Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Mainstream Politics and Economics -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: koan who wrote (16935)	5/31/2012 1:28:04 PM
From: longnshort	2 Recommendations Respond to of 85487

think Soros

To: koan who wrote (16935)	5/31/2012 1:32:14 PM
From: longnshort	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 85487

Campaign's Big Spender Public-Employees Union Now Leads All Groups in Independent Election Outlays By BRODY MULLINS And JOHN D. MCKINNON The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees is now the biggest outside spender of the 2010 elections, thanks to an 11th-hour effort to boost Democrats that has vaulted the public-sector union ahead of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the AFL-CIO and a flock of new Republican groups in campaign spending. The 1.6 million-member AFSCME is spending a total of $87.5 million on the elections after tapping into a $16 million emergency account to help fortify the Democrats' hold on Congress. Last week, AFSCME dug deeper, taking out a $2 million loan to fund its push. The group is spending money on television advertisements, phone calls, campaign mailings and other political efforts, helped by a Supreme Court decision that loosened restrictions on campaign spending. "We're the big dog," said Larry Scanlon, the head of AFSCME's political operations. "But we don't like to brag." The 2010 election could be pivotal for public-sector unions, whose clout helped shield members from the worst of the economic downturn. In the 2009 stimulus and other legislation, Democratic lawmakers sent more than $160 billion in federal cash to states, aimed in large part at preventing public-sector layoffs. If Republicans running under the banner of limited government win in November, they aren't likely to support extending such aid to states. Newly elected conservatives will also likely push to clip the political power of public-sector unions. For years, conservatives have argued such unions have an outsize influence in picking the elected officials who are, in effect, their bosses, putting them in a strong position to push for more jobs, and thus more political clout. online.wsj.com

To: koan who wrote (16935)	5/31/2012 3:17:22 PM
From: Little Joe	1 Recommendation Respond to of 85487

"Presidential politics has always been a rich man's game. But now, thanks to the Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United that upended decades of limits on campaign donations, financing a presidential race is the exclusive domain of the kind of megadonor whose portfolios make Mitt Romney look middle-class. "I have lots of money, and can give it legally now," Texas billionaire and top GOP moneyman Harold Simmons recently bragged to The Wall Street Journal. "Just never to Democrats." " Another one sided link. What you don't like is that these guys don't give to dems. You don't mind it: 1:when unions buy payraises with their money and ability to produce workers. 2:George Soros contributes to Dem causes. 3. Obama uses Corzine, who belongs in jail, to bundle money for him. 4. Obama declares he wants to raise One Billion dollars. 5. Obama goes to dinners on the taxpayer's dime, that cost 10's of thousands of dollars per plate to have dinner with fat cat wall street banker types, while he decries lack of "fairness". Unlike you I believe that Citizens United is an affirmation of Freedom of Speech and that it is healthy for a democracy to have as many points of view as possible in politics. Your review just reflects your liberal concept that people aren't smart to sort the wheat from the chaff, but that is because you only associate with liberals. lj

To: koan who wrote (16935)	5/31/2012 4:34:20 PM
From: Sdgla	1 Recommendation Respond to of 85487

Why are you so consumed by Romney kroan ? The current POTUS is backed by left wing loons that are much wealthier. Please save the kroanese and try to address the posted question.

To: koan who wrote (16935)	5/31/2012 5:10:27 PM
From: longnshort	1 Recommendation Respond to of 85487

looks like 99% of university people are for citizens United. The New York Times asked seven academics to opine on how corporate money would reshape politics as a result of the court's decision. [40] Three of these wrote that the effects would be minimal or positive: Christopher Cotton, a University of Miami School of Business assistant professor of economics, wrote that "There may be very little difference between seeing eight ads or seeing nine ads (compared to seeing one ad or two). And, voters recognize that richer candidates are not necessarily the better candidates, and in some cases, the benefit of running more ads is offset by the negative signal that spending a lot of money creates. [40] University of California professor of law Eugene Volokh held that the "most influential actors in most political campaigns" are media corporations which "overtly editorialize for and against candidates, and also influence elections by choosing what to cover and how to cover it". Holding that corporations like Exxon would fear alienating voters by supporting candidates, the decision really meant that voters would hear "more messages from more sources". [40] Joel Gora, a professor at Brooklyn Law School who had previously argued the case of Buckley v. Valeo on behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union, said that the decision represented "a great day for the First Amendment" writing that the Court had "dismantled the First Amendment 'caste system' in election speech". [40]

