AOC and Dark Politics

[carpedm9587]

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.

The problem with accepting big dollars from corporate PACs is that legislation can then be put forward that favors those corporations as a "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours exchange." Corporations exist, after all, to make money, so they want to see policy that is profitable to them. Even if the candidate honestly believes the legislation is solid, the fact that they took money opens up doubt about their motivations, which is toxic to the political process.

Political PACs exist to promote a political position. They are not in the profit business. So it's not clear how a candidate would be "beholden" to a political PAC in the same way it might be beholden to a corporate PAC.

To use a concrete example: a corporate PAC comprised of energy companies is going to want to see "energy friendly" legislation passed (often with no regard for the environment or other negative impacts). So when the candidate votes to open the National Wildlife Refuge to drilling and mining, their motivation is in question.

But what are political PACs like "Moveon" and the "Republican Main Street Partnership" expecting? It seems to me they are expecting the candidate to embrace or reflect the political priorities of the PAC, and will only donate to candidates that do so. So when they vote, they are not voting to enrich a donor - they are voting to follow the philosophy they espoused through the campaign, which earned them the donation of the PAC.

You don't see a vast difference between these?

Besides, she claimed she did not take any PAC money and clearly she did. She lied.

So I see several places where she claimed to not take corporate PAC money - or corporate donations. As far as I can tell, she hasn't done either. I have not found a place where she claimed to not take PAC money of any kind. Do you have examples of this?

[Mountain Man]

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.

PAC money and donations from corporations funneled through individuals.

[carpedm9587]

PAC money and donations from corporations funneled through individuals.

As far as I can tell, you have not presented any evidence of this beyond, "X donated and X works for Y."

Since most donors work for someone (or they probably wouldn't have money to donate), this is pretty thin evidence. It essentially makes every donation a "corporate donation."

[Sparko]

The problem with accepting big dollars from corporate PACs is that legislation can then be put forward that favors those corporations as a "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours exchange." Corporations exist, after all, to make money, so they want to see policy that is profitable to them. Even if the candidate honestly believes the legislation is solid, the fact that they took money opens up doubt about their motivations, which is toxic to the political process.

Political PACs exist to promote a political position. They are not in the profit business. So it's not clear how a candidate would be "beholden" to a political PAC in the same way it might be beholden to a corporate PAC.

To use a concrete example: a corporate PAC comprised of energy companies is going to want to see "energy friendly" legislation passed (often with no regard for the environment or other negative impacts). So when the candidate votes to open the National Wildlife Refuge to drilling and mining, their motivation is in question.

But what are political PACs like "Moveon" and the "Republican Main Street Partnership" expecting? It seems to me they are expecting the candidate to embrace or reflect the political priorities of the PAC, and will only donate to candidates that do so. So when they vote, they are not voting to enrich a donor - they are voting to follow the philosophy they espoused through the campaign, which earned them the donation of the PAC.

You don't see a vast difference between these?

And you don't think that those PACs receive money from various corporations seeking to buy influence through them?

[Sparko]

As far as I can tell, you have not presented any evidence of this beyond, "X donated and X works for Y."

Since most donors work for someone (or they probably wouldn't have money to donate), this is pretty thin evidence. It essentially makes every donation a "corporate donation."

Woah, woah, WOAH! Wait a sec... You want EVIDENCE? I thought the standard nowadays was guilty until proven innocent? Have you alerted the MSM and the Democrats about this new standard?

[Sparko]

By the way here is the breakdown of AOC's campaign contributors:

https://www.opensecrets.org/members-...162&cycle=2018

While technically she didn't take any money from corporate PACs, she did take money from corporations and unions given as large individual donations. Nice and sneaky

ScreenHunter_.jpg

https://www.opensecrets.org/races/co...id=NY14&spec=N

[carpedm9587]

And you don't think that those PACs receive money from various corporations seeking to buy influence through them?

Any such donations are public record if the PAC is donating to campaigns. That being said, if AOC said she is not taking corporate donations, I would expect her to eschew PACs that take them and would be disappointed if she did not. I don't know that she did. Indeed, wouldn't a PAC accepting corporate donations simply be a corporate PAC? I don't know the answer to that one.

Second, the PAC can't do much to provide for the corporation's wants; they don't enact legislation. And the corporations that donate cannot legally target their donation to a particular candidate (which would make it a corporate donation).

So again - I don't have any evidence that AOC accepted corporate donations directly or indirectly. Do you?

[carpedm9587]

Woah, woah, WOAH! Wait a sec... You want EVIDENCE? I thought the standard nowadays was guilty until proven innocent? Have you alerted the MSM and the Democrats about this new standard?

Is that the sarcasm you told me about?

