General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsOcasio-Cortez is right on point. Democrats can't fully condemn Big Oil while taking their payola.
I hope she and other new Congress Critters go after Big Oil hard.
Here's what each Rep. in this piece has taken from Big Oil:
Rep. Cuellar: $708,127
Rep. Pallone: $135,689
Rep. DeFazio: $74,420
Rep. Lowenthal: $47,850
Rep. Beyer: $47,452
Rep. Huffman: $18,000
Rep. Garamendi: $7,750
We welcome any politician willing to join the 35 (& counting!) Members of Congress who've signed the #NoFossilFuelMoney pledge: http://nofossilfuelmoney.org/politician-signup/
**Note: These totals are solely Oil & Gas they don't include coal industry contributions, nor do they include fossil fuel-dominated utility money. In light of that, these are likely substantial underestimates.
nycbos
(6,033 posts)"If you can't eat their food, drink their booze, screw their women, take their money and then vote against them you've got no business being up here."
JCanete
(5,272 posts)nycbos
(6,033 posts)This despite Dodd/Frank and the creation of the CFPB.
People who have enough money hedge there bet.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)Magoo48
(4,660 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)Response to George II (Reply #31)
Post removed
betsuni
(25,142 posts)HopeAgain
(4,407 posts)earthshine
(1,642 posts)I like your other posts on this thread, as well.
George II
(67,782 posts)....employees of "Wall Street" (clerical workers, maintenance workers, service workers, etc.) contributed to Obama.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Quid, meet quo.
JHan
(10,173 posts)Because the bankers you wanted to be ruined were not personally ruined, Obama was compromised despite whatever else he got accomplished. Despite the fact the banks spent millions daily trying to hamstring Dodd frank - which contained some of the biggest bank reforms in decades.
So we have this spectacle where Democrats created Wall Street regulations, under Obama, but he still gets called a shill.
I think that's telling.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)And nothing was done, other than to bail them out and buy up their failed investment holdings.
And millions lost their homes, and their savings.
And Dodd Frank replaced what bi-partisan compromise previously allowed to be eliminated. And that was regulations that prevented behavior that lead directly to the failure of 2008.
JHan
(10,173 posts)because they didn't face the guillotine ( metaphorically) while ignoring whatever else he did, that is a one dimensional and incorrect take, a smear.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)As I judged his actions in not investigating and possibly prosecuting Bush and others in his Administration for lying the country into a war.
He traded these things in hopes of securing bi-partisan co-operation with the GOP. The same can be said of the ACA. It was a GOP plan endorsed by the Heritage Foundation.
That does not make him a shill, but a man who misjudged.
JHan
(10,173 posts)do you remember what Democrats had on their plate at the time?
You tell me where impeachment was going to fit in? Have you forgotten the public hearings? Is institutional memory no longer a thing?
You insinuated he's a shill- You said "quid pro quo" you are suggesting that he was compromised.
what did Democrats have on their plate at the time? - Healthcare, the bailout.. trying to save the economy...why do I need to remind democrats of all this? And if some wanted him to do even more, they had a duty to vote in 2010 didn't they?
And the politcal metric of going after an impeachment at the time given what they had before them was a risk . People's priorities were the economy and getting things back on track.
you know I wish we lived in perfect world where we always get what we want but we don't.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)I said nothing about impeachment because Bush was no longer President.
And as I explained, I feel he traded a lack of action on possible criminal behavior in hopes of bi-partisan compromise. A trade that was met with over 400 filibusters.
So your claim is incorrect.
As to 2010, that was a failure of voters to recognize that the voters are the most important part of the political process. I never blamed President Obama for the failure of voters to actually vote in 2010. And in 2014.
JHan
(10,173 posts)My take is very different. I focus on what is done in response to what was actually an industry wide crisis due to irresponsible risk taking.
My claims are not incorrect - you are making claims about the man's intent.