To: koan who wrote (16935)	5/31/2012 6:46:08 PM
From: Broken_Clock	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 85487

your man in the WH was/is just another corporate toady....he sold out America to big pharma. Does that "feel good" to you? +++ Drugmakers Vowed To Campaign For Health Law, Memos Show By Drew Armstrong - May 31, 2012 8:51 AM GMT-1000 Facebook Share LinkedIn Google +1 59 COMMENTS Print QUEUE Q Drugmakers led by Pfizer (PFE) Inc. agreed to run a “very significant public campaign” bankrolling political support for the 2010 health-care law, including TV ads, while the Obama administration promised to block provisions opposed by drugmakers, documents released by Republicans show. The internal memos and e-mails for the first time unveil the industry's plan to finance positive TV ads and supportive groups, along with providing $80 billion in discounts and taxes that were included in the law. The administration has previously denied the existence of a deal involving political support. The documents were released today by Republicans on the House Energy and Commerce Committee. They identify price controls under Medicare and drug importation as the key industry concerns, and show that former Pfizer Chief Executive Officer Jeffrey Kindler and his top aides were involved in drawing it up and getting support from other company executives. “As part of our agreement, PhRMA needs to undertake a very significant public campaign in order to support policies of mutual interest to the industry and the Administration,” according to a July 14, 2009, memo from the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. “We have included a significant amount for advertising to express appreciation for lawmakers’ positions on health care reform issues.” The goal, the memo said, was to “create momentum for consensus health care reform, help it pass, and then acknowledge those senators and representatives who were instrumental in making it happen and who must remain vigilant during implementation.” Republican ViewRepublicans, including Representative Joe Pitts, of Pennsylvania, have been probing promises made during the March 2010 passage of the health law, with some arguing that political activity by the drugmakers in any agreement may cross an ethical line. “After promising transparency, the White House turned around and cut a secret deal with pharmaceutical companies,” Pitts said today in a statement. “Today’s revelation about the $80 billion deal shows an administration that cared more about victory than reform.” White House spokesman Eric Schultz called the Republican probe “a nakedly political taxpayer-funded crusade to hurt the president’s re-election campaign.” The committee has wasted time on investigations “but has done almost nothing to move legislation that would create jobs or grow the economy,” Schultz said today in an e-mail. Committee InvestigationThe Republican probe began last year. Bloomberg reported earlier this month that the committee was targeting whether Democrats were promised political support from drugmakers in exchange for limiting what the industry would be asked to contribute under the 2010 health-care overhaul, according to people familiar with the talks who asked not to be identified because they were private. “PhRMA has a long history of advocating for policies that ensure patient access to innovative medicines and foster medical progress,” said Matt Bennett, a PhRMA spokesman, in an e-mailed statement. “Before, during and since the health-care reform debate, PhRMA engaged with Congress and the administration to advance these priorities.” Bennett declined further comment. The Supreme Court is considering a challenge to the law and is expected to rule in June. Obama’s fellow Democrats who backed the health-care law’s passage in 2010 pushed back against Republicans and said today that the documents released by the Republicans were misleading. ‘Always Done’“President Obama’s efforts to enlist the support of private industry are exactly what presidents have always done to enact major legislation,” U.S. Representatives Henry Waxman of California and Diana DeGette of Colorado said in a joint statement. Waxman and DeGette, in their statement, said the Democrats had managed to get more than the $80 billion out of drugmakers described in the memos, putting the figure at $110 billion to $125 billion. Included in the documents released by the Republicans was an October 2012 e-mail from Bryant Hall, a PhRMA lobbyist, In it, Hall wrote that the Obama administration had agreed to block a proposal by Democrats in Congress that would let people import pharmaceutical products from outside the U.S., where price controls offer them at lower costs than they can be obtained inside the U.S. The White House “is working on some very explicit language to kill it in health-care reform,” Hall wrote in an e-mail sent to Kindler and Sally Susman, a current Pfizer executive vice president and head of the New York-based drugmaker’s public policy and communications operations. Three GroupsIn other documents, PhRMA agreed to help back at least three different advertising and advocacy groups that pushed for health-care reform. A PhRMA memo described a group called Health Economy Now, and noted that under an agreement “the industry provides the majority of financial support for positive TV ads advocating passage of health reform.” It also provided financial backing for television ads thanking lawmakers for their support of an expansion of children’s health care insurance under Medicaid, the U.S. insurance program for the poor, and a campaign called “Harry and Louise,” run with Families USA, a Washington-based pro- health care reform group that advocates for consumers. To contact the reporter on this story: Drew Armstrong in New York at darmstrong17@bloomberg.net;