Why Dark Money Is Bad Business

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

Why Dark Money Is Bad Business

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> Why Dark Money Is Bad Business

Page: [1]

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Why Dark Money Is Bad Business - 5/10/2016 10:39:34 AM

MrRodgers

Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline

So far two-thirds of election dollars have largely come from anonymous corporate donations, funneled through what have been referred to as “dark money” nonprofit groups that freely engage in electoral and legislative politics, but don’t have to disclose their donors, expenditures or even their members.

.....a proposed rule at the Securities and Exchange Commission that would require public companies to report the amounts and recipients of their political spending. The rule has received a groundswell of support from a bipartisan group of former S.E.C. commissioners, state treasurers and law professors, and has generated more than one million public comments.

By mandating disclosure, the rule would allow investors to serve as a potential check on risky political donations, and help investors determine whether a company’s political spending habits make its shares a good investment in the first place.

In theory, a company gives money to influence politics in its favor. (originally disallowed in granting corp. charters, back before the courts changed everything) But there are countless examples where dark-money spending has undermined their business interests. In fact, giving to dark-money groups may be the riskiest kind of political spending, because companies often have no idea who else is giving, and whether their interests are in competition.

Why aren’t companies more careful ? One major reason is that the very nature of dark-money giving means that investors have virtually no information about it, and therefore cannot hold companies accountable for their mistakes.

.....investors should have a right to know whether their money is going toward politicians, legislation or causes that they support or oppose, as union members already have. HERE

Another very bipartisan cure here. I am not holding my breath.

_____________________________

You can be a murderous tyrant and the world will remember you fondly but fuck one horse and you will be a horse fucker for all eternity. Catherine the Great

Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite.
J K Galbraith

Post #: 1

RE: Why Dark Money Is Bad Business - 5/10/2016 3:08:03 PM

Termyn8or

Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline

Pretty much agreed. I think that every dollar should be accounted for back to the original donor and what it was for. Also lobby money.

When the supreme court ruled on Citizens United that means people can pool their money together and donate to a politician. However they did not rule they have the right to privacy. And if they do, after the NSA and PATRIOT ACT they should be hung.

When you give money to get your guy elected, that is public. That is that, and it should all be published. Even a list of names of private donors. You are affecting public policy, there is no right to privacy. Even with government secrets, there is going to have to be a standard set as to just what can be classified as classified. And when it comes to bribes, it has been suggested that congressmen should wear coats with the names and logos of their "sponsors", those who bribe them with lobby money. Like NASCAR. I actually think it a good idea but not so much clothing, that would be impractical because they take so many bribes. But we need an information repository, and not just online but in print. Available free BTW.

But the supreme court cannot rule that. It has to be legislated. Well if you think congress is going to pass anything against their own racket I got some oceanfront property in Belen, New Mexico. The ONLY way I can see that happen is if we keep a NON-vetoproof congress, which means retaining a bunch of them on each side, and s trong (VERY popular) President demands it to sign some bill they really want passed.

If it was me, I would coerce them to put it in the tax code. Someone gets a deduction, and I THINK these scumbags have to pay taxes on these bribes. This is just one more piece of information required. But then, no, because if in the tax records they are private. But it could be a rider. If I were President I would insist on such a rider and I would make VERY public the reason I did not sign this otherwise good bill. Can you imagine that ?

"I addressed both houses of congress and demanded a rider that they have to report, all the way from the source, where this lobby and campaign money comes from and threatened that after a certain date I would not sign anything unless such a rider is contained. They have failed to do so therefore I am holding to what I said. We do not have a vetoproof congress, so if they want to take care of their friends by legislation, they are going to have to reveal who those friends are and what they wanted. They will be the lame ducks, and I can get a little bit done by EO if necessary. This is a fight folks, but that is what you hired me for. I am one branch of government and I think it is what those checks and balances built in by the founders of this country meant by structuring the government this way. Therefore I consider this my duty. And I don't consider this underhanded or a dirty trick, when they shut the government down a few years ago they didn't. Now it is my turn. I work for you. Wish me luck.".