Dodd Frank was not a joy for Republicans either.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)And we both know that rich people rarely suffer for their actions. Trump is the perfect example, as is Jamie Dimon.
JHan
(10,173 posts)Hate bankers all you like
Know why I've had it with the "Obama didn't prosecute the bankers" meme? because it is the wrong conversation starter.
You start the conversation with: which of our laws allow bankers to get away with excessive risk taking You start with the law and take it from there and what was possible, not possible at the time.
For example in Iceland, and their pots and pans rebellion, Icelandic bankers went to jail but their crimes were run of the mill : we're talking tax evasion, insider trading, Ponzi schemes etc.
Lehman and Bear Stearns and the rest of them were selling terrible products and engaged in risk-taking - which risked the *system* but it wasn't just them alone. Smaller financial institutions took risks as well. Unregulated risk-taking by mortgage brokers and realtors across the country led to the crisis. Handing out shoddy products without proper documentation and shafting best anti-risk practices created a bubble. Easy money came and people enjoyed their fat commission cheques. And I haven't even touched on the Fed policy of low-interest rates.
This was greed on a massive scale. So you start with fixing how the system came to be so much at risk. what you don't do is smear people who try to fix the laws.
George II
(67,782 posts)...brokers, clerical workers in the back rooms, maintenance and custodial workers, telephone operators, etc. And if banks are to be included in "Wall Street" or some other perceived negative industry, there there are tens of thousands of average Americans working in those industries.
ALL of those people are lumped into "Wall Street" or the "Financial Industry" or "Pick your big bad industry". Bottom line, campaigns are financed by millions of plain, ordinary, every-day AMERICANS!
Magoo48
(4,660 posts)Bfd
(1,406 posts)If they didn't like your message they wouldn't allow your voice.
Ask Hillary Clinton how much coverage those Billion $$$ Media Corporations gave her voice.
Who all has been Corporate Media's darlings.
Trump, certainly.
samnsara
(17,572 posts)...seriously its either BIG oil..BIG Pharma...endangered species...climate...gun control...we have so much..its a sin to concentrate on just ONE plight because someone screams the loudest about it...Some things will get solved quicker than others but that doesnt mean they are back burnered or less important...we are GOOD but we CANT do EVERYTHING at once! Start at local levels..maybe the easiest way to solve these problems, but dont go squawking at the Sr leadership.. Good lord they are trying to save our country... from facism and whatever else trump is tossing our way. They need our help not our backstabbing. Shame on us.
plz dont jump on me for this.. just had a tooth filled and my mouth is numb.. Im just heart broken how some of our own are treating some very well established, battle tried and tested, loyal and respected, true blue thru and thru Senior Statespeople. its sad. We are supposed to respect each other and support each other and its sad when that doesnt happen.
Thekaspervote
(32,606 posts)wasupaloopa
(4,516 posts)in coercing members to toe the line on some form of agenda.
It is very much like what the tea party did.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)just got out of the Republican establishment's hands. And what it wanted was shit that was horrible.
Progressive democrats on the other hand, want things that I keep being told here we all agree on. So whats the problem? If they can effect change this way, then good. Its the RIGHT kind of change.
Skidmore
(37,364 posts)is also goose stepping into oblivion. Thoughtful discussion and planning would be helpful now that we have achieved power.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)These progressive ideas really are the path to a better future, and we aren't goosestepping to the left.
Magoo48
(4,660 posts)LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Rather than coercion.
Chickensoup
(650 posts)The republicans play book. Any one
who is not falling in line is attacked
Viciously.
Any way ms Cortez you are a breath
of fresh air, your courage is inspiring,
and in short supply. Keep going god
bless and god speed.
I LOVE U.
JCMach1
(27,544 posts)The funding will just go dark...
Not an AOC fan and liking her less and less every day...
JCanete
(5,272 posts)JCMach1
(27,544 posts)SC rulings regarding funding.
