BearGoggles;842303318 said:

---

(iii) many people on the left criticizing the decision want to restrict individual or corporate political donations, but say nothing about Unions. These people are being selective in targeting only wealthy individuals and corporations and I view their agenda as driven by the desire to gain a political advantage (by limiting the resources of the political opponents), not as a matter of principle.

---

Ok, I want to put this up top because it seems important to you. A lot of people expressed support for campaign finance regulation in this thread and not a single one of them said they were against including unions in this regulation. Dajo9 even expressly said he was in favor of limiting union contributions. For the record, I'm all for applying the same kinds of campaign finance restrictions to unions as corporations.

I'm sure there are people out there "on the left" who disagree with me and dajo9 (probably fewer than you believe). I invite you to go out into the world and find them. As long as they're not here, what are we arguing about?

BearGoggles said:

---

What I have said is: (i) whether people agree with it or not, spending money on political speech is protected First Amendment speech; (ii) as such, the Supreme Court's McCutchen decision was appropriate given the constitution and past precedent

---

(i) and (ii) are both opinions. They happen to be the Supreme Court's opinions, so they have legal force and effect, but that doesn't make them right. I know you didn't say otherwise, but since you brought it up, I thought I'd just remind you of those facts.

An intelligent person should be able to fully form an opinion on the desirability of a proposal without any reference to what the Supreme Court has to say.

BearGoggles said:

---

I have not advocated for unregulated financial contributions. The Supreme Court has upheld all sorts of regulations, particularly disclosure and reporting. The court has even upheld contribution limits for donations to individual candidates precisely because candidates could theoretically be "bought". [U]I agree with all of this [/U]- I think there should be limits on donations to individual candidates and every dollar donated to a candidate should be public record. I have no problem with apolitical "regulations".

However, that is a very different proposition than limiting the number of candidates a person can max contribute to - which is what the McCutchen case implicated.

---

I'm curious as to how you drew the line. It's easy to fall back on Potter Stewart's famous line here, so I really encourage you not to. What makes limiting the number of candidates a person can contribute to a "very different proposition" than the limits you support?

BearGoggles said:

---

If the real concern was "the propensity for money to corrupt", these people would advocate for term limits, donation limitations on all parties and entities (including political parties) and/or limits in the total amount that could be spent by any candidate.

---

Again, dajo9 specifically advocated for this. But it really couldn't matter less. See below.

BearGoggles said:

---

They would also place severe limits on the political activities of special interest groups, like the NRA, NOW, AIPAC, Trial lawyers, - all of these groups use money to accumulate political power and influence. That is not what I've heard anyone in this thread advocate for (though perhaps some would). Instead they want to restrict the rights/power of groups that are typically perceived to be part of the Republican/conservative base.

---

So their concerns are dominated by the power of groups that happen to be "perceived to be part of the Republican/conservative base." Did you consider the possibility that that was because they feel those groups were the ones whose contributory levels would be highest and therefore most corrupting? Regardless, do a person's fears have to be comprehensive in order to be valid?

Say that bears, wolves and feral dogs all live on the outskirts of my town and are all terrorizing the town equally. The bears and dogs are giving lots of other people trouble, but only wolves have threatened my property. If I go to the town meeting and say, "Hey, I think we should put together an animal control unit. These wolves by my property are becoming a problem." Is my suggestion to form an animal control unit invalid because it was manifestly motivated by a fear of only one of the three sources of danger confronting the whole town?

No, of course not. It's not a sign of bad faith for my fears to be self-centered. It only becomes a problem when someone else says, "Yeah, and let's control the bears and dogs too," and I say "Nah, screw that. I'm not worried about the bears and dogs."

When people bring up campaign finance reform and single out corporations, feel free to point out the bears and the dogs too. If after you do so, they say "screw that," then you have a valid cause for complaint.

For the record, I think people are quite correct to be most concerned about corporate wealth in the political sphere for multiple reasons, including the fact that following Citizens United there was a huge increase in "independent expenditures."

BearGoggles said:

---

I have no problem with apolitical "regulations".

---

Great. Just curious, do you feel that the money excluded by said regulations would have be equalized between the two parties in order to be "apolitical"?

