AOC and Dark Politics

[seer]

Read the article, Seer. Moore was running ads for a movie in the theater. Citizens united was looking to run adds for a movie to be broadcast on Direct TV. You're comparing apples and oranges here.

That doesn't make the media issue less difficult - but your example is not a good one to make the case.

Not it is not Carp, the first movie by Citizens United, the documentary Celsius 41.11, (released in Movie theaters) was not allowed to be advertised on TV, Michael Moore's was allowed to do so. And Direct TV is private venue no different that paying money to go to the movies, but that wasn't even the logic that the FEC used which was:

In response, Citizens United produced the documentary Celsius 41.11, which is highly critical of both Fahrenheit 9/11 and 2004 Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry. The FEC, however, held that showing the movie and advertisements for it would violate the Federal Election Campaign Act, because Citizens United was not a bona fide commercial film maker.

So they get to decide who is a real filmmaker is! Like I said subjective and biased.

[carpedm9587]

Not it is not Carp, the first movie by Citizens United, the documentary Celsius 41.11, (released in Movie theaters) was not allowed to be advertised on TV, Michael Moore's was allowed to do so.

From the article:

In the case, the conservative non-profit organization Citizens United sought to air a film critical of Hillary Clinton and to advertise the film during television broadcasts shortly before the 2008 Democratic primary election in which Clinton was running for U.S. President.

The federal law, however, prohibited any corporation (or labor union) from making an "electioneering communication" (defined as a broadcast ad reaching over 50,000 people in the electorate) within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of an election, or making any expenditure advocating the election or defeat of a candidate at any time. The court found that these provisions of the law conflicted with the United States Constitution.

And Direct TV is private venue no different that paying money to go to the movies,

This is incorrect. DirectTV is like a cable-based media company, except they use satellite resources. Saying "DirectTV is like going to the movies" is like saying "Comcast is like going to the movies." That statement is simply not true. They are technologically different, differ in audience reach, and are different in regulatory terms as well.

but that wasn't even the logic that the FEC used which was:

In response, Citizens United produced the documentary Celsius 41.11, which is highly critical of both Fahrenheit 9/11 and 2004 Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry. The FEC, however, held that showing the movie and advertisements for it would violate the Federal Election Campaign Act, because Citizens United was not a bona fide commercial film maker.

So they get to decide who is a real filmmaker is! Like I said subjective and biased.

Umm... yes. The FEC is tasked with overseeing conformance to election law. Citizens United was a political organization who's stated goal was to advance conservative politics. It was not a filmmaker. The entire purpose of the film was to impact the election. Michael Moore is a filmmaker with a significant history of documentaries on a wide variety of topics. You're comparing apples and oranges.

And, as a result, you're championing the very wealthy who have made it that much more difficult for you, and those with whom you agree, to be heard above the powerful money-backed megaphones of the super-wealthy. You have become the champion of your own enemy. It's as if the conservative lower and middle class in this country are collectively suffering from Stockholm Syndrome. It's unbelievable...

[seer]

Umm... yes. The FEC is tasked with overseeing conformance to election law. Citizens United was a political organization who's stated goal was to advance conservative politics. It was not a filmmaker. The entire purpose of the film was to impact the election. Michael Moore is a filmmaker with a significant history of documentaries on a wide variety of topics. You're comparing apples and oranges.

There you go, and exactly my point. Certain corporations get to attack a candidate before an election, but others aren't. Some corporations/citizens get to speak and others don't. That is the bottom line. And you don't think Michael Moore's movie was made to effect the election, to politically hurt Bush?

And, as a result, you're championing the very wealthy who have made it that much more difficult for you, and those with whom you agree, to be heard above the powerful money-backed megaphones of the super-wealthy. You have become the champion of your own enemy. It's as if the conservative lower and middle class in this country are collectively suffering from Stockholm Syndrome. It's unbelievable...

Right and in your world a billionaire like Jeff Bezos can say anything he wants through his corporations like the Washington Post, a millionaire like Moore can do the same though his corporation, but a small pro-family group like Citizens United are silenced. All you are doing is favoring certain corporations over others.

[carpedm9587]

There you go, and exactly my point. Certain corporations get to attack a candidate before an election, but others aren't.

No. Your (somewhat biased) interpretation of the circumstances.

Some corporations/citizens get to speak and others don't.

No. Your (somewhat biased) interpretation of the circumstances.

That is the bottom line. And you don't think Michael Moore's movie was made to effect the election, to politically hurt Bush?

Moore was a filmmaker continuing in a long line of documentaries exposing corruption and wrong-doing. His subject was the post-911 decisions made. And it was released in theaters. Just how many right-leaning people do you think would go and be influenced by it?

