General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsFor those who welcomed the entry of Michael Bloomberg into Democratic primary politics...
...and thus accepting Citizens United- a few words from the man himself ought to make you think twice about that:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/03/18/bloomberg-says-hes-focused-on-background-checks/
Asked if his efforts to influence political races were similar to actions taken by Charles and David Koch–the billionaire brothers who've been much maligned by opponents for injecting their wealth into the political scene–Bloomberg said he has no problem with what they're doing.
He added he knows David Koch well and argued Koch is simply tying to help "get the policies that he thinks would be better for society."
"He's using his own money. I have no problems with what he's doing. And I'm sure he wouldn't have any problems with what I've done," he said.
So what happens if and when he starts doing this in districts/states that aren't Democratic locks?
Will you still trust him then?
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The Magistrate
(95,247 posts)And if he backs people you do not like owing to their views on guns, so much the better.
The cold fact is that Democrats who rate well with the NRA are generally 'blue dog' types at best.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)And you even did so in public- you went from this:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101648517#post6
Wed Nov 21, 2012, 12:44 AM
Star Member The Magistrate (80,326 posts)
6. I Want To See a Corporation Speak, Sir, Without An Owner or Employee's Lips Moving....
View profile
"The trouble with our modern corporations is that they have neither bodies to be kicked nor souls to be damned."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1149475#1149644
Response to Reply #5
7. Absolutely, Ma'am
As someone said back a long time ago 'The trouble with our modern corporations is that they have neither bodies to be kicked nor souls to be damned.' Nothing lacking either of these attributes can be considered a person, in any meaningful sense. The idea that a corporation has rights of political expression, that can be wrongly restricted, is both nonsensical and pernicious. The persons who are shareholders and officers and directors of a corporation can have, and express, their political views, and do so quite freely on their own account. The idea that the corporation itself has political views, and must be allowed their free expression, is just a means to let corporate officers amplify their views using other people's money, often without their consent. No one, after all, polls share-holders concerning whether money should be donated to politicians, or paid out in dividends. All a corporation is, or needs to be, is a legal device that allows contracts to be entered into without being personally binding on the person who signs them, and for shielding the whole of an investor's capital from liens associated with the failure of one business he or she has invested in.
to:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/125176080
Source:
NPR's FRESH AIR, with Terry Gross
August 23, 2012
Obama is on record as opposing Super PACS for normalizing gigantic donations,
but his campaign has hesitantly decided to accept donations from these outside groups.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/125176080#post1
1. A Good Man Often Has To Rise Above Principle, Sir....
"I am a man of principles, and chief among them is flexibility."
We have always been at war with Eastasia, eh?
The Magistrate
(95,247 posts)And typical of the hash people people oriented towards the reactionary end of the political spectrum make when they try and talk in a left manner.
The problem with treating a corporation as a person for political purposes is that, being a bodiless and mindless legal ficition, it cannot have any political view or political interest. The people who own the corporation certainly have political views and interests, and treating the corporation as a person is simply giving its owners the ability to tap greater pool of funds, and even write off their political activities as a business expense of their corporation. If the owners of a corporation want to spend money on politics, their own money, they are free to do so, and free to do so even if they are people advocating poisonous views who I personally think ought to be hanged from lamp-posts.
Your only objection here is to a figure with deep pockets coming into the lists against the view you support, when you have grown accustomed to your side having a near-monopoly on money spent with intention to influence votes on the matter. Rather like a Red-Coat general complaining the colonials have learnt some drill, and can stand and deliver three rounds a minute in volley now....
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)I have no cavil with that fact- it's the way politics are done now. I do object to the attempt to paint him
as some sort of progressive, when he is nothing of the sort.
His money is channeled in the same manner as the NRA's Political Victory Fund - a super PAC.
Bloomie's is called Independence USA. They are both 501(c)4 nonprofit corporations.
The Magistrate
(95,247 posts)And that I like.
Robb
(39,665 posts)Yawn.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Remember-
Stop and Frisk?
The NYPD's ('his army') Muslim Squad (for want of a better term)?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101455316
http://www.democraticunderground.com/117215365#post67
http://www.democraticunderground.com/117215365#post71
The campaign against Occupy Wall Street?
The guy is Richard Nixon with more money...
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)graham4anything
(11,464 posts)MrSlayer
(22,143 posts)I'm not interested in his nanny state bullshit anymore than I am the Kochs' fascism.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Somebody on another thread posted this gem:
"The 1% don't care what color jerseys they wear"
MrSlayer
(22,143 posts)Instead of them.
It works brilliantly.
Midwestern Democrat
(806 posts)graham4anything
(11,464 posts)and never ran for national office.
He is just a private citizen exercising his right as the Ralph Nader elected Supreme Court gave him.
