.
“PS–Is your heated birdbath frozen yet? Mine is not frozen although the solar heating is not working too well. But not a bird in sight anyway.” Both our birdbaths are heated automatically and never freeze. It ha snot been too needed so far, but birds really need open water.
John
January 17th, 2012
5:53 pm
Dusty @5:28 pm
“#3 9/11 was planned for years. Clinton had years to prevent it. Why blame Bush? For propaganda!”
Clinton did prevent it..9/11 didn’t happen while he was president. Bush was president at that time and the Clinton administration handed over intelligence that Bush decided to ignore. How can you blame Clinton for 9/11 when it happened under Bush’s watch.
“#4 Taxation pays America’s living expenses. The only fair and equal way to tax is for everyone to pay the same percentage of their income. Wealthy people are taxed at a higher percentage than others. Therefore they are not treated equally which I consider unfair. Since the “rich” have made no objection to their higher tax rate that I know about, I assume they are willing to give more for their country. That does not make it “equal”. Just generous.”
When you say income should be taxed at the same rate, does that mean ALL income, such as income on investment, inheritance, etc. Would that mean eliminate ALL deductions including mortgage interest, deductions for children, etc.? Of course it wouldn’t be fair if there are deductions since not everyone would qualify which would make it unfair. Of course, since you believe corporations are people, corporations would have the pay the same percentage with no deductions, subsidies, tax breaks, etc.
The Elite
January 17th, 2012
5:59 pm
Somewhere over there – Carly Fiornia and Peter Lynch where philosophy majors.
John
January 17th, 2012
6:04 pm
Dusty @5:28 pm
If corporations are people and Bain Capital killed (closed) some businesses, could Mitt Romney then be charged for murder?