Right and in your world a billionaire like Jeff Bezos can say anything he wants through his corporations like the Washington Post, a millionaire like Moore can do the same though his corporation, but a small pro-family group like Citizens United are silenced. All you are doing is favoring certain corporations over others.

No. Your (somewhat biased) interpretation of the circumstances.

[seer]

No. Your (somewhat biased) interpretation of the circumstances.

No. Your (somewhat biased) interpretation of the circumstances.

No, that is exactly what is happening.

Moore was a filmmaker continuing in a long line of documentaries exposing corruption and wrong-doing. His subject was the post-911 decisions made. And it was released in theaters. Just how many right-leaning people do you think would go and be influenced by it?

Again, you don't think Michael Moore's movie was made to effect the election, to politically hurt Bush? Yes or no? And how many left wingers would have been effect by the Citizens United movie?

No. Your (somewhat biased) interpretation of the circumstances.

No, that exactly what the Campaign Reform Act did and would produce. Favoring certain corporations, big media corporations, over others.

[carpedm9587]

No, that is exactly what is happening.

Again, you don't think Michael Moore's movie was made to effect the election, to politically hurt Bush? Yes or no?

Possibly - maybe even likely. But he was a bonafide filmmaker making a movie for theaters. Citizen's United was a political action group making a film for broadcast over the FCC licensed airwaves via DirectTV. Apples and oranges. And it doesn't justify opening the floodgates to undisclosed dark money.

And how many left wingers would have been effect by the Citizens United movie?

Since it was to be broadcast over DirectTV - potentially any DirectTV subscriber. People would have to pay to go see Moore's movie. People just had to be DirectTV subscribers, or staying in a hotel that uses DirectTV t see the Citizen's United movie. You continue to compare apples and oranges.

No, that exactly what the Campaign Reform Act did and would produce. Favoring certain corporations, big media corporations, over others.

No - that is your interpretation. ANY corporation can be held accountable for disclosing donors and funding sources. SCOTUS opened the floodgates to dark money in an unjustified manner. And you continue to champion their cause...giving the super-megaphone to the super wealthy, damaging your own ability to speak. It is amazing to me how many like you exist - championing the very people robbing them of their ability to be heard.

It makes one wonder...

Anyway - we've been around on this enough and I have no interest in another interminable conversation. Last word to you.

[seer]

Possibly - maybe even likely. But he was a bonafide filmmaker making a movie for theaters. Citizen's United was a political action group making a film for broadcast over the FCC licensed airwaves via DirectTV. Apples and oranges. And it doesn't justify opening the floodgates to undisclosed dark money.

So what if he was a filmmaker, he was still trying to effect the election. And what do you mean opening the door? Wasn't it like that before the Campaign Reform Act? And Moore was allowed to advertise on the public airwaves but Citizens were not. And Citizens was prevented from showing it's first film, Celsius 41.11. That had nothing to do with DirectTV. And the FCC had nothing to do with this, they never prevented anything - it was the FEC.

Since it was to be broadcast over DirectTV - potentially any DirectTV subscriber. People would have to pay to go see Moore's movie. People just had to be DirectTV subscribers, or staying in a hotel that uses DirectTV t see the Citizen's United movie. You continue to compare apples and oranges.

Remember what the law said - any venue that reached over 50,000 people. I'm sure Moore reached many more than that.

No - that is your interpretation. ANY corporation can be held accountable for disclosing donors and funding sources. SCOTUS opened the floodgates to dark money in an unjustified manner. And you continue to champion their cause...giving the super-megaphone to the super wealthy, damaging your own ability to speak. It is amazing to me how many like you exist - championing the very people robbing them of their ability to be heard.

Yet here you are defending a large corporation like Michael Moore and the Nuss & Co corporation over a small fry pro-family group.

It makes one wonder...

Darn right, when you support mega media over smaller, less well funded groups.

[Sparko]

She is part of the Justice Democrats caucus who commit to taking no corporate PAC or big donor money. So she absolutely lives out her anti-corruption views.

This makes your slander of her with your falsified quote above all the more absurd.

"Ocasio-Cortez shunned corporate PACs, but her campaign accepted $10,000 from two progressive PACs: MoveOn.org and Justice Democrats. Both PACs contributed $5,000 each to Ocasio-Cortez’s campaign."
https://www.opensecrets.org/news/201...r-primary-win/

ScreenHunter_.jpg
https://www.opensecrets.org/races/ca...id=NY14&spec=N

also notice the large individual contributions.

[Mountain Man]

I have to admit, I've been seeing AOC as an upstart that is naive and has little true idea of "how things work."

Due to this 5 minute segment, I think I've changed my mind. AOC exposes the dark underbelly of politics brilliantly.

Note that this is not left-leaning or right-leaning - we should ALL be concerned about this state of affairs, IMO.

You know, I should have been more suspicious of this considering the source -- not you, carpe, but the Huffington Puffington Post.

