In some cases business leaders say they have been more ignored than harmed. IBM said it would analyze health-care spending, at no cost to the government, to hunt out fraud, Sam Palmisano, the company’s CEO, said at a conference in New York on Sept. 14. The White House wouldn’t sign on to the plan.
“We offered to do it for free to prove a point, and they turned us down,” Palmisano said. “Our recommendations weren’t aligned with the priorities of the administration. Their priority was not to reduce fraud and improve productivity. It was to increase coverage.”
If the President were to desire the affections of business people, he could start by ceasing his derision and demonization of people in various industries. I’m sure that ‘Greedy Bankers’ and ‘Heartless Insurance Companies’ plays well to the eat-the-rich crowd, but anyone not wielding fork and knife has good cause to be wary.
I am a little alarmed that the definition of edibly “rich” was down to $250K/yr. I always viewed that as the top end of middle class, and that $500K+ was truly rich. But what do I know? I’m just a public employee making less than 10% of that, but God blessed me with a small stomach and an appetite to match.
Don’t forget the reckless and baseless charges against the Chamber of Commerce. Even the New York Times questioned the charges. Axelrod was laughed at by the liberal reporter Bob Schieffer, [url=http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/10/schieffer-mocks-axelrod-complaining-about-gop-ad-dollars-‘-best-you-can-do’ ]”Is that the best you can do?”[/url]
P.S. I hope they do look into foreign campaign donations. They have lists of [url=http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/07/obamas-gazan-co.html ]Obama donations from Gaza[/url] from relatively untraceable debit cards. Obama made it very easy to donate from foreign countries anonymously whereas Hillary Clinton and McCain required documentation of U.S. citizenship.
Foreign campaign donations don’t matter anymore. The Sup.Ct has said there are no limits on what Corporations can spend on political campaigns and they do not have to disclose their owners or contributors. As a result there is massive spending by unidentified persons this election cycle. I expect a significant portion is coming from China and the OPEC nations; but we will never know.
I believe we will pay for that decision for the rest of our lives, as we will never really know exactly what domestic or foreign interest is buying elections. All we will know is elections are being bought and the average voter has no voice at all.
No, the SCOTUS said that corporations AND unions can’t have spending limits. Political contributions from foreign nationals is still very much against the law though Obama perfected the anonymous foreign donation technique.
Don’t forget that the underlying case involved the suppression of a movie with political content and attacked a core function of political speech protected by the 1st Amendment. If this law had not exempt newspaper corporations it would have shut down newspapers and magazines prior to an election.
The by product of all this political regulation is to protect incumbents and place running for office under federal regulation. The SCOTUS decision was entirely correct. The remedy: Amend the Constitution.
While I hear what both of you are saying, the result is still the same. There is no longer a practical limit on the intervention in our elections by foreigners, or criminals for that matter. A known mobster could use mob money to buy a local election and we would never know. A Corporation 99% owned by China, Inc. can invest unlimited money in our elections and we have no way of knowing that. A US Corporation 99% owned by the Saudi’s can spend billions from the coffers of that country on US elections.
I simply strongly disagree that we should have a system where money is the primary element of free speech; and I even more strongly believe people should not be allowed to make anonymous political donations.
I have no way of knowing whether Obama received foreign donations and neither do you. Just as you have no way of knowing where the wave of money invested in this election is coming from.
As far as #5s comment, this decision makes his concern even worse. Now a corporation can buy an election and pay unlimited amounts of money to keep its candidate in office. In the long run this will subvert Democracy, just as it did in the late 1800s and early 1900s.
I simply do not agree the Sup. Ct. decision was correct.
Corporations are not people and have no right to free speech. The owners of the Corporation have a right to free speech, but no right to anonymity when exercising that right. Finally, while I have no particular affinity for any union. They are not the same as corporations. They are a conglomeration of people, who are generally Americans, and who are identified so we can determine if they are not, and who are limited in the amount they can each contribute. In turn, I have no problem if all of the US Citizen owners and employees of a US Corporation want to get together and pool their money, so long as they identify themselves and are limited in the amount each individual can contribute. I do not think however, the owners of Microsoft, should be allowed to spend a billion dollars from its corporate coffers on an election.
6, unfortunately money has always been a primary element in free speech. To restrict money is to restrict free speech. Look at newspapers. It costs a tremendous amount of money to put out a daily paper paper. It’s simply the nature of the beast. In my view it is far more dangerous to put government in the role of regulating its political opponents. No government, where it has the power, tolerates its opposition. Saudi Arabia etc. comes to mind.
That first Amendment sure is a pesky thing isn’t it?