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.
"Not quite!" was Ms Rehm's defensive, knee-jerk, jingoistic and, ironically, uninformed reaction to the gentleman who called in and stated: "we have the most money in politics of any western nation and we have the most uniformed voters of any western nation".
Really Ms. Rehm, not quite? Care to venture a guess at which western nation could possibly surpass the US in these 2 categories?
Arkus,
You say Burton lied. What label do you apply to Jonathan Collegio's statement that McCain-Feingold was "what Democrats and liberals were pushing for"?
Last time I watched CSpan John MCain was still the Republican Senator from AZ and was the primary author and "pusher" for that legislation and was upset before, during, and after his election run about how Obama turned down public matching etc.
Collegio used the whole program to repeat all the called plays and favorite sound bites from Frank Luntz's playbook.
Frankly, I get tired of all the "gotcha" crud. Get back to the basic discussion. And as far as whose photo shows up on the site, I would prefer one of Diane.....or maybe the panelists. It would be better than disembodied voices (Romney and Obama were not on the broadcast).
Quit whining Arkus. Every time conservatives start losing the argument due to an overdependence on the misinformation they provide, they holler "liberal bias". I've listened to both sides for a long time and by and large the liberals have their facts straight. Collegio had plenty of opportunities to respond and his responses sounded like Republican talking points. Of course, so did the other side, but their talking points make more sense! I'd like to know what the Koch brothers hope to gain by spending millions of dollars in support of Republican candidates? No doubt financial as if they need more money but also power ... what else is new? Hope the voters see through or at least ignore all those PAC ads and also get their photo IDs in time!
mmb,
Is it possible Diane was right in her "not quite" response? Is there a possibility that Iranians are "less knowledgeable" than US citizens? How about Nigerians or Chicoms? At least we have a myriad of free press resources here.
mmb,
Is it possible Diane was right in her "not quite" response? Is there a possibility that Iranians are "less knowledgeable" than US citizens? How about Nigerians or Chicoms? At least we have a myriad of free press resources here.
jlynwood wrote:
"Environmental groups have the interest of the public at heart."
You mean like the ones who put spikes into trees that kill lumber workers?
HollanderBill wrote:
"How far does this go? Could Vladimir Putin donate a billion or so?"
No. (Unless you're a Clinton, then, maybe). Campaign finance laws are supposed to cover this but there was a big stink about foreign money filtering into the Clinton campaign in 2008 through "bundlers".
Lindlee wrote:
"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?"
Only in your mind. Like you say, Corporations represent often MILLIONS of shareholders. Decisions are still made at the top. Just like they are in unions. Just like they are in "environmental groups".
Bret Wooten wrote:
"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."
"Michael Moore" was a euphemism for "someone on the left". It could be a pac, it could be a production company. That's not the point. The point is, if the court had said, "CU, you can't release your movie", what do you do with the next case when, for example, someone makes a hit piece on Mormonism right before the election? Every four years do we have to parade cases before the Supremes to get a decision on each one? The key for the court here was precedent. They said (as did the Founders) "allow everything". Questions of slander or libel can be sorted out by lower courts as they are every day. The court is not just thinking about the case in front of it. It is not just thinking about today, but about tomorrow too. It's always looking at the precedent it sets and how it's going to affect things down the road. I don't see how it could have decided any differently.
LibVet,
Yes, there is a possibility that Iranians, Nigerians, "Chicoms" and even Klingons are less knowledgeable than US citizens unless you, LibVet, are representative of how well informed/educated US citizens are: none of the countries of the folks you quote are considered WESTERN nations by informed/educated people.
Informed/educated is the very least one should be able to expect the presenter of a national radio show to be. It is to your credit, LibVet that at least you did not attempt to defend Ms. Rehm on her implication that U.S. campaign money does not dwarf that of other nations, which it does.
catmom16 wrote:
"Quit whining Arkus. Every time conservatives start losing the argument due to an overdependence on the misinformation they provide, they holler "liberal bias"."