Magoo48
(4,660 posts)LenaBaby61
(6,965 posts)She's trying to do too much, too soon, too fast. She just got TO Washington DC.
She's going to get into real trouble if she doesn't slow down and actually take all in first, work for her constituents and get herself somme footing first. Reset NOW that she's part of the DC Machine.
We're in for the fight of our LIVES vs thuglicans in the Senate, our courts are getting stacked with YOUNG RWNJ's, and she wants to make everything "perfect," right away.
Dems eating their OWN
Magoo48
(4,660 posts)We will need many more of our Democrats in the House to Catch fire like her. Bring the high heat.
She is fantastic.
Autumn
(44,765 posts)Locrian
(4,522 posts)The planet is burning, the gop is shredding democracy, the corporate/wealthy are looting the country - and some people want to rearrange the deck chairs on the titanic.
Thekaspervote
(32,606 posts)The Polack MSgt
(13,159 posts)Then I would like some links showing their questionable votes or perhaps screen shots of the cut and paste verbiage from industry "think Tanks" grafted into their proposals.
After all we can easily find such things from ALEC supported politicians.
Rep. Cuellar, Rep. Pallone, Rep. DeFazio, Rep. Lowenthal, Rep. Beyer, Rep. Huffman and Rep. Garamendi are all tainted? Is this the list of Democrats to be challenged in the 2020 primaries?
That Garamendi dude is a real chancre ain't he? $7,750? Bought and paid for - at only $7,750 - my my my.
I'm sure this "nofossilfuelmoney.org" group has vetted these amounts and they all represent CORPORATE money, not donations from individuals who work in those industries.
I would also like to see the list of GOP representatives that the No fossil fuel money people are going after.
You know since promoting a group that only attacks Democrats seems like an odd this to do on a Democratic Forum
Magoo48
(4,660 posts)which accompanies the knowledge that theres more where that came from.
The Polack MSgt
(13,159 posts)Not only tainted- they are are also crumbling under the weight of payola and evidently posses ravenous greed.
Unfortunately, I can't disprove that position out of hand but personally I need to see proof.
Look, we all want money out of the process. The Agenda floated by Rep. Pelosi includes beginning that fight by passing legislation in the house. Which is all we can do since we only hold a majority in the house.
A majority that includes the people you list here in this OP.
If this group is going after the GOP then I can see posting this here - But it sure looks like they are attacking Democrats exclusively.
Magoo48
(4,660 posts)betsuni
(25,142 posts)JCanete
(5,272 posts)means something about how favorable their policies are to that industry, versus say, a primary competitor(more likely than a republican challenger).
Eliot Rosewater
(31,097 posts)Wintryjade
(814 posts)the receiving any money has changed their liberal voting record. If that cannot be done, then what is the point of the laser sharp attack on Democrats. It is like attacking Pelosi not being liberal (progressive) enough when she votes exactly as the liberal/progressive. Non factually based attacks. Just enough.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Assumption they will legislate with that in mind. That can only rest on the assumption that voters respond only to expensive campaigns.
JHan
(10,173 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)....the money various politicians have received and disbursed, including the one mentioned in the subject line, and also look at the methodology/disclaimer behind the numbers published by opensecrets.org
It might shut down some of these attacks.
Magoo48
(4,660 posts)would that be AOCs attacks on Big Oil or what exactly?
George II
(67,782 posts)..."pharma", "Wall Street", etc.
An understanding of the numbers people are using to back such attacks, and the FEC regulations, would most likely reduce such attacks by 99%.
beachbum bob
(10,437 posts)with zero oil based products....having this kind of line in the sand never serves a useful purpose.
Stinky The Clown
(67,697 posts)Take Away Their Library Cards!
No Lunch For Them.