Now think of something like that on every TV station in this country. I am sure it will not happen, but damn, wouldn't it be nice ? You really can't do the NASCAR type thing, but htis is doable. But it takes someone with enough power to get it done and I have learned a few things about say the court system. When you win, it is because to rule against you could get them overturned and reveal too much. these people have even more secrets and any court in the world. Exposing the fat that they will not reveal who their donors are is quite telling and will really hurt their reelection chances. Thiis is the power over them.

T^T

(in reply to MrRodgers)

Post #: 2

RE: Why Dark Money Is Bad Business - 5/10/2016 3:12:44 PM

ThatDizzyChick

Posts: 5490
Status: offline

I agree as well.
In fact, I think a corporation should not be allowed to make any contributions at all, but if they are allowed to then they should have to get stockholder approval for every donation.

The same thing goes for Unions BTW, they should be barred from making contributions as well, and if allowed should have to get approval from the full membership for each donation.

< Message edited by ThatDizzyChick -- 5/10/2016 3:14:56 PM >

_____________________________

Not your average bimbo.

(in reply to Termyn8or)

Post #: 3

RE: Why Dark Money Is Bad Business - 5/10/2016 8:32:24 PM

Termyn8or

Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline

You got a point there Diz. But that isn't how it iz. As long as they can claim a good faith belief that their actions were in the best interest of profit, they are pretty much untouchable.

That's what compelled so many companies to move plants to other countries. If the bean counters say it is profitable they have to do it or be able to come up with a damn good reason or not doing it. In effect, the stock market had more to do with the downfall of US industry than free trade agreements. The agreements made it feasible, but the stock market was what actually impelled it. If you had family owned big companies that did ot sell stocks, nobody can say shit about what you do. But do anything for the people and the stockbrokers can file on you, and that is exactly what the Dodge brothers did to Ford and they won. He was forced to buy them out and I tell you what, these days he would be lucky to be ALLOWED to buy them out.

Bottom line, if you got a good business going, don't go public. Find another way. Sell franchises or something.

Or do nothing. A bigger target is easier to hit and they are looking for money. I am to the point where I just won't do it anymore. If you are younger then it might be different for you, but still try to avoid going public.

T^T

(in reply to ThatDizzyChick)

Post #: 4

RE: Why Dark Money Is Bad Business - 5/10/2016 8:45:49 PM

DaddySatyr

Posts: 9381
Joined: 8/29/2011
From: Pittston, Pennsyltucky
Status: offline

I'm not exactly sure how I feel about this.

On the one hand, being in a profession where I need the anonymity of people not knowing about which causes I support, I object to a "list" (really lists of any kind); most especially because I'm guaranteed the freedom of association. This does sound like an effort, by the government, to "keep tabs" on peoples activities.

On the other hand, I tend not to spend money at places whose political interests are in contrast with mine. I was supportive of a group of (?)California (?) teachers, recently, who didn't want their union giving part of their dues money to causes they didn't support (I believe the teachers lost).

If I decide on fast food, I tend to go with Chik-fil-A (Christian values. No forcing people to work on Sunday) or Wendy's (VERY pro-adoption). It doesn't hurt, of course, that I think Wendy's is the best of the entire bunch, taste-wise, anyway.

I'm not sure if the whole list idea is a good thing, but I'm not sure if I want people spending my money in ways that are in opposition to what I believe, either.

This really is a tough one.

Michael

_____________________________

A Stone in My Shoe

Screen captures (and pissing on shadows) still RULE! Ya feel me?

"For that which I love, I will do horrible things"

(in reply to Termyn8or)

Post #: 5

RE: Why Dark Money Is Bad Business - 5/10/2016 10:57:21 PM

ThatDizzyChick

Posts: 5490
Status: offline

I am referring only to corporate/union contributions, not individual ones. I consider corporations and unions to be public entities, not private individuals.

_____________________________

Not your average bimbo.

(in reply to DaddySatyr)

Post #: 6

RE: Why Dark Money Is Bad Business - 5/11/2016 11:43:31 AM

MrRodgers

Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline

If you read the whole link, it's easy to see how any of this could come back to bite some contributers on the ass. Target stores is one good example. Pharma in the contraceptive business...is another. Read it, the article makes a good case for disclosure.