Not whining, just thought the bias was particularly transparent today. The circus master Diane is a liberal and I know she has bought into corporate demonization thing big time. Conservatives can and do expect the perception of losing the arguments when it's three against one as is the M.O. of the D.R. show, no surprise and I just deal with it. Anyway, winning and losing arguments is more about biased perception than anything based on the facts. Emotionalism rules the day in liberalville, reality and factual information need not apply.
abigailwinterbottom wrote:
"ecgberht, CU started out to be about the application of McCain- Feingold to "Hillary The Movie." ... 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."
Exactly my point abigail! Though I would take umbrage with Justice Stevens' statement. There is a difference between "changing the law" and recognizing that a particular decision is going to set precedent that will be far-reaching. That was the case in CU v FEC. Again, the conclusion of the High Court was the same as that of the Founders with respect to speech; allow everything.
Still waiting for someone to address my hypothetical. Yes, the movie can be distributed, or No, it can't, and here's why.
I have personal experience that this show blocks posts and bans I.P. addresses of those who question the motives of the politically biased host of this show. You put a strongly written but civil post that contradicts the political agenda of Diane Rehm as the first post of the day and you can expect to be blocked within a few days, or today for that matter!
Your hypothetical: "In Citizens United" let's say the court decided the other way and prohibited its distribution. Now, it's 2012, Romney is running for President and Michael Moore wants to put out a movie dissing the Mormon faith. Can he do it? That is the problem with an adverse decision in this case. It essentially sets a "sloppy" precedent whereby, CU is denied its speech . . . " Not sure how considering your alternate reality furthers the discussion, especially "let's say the court decided the other way.". They didn't. Moreover, if you read the text of the majority opinion, (SCOTUS web site), it indeed, (woefully) sets forth an "anything goes" standard. A sweepingly broad decision is not the same thing as a "sloppy decision." Kennedy's majority opinion asserts the ridiculous notion that corporations may spend any amount, at any time, in support of a candidate, because it is free speech. There have been subsequent SCOTUS decisions supporting the "anything goes" standard, which I believe you are suggesting, is no standard at all. With this in mind, not much chance they'll hear cases with various hypotheticals. (For a good debunk of the free speech argument, see Bill Moyers' "The Cowardly Lions of Free Speech. "
And there's the real problem... not that the money is skewed one way or another... but that there is so much of it sloshing around for incumbants of any stripe.
THIS is the Corporatocracy in which we live. We are FAR FAR from the notion of 1-person-1-vote, and it is insulting for any talking head to suggest otherwise (both to their and our intelligence).
It was kind of interesting to hear about the dueling rationales for SuperPACs. What was not interesting was listening to these guests take shots at each other, snicker at callers and beat their party drums. They were probably booked as experts in respect to the structure/inner workings of SuperPACS - but they seemed to think they were booked to rehash their organizations' actual messages. That said, I blame the guests, not the show - Diane, as ever, does a great job of holding feet to the fire when necessary.
Hydra,
Not sure what post(s) were blocked but the fact that your current comment is right here in black and white must hold some evidence that your IP or MAC are not blocked.
More likely, the site software screwed up.........sh*t happens and has happened to others. Thank Bill Gates........he's the dropout that started a lot of this stuff.
Windows IS a virus.
Ya know....... For a site that so many righties gripe about and the many posts about it being biased, there are surely a LOT of posts in here that seem to be tilted to starboard.
By contrast, if you send in a left leaning comment to Faux Snooze you will never see your post there. In fact, I was blown away one evening when Mike Huckabee allowed a young Dem woman to answer questions from a studio audience literally jammed with Young Conservatives........is Gov. Mike the exception over there in right field?
OK, abigail, let me deconstruct this into its parts and respond. (There is at least one strawman in here so I will point him out as we go. Since it is hot and dry in many parts, we don't want to start any fires).
"Not sure how considering your alternate reality furthers the discussion, especially "let's say the court decided the other way.".
Again, that's the point. The point is to consider the other possible decision and why the Court HAD to decide the way they did.
"it indeed, (woefully) sets forth an "anything goes" standard."
Not quite "anything goes". As I said, laws of libel and slander still apply.
"A sweepingly broad decision is not the same thing as a "sloppy decision."