Wintryjade
(814 posts)oberliner
(58,724 posts)2 Ryan, Paul (R-WI) $391,763
3 Cramer, Kevin (R-ND) $374,901
4 Brady, Kevin (R-TX) $339,200
5 McCarthy, Kevin (R-CA) $338,275
6 Hurd, Will (R-TX) $289,141
7 Scalise, Steve (R-LA) $271,830
8 Walden, Greg (R-OR) $245,400
9 Denham, Jeff (R-CA) $243,687
10 Culberson, John (R-TX) $223,337
11 McSally, Martha (R-AZ) $221,285
12 Blackburn, Marsha (R-TN) $220,372
13 Sessions, Pete (R-TX) $211,650
14 Graves, Garret (R-LA) $192,350
15 Gianforte, Greg (R-MT) $184,438
16 Olson, Pete (R-TX) $174,228
17 Cuellar, Henry (D-TX) $161,400
18 Flores, Bill (R-TX) $158,850
19 Shimkus, John M (R-IL) $143,250
20 Mullin, Markwayne (R-OK) $137,450
https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.php?ind=E01&cycle=2018&recipdetail=H&mem=Y&sortorder=U
George II
(67,782 posts)oberliner
(58,724 posts)For 2017-2018.
George II
(67,782 posts)...Do you realize that if someone works at an Exxon station pumping gas and he contributes to a candidate, his contribution is included in the category "Oil and Gas Industry"?
Someone who cleans the toilets at a Citibank branch in Manhattan who contributes to a candidate is included in the category "financial industry".
sheshe2
(83,356 posts)oberliner
(58,724 posts)Since the 1990 election cycle, more than two-thirds of this sector's contributions to candidates and party committees has gone to Republicans. Besides oil and gas, the electric utilities industry is another big donor in this sector. Less generous, but even more partisan, is the mining industry.
https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?cycle=2018&ind=E01
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)oberliner
(58,724 posts)NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)... find it yourself.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Or just identify the accusation that was bogus?
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)oberliner
(58,724 posts)And side note: That Madeline Kahn clip from Clue cracks me up every time!
Edit to add: I think I missed which post you pointed to? Which number?
R B Garr
(16,920 posts)oberliner
(58,724 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)oberliner
(58,724 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)lapucelle
(18,044 posts)She also received donations in the GE from
- the real estate industry
- commercial banks
- the security and investment industry
- lawyers/law firms
- lobbyists
Are these donations automatically suspect or could it simply be that regular citizens who happen to work in an industry/sector donated to her campaign?
https://www.opensecrets.org/races/industries?cycle=2018&id=NY14&spec=N
https://www.opensecrets.org/races/sectors?cycle=2018&id=NY14&spec=N
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)The outrage and indignation appears to be absent, so I guess it's "different" depending on who the recipient is.
Lord!
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Kim Morton
Vice President Corporate Communications at JPMorgan Chase & Co.
Jerry Garcia
Managing Director & Market Manager - Andes, Central America & The Caribbean at J.P. Morgan
Garcia gave the max $2700.
lapucelle
(18,044 posts)See how easily suspicions can be raised?
Do you have a link for your information? It might be useful in clearing up similar matters for other Democrats.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)lapucelle
(18,044 posts)By the way, Garcia made his donation after the primary.
https://www.fec.gov/data/receipts/?two_year_transaction_period=2018&cycle=2018&data_type=processed&committee_id=C00639591&min_date=01%2F01%2F2017&max_date=11%2F19%2F2018&line_number=F3-11AI
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Lots of info out there.
lapucelle
(18,044 posts)came from Garcia? The wealth management advisor's donation was for the general election.
http://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/fecimg/?201808219121507612
George II
(67,782 posts)....most recently Corey Booker, those would be considered contributions from the "Banking industry" or "Wall Street" or "big money", wouldn't they?