_____________________________

You can be a murderous tyrant and the world will remember you fondly but fuck one horse and you will be a horse fucker for all eternity. Catherine the Great

Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite.
J K Galbraith

(in reply to ThatDizzyChick)

Post #: 7

RE: Why Dark Money Is Bad Business - 5/11/2016 11:51:57 AM

MrRodgers

Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

You got a point there Diz. But that isn't how it iz. As long as they can claim a good faith belief that their actions were in the best interest of profit, they are pretty much untouchable.

That's what compelled so many companies to move plants to other countries. If the bean counters say it is profitable they have to do it or be able to come up with a damn good reason or not doing it. In effect, the stock market had more to do with the downfall of US industry than free trade agreements. The agreements made it feasible, but the stock market was what actually impelled it. If you had family owned big companies that did ot sell stocks, nobody can say shit about what you do. But do anything for the people and the stockbrokers can file on you, and that is exactly what the Dodge brothers did to Ford and they won. He was forced to buy them out and I tell you what, these days he would be lucky to be ALLOWED to buy them out.

Bottom line, if you got a good business going, don't go public. Find another way. Sell franchises or something.

Or do nothing. A bigger target is easier to hit and they are looking for money. I am to the point where I just won't do it anymore. If you are younger then it might be different for you, but still try to avoid going public.

T^T

Once again, not quite right T8r.

The fates of Ford and the Dodges remained intertwined for fifteen years. The Dodge brothers began erecting a new plant on their thirty acre site in Hamtramck in 1910, the same year Ford opened his Highland Park complex. In 1912 they supplied Ford with 180,000 transmission-axle sets, with future prospects for much larger orders. Fearing their total dependence on one customer, particularly because it was Ford, the Dodges gave Ford the required year's notice that they would terminate their contract effective August 1914. John Dodge simultaneously resigned as director and vice president of the Ford Motor Company, but he and his brother retained the Ford stock they had since 1903.

Their connection with Ford was extremely profitable. Through 1914, they collected $3.8 million in dividends from their stock and earned another $1.7 million in profits on the Ford contracts. When Ford sharply reduced dividends to the stockholders In 1916, the Dodges brought a suit which eventually forced him to pay a dividend of slightly over $19 million in early 1918, with ten percent of this going to them.

In July 1919, Ford bought out the remaining stockholders in the Ford Motor Company and the Dodge brothers accepted $25 million for their ten percent interest in the firm. When they finally severed their relationship with Ford, they had earned $5,4 million in dividends and $1.7 million in profits, which combined with the sale of the stock produced a return of about $32 million on their 1903. investment of $10,000. Ford provided them with both the reason and the means to build the plant in Hamtramck. HERE

Oh and yes, these transactions would be allowed today and Ford was not 'forced' to do anything except...pay up. The Dodge bros. could have held onto their stock. The decided themselves to take the 25 mill.

< Message edited by MrRodgers -- 5/11/2016 11:55:50 AM >

_____________________________

You can be a murderous tyrant and the world will remember you fondly but fuck one horse and you will be a horse fucker for all eternity. Catherine the Great

Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite.
J K Galbraith

(in reply to Termyn8or)

Post #: 8

RE: Why Dark Money Is Bad Business - 5/11/2016 2:01:43 PM

Termyn8or

Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline

Interesting. I know I left out all kinds of detail but reall, the premise of the suit remains and the fact that they won remains.

Thanks for the "And now the rest of the story". Who used to do those ? They were on syndicated radio a long time ago and I found some of them quite interesting. It was not Andy Rooney. Anyone remember ?

T^T

< Message edited by Termyn8or -- 5/11/2016 2:02:14 PM >

(in reply to MrRodgers)

Post #: 9

RE: Why Dark Money Is Bad Business - 5/11/2016 3:08:41 PM

MrRodgers

Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

Interesting. I know I left out all kinds of detail but reall, the premise of the suit remains and the fact that they won remains.

Thanks for the "And now the rest of the story". Who used to do those ? They were on syndicated radio a long time ago and I found some of them quite interesting. It was not Andy Rooney. Anyone remember ?