Strawman #1. I did not say this was a "sloppy decision". I said a decision against CU would set a sloppy precedent. In other words, it would answer the question in that case, but it wouldn't help at all for future cases, unless the Court somehow laid down some sort of guidelines as to what PACS could do pre-election. That would REALLY be a case of SCOTUS writing law.
"anything goes" standard, which I believe you are suggesting, is no standard at all. "
That's strawman #2. It is not "no standard at all". There are all sorts of "standards" applied to speech. And none of them are modified by CU v FEC.
" With this in mind, not much chance they'll hear cases with various hypotheticals."
Again, EXACTLY. They don't have to. The "allow everything" standard solves that problem.
So, I leave it to you, abigail. You are unhappy with the decision in the case. I get that. Everyone understands what was decided and why it was decided. The interesting part of the outcome is to consider how, and what the ramifications would be if, the case were decided differently; i.e. against CU.
Part Deux:
One of the things I like about this decision and the decision in the ACA case is, the Roberts' court is, in essence now saying, Don't look to us to solve all the details of your little squabbles; solve them in the Congress, in the oval office, in the voting booth, and in the marketplace. We determine Constitutionality. Period.
And he's right. That's where they SHOULD be solved.
designify wrote:
"We are FAR FAR from the notion of 1-person-1-vote,"
Really? I only get one. How many do you get? That "Corporatocracy" you despise? They get zero.
What you offer is rhetoric, designify. Nothing more.
Sorry LibVet, there are demonstrably false statements/insinuations in your post.
"In fact, I was blown away one evening when Mike Huckabee allowed a young Dem woman to answer questions from a studio audience literally jammed with Young Conservatives........is Gov. Mike the exception over there in right field?"
If you were "blown away" then you don't pay attention or don't actually watch the station on a regular basis. Fox opinion program ALWAYS and I mean ALWAYS offers both sides. O'Reilly is meticulous about it. Hannity more conservative, I will aree, but when he does his focus groups they are always about 1/3 right, 1/3 left, and 1/3 independent. He does a 3 person panel toward the end of every show. EVERY panel has a representative from the left. People like Juan Williams and Bob Beckel are regulars. Geraldo (hardly a bastian of Conservative thought) has HIS OWN show on Fox!
Give it a rest, will you. The Fox-bashing may make you feel better about yourself, but it is tired, and worst of all, the allegations made are untrue.
Conducting debates via online commentary posts is rarely satisfying. I can't see that a line by line refutation of your arguments, esp the straw man bits and segues, can be of further interest to the other readers here, or me for that matter. It is difficult to read posts and not hear tone conveyed. Yours sounds snarky, and at times condescending. I continue to envision certain self righteous professors from my college years waving a finger in somebody's face as I slog my way through the smarty-pants framing of your replies. May not be your intent, but it conveys that way. It is distracting, and far from amusing. For the record, I will address the tone issue via response to one of your most recent comments: "you are unhappy with the decision in the case." I disagree with the decision, from a contemplative and cerebral point of view, with a reasonable amount of fact to support my point-of-view. Your characterization of me as "unhappy," when viewed within the context and tone of your other posts, leads me to believe that a fact-driven debate is not achievable. In spite of your repeated assertions to the contrary, I do not see
that any intellectual clarity can be gained by considering the possibility that
the decision could have gone the other way. Maybe that's because I gave CU hours of thought before the decision was ever rendered: the what would have happened if they had decided the other way arguments sound obsolete and
for me, are overtaken by events.
I just listened to the part of the program where Jonathan Collegio kept deferring Diane's questions to their website because it's just as easy for her (us) to look it up as it would be for him to say who they are. Wow. If that's not shady then I don't know what is!
I totally agree with Robert Draper, there is a lot more hate from the Republican side of the fence than Democrats. Either way, I just want all the poison to go away...
If money is speech, the average doner gets to talk for 1 minute, and the Koch brothers get to talk for 5.7 years. How the right is able to say with a straight face that their candidate isn't bought and paid for by rich sociopaths is anyone's guess. After seeing how the Koch brothers could subvert and buy the "Tea Party" in 2010, it's now time to purchase your candidate.