Here's what I think about campaign finance regulation: it's a joke. McCutchen is hardly a drop in the bucket. "Independent Expenditures" make a mockery of the entire regulatory system. The "limits" maintained now are little more than a sham. I'd have more respect for the five yeas if they simply went with Clarence Thomas and ended the whole charade.

I don't dismiss the free speech argument out of hand. Spending money for the purpose of expressing a political viewpoint is an exercise of expression. But of course, there is not an unlimited right of expression. Freedom of expression can be--and has been--constitutionally restricted where there is a compelling public interest. In this case, the compelling interest is safeguarding the electoral system from corruption. I'd also like to go after lobbyist access, but that's a topic for another day.

The Court in Buckley recognized anti-corruption as a compelling interest to limit the political speech represented by campaign contributions, but refused to extend the same logic to combat "independent expenditures." They set up pathetic rules about how a communication must be structured in order to be "independent" along with practicably unenforceable rules against coordination between the "independent" organization and the campaign. Flying in the face of all common sense, the Court in Citizens United emphatically affirmed this with outrageous obtuseness.

I would propose exceedingly strict campaign finance laws, with very low contribution limits across the board and expenditure limits for both candidates and "independent" organizations (yes, expenditure limits are another matter). I'd also resurrect the public financing system, make it competitive with private funding levels and extend it to all federal elections. It would be hard to overstate the importance of the integrity of the electoral system. There should be genuine safeguards.

KevBear;842303344 said:

---

So their concerns are dominated by the power of groups that happen to be "perceived to be part of the Republican/conservative base." Did you consider the possibility that that was because they feel those groups were the ones whose contributory levels would be highest and therefore most corrupting? Regardless, do a person's fears have to be comprehensive in order to be valid?

Say that bears, wolves and feral dogs all live on the outskirts of my town and are all terrorizing the town equally. The bears and dogs are giving lots of other people trouble, but only wolves have threatened my property. If I go to the town meeting and say, "Hey, I think we should put together an animal control unit. These wolves by my property are becoming a problem." Is my suggestion to form an animal control unit invalid because it was manifestly motivated by a fear of only one of the three sources of danger confronting the whole town?

No, of course not. It's not a sign of bad faith for my fears to be self-centered. It only becomes a problem when someone else says, "Yeah, and let's control the bears and dogs too," and I say "Nah, screw that. I'm not worried about the bears and dogs."

When people bring up campaign finance reform and single out corporations, feel free to point out the bears and the dogs too. If after you do so, they say "screw that," then you have a valid cause for complaint.

For the record, I think people are quite correct to be most concerned about corporate wealth in the political sphere for multiple reasons, including the fact that following Citizens United there was a huge increase in "independent expenditures."

---

Well said and I agree completely. Being in favor of restrictions on campaign finance doesn't mean you have to name every single group that might pose a corrupting influence, and failure to name them doesn't invalidate the position.

KevBear;842303344 said:

---

Say that bears, wolves and feral dogs all live on the outskirts of my town and are all terrorizing the town equally. The bears and dogs are giving lots of other people trouble, but only wolves have threatened my property. If I go to the town meeting and say, "Hey, I think we should put together an animal control unit. These wolves by my property are becoming a problem." Is my suggestion to form an animal control unit invalid because it was manifestly motivated by a fear of only one of the three sources of danger confronting the whole town?

No, of course not. It's not a sign of bad faith for my fears to be self-centered. It only becomes a problem when someone else says, "Yeah, and let's control the bears and dogs too," and I say "Nah, screw that. I'm not worried about the bears and dogs."

When people bring up campaign finance reform and single out corporations, feel free to point out the bears and the dogs too. If after you do so, they say "screw that," then you have a valid cause for complaint.

---

THIS. It took 12 pages of comments to distill a 200 proof analysis.

It is very hard to have a reasonable discussion with someone who keeps attacking your data. I understand why one might do it. If you negate the evidence you don't have to deal with the argument. Is it possible to agree on a set of data? Is there something wrong with the data he provides on his website? http://topincomes.g-mond.parisschoolofeconomics.eu/#Database:

Even so, you seem to prefer this:

wifeisafurd;842303328 said:

---

If you read the graphs in the Saez study I cited, the countries remarkably trend up and down in pattern. Look at Figure 4 for example, which by the way, like all the other figures, stops before 2010.