T^T

Done by Paul Harvey.

_____________________________

You can be a murderous tyrant and the world will remember you fondly but fuck one horse and you will be a horse fucker for all eternity. Catherine the Great

Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite.
J K Galbraith

(in reply to Termyn8or)

Post #: 10

RE: Why Dark Money Is Bad Business - 5/11/2016 9:35:45 PM

Termyn8or

Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline

Yup. Couldn't think of it.

T^T

(in reply to MrRodgers)

Post #: 11

RE: Why Dark Money Is Bad Business - 5/12/2016 8:54:46 AM

WickedsDesire

Posts: 9362
Joined: 11/4/2015
Status: offline

Takes of his right sandal of heft and i can assure you,all, it packs quite a wallop. Now, now which one of you should I visit with is thrashing glory.

You op MrRodgers

or you ThatDizzyChick a deranged fractured void that exists only in the reality of its own utter madness

or Termyn8or

Vote now and I will shatter one of them from reality itself into the land of utter malarkey I will do so in one sentence

(in reply to Termyn8or)

Post #: 12

RE: Why Dark Money Is Bad Business - 5/16/2016 11:41:51 AM

MrRodgers

Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: WickedsDesire

Takes of his right sandal of heft and i can assure you,all, it packs quite a wallop. Now, now which one of you should I visit with is thrashing glory.

You op MrRodgers

or you ThatDizzyChick a deranged fractured void that exists only in the reality of its own utter madness

or Termyn8or

Vote now and I will shatter one of them from reality itself into the land of utter malarkey I will do so in one sentence

Hey...dark money is bad business.

_____________________________

You can be a murderous tyrant and the world will remember you fondly but fuck one horse and you will be a horse fucker for all eternity. Catherine the Great

Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite.
J K Galbraith

(in reply to WickedsDesire)

Post #: 13

RE: Why Dark Money Is Bad Business - 5/17/2016 7:59:26 AM

hot4bondage

Posts: 403
Joined: 7/29/2009
Status: offline

In 1958, SCOTUS unanimously decided that freedom of association was more important than full disclosure, but I don't see that case referenced very often in discussions related to Citizens United. Is it because the shoe was on the other foot?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAACP_v._Alabama

I'm not sure if campaign financing is the root of the problem anyway. (The problem being a lack of educated voters.) For example, how many ads would it take to convince you to take the other side on any given issue?

(in reply to MrRodgers)

Post #: 14

RE: Why Dark Money Is Bad Business - 5/17/2016 1:02:21 PM

MrRodgers

Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: hot4bondage

In 1958, SCOTUS unanimously decided that freedom of association was more important than full disclosure, but I don't see that case referenced very often in discussions related to Citizens United. Is it because the shoe was on the other foot?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAACP_v._Alabama

I'm not sure if campaign financing is the root of the problem anyway. (The problem being a lack of educated voters.) For example, how many ads would it take to convince you to take the other side on any given issue?

It's similar but don't see NAACP V Alabama is a parallel in that these dark money PACs are not the same as a unified association (like the NAACP) in that the argument here is that their contributions could be bad business specifically because members actually contribute seeking different and often competing outcomes and directly because the 'association' if any, is merely financial. Plus, I do not see a constitutional prohibition against congress acting as was even suggested by the SCOTUS in Citizens.

As I've written, our founders over estimated the virtues of participants and under estimated their vice and failed to constitutionally codify against such financial influence that were in fact legislatively a very important part our original 'conservative' approach in codifying the very existence of corp. charters.

_____________________________

You can be a murderous tyrant and the world will remember you fondly but fuck one horse and you will be a horse fucker for all eternity. Catherine the Great

Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite.
J K Galbraith

(in reply to hot4bondage)

Post #: 15

Page: [1]

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> Why Dark Money Is Bad Business

Page: [1]

Jump to:

New Messages	No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages	Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages	Locked w/o New Messages

Post New Thread

Reply to Message

Post New Poll

Submit Vote

Delete My Own Post

Delete My Own Thread

Rate Posts

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.109