See how that works? For a couple of years Booker has been bashed for being "in the pocket of big pharma", "beholden to big pharma", etc., when clearly he's not. Same for ALL candidates who have or will be similarly criticized.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)If a lot of people in leadership positions in companies the Oil and Gas industry are donating to one candidate over another, then presumably they think that candidate will be good for their companies and the industry. Same goes for Wall Street or any other sector.
betsuni
(25,142 posts)R B Garr
(16,920 posts)Cenk Uyger think dark money will be good for them?
George II
(67,782 posts)....will be good for their financial well being, health, safety, or a number of other issues. It has nothing to do with the level of their positions in their organization.
I doubt many people who contribute have money laying around that they give away just to reduce their clutter, they have a reason for doing so.
Small-Axe
(359 posts)uponit7771
(90,225 posts)Magoo48
(4,660 posts)How can one wage the kind of battles needed to dismantle the Fossil Fuel Industry back to a size that doesnt further threaten our common welfare due to runaway climate change and also take large sums of money from that very industry?
George II
(67,782 posts)NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)... it's deceptively framed and described that way. We're smarter than they're giving us credit for.
betsuni
(25,142 posts)Calling Democrats corrupt isn't very nice. Also it's a waste of time.
Qutzupalotl
(14,230 posts)DeFazio is one of our best reps, period. He also happens to be my rep, so yeah, I take this personally.
What AOC is doing is pressuring D reps to starve themselves of funding ... when shes not calling for them to be primaried. Thanks but no thanks.
The Polack MSgt
(13,159 posts)I'm old and I can not stand that offensive linemen can extend their arms and grab jerseys.
To me that's holding, it's cheating.
But I will not try top force my team to play under the old rules and get demolished by the opposition.
Small-Axe
(359 posts)NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)... in sports OR in politics.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Don't they?
treestar
(82,383 posts)Which means win the presidency and the senate.
Stinky The Clown
(67,697 posts)So was Joe Crowley.
Demsrule86
(68,355 posts)pwb
(11,205 posts)The amounts shown in the post above are minuscule in comparison and could easily be replaced by Michael Bloomberg. It would not be devastating if these politicians refused their money. I am all for the idea, no big oil money for democrats. Its a needed correction.
elleng
(130,156 posts)it may be our WORST problem, keeping us from thriving due to owing our souls to the payers.
We may never get out from under it, given the Supreme's decision that talk = $.
Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976), is a U.S. constitutional law Supreme Court case on campaign finance. A majority of judges held that limits on election spending in the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 §608 are unconstitutional. In a per curiam (by the Court) opinion, they ruled that expenditure limits contravene the First Amendment provision on freedom of speech because a restriction on spending for political communication necessarily reduces the quantity of expression. It limited disclosure provisions and limited the Federal Election Commission's power. Justice Byron White dissented in part and wrote that Congress had legitimately recognized unlimited election spending "as a mortal danger against which effective preventive and curative steps must be taken".[1]
Buckley v. Valeo was extended by the U.S. Supreme Court in further cases, including in the five to four decision of First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti[2] and in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission in 2010.[3] The latter held that corporations may spend from their general treasuries during elections. In 2014, McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission held that aggregate limits on political giving by an individual are unconstitutional.[4]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckley_v._Valeo
JHan
(10,173 posts)But from the gist of how this thread is going, are we saying that people who work in certain industries should not be allowed to donate to the democratic party - Pharma etc etc?
I just need to know if this is the logic. And there was disinformation spread about Cortez herself and JP Morgan - when it was employees donating to her.
Generally speaking of course, if we want to get rid of "big money" in politics, Buckley is a good start and you're going to have reverse Citizens United/ FEC vs McCutcheon. The ideal for many is publicly funded elections.
And what do we mean when we say "big money" in the current climate. Money helped us a ton this past mid terms.
Just to broaden the discourse, let's take for example super PACS. Claiming to not take PAC donations is not enough because statements like that amount to politicking. If a candidate says they won't accept PAC donations, they're using sleight of hand because PAC's operate independently from the candidate, and their individual contributions cut off at 5 grand I believe per election. PACS can be created with or without the candidate's endorsement of them. And PAC's donate to political parties - would a candidate then refuse party funds because a PAC donated to its coffers?