Well, here's the rest of the story. You can watch the whole thing or jump to 5:09 to see the premise behind Cortez's line of questioning demolished in about 60-seconds:

So I take back what I said: She doesn't make a good point after all.

And she's still a bald-faced hypocrite.

[rogue06]

"Ocasio-Cortez shunned corporate PACs, but her campaign accepted $10,000 from two progressive PACs: MoveOn.org and Justice Democrats. Both PACs contributed $5,000 each to Ocasio-Cortez’s campaign."
https://www.opensecrets.org/news/201...r-primary-win/

[ATTACH=CONFIG]35007[/ATTACH]
https://www.opensecrets.org/races/ca...id=NY14&spec=N

also notice the large individual contributions.

It is also a position that's easy to take in a district where the Democrat candidate is a shoo in to win. See how noble I am? I'm refusing to take money I don't need.

[carpedm9587]

"Ocasio-Cortez shunned corporate PACs, but her campaign accepted $10,000 from two progressive PACs: MoveOn.org and Justice Democrats. Both PACs contributed $5,000 each to Ocasio-Cortez’s campaign."
https://www.opensecrets.org/news/201...r-primary-win/

[ATTACH=CONFIG]35007[/ATTACH]
https://www.opensecrets.org/races/ca...id=NY14&spec=N

also notice the large individual contributions.

I am pretty sure there is a difference between a "corporate PAC" and a "progressive/political PAC." Why would a candidate NOT accept funds from a group formed to promote the very positions he/she are espousing? I'm not seeing a conflict here. But I WOULD like to know what PACs made up the other $75K

[carpedm9587]

You know, I should have been more suspicious of this considering the source -- not you, carpe, but the Huffington Puffington Post.

Well, here's the rest of the story. You can watch the whole thing or jump to 5:09 to see the premise behind Cortez's line of questioning demolished in about 60-seconds:

So I take back what I said: She doesn't make a good point after all.

And she's still a bald-faced hypocrite.

So, first, thanks for the longer take. The last part was interesting.

I don't agree with your "demolished" assessment. The person speaking clarified his article, and adding some details about dark money (I have not had a chance to chase down those claims) and then simply suggested people turn that AOC assessment on themselves as well as others.

There was nothing about his closing that changed much of anything about her story, that I could see. If you think otherwise, I'd be curious to know which of her questions were "demolished."

[Mountain Man]

I didn't expect you to agree with my summation, of course, but his answer was pretty simple: first, she greatly exaggerated the amount of "dark money" in politics; second, a lot of things she listed actually are illegal, or are potentially illegal depending on the circumstances -- this is how the law works, an act that would be legal in one context could be illegal in another; and third, it's not really "dark money" anyway because campaigns are required by law to fully disclose all contributions. What she was basically describing were secret bribes and not legal campaign contributions.

She thought she was Columbo cleverly uncovering nefarious crimes, but she ended up looking more like Frank Dreben.

[carpedm9587]

I didn't expect you to agree with my summation, of course, but his answer was pretty simple: first, she greatly exaggerated the amount of "dark money" in politics;

I cannot substantiate his or her numbers, so I have no comment. This is the best I could find (in my limited time).

second, a lot of things she listed actually are illegal, or are potentially illegal depending on the circumstances -- this is how the law works, an act that would be legal in one context could be illegal in another;

So I'm not finding anything that she cited that was "illegal" or "potentially illegal" and I've been through it twice. That was pretty much the point of her monologue and hypothetical. So what thing did she list that you believe fell into this category?

and third, it's not really "dark money" anyway because campaigns are required by law to fully disclose all contributions. What she was basically describing were secret bribes and not legal campaign contributions.

That is not what I heard her describing - though I acknowledge that her language could have been more precise, and she tossed in "dark money" at one point and I didbn't see how it had anything to do with her general argument. I heard her noting that there is nothing illegal about:

1) a campaign depending completely on corporate PACs
2) a candidate paying hush money (Braley's article is here, and it seems to be what it says). The article says the campaign can't pay for it with campaign money - but it doesn't prevent the candidate from making such payments, and making them undisclosed.
3) an elected lawmaker making laws related to the corporations funding their campaign
4) elected officials owning stock in the companies affected by the laws they make

As far as I know, all of those are accurate statements. Do you know any of them to be false?

[Sparko]

I am pretty sure there is a difference between a "corporate PAC" and a "progressive/political PAC." Why would a candidate NOT accept funds from a group formed to promote the very positions he/she are espousing? I'm not seeing a conflict here. But I WOULD like to know what PACs made up the other $75K

Either would be paying for the privilege of having political influence over the candidate. I would assume the candidate would only accept corporate funds from corporations that align with their values too. So I don't really see any difference. Besides, she claimed she did not take any PAC money and clearly she did. She lied.