[carpedm9587]

By the way here is the breakdown of AOC's campaign contributors:

https://www.opensecrets.org/members-...162&cycle=2018

While technically she didn't take any money from corporate PACs, she did take money from corporations and unions given as large individual donations. Nice and sneaky

[ATTACH=CONFIG]35209[/ATTACH]

https://www.opensecrets.org/races/co...id=NY14&spec=N

OK - so the column "individuals" raises a question. Are these donations being made by the corporation, or is this simply reporting the total donations by individuals who work for those corporations? If the former - she lied. If the latter, then you are doing what MM is apparently trying to do - labeling any private donation a corporate donation because the person donating works for corporation X. As far as I know, "employer" is one of the data points collected when someone makes a donation. That does not mean the donation comes from the corporation.

Do you know which situation is reflected by this table? I suspect the latter. Note that she accepted no donations from PACs to which those companies donated - only from individuals.

[Sparko]

OK - so the column "individuals" raises a question. Are these donations being made by the corporation, or is this simply reporting the total donations by individuals who work for those corporations? If the former - she lied. If the latter, then you are doing what MM is apparently trying to do - labeling any private donation a corporate donation because the person donating works for corporation X. As far as I know, "employer" is one of the data points collected when someone makes a donation. That does not mean the donation comes from the corporation.

Do you know which situation is reflected by this table? I suspect the latter. Note that she accepted no donations from PACs to which those companies donated - only from individuals.

Considering they didn't name any specific people but the company, it appears that the companies made the donations themselves. The corporation would have to donate through individual people though. It is done all the time. Same with the labor unions.

[Mountain Man]

As far as I can tell, you have not presented any evidence of this beyond, "X donated and X works for Y."

What an odd defense.

"Your honor, the prosecution has not presented any evidence other than that which proves his case! I move for a dismissal!"

[carpedm9587]

Considering they didn't name any specific people but the company, it appears that the companies made the donations themselves.

That's an assumption. The "individuals" column casts doubt on it.

The corporation would have to donate through individual people though. It is done all the time. Same with the labor unions.

This is the claim MM made. I'd like to see some substantiation for this claim. So far I have seen none.

[carpedm9587]

What an odd defense.

"Your honor, the prosecution has not presented any evidence other than that which proves his case! I move for a dismissal!"

Despite the glib response - what I said does NOT prove your case. A court would likely look at you and say, "Most people work for someone. That does not make their individual donation a corporate donation. Your definition essentially demolishes the distinction between an individual donation and a corporate donation. Indeed, how do you know the donation is not a "church donation" if they also go to Church X? Or a <insert club membership here> donation if they are a member of that club? Or a town or city donation if they live in a particular town or city?"

The donor is the one who is giving from their own financial stores. If the check comes from my personal checking account, it is an individual donation, not a donation made by my employer. The exception is when a company illegally "passes through" a donation by giving the money to their employees for them to donate. Despite the claims of this "happening all the time," I have not seen a single data point to substantiate this claim.

[Sparko]

That's an assumption. The "individuals" column casts doubt on it.



This is the claim MM made. I'd like to see some substantiation for this claim. So far I have seen none.

It is illegal for them to contribute to a political campaign directly. The only way they can contribute is either as part of a PAC or through individuals. There is no other way a corporation can make a political contribution, Carp.
The fact that this is so well known and understood that the contribution lists the corporation instead of some individual's name pretty much shows you to be wrong. But I don't expect you to change your mind. When you disagree with something, you can be quite literal in your interpretations despite what the data shows is really happening.

[carpedm9587]

It is illegal for them to contribute to a political campaign directly.

Sort of. They are barred from federal candidates, but 30 states permit corporate donations to state candidates and 43 states permit union donations to state candidates. In this case, AOC is a federal candidate, so your observation about corporations applies. Any corporation can make donations to the conventions of any party, to the inauguration committee of a winning candidate, or to anything associated with either.

The only way they can contribute is either as part of a PAC or through individuals. There is no other way a corporation can make a political contribution, Carp.

Based on what I just read - the former is legal, the latter is not.

The fact that this is so well known and understood that the contribution lists the corporation instead of some individual's name pretty much shows you to be wrong.

Again, based on what I just read, the organization of individuals by company is a shorthand to keep the lists from being absurdly long. Note that further down the page OpenSecrets notes:

The organizations themselves did not donate, rather the money came from the organizations' PACs, their individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.

Again - it is illegal for a corporation to funnel money through their employees. It is a form of campaign finance fraud. Open secrets would not openly report an illegal activity.

But I don't expect you to change your mind. When you disagree with something, you can be quite literal in your interpretations despite what the data shows is really happening.