Super PACs And The 2012 Presidential Election
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-07-11/super-pacs-and-2012-presidential-election
Super PACs have been called the wild card in this years presidential election. Following the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision on Citizens United these groups are allowed to accept unlimited donations and advocate for and against specific candidates. By November 2012 super PACs aligned with Governor Mitt Romney estimate they will have raised about $800 million dollars, about eight times what the pro-Obama super PAC hopes to bring in. Please join us for a conversation on super PACs and their role in the 2012 presidential race.
Guests
Jonathan Collegio
communications director, American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS
Robert Draper
freelance writer, a correspondent for GQ and a contributor to The New York Times Magazine
Bill Burton
a founder and senior strategist for Priorities USA Action and
former deputy press secretary at the Obama White House
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
Astounding to me that conservative experts constantly compare a rich person's donation, or even a company's donation, with that by unions, or environmental groups. Isn't it obvious that unions vote in favor of a large number of people, and have an elected leadership that presumably is held accountable for donations. Ditto an environmental group: it represents a group of people who share like-minded attitudes about issues. Their donation would presumably reflect those attitudes. A rich person, or a corporation, represents nothing other than one person, or a leadership that is not accountable to its employees but only to its directors and (to a lesser extent) its shareholders. One side promotes positions that help a large number of people. The other side promotes positions that help a very few people.
There's a big difference between those entities, isn't there?
Just because someone has a LOT of money that person should NOT have more voice in the government!!!!!
This is the danger of the Citizens United decision.
It is my wish that this ruling will be overturned soon!!!!
Imagine if all of this money being given to these campaigns was instead given to our education systems, public transportation, and programs that are trying desperately to support all of the families whose lives have been devastated by the economic crisis. It raises the question - who is being protected by this version of democracy? All sides should be ashamed with these levels of spending.
Ecgberht
I agree it is a sloppy mess. Corporations can legally "donate" more than I can as a voting citizen unless I choose to partake in something I wholeheartedly disagree with. Opinions by individuals and organizations should be stated as such and they should be linked to those opinions. Additionally, corporations should be required to follow the same rules I am required to follow. The hidden funding bothers me more than anything else. If Michael Moore makes a movie I know Michael Moore made that movie. We have no idea who is giving to these super packs or why.
I'm not sure this is going to be a problem in 2016. Will people still be watching broadcast/cable TV in 2016? Will TV markets still exist in 2016? I'm certain that the 2012 election will be the most expensive ever. By 2016, what will matter is how well you do your Web analytics and search optimization. I live in hope that new methods of "free speech" will route around current expensive methods of "free speech."
QUESTION PLEASE:
We hear alot about how the Super PACs are funded, but are Super PACs required to disclose spending and/or required to be audited? If is possible to hide kickbacks, embezzlement, nepotism, or personal expenditures - that are endemic in non-profits - without auditing? Are there checks and balances so that Board officers or employees are held accountable for spending?
If what the Superpacs are doing are good why do they use so many untruths to try and confuse the electorate? This phenomenon seems to be more prevalent on one side.
The speakers keep saying that it's easy to find out who their largest donors on the FEC website. The listing on the FEC website isn't sorted by amount donated and there are hundreds of entries, so if the speakers could say who their top donors are, that would be helpful.
Why should corporations be allowed to give any money to political campaigns? If it is publicly traded company, that money belongs t the shareholders and should be returned to them in the form of dividends – unless the corporate officers can prove they get a financial return from their contribution, which would mean admitting they are, in effect, bribing public officials.
ecgberht please do not parse out my statement. It should be considered as a complete statement not parsed. My point was that a candidate I may wish to vote for may never get the opportunity because those with money may not fund them.
Obviously both political parties are looking for a campaign financing advantage and will enact regulations to stifle the other side given the chance. Either we allow all of it or none of it to keep things fair. I am confident in this upcoming election that no matter who might win, the choice of the people will be the winner. I have seen no evidence to support the notion that we do not have the government that we collectively want.
Classic. Jonathan Collegio will not even speak the names of his top 5 or 10 contributors but directs the listener to search the web. how classic of Crossroads. How Rowe-esque.
Why is he so ashamed/hesitant to list his donors? I think he has quite soundly demonstrated why we so distrust these organizations.
I just wanted to let you know, I went to the Crossroads website and there is no link anywhere to see who has donated. All you can do is see who their leaders are, and donate. So, please, tell us who your biggest contributors are. I cannot find it on the website.
Please do not mention my name.
Thank you, Diane.
The "Voter-owned movement" was set to change election funding by scaling up to the Federal elections. States like Arizona made publicly funded elections popular. Certain forces worked to end it in the Supreme Court. Why? Is the Citizens United era better in any way?
The Citizens United decision is a test; it is a test to see if America's votes can be bought. If the election is won by those who spent the most money, then the answer is yes.
There was an election in Maryland some year ago (I think there was a referendum on the ballot for a concealed carry law) in which the NRA lobbied heavily, spending [what was at that time, for a state election] a lot of money in favor. The referendum was defeated, largely in the jurisdictions most adversely affected by gun violence- whether you agree with the merits of that position or not.
So Americans- on both side of the aisle, is your vote for sale? Do you really vote on the issues?