---

Yes, it does stop before 2010. When I search for "Income and Wealth Concentration in a Historical and International Perspective, Emmanuel Saez, UC Berkeley and NBER" http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/berkeleysympo2.pdf I get a paper published in 2004 with data through the year 2000. If he has updated it, he does not list it on his website http://elsa.berkeley.edu/users/saez/ It's 2014 and and there has been a lot of public policy change since 2000. That 2004 study is out of date. You must be referencing a different study. I would love to see it.

I will be surprised if it negates my primary point: Public policy is the primary driver of inequality.

The main reason I'll be surprised is because it would contradict the data from his own website, but I will address that in a separate post.

wifeisafurd;842303328 said:

---

I am totally confused by your prior post about the UK and US having similar present wealth concentration, and now they don't. Its not relevant to the point I was actually trying to make, just confusing.

---

Did you not claim US & UK wealth concentration was similar? Your words: " Its seems concentrations of wealth go across borders (at least in "western" counties) and seem to reflect global economic conditions in general." and then my inference given your criticism of using Demark or Luxemburg as examples: Your words: "I specifically used Saez' study: 1) because he looked at the US, Canada, Switzerland, Netherlands and the Continental European Countries (Germany, France, Italy, etc.). You know, countries with real economies." You do not list UK, yet it is perhaps the economy most like ours over the last 100 years. There are problems with using each of the others. The first three are way too small - and we know you don't like those comparisons. The next three suffered economic collapse as a result of WW2.

I was looking for a cleaner comparison to demonstrate that Saez' data (as opposed to some chart in a paper I can't find) shows income inequality in the US and some other country (I chose UK, Australia and Denmark) do NOT covary as would be expected if it was driven by global trends. I did not spell out all Saez' data points. I expected one to go to his website and see for themselves. But if you insist, pick the countries, pick the years, I will supply Saez' data.

Just as a taste, here is US, UK & France (since you do specifically mention France). I searched: Top 1% income share. Note: for UK, early data is spotty, but better after 1949.

France: 18.3 (1915) - 18.2 ('25) - 15.4 ('35) - 7.6 ('45) - 9.3 ('55) - 9.6 ('65) - 8.5 ('75) - 7.2 ('85) - 7.7 ('95) - 8.7 ('05)
UK: 19.2 (1918) - no record ('25) - 17. ('37) - 11.5 ('49) - 9.3 ('55) - 8.6 ('65) - 6.1 ('75) - 7.4 ('85) - 10.8 ('95) - 14.3 ('05)
US:17.6 (1915) - 17.6 ('25) - 15.6 ('35) - 11.7 ('45) - 9.2 ('55) - 8.1 ('65) - 8.0 ('75) - 9.1 ('85) - 13.3 ('95) - 17.7 ('05)

What does the data say? 1955 provides a useful bench mark. All 3 countries are tightly bunched 9.2-9.3 The income of the top 1% grew in the US & UK from that point and declined in France. The US % nearly doubles, UK is up 50%. France moves down. US and UK fluctuate. These figures are not covarying.

wifeisafurd;842303328 said:

---

And I just loved your comments about Presidents tied to spending.

Which presidents in the 20th century were the biggest domestic spenders? Contrary to expectation, domestic spending growth occurred under the watch of Republican rather than Democratic presidents.

---

It is not the spending, it is the policy behind the spending. You will not argue that a dollar of Medicare Prescription Drug spending is the equal of a dollar of Pell grant expansion in terms of diminishing the level of income inequality, will you?

Never mind. You win. I'm done. It's Friday and I bet we both have better things to do. I have honestly enjoyed the conversation.

No more posts for me on this subject - I am going to have to find some other way to become a "Real Bear"

KevBear;842303344 said:

---

Ok, I want to put this up top because it seems important to you. A lot of people expressed support for campaign finance regulation in this thread and not a single one of them said they were against including unions in this regulation. Dajo9 even expressly said he was in favor of limiting union contributions. For the record, I'm all for applying the same kinds of campaign finance restrictions to unions as corporations.