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)Is this the guy whose soda ban, with all the exceptions threaded throughout the law, was ruled to be unconstituional as being arbitrary and capricious?
Is this the guy who, after failing to get a Five Boro Taxi plan through the NY City Council, violated the NY State Constitution by disregarding the Constitution's "home rule" provision while planning to auction off 2,000 yellow taxi medallions?
No matter how much money that he has, we don't need a Republican who does not respect the rule of law. We don't need his kind of arrogance.
BainsBane
(53,031 posts)to candidates supporting gun control.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)RZM
(8,556 posts)All that treasure isn't helping anybody just sitting in a lair, now is it?
You have to make your hoard work for you.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)What I do hate are the repeated attempts here and elsewhere to depict him as a progressive.
He's about as 'progressive' as Richard Nixon.
spin
(17,493 posts)Richard Nixon Gun Control: Former President Wanted Total Ban On Handguns, Records Show
By FREDERIC J. FROMMER 03/11/13 09:10 AM ET EDT
WASHINGTON -- Few presidents in modern times have been as interested in gun control as Richard Nixon, of all people. He proposed ridding the market of Saturday night specials, contemplated banning handguns altogether and refused to pander to gun owners by feigning interest in their weapons.
Several previously unreported Oval Office recordings and White House memos from the Nixon years show a conservative president who at times appeared willing to take on the National Rifle Association, a powerful gun lobby then as now, even as his aides worried about the political ramifications.
"I don't know why any individual should have a right to have a revolver in his house," Nixon said in a taped conversation with aides. "The kids usually kill themselves with it and so forth." He asked why "can't we go after handguns, period?"
Nixon went on: "I know the rifle association will be against it, the gun makers will be against it." But "people should not have handguns." He laced his comments with obscenities, as was typical.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/11/richard-nixon-gun-control_n_2851660.html
BainsBane
(53,031 posts)but the Gungeon crowd hates Bloomberg. The reason is obvious.
Some complain he's rich. What they really mean is he tries to counter the money from the gun lobby, which you all despise. As for me, I'm glad there is at least one rich person who has enough respect for human life to take on the death merchants.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)Finally there is someone to stop the NRA. It behooves the democratic candidate to be against guns
After all, guns and bullets in the streets of private citizens is not liberal.
And a winner does what a loser don't.
And, thanks to the BIGGEST EGO IN THE WORLD, RALPH NADER, throwing for $$$megamoney$$$ the election to the republicans and giving us Corprate personhood,
it goes without saying a winner gotta do $$$ 1 dollar $$$ better than the loser.
Wellness rules. The NRA needs to be eradicated like the blackmailing terroristic organization it is...their funds should be frozen, and those that donate to them should be treated like those that donate to terror orgs.
It took the legendary LBJ to bring us Civil rights.
People complained about that too.
Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)We recognize that the individual right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans' Second Amendment right to own and use firearms.
http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Democratic_Party_Gun_Control.htm
The party has not moved to your positon yet.
It seems to be moving there though. I am hoping that this man's money will not have a lot of influence.
Our politicians are supposed to be representing their constituents and not some man with a ton of money.
I know money has bought a lot of our politicians but I would hope we would not be cheering that on.
Peace, Mojo
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)and anyhooooo, one only needs a reinterpetation of the US Supreme Court.
Stockpiling guns to overthrow a government is illegal.
The Traitors uprising found that out when Mr. Lincoln creamed them back a few years ago.
frazzled
(18,402 posts)We have to put aside whether we agree with them or not. Is this how we want our democracy to be run?
I live in Chicago, but not in the "Jackson" district. So I didn't vote in that primary. But here's what I thought anyway. Our Cook County Bd. President, Toni Preckwinkle—a huge, powerful position (Cook County is the third largest government body in the US, I believe)—is a former Alderwoman from that district, who has done everything in her power on gun control that she can, including putting a tax on ammunition in all of Cook County. She was also present last month when I attended an OFA gun control rally in downtown Chicago and gave an truly excellent speech. I really respect and trust Toni Preckwinkle, on a lot of issues but also on gun control, of which I am an avid supporter. She did not endorse Robin Kelly, who actually used to work for her, but another candidate. That candidate got blown away by Bloomberg's ads supporting Kelly and dropped out of the race, which I think was noble--because if she had stayed in the vote might have been split and Halvorson could have won.
But this made me sad. A white billionaire from New York got to decide a local, predominantly black race in the far away city of Chicago. It pisses me off as much as the Koch brothers.
I think we have to think about the broader consequences of letting big private money decide primaries and elections. We can't just be expedient when it happens to match our priorities. We are either fer it or agin it. Choose up.