What also gets lost in a lot of the outrage is that Unions and Liberal groups want their own means to influence the agenda. Emily's List is a massive pro-choice PAC, the AFL-CIO also huge, intriguingly Clinton's biggest special interest PAC was the American Teacher's Union.
So we can be outraged as much as we like, but we also need an honest conversation about how politics operates currently, how lobbying works. Right now corporate lobbyists have sway in D.C more than other lobbying groups, and they tend to rank Democrats poorly.
George II
(67,782 posts)...will be barred from contributing to a candidate?
TexasTowelie
(111,322 posts)but I also grew up near his congressional district. There are two economic drivers in that district: trade with Mexico and the oil & gas industry. The land in the area is barren enough that grazing cattle and farming is difficult. Refusing to take support from the oil & gas industry is the equivalent to surrendering that seat to a Republican. Cuellar recognizes that reality.
The concern of the people in that area is to the more immediate future (having a job to pay the bills) than for something further in the future that may not affect them much directly (they are already inland and it's already hot as hell so a few degrees more doesn't matter). An environmentalist or a progressive has almost no chance of winning of that seat because it would cause massive unemployment.
It's unfortunate that AOC doesn't realize that the dynamics in other congressional districts isn't the same as her metropolitan district in New York. Despite my disagreements with Cuellar, I prefer him in office over a Republican.
JHan
(10,173 posts)Defense contractors are another example because Pharma and even oil pale in comparison to their shenanigans.
Defense contractors target swing districts, not just to provide employment, but also interject themselves as a power to be reckoned with. Their influence is there in the military appropriations committees. No Congressman or Congresswoman is going to reject investment by a major corporate entity if that entity provides jobs and economic activity to their state/district. From downstream economic input right on up. I just want the conversation to take into consideration these facts, instead of just pure driven outrage 100% of the time.
pecosbob
(7,511 posts)I worry about the billions with a B in dark money that are being funnelled to the Republican crime syndicate by people such as the Kochs and the Sinclairs. I worry that they'll ultimately capture all the State Houses and permanently make change impossible. Individual corporations can be shamed and boycotted into public accountability...the billionaire owners, unfortunately cannot.
ismnotwasm
(41,921 posts)Small-Axe
(359 posts)It is nutty.
Instead, we need to support cleaner alternatives. Which our party is already doing and has been doing for a long time.
A dumb thread that attacks Democrats on a Democratic forum. What up with that?
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Especially with respect to fossil fuels.
betsuni
(25,142 posts)R B Garr
(16,920 posts)from decades ago. Implying Democrats are corrupt is really getting old. Status quo is letting Republicans run that industry while lying about Democrats.
R B Garr
(16,920 posts)green jobs decades ago. This is political malfeasance from her mentors to ignore what was previously done on this front and why divisive politics kept Gore from office. Makes you wonder about her ex-Republican mentor at Justice Democrats.
LBM20
(1,580 posts)oberliner
(58,724 posts)Including hers.
JHan
(10,173 posts)One of the ways the anti-establishment arguments of 2016 poisoned the well was projecting the notion that everything has some simple fix, that everything could be done *if only* - the biggest lie there ever was, it's not easy, it won't be fixed with one election, it won't be fixed in the approach by the OP.
Apparently, those of us concerned with this approach, don't realize Climate Change is serious It's because I take it seriously, I realise how empty all of this is... It gets headlines going but not much else.
I have a lot more faith that a "Green Plan" will address things more substantively but since we are dealing with a Trump administration how is this the narrative? Not understanding the impact of economics or the importance of focusing on the Republicans rather than Democrats, especially those in States where fossil fuel extraction dominates their economy is not being serious.