[Text deleted]

I would propose exceedingly strict campaign finance laws, with very low contribution limits across the board and expenditure limits for both candidates and "independent" organizations (yes, expenditure limits are another matter). I'd also resurrect the public financing system, make it competitive with private funding levels and extend it to all federal elections. It would be hard to overstate the importance of the integrity of the electoral system. There should be genuine safeguards.

---

I will try to respond to your points not sure how to embed my comments in your post as you did. I'll try to respond in order. I had to shorten the quotation of your post because otherwise, it was too long for the board.

Dajo9's initial premise was that he wanted to equalize the "quantity" of speech, by limiting the amount of political spending by wealthy individuals. He made no mention of any other groups. I don't recall him expanding that argument to include all groups such as unions. Perhaps he did somewhere in this long thread and, if he did, I apologize for mischaracterizing his position. You can point me to that if you want.

Regarding my comments on political spending being speech, this is well settled law that is a fact. It is one thing to advocate for changes in the law/constitution (which of course anyone is free to do), but it is another to mischaracterize the decision as mistaken or not consistent with long held First Amendment principles that primarily emanated from liberal legal minds. Many of my posts have responded to the merits of the "proposal" to limit contributions from the wealthy I haven't simply said "it's the law and its right." I support a free marketplace of ideas (yes, that is an opinion). I oppose attempts to put a "thumb on the political scale" by using the force of law to restrict only certain types (or certain persons) speech something that is clearly contrary to the First Amendment and, more importantly, likely to lead to tyranny. I'm sure somewhere there are recent examples of conservatives trying to restrict speech (a past example I can think of is attempts to limit doctors providing abortion counseling), but this is currently primarily a tactic of liberals. I have, in your words, "evaluated the proposal" to limit political donations from the wealthy, and reject it on the grounds that ultimately, I don't want the government regulating political expression other than to directly prevent corruption. Simply put, running a political campaign costs money and as Michael Kinsley pointed out in the article I linked to previously, restricting monetary donations limits the ability to campaign.

I draw the line where the court did in the Buckley case it is appropriate to limit contributions that create the appearance of quid quo pro corruption. The current limit, which I believe is around $5,200, does that to be honest that is probably a low number in the context of national campaigns, but so be it. Limiting the aggregate contributions of an individual, particularly when those of PACs and Unions are not, is not reasonable and serves no rational purpose. To your later point, it only encourages individuals to donate money in less transparent ways.

Responding to your comment "Did you consider the possibility that that was because they feel those groups were the ones whose contributory levels would be highest and therefore most corrupting" I would point out that you use the works "corrupting" to mean "to advocate for positions I disagree with." There is nothing corrupt about that.

Also, I point you to the following list of largest political donors: https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php. If you look at the list, I think you'll conclude that: (i) there are lots of unions on there, most of which gave all of their money to dems; (ii) the top contributors lean to the dems; and (iii) business tend to spread their money around to both parties (i.e., hedge their bets), though it is somewhat surprising to see big companies like Goldman skew slightly Democrat (that may be because their headquartered in NY, a blue state).

So, to answer your question, I reject the idea that people advocating for limits on wealthy donations are targeting the groups giving the most money who are "most corrupting". If that was the case, they would also be targeting the groups on the top of that list. I'll stand by my conclusion that the motivation is political to limit the speech and influence of parties they disagree with in your post, the "self-centered" fears. To some degree, you are in that group, as you seem to fear the corporations ("Bears") more than dogs and wolves. While we know the Bear is the most fearsome of all animals, the list I linked to shows the dogs and wolves seem to outnumber the Bears and, most assuredly, have lots of power. You are certainly entitled to your opinion that the Bears are most dangerous but you should not be (and the First Amendment clearly was intended to prevent) using the force of law to limit only the Bears' power. (Good analogy by the way).

To answer your question with regard to regulations, in addition to limits on donations to individual candidates, I'm in favor of anything that requires disclosure and eliminates anonymous ads/donations. Shine a light on it all so that people can evaluate what they hear in the context of the agenda of the speaker.

Your argument regarding a "compelling government interest" to eliminate corruption is mostly correct on the law (Buckley/compelling interest standards), but wrong on the facts. As noted above, you have conflated "corruption" with "the quantity of speech/donations made by people I disagree with." In effect, you have defined the accumulation of influence by those you disagree with as "corrupt". Absent a quid quo pro, such influence, speech and expression is not corrupt particularly in the case of individual contributions that are fully disclosed.