BainsBane
(53,031 posts)unfortunately. Until it is overturned, this is the state of play.
frazzled
(18,402 posts)This was messing in a primary. A Democratic primary. Bloomberg isn't even a Democrat. For all I know he was using his fortune for other reasons to decide who the Democratic candidate should be, using gun control as cover. (For all I know, Robin Kelly could be bought on other significant issues that have nothing to do with gun control.) It was simply a way of funneling money to a candidate.
Bloomberg didn't HAVE to do this. The critical votes on gun control were going to take place nearly two years before the Representative from that district, one of 435, would even be seated. I know it's an issue for the future that we will have to fight as well. But it's not the only issue by far.
Take a look at my sig line, which I've had since Newtown: I have worked for gun control legislation for years. And even today, when I made my third call to my Senators' offices. Despite my deep commitment to this issue, I think billionaires using single-issue tactic to influence things in other states, and in other parties, is wrong.
BainsBane
(53,031 posts)But the idea of the gun control forces laying down while the gun lobby spends millions every election cycle is not a good idea under the current system.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)But he didn't switch viewpoints. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Bloomberg#2001_election
He has been a Democrat all of his life albeit one to the right of most of us on DU.
- He is pro Healthcare reform, pro Gun Control, pro choice, pro LGBT rights, opposes death penalty, believes in anthropomorphic climate change, pro immigration reform and supports social safety nets for the poor.
- Obviously the areas that most of DU has problems with are things like stop and frisk, and his education policies.
And of course he is wealthy which is enough for a particular segment here not to like him straight away.
frazzled
(18,402 posts)In other words, he's an opportunist: whatever political affiliation gives him political advantage.
He ran as an independent in 2009, but on the Republican ticket line, after running as a Republican since 2001. That doesn't make him a Democrat.
I have no problem with Bloomberg as an elected official. He's done some good stuff and some bad (especially stop and frisk). The issue we're talking about here has nothing to do with his positions or his governance of New York City or anything. It has to do with the influence of money in politics, wherever it comes from, whether we agree with it or not.
I'm fine with Bloomberg using his money to run issue ads about gun control ... as long as they stay out of political races. It's wrong for the Kochs, and so too it must be wrong for him. Got it? Plus, no, he's not a Democrat.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Simple as that.
frazzled
(18,402 posts)Just because you're for same-sex marriage and gun control doesn't make you a Democrat.
He's proposed cuts in property taxes, has not been friendly to unions, has given millions in tax breaks to the big financial institutions such as Goldman Sachs, is a big free trade proponent, etc.
Hell, in 2004 he endorsed George W. Bush for a second term rather than endorsing John Kerry. How does THAT make him a Democrat?
Call him whatever you want--a socially liberal, fiscally conservative Independent--whatever. But you cannot call a politician who does not run on the Democratic ticket a Democrat. We're not talking Internet trolls here. We're talking the richest man ever to be the Mayor of the largest city anywhere in the country. He is what he is.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)One endorsement, even for President, doesn't change that, nor do a few fiscally conservative viewpoints.
We have the reverse happening in some Red states. We have moderate Republicans switching over and running on the Democratic ticket in local races because they cannot win a teabagger primary. That doesn't make those people Democrats.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)He has been one since 2007. It is up to him to say, and that's what he says. He is not a Democrat.
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)Excellent post.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)Not okay with me.
MH1
(17,600 posts)I dislike the Citizens United decision immensely, but it isn't Bloomberg's fault (presuming of course he didn't intentionally influence the outcome of the Citizens United case).
I don't like Bloomberg saying he has no problem with it, but a) he could mean in the context of the rules as they are and b) it doesn't really matter, the real problem is the Supreme Court, not the people who start playing the game according to that decision.
4 t 4
(2,407 posts)once a republican, ??? I will ALWAYS be suspicious sorry but my heart was never republican from the day I was born
davidthegnome
(2,983 posts)While at the same time, very much despising Bloomberg. This is a man who uses his money and power to further political ambitions that strike me as dangerously authoritarian. We really need to take the huge money out of politics. Campaign finance reform is something that our party needs to tackle head on - if we don't, then we deserve the petty tyrants we get, like Bloomberg. These people who have no issue with money ruling politics, because they have so much money. Of course he's okay with the Koch brothers playing their little game, he's playing his own.
Frankly, I have a hard time understanding how anyone who claims to be liberal can support a man like Bloomberg.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Purveyor
(29,876 posts)stage.
He is a laughing stock with his 'nanny-state' bullshit.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Of course, some will remember that the real-life model for Kane was a zealous antidrug warrior.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)If money must be left in politics, it's good to see some of it going to decent candidates.
Generation_Why
(97 posts)I have no problem tearing down those who push policies I don't like.
And praising those who push policies I do like.
And I have no problem with being frank about my hypocrisy. It's how I choose to play the game personally.