I would like to know, not the average donation, but the median donation to each campaign. I think it would show that Romney is bought and paid for by a few people and corporations. I think most of the right was as enthusiastic about Romney as they were about Gingrich - all it takes is one sugar daddy to match the will of hundreds of thousands of small donations (which actually convey support).
This 'Me first and no one second' attitude is destroying our country. Unfortunately, people pay almost no attention to what's going on. RIP America.
I find it interesting how the right has attacked public workers for their pay and benefits, a race to the bottom. Here's my question, why have corporations taken away benefits, lowered wages, and seem to aim for a system with serfs serving them (I think I answered my own question).
The rich fight to widen the wealth gap, and create a permanent 2 class society. Maybe the rich will pay me a little to build them a car elevator.
The rich have won. The question now is "How much longer until the Apocalypse?"
It's getting closer with each passing year. The rich will then find themselves in the one position that money can't buy their way out of.
Of course everyone will be dead, but at least everyone will be equal.
Translation to this program: If you play for the blue team, and wear a blue jersey, Super-PACs and 501(c)(4)s who fund and produce ads promoting liberal causes are simply promoting justice, fairness and the american way, and red team Super-PACs and 501(c)(4)s are out to destroy all that we hold dear. If you play for the red team, and wear a red jersey, Super-PACs and 501(c)(4)s who fund and produce ads promoting conservative causes are simply promoting justice, fairness and the american way, and blue team Super-PACs and 501(c)(4)s are out to destroy all that we hold dear. Independent thinking Americans, which is somewhere between 30 to 50 percent of us, need to be able to review ALL of the information (not just that which the government deems valid, which of course, will change from administration to administration) in a given election cycle. Blue team will vote blue, regardless, same with red team. I want to be able to see all of the best they think they have to offer and then make my decision.
ecgberht,
Faux Snooze aka ho hum newsertainment always stuffs in some token "liberal" punching bag and calls their drivel fair and balanced. Oreilly uses standard bluff and bluster against any guest with whom he disagrees and Hannity pretends he once ascribed to liberalism........all phony political kabuki dancing.
I watch them often just to see their fear mongering and the latest bogus conspiracy plots. Righties are afraid of their own shadow (recently confirmed by a variety of behavioral studies) and their propaganda channel along with the Rushter and Beckobomber on radio play back the latest aint-it-awful diatribes. So I do watch/listen.........so stick that arrow back in the quiver since you bent the point the wrong way.
Roger Ailes &Co followed Nixon's desires to establish and control talk radio and TV and they succeeded, an effort not unlike the discssed topic of today.........the attempt to buy opinions via cash and pettifog.
Just because it is, doesn't mean it's correct or even ethical.
" It is difficult to read posts and not hear tone conveyed."
No it isn't. In fact, it's easy. All you have to do is mine the post for facts or even theories that can be debated. I do it with mchaun's posts and patsy's posts all the time! They're LOADED with sarcasm. The only thing I get from yours is that you think my posts are snarky! A purely subjective personal opinion on your part. What I believe, abigail is that you CAN'T refute and so you are reduced to, "your posts are snarky".
"For the record, I will address the tone issue via response to one of your most recent comments: "you are unhappy with the decision in the case." I disagree with the decision, from a contemplative and cerebral point of view, with a reasonable amount of fact to support my point-of-view".
I don't give a flip what you think my "tone" was. You're going to hear what you want to hear (which is why you only quote me in part). So sorry if I misunderstood. You are actually HAPPY with the decision in the case, yet you disagree with it!
"I do not see that any intellectual clarity can be gained by considering the possibility that the decision could have gone the other way. Maybe that's because I gave CU hours of thought before the decision was ever rendered: the what would have happened if they had decided the other way arguments sound obsolete and for me, are overtaken by events."
Then why do posters here continue to belabor the case?! Let me get this straight, abigail. It's ok for posters to rail against the ramifications of the decision that was actually reached, but it's not ok for other posters to consider what might have been the ramifications of the OPPOSITE decision in the case. Since you "gave CU hours of thought before the decision", surely you must have considered that! Why don't you share with the rest of us?
Oh, and by the way, abigail, I really hope you would deign to refute the "strawman bits" (or anything else for that matter). Your's is a classic strawman and I will site you chapter and verse if you like.