Also, you have ignored the requirement that the government use the "least restrictive means" to achieve the compelling interest. In this case, by requiring disclosure by all parties (including independent expenditures), that interest would be served in my opinion.

In terms of your final paragraph, those are all reasonable proposals/opinions. They seem all designed to limit the influence of money, but they at least do so across the board in a way that I would define as apolitical.

Go!Bears;842303606 said:

---

Never mind. You win. I'm done. It's Friday and I bet we both have better things to do. I have honestly enjoyed the conversation.

No more posts for me on this subject - I am going to have to find some other way to become a "Real Bear"

---

So I didn't have anything better to do. Let's call it a draw. In looking back, I think we were both saying different things a lot of the time, rather than actually disagreeing. Better to be here discussing big issues with smart people like you than on We Are SC with the mentally challenged calling different coaches names.

Go!Bears;842303606 said:

---

Never mind. You win. I'm done. It's Friday and I bet we both have better things to do. I have honestly enjoyed the conversation.

No more posts for me on this subject - I am going to have to find some other way to become a "Real Bear"

---

[SIZE="7"]IT's NOT OVER UNTIL WE SAY IT'S OVER![/SIZE]

bearister;842303718 said:

---

[SIZE="7"]IT's NOT OVER UNTIL WE SAY IT'S OVER![/SIZE]

---

Agitator!!!

wifeisafurd;842303713 said:

---

So I didn't have anything better to do. Let's call it a draw. In looking back, I think we were both saying different things a lot of the time, rather than actually disagreeing. Better to be here discussing big issues with smart people like you than on We Are SC with the mentally challenged calling different coaches names.

---

I am a little sad that my most passionate posting on this board was OT

BearGoggles;842303622 said:

---

Dajo9’s initial premise was...

---

I see clearly that you feel yourself justified in your interactions in this thread. Cool. I don't want to debate them more. I want to understand what you think about campaign contributions, and you're the only one who can help me do that. I can figure out liberals for myself.

BearGoggles said:

---

Regarding my comments on political spending being speech, this is well settled law – that is a fact. It is one thing to advocate for changes in the law/constitution (which of course anyone is free to do), but it is another to mischaracterize the decision as mistaken or not consistent with long held First Amendment principles that primarily emanated from liberal legal minds.

---

No. It is the same thing. On what basis do you think people who advocate for changes in the law or constitution do so? On the grounds that the laws or constitution are wrong or misapplied. Do you think that in advocating for legal change, people's positions are that the laws are both correct and correctly applied but should be changed nonetheless?

Settled law, what a concept to armor your opinions in. If laws and legal interpretation were not subject to revision, we would all still live in barbarism. There is nothing in our laws that should be beyond review, and that is because we make them to serve us rather than to be worshiped. All laws are opinions. The fact that they prevailed does not make them right. The difference between a law and a proposed change to that law is only the difference between an incumbent and a challenger.

For the record, I recognize that the status of campaign contributions as a form of political speech is well established. But the exact function of that form is highly changeable. In case reason alone wasn't enough to reveal that to you, the fact that the constitutional interpretation of contributions as speech has undergone multiple changes in the last 40 years should. Buckley, Austin, Citizens United, McCutcheon, and others. A new ruling that recognized the public interest in preventing corruption as deserving more weight at the expense of the individual's right to political expression would simply be another change, and nothing else.

BearGoggles said:

---

Simply put, running a political campaign costs money...restricting monetary donations limits the ability to campaign.

---

In '12, Obama and Romney together spent over $1 billion. In '76, Carter and Ford together spent $67 million. There is no practical reason why campaigns need to cost what they do now.

I recognize that disseminating information to a mass audience is most efficiently done through mass media, and mass media costs money, but expenditures long since overran the basic practical need to educate the electorate on a candidate's qualifications and positions (and how they contrast with the opponent's). Every dollar beyond that was just for volume, and the volume keeps going up, not because people in Iowa need to hear the same commercials dozens of times in order to make an informed decision, but because, as the science of advertising tells us, repetitive exposure influences behavior.