P.S. If corporations are people then why are they allowed unlimited contributions, but actual people have contribution limits ($2500)?
I think the panelists miss the point when discussing who receives these large donations. It matters little if it is given to Democrats or Republicans. There simply should not be this amount of influence based on who has more money.
How about take all that money from both sides and distributing it to the people! That would certainly spur the economy and we wouldn't have to hear all the BS that infuriates us all. And, I have a list of many things I could do with that money!!!
The problem I have with super-pacs is the level of unlimited funding for mis-information. There is not a check or balance in place for publication of false data without checking. The only control is if the media distribution is willing to say no.
Both camps are guilty of the behavior.
It's great to see all the libs/dems complaining about the $ being spent - they were quite silent 4 years ago when the "Campaigner in Chief" walked away from public money when he realized he could crush his opponent with private $. Now that the shoe is on the other foot - the whining begins - better get used to it - you are about to BE crushed.
If anyone claims that knowing "who" is contributing is the critical concern - not the amount of $ - then what has been the impact of knowing that the Koch brothers and George Soros are large contributors - absolutely nothing as would knowing who are the other major donors in this year's campaign.
None of this was relevant 4 years ago - now that Obama is in deep trouble and being crushed in spending - it becomes an issue - PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!
Notice how Diane directs politically loaded liberal biased questions to Bill Burton with no response allowed from Jonathan Collegio . Obviously Diane is on the corporate witch hunt bandwagon. Every question and comment has liberal book ends.
I am so saddened when I listened to this conversation. I think inviting these gentlemen who benefit greatly from the presence of elections and money in elections and ask for their opinion is not the right avenue to get to the bottom. I listen to DR all the time. I felt the difficulty in even getting these gentlemen to answer the questions without agenda. I would've liked to know what percentage of their income is from working in campaigns, Superpacs, Lobbys; and, also whether it is over the median income in the US. Also, I want to underline that the unions have a history of having done good things for the country (yes, maybe nowadays they seem to be under the influence of money, too). Then, what has Superpacs done for the country and benefit of all other than nay-saying on both sides of the political spectrum?
One of your speakers claimed that public sector workers earn more than do private sector workers. A number of studies have shown that when you match the pay and benefits public sector workers versus private sector workers by relevant factors, such as level of education, public sector workers actually earn somewhat less.
The "studies" that find that public sector workers make more is due to the fact that the range of jobs in the public do not match up with the range of private sector jobs, plus public sector workers tend to be more educated overall.
More on this subject and links to studies are here.
http://www.employmentpolicy.org/topic/578/blog/pensions-and-piggybanks-c...
Why can't we set aside a block of time every day devoted to "Public Service" on the airwaves, in which the candidates can have their say and be heard in an equitable contest. Then it's a contest of ideas and solutions, not a contest about who can raise the most money. I am disgusted by having money be the most important factor in our electoral process.
Diane,
Please ask your guests why a typical US citizen would want to donate money to either campaign, when the balance of donations and the associated influence is so heavily skewed toward the big donors and their super pacs. Do these guys know that the 'rest of us' think this is a critical corruption of American democratic process? The enthusiasm they show for the shady maneuvers of the super pacs is truly disgusting to me. May the best money grubbing candidate and his army of zealous sycophants win! Gag me.
Diane,
Please ask your guests why a typical US citizen would want to donate money to either campaign, when the balance of donations and the associated influence is so heavily skewed toward the big donors and their super pacs. Do these guys know that the 'rest of us' think this is a critical corruption of American democratic process? The enthusiasm they show for the shady maneuvers of the super pacs is truly disgusting to me. May the best money grubbing candidate and his army of zealous sycophants win! Gag me.
monte wrote:
"Notice how Diane directs politically loaded liberal biased questions to Bill Burton with no response allowed from Jonathan Collegio . Obviously Diane is on the corporate witch hunt bandwagon. Every question and comment has liberal book ends."
Then don't listen to the show monte, and while you're at it....stop posting!
Monica Simpson wrote: " I am disgusted by having money be the most important factor in our electoral process."
This is a figment of your imagination, certainly nothing based on reality. You and many others that comment here are in reality prisoners of your own biased and limited thought processes.
Teece Bowman wrote: "Then don't listen to the show monte, and while you're at it....stop posting!'
I love you too!
Just trying to be of service!
ecgberht, CU started out to be about the application of McCain- Feingold to "Hillary The Movie." But the Court, under the assertive leadership of Chief Justice Roberts, withheld ruling ( even though the initial hearing of the case had progressed to authorship of a majority opinion by Justice Kennedy) and listed CU for reargument in the susequent term. The Chief Justice himself authored a new "Questions Presented" which revealed an expanded scope of the case far beyond "Hillary the Movie" re McCain-Feingold. In between the initial argument (end of spring 2009 term) and the reargument which commenced in September, 2009, Justice Souter retired. John Paul Stevens, a moderate Republican appointed by Gerald Ford, detailed his objection to final opinion in his dissenting opinion: "Five Justices were unhappy with the limited nature of the case before us, so they changed the case to give themselves the opportunity to change the law." No legal scholars of any political persuasion continue to suggest that that CU is still about the Hillary movie and McCain- Feingold.