Democrats have been beating on about infrastructure development for years. Obama was notoriously obstructed on this front. "Imported Solar panels" had an impact on energy globally, with China and Taiwan producing them at competitive rates and SK and Malaysia making parts. This resulted in fairly cheap panels and the mushrooming of solar installation jobs in areas you were hard pressed to find them before.
Then Trump implemented a 30% tariff on solar panels, what does this mean? We were able to eek out a market for ourselves by manufacturing solar panel framing - if you want to nerd out on how promising this looked just a few years ago: https://www.fmanet.org/blog/2016/07/12/manufacturing-for-solar
So we make the framing, and the industry now involves truckers, technicians, farmers leasing their lands and American solar companies themselves. The opportunity existed for us then to export our own product back to the Asian market, but we have a dumbass xenophobic administration. How do Trump's tariffs impact the consumer in this area? Not directly. It impacts jobs obviously, it stymies whatever path of progress that we're on, it doesn't help our carbon emissions.
What it does is also make power companies think twice about the switch to solar because of costs and rely on more extraction ( the kind of industry innovation you're seeing in renewables shames fossil fuels right now in a massive way) Once power companies think twice about holding on to their solar suppliers, we're looking at more fracking, more clean coal nonsense etc.
And the approach in the OP puts focus on individuals rather than the collective.
There are systemic reasons for environmental destruction. In much the same way we recognize that criminal justice reform isn't just about racist cops, but cultural attitudes and an approach to policing which needs reform. Poverty, poor infrastructure, poor housing, are all interconnected to environmental degradation.
If you're part of the richest populations on earth, you contribute to the problem globally, and your actions matter too. Where is the introspection?
If the actions of the people at the top bother you then strengthen laws to hold them accountable ( something Democrats already tried to do but now we have a President getting rid of regulations REMEMBER? Regulations IMPLEMENTED under Obama, remember??? )
George II
(67,782 posts)Is that proper?
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)Out-of-state money certainly does muddy the waters with regard to someone's TRUE popularity and the amount of support being given by the local constituents.
I'm not necessarily opposed to it, but I do think it's important that things like this be clarified as separate "line-items" on whatever disclosures or financial summaries may be required.
Did AOC receive a lot of out of state money? If so, did it create or conflict with the appearance of a spontaneous "grass roots" up-swelling? All I'm saying here is that complete transparency is always a good thing.
George II
(67,782 posts)....of the recipient in favor of that industry, what is the underlying motive of out of state contributors?
I doubt there are two separate, unrelated "motives" - so either the perceived motive of contributors from a particular industry is incorrect, or the motives of out of state contributors are similar.
To answer your question, yes, she received quite a bit of money from out of state. In fact, very little money was contributed from within the 14th district itself (roughly $15,000 of $1.3M). 77% of the contributions came from out of state.
Top states:
MA $622,436.59
NY $306,610.03
CA $195,232.43
DC $ 36,749.86
TX $ 19,321.00
Curious, isn't it?
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)Clearly I was wrong.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)Today it's big oil, tomorrow it's big pharm, then big tech and then all of a sudden Dems are wondering why they don't have any money for their goddamn campaigns anymore. And it's easy for AOC coming from a solid blue district where there ain't no oil wells to make declarations like this...
The *CORRECT* fucking question here boys and girls IS: "What is removing all money from elections period, and having publicly-funded candidates?"
Can we at least get sworn in and settled first before starting the hardcore purity purges? Dems were elected to fight Trump and all they can think of is inter-party civil war.
Bfd
(1,406 posts)Democracy.
The Democratic Party & its strongest protectors.
Oh they can try, but they will never succeed.
So far Justice D's are an online organizing Pac.
They need the billion$$$ Media industry to even exist.
Betting they don't bite the social media hand.
Big Media Money is no different than Big Oil Money.
Watch their words. They would cease to exist without billion $$$ FB, Twitter & Instagram.