Which is how we got stuck in this arms race, because both sides are trying to out volume the other. Is that by itself in any way unconstitutional? No. I think it's disgusting, but perfectly constitutional. The problem comes where people like yourself mistake practical and excess. Running a campaign costs money, but it need not cost what it has come to be priced, so we need not fear otherwise valid legislation that would have the end effect of reducing expenditures to levels below what is spent now.

BearGoggles said:

---

I support a free marketplace of ideas (yes, that is an opinion).

---

Great. Me too.

BearGoggles said:

---

I oppose attempts to put a “thumb on the political scale” by using the force of law to restrict only certain types (or certain persons) speech – something that is clearly contrary to the First Amendment and, more importantly, likely to lead to tyranny...I have, in your words, “evaluated the proposal” to limit political donations from the wealthy, and reject it on the grounds that ultimately, I don’t want the government regulating political expression other than to directly prevent corruption.

---

Ok. Personally, I don't agree. I think a degree of egalitarianism is a government mandate, but it's not a part of my argument in this. For the purposes of this discussion, I'm willing to stipulate that the sole governmental objective in this legislation should be the prevention of corruption.

BearGoggles said:

---

I draw the line where the court did in the Buckley case – it is appropriate to limit contributions that create the appearance of quid quo pro corruption.

---

Here is where you lose common sense. Restrictions based only on prohibiting quid pro quo transactions are invitations to circumvent the purpose of campaign contribution limits. It should be obvious why this is true: people in politics are not idiots.

Do you REALLY think a donor and a candidate will only be able to effect an exchange of money for support in the presence of an explicit quid pro quo?

BearGoggles said:

---

Limiting the aggregate contributions of an individual, particularly when those of PACs and Unions are not, is not reasonable and serves no rational purpose. To your later point, it only encourages individuals to donate money in less transparent ways.

---

The limit for direct contributions to candidates in Federal elections is actually $2,500. I think it should be scaled by election office.

Yes, I do believe that in the presence of legislation seeking to limit the aggregate contributions of an individual that they will seek less transparent ways to donate money. That is not an argument in your favor. Of course they will try to abuse the defenses we set up. That is a reality of attack and defense. It's like saying we shouldn't develop security software because it only encourages hackers to develop more sophisticated viruses. We make the best, toughest laws we can and then adapt when the abusers do.

BearGoggles said:

---

Responding to your comment “Did you consider the possibility that that was because they feel those groups were the ones whose contributory levels would be highest and therefore most corrupting” – I would point out that you use the works “corrupting” to mean “to advocate for positions I disagree with.” There is nothing corrupt about that.

---

No, you misinterpreted "corrupting." I did not mean "to advocate for positions I disagree with." I meant "to create undue influence." That should have been obvious to someone who does not carry a presumption that when someone proposes legislation that purports to combat electoral corruption it is necessarily designed to apply only to one's opponents.

BearGoggles said:

---

Also, I point you to the following list of largest political donors: https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php. If you look at the list, I think you’ll conclude that: (i) there are lots of unions on there, most of which gave all of their money to dems; (ii) the top contributors lean to the dems; and (iii) business tend to spread their money around to both parties (i.e., hedge their bets), though it is somewhat surprising to see big companies like Goldman skew slightly Democrat (that may be because their headquartered in NY, a blue state).

---

No, your view of the landscape is critically flawed. Although labor organizations top that list, in the preface for that list it is noted that the methodology selected out individuals and organizations whose contributions were primarily to Super PACs rather than to PACs or directly to candidates. As mentioned in the list preface, Sheldon Adelson gave $92m to conservative Super PACs in 2012 alone. That single year would be big enough to put him No.2 on a list that tabulated aggregate donations over a 25 year period. In total donations--including donations to Super PACs--donations from business beat donations from organized labor by 15 to 1.

BearGoggles said:

---

Your argument regarding a “compelling government interest” to eliminate corruption is mostly correct on the law (Buckley/compelling interest standards), but wrong on the facts. As noted above, you have conflated “corruption” with “the quantity of speech/donations made by people I disagree with.” In effect, you have defined the accumulation of influence by those you disagree with as “corrupt”. Absent a quid quo pro, such influence, speech and expression is not corrupt – particularly in the case of individual contributions that are fully disclosed.

---

Again, the degree to which I agree or disagree with the positions held by the donor are not relevant in my assessing the potential for corruption. It is the amount that a source--or group of sources acting in coordination--can give to an individual candidate or political party that is the critical source of concern in assessing the potential for corruption. You have taken my expectation that corporate interests will ultimately be the parties most capable of exercising those amounts as evidence that I am tailoring anti-corruption systems against corporate donors because I don't like their platforms. That is both false and entirely assumptive.

BearGoggles said:

---

Also, you have ignored the requirement that the government use the “least restrictive means” to achieve the compelling interest.

---

No, I haven't. I simply believe the least restrictive means to achieving the objective happen to be very restrictive. In using nonrestrictive means, you are not giving nearly enough credit to the abilities of those who seek to employ undue influence.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/22/thomas-piketty-amazon_n_5191566.html

bearister;842308338 said:

---

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/22/thomas-piketty-amazon_n_5191566.html

---

BTW, his research collaborator is Emmanuel Saez, econ prof at Cal.

Go Bears!

SFGate.com reports:

State governments may be expanding wealth gap

"Economic statistics show that incomes for the top 1 percent of U.S. households soared 31 percent from 2009 through 2012, after adjusting for inflation, yet inched up an average of 0.4 percent for those making less."

http://www.sfgate.com/news/politics/article/State-governments-may-be-expanding-wealth-gap-5530052.php

So even AFTER the top earners in this country have enjoyed HUGE increases in pay, we find, post-recession, they're DOING EVEN BETTER! Johnston's "Perfectly Legal" clearly shows the income inequality growth curve over the last several decades, but was written in 2003. But the income trajectory shows absolutely no signs of changing. If anything, it seems to be accelerating!

So the Supreme Court has an ally in the states now. Great!

Amazing that after the financial industry cratered the economy, Americans sit politely by as the banks get bigger, watch the top earners earn more and apparently happily fight for the scraps. And they've been convinced to run on the hamster wheel THAT MUCH FASTER!

An over-worked populace doesn't have much time to engage in politics or question authority. Too damn tired! Too damn scared. How many minimum-wage workers do you meet at your local political town hall meeting? Not many - they're working that second (or third) job cleaning executive offices!

Remember, when one in ten reap all the rewards, it doesn't matter how many "pull themselves up by their bootstraps," there are still nine sitting in squalor being told they "should have made better life choices!"

The American Dream. Right.

"The most obvious reform is an increase in the top marginal income tax rates..."

From:
Reforming Taxation to Promote Growth and Equity
White Paper by Joseph E. Stiglitz
May 28, 2014

http://rooseveltinstitute.org/sites/all/files/Stiglitz_Reforming_Taxation_White_Paper_Roosevelt_Institute.pdf

Bill Moyers Interview:

"BILL MOYERS: Welcome. Avoiding taxes has become a hallmark of America's business icons; Apple, Google, GE, and many more of the Fortune 500. The nation's largest corporations are sitting on more than $2 trillion in cash while revenue from corporate income taxes have plummeted from just below 40 percent in 1943 to just below 10 percent in 2012. Government and big business have colluded to create what's tantamount to an "unlimited IRA" for corporations."

http://my.firedoglake.com/elliott/2014/06/01/joseph-stiglitz-with-bill-moyers-on-fair-taxes/

Corporate income taxes: 40% to 10%

Gee, I wonder why our public institutions (eg UC) are failing??? I wonder why UC is considering abandoning Lick Observatory? Gee, why is student tuition through the roof?

TandemBear;842322568 said:

---

SFGate.com reports:

State governments may be expanding wealth gap

"Economic statistics show that incomes for the top 1 percent of U.S. households soared 31 percent from 2009 through 2012, after adjusting for inflation, yet inched up an average of 0.4 percent for those making less."

http://www.sfgate.com/news/politics/article/State-governments-may-be-expanding-wealth-gap-5530052.php

So even AFTER the top earners in this country have enjoyed HUGE increases in pay, we find, post-recession, they're DOING EVEN BETTER! Johnston's "Perfectly Legal" clearly shows the income inequality growth curve over the last several decades, but was written in 2003. But the income trajectory shows absolutely no signs of changing. If anything, it seems to be accelerating!

So the Supreme Court has an ally in the states now. Great!

Amazing that after the financial industry cratered the economy, Americans sit politely by as the banks get bigger, watch the top earners earn more and apparently happily fight for the scraps. And they've been convinced to run on the hamster wheel THAT MUCH FASTER!

An over-worked populace doesn't have much time to engage in politics or question authority. Too damn tired! Too damn scared. How many minimum-wage workers do you meet at your local political town hall meeting? Not many - they're working that second (or third) job cleaning executive offices!

Remember, when one in ten reap all the rewards, it doesn't matter how many "pull themselves up by their bootstraps," there are still nine sitting in squalor being told they "should have made better life choices!"

The American Dream. Right.

---

The US is one of the worst when it comes to upwards mobility in developed nations. Thanks to DLC (now third way dems) and republicans.

Dave Brat did to Eric Cantor what Jerry Brown did to Meg Whitman. The Tea Party will destroy the Republican Party on the cheap:

"Brat, who raised less than $300,000 to the House majority leader's campaign war chest of $5.4 million, said, "It's not about David Brat winning tonight, it's about returning the country to its principles."

CalBearsWinNC;842323919 said:

---

The US is one of the worst when it comes to upwards mobility in developed nations. Thanks to DLC (now third way dems) and republicans.

---

As a (now retired) veteran of the corporate management world I assure you that you are correct. The relentless pressure to increase the bottom (net profit) line results in devaluing the employees who produce the products (or billable hours in the case of services) in order that the bottom line might continue it's upward trajectory. Offshoring, sub-contracting, independent contracting, whatever it takes to lower employee costs and maintain a consistently upward trajectory for the shareholders, is fair game. It is politically so much easier to brand the laid off, even though they delivered above 17 % or in profit margin, as losers, and leeches on the system than to construct a system that engages all that collective learning. No doubt, my candid response will exile this thread to cellar ville in no time.

Number 031343;842323976 said:

---

As a (now retired) veteran of the corporate management world I assure you that you are correct. The relentless pressure to increase the bottom (net profit) line results in devaluing the employees who produce the products (or billable hours in the case of services) in order that the bottom line might continue it's upward trajectory. Offshoring, sub-contracting, independent contracting, whatever it takes to lower employee costs and maintain a consistently upward trajectory for the shareholders, is fair game. It is politically so much easier to brand the laid off, even though they delivered above 17 % or in profit margin, as losers, and leeches on the system than to construct a system that engages all that collective learning. No doubt, my candid response will exile this thread to cellar ville in no time.

---

Wouldn't it be wonderful if companies were satisfied with a moral and ethical level of profit. But the downside would be that under such a system Phil Knight would only be worth $5 billion instead of $18 billion.

bearister;842324030 said:

---

Wouldn't it be wonderful if companies were satisfied with a moral and ethical level of profit. But the downside would be that under such a system Phil Knight would only be worth $5 billion instead of $18 billion.

---

It's called Dante's She-Wolf, ie. greed. The She-Wolf, a symbol for ancient Rome, was always hungry and the more she ate the hungrier she became.

TandemBear;842323911 said:

---

"The most obvious reform is an increase in the top marginal income tax rates..."

From:
Reforming Taxation to Promote Growth and Equity
White Paper by Joseph E. Stiglitz
May 28, 2014

http://rooseveltinstitute.org/sites/all/files/Stiglitz_Reforming_Taxation_White_Paper_Roosevelt_Institute.pdf

Bill Moyers Interview:

"BILL MOYERS: Welcome. Avoiding taxes has become a hallmark of America's business icons; Apple, Google, GE, and many more of the Fortune 500. The nation's largest corporations are sitting on more than $2 trillion in cash while revenue from corporate income taxes have plummeted from just below 40 percent in 1943 to just below 10 percent in 2012. Government and big business have colluded to create what's tantamount to an "unlimited IRA" for corporations."

http://my.firedoglake.com/elliott/2014/06/01/joseph-stiglitz-with-bill-moyers-on-fair-taxes/

Corporate income taxes: 40% to 10%

Gee, I wonder why our public institutions (eg UC) are failing??? I wonder why UC is considering abandoning Lick Observatory? Gee, why is student tuition through the roof?

---

Welcome to the Slave New World.