Will Lester Holt ask Hillary about the Clinton Foundation "scandal?" One certainly hopes so. It would provide an opportunity for Hillary to contrast it to the Tr*mp Foundation, which has worked assiduously for the benefit of… you guessed it… Donald J. Tr*mp.
Disregarding the illegal Pam Bondi contribution, which may or may not have influenced the Florida Attorney General to drop a lawsuit against Trump University, there's plenty to talk about. According to reporting in the Washington Post, contributions from his foundation were used to settle obligations incurred by Tr*mp in at least two lawsuits. Then there were the two portraits of Tr*mp that were "donated" to… you guessed it… Tr*mp.
Another "contribution" went to Citizens United Foundation, to help finance a lawsuit against New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, who just happens to be suing on behalf of defrauded Trump University students and also launching an investigation of… you guessed it… the Tr*mp Foundation.
Since the Tr*mp Foundation has no website, it's hard to figure out where its money goes — or even where it comes from. It hasn't come from Tr*mp himself since 2008, but wrestling promoter Vince McMahon kicks in annually; nobody seems too clear on just why, and McMahon isn't talking. Much of what Tr*mp does disperse to charity is in the form of "free" rounds of golf at his Mar-a-Lago golf club, valued at an average of $2,500 per foursome — but only after the charity has paid $250,000 to the club for hosting their event.
Like Bernie, I'm sick of hearing about the "damned emails." The Clintons donate about 10% of their annual income to charity, and get no personal benefit from the Clinton foundation. Tr*mp donates… errr… well, maybe we'll find out if he ever releases his tax return.
Showing posts with label Citizens United. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Citizens United. Show all posts
Saturday, September 24, 2016
Monday, June 25, 2012
Montana v. the Supremes
The big Supreme Court decision today, from a news media perspective, was the decision on Arizona's immigration law. I have no comment on that, since I expect it will be back before the court not all that long after Arizona actually starts enforcing the provision the Supremes upheld today.
More important, from my perspective, was the Supremes' refusal to uphold Montana's ban on corporate contributions to political campaigns. Citizens United was upheld, presumably by the same five to four majority that made the original ruling. If I recall correctly, I have not had much to say about Citizens United in earlier posts — actually, I don't think I weighed in on it at all. Well, here I go: Constitutionally speaking, I think the decision was correct.
Corporations are not persons, however the law is interpreted. Not being a person, however, should not deprive an institution of First Amendment rights — at least not until the First Amendment is rewritten to apply only to individuals. Anyway, it wouldn't make a difference so long as there are individual persons like, say, Sheldon Adelson, whose fortunes rival those of some pretty big corporations.
The real problem is that some people are just too goddamned rich, given that money is power. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: the class war is over, and we lost it. The plutocracy reigns.
Montana (where Frank Zappa hoped to raise a crop of dental floss) had a history of plutocrats (most notably, copper barons) buying its political leaders. Its century-old legislation that sought to combat that problem, sadly, turned out to be unconstitutional. Well, what can I say? That's the Constitution for you.
On the other hand, I have no idea why 501(c)(3) organizations should not be required to disclose who the hell their donors are. Donors to truly "charitable" groups — no matter whether they're rescuing puppies, fighting rare diseases, or even providing rehabilitation to persons previously kidnapped by aliens — should not object to having their names disclosed. Hell, they're doing good, right?
Going one step further, 501(c)(3) organizations whose objectives are entirely political — like Crossroads GPS — not only should have to disclose their donors, but should lose their non-profit status. They're not promoting any sort of public good. They're just promoting plutocracy.
***
Here's another thought: Mitt Romney tithes to the LDS Church. I'm not sure how much of that money is devoted to genuine good works. Personally, I don't see any public good at all in converting Samoans, Nicaraguans, and (in Mitt's case) the French to Mormonism. Just because it's "good" for the Mormons (or the Catholics or the Seventh Day Adventists or the Sunni Muslims) doesn't mean it's good for the public at large. A lot of Mormon money went to fighting same sex marriage in California. Is that a public good, or just more politics?
Moreover, who cares if the Pentecostals are saving "souls" in Kenya if they are not simultaneously saving Kenyan children from malnutrition or river blindness or being forced to become child soldiers? Wouldn't it make sense to separate out ideology from action? Public good should be observable and measurable in terms of life expectancy, reduction of suffering, and the general well-being of real people. Changing someone's belief about what you have to do to get the gods to like you should not count.
More important, from my perspective, was the Supremes' refusal to uphold Montana's ban on corporate contributions to political campaigns. Citizens United was upheld, presumably by the same five to four majority that made the original ruling. If I recall correctly, I have not had much to say about Citizens United in earlier posts — actually, I don't think I weighed in on it at all. Well, here I go: Constitutionally speaking, I think the decision was correct.
Corporations are not persons, however the law is interpreted. Not being a person, however, should not deprive an institution of First Amendment rights — at least not until the First Amendment is rewritten to apply only to individuals. Anyway, it wouldn't make a difference so long as there are individual persons like, say, Sheldon Adelson, whose fortunes rival those of some pretty big corporations.
The real problem is that some people are just too goddamned rich, given that money is power. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: the class war is over, and we lost it. The plutocracy reigns.
Montana (where Frank Zappa hoped to raise a crop of dental floss) had a history of plutocrats (most notably, copper barons) buying its political leaders. Its century-old legislation that sought to combat that problem, sadly, turned out to be unconstitutional. Well, what can I say? That's the Constitution for you.
On the other hand, I have no idea why 501(c)(3) organizations should not be required to disclose who the hell their donors are. Donors to truly "charitable" groups — no matter whether they're rescuing puppies, fighting rare diseases, or even providing rehabilitation to persons previously kidnapped by aliens — should not object to having their names disclosed. Hell, they're doing good, right?
Going one step further, 501(c)(3) organizations whose objectives are entirely political — like Crossroads GPS — not only should have to disclose their donors, but should lose their non-profit status. They're not promoting any sort of public good. They're just promoting plutocracy.
***
Here's another thought: Mitt Romney tithes to the LDS Church. I'm not sure how much of that money is devoted to genuine good works. Personally, I don't see any public good at all in converting Samoans, Nicaraguans, and (in Mitt's case) the French to Mormonism. Just because it's "good" for the Mormons (or the Catholics or the Seventh Day Adventists or the Sunni Muslims) doesn't mean it's good for the public at large. A lot of Mormon money went to fighting same sex marriage in California. Is that a public good, or just more politics?
Moreover, who cares if the Pentecostals are saving "souls" in Kenya if they are not simultaneously saving Kenyan children from malnutrition or river blindness or being forced to become child soldiers? Wouldn't it make sense to separate out ideology from action? Public good should be observable and measurable in terms of life expectancy, reduction of suffering, and the general well-being of real people. Changing someone's belief about what you have to do to get the gods to like you should not count.
Sunday, January 1, 2012
The Iowa Caucuses
Well, happy new year. Maybe. 2011 kind of sucked — earthquake, tsunami, and nuclear meltdown for the Japanese; total fuckup for the Eurozone; continued suppression of the working class in the US (albeit with some vague rays of hope); general craziness, with only minimal hope of non-authoritarian governments, in the Middle East; droughts and floods in Australia; more of the usual shit in sub-Saharan Africa; slowing economic growth in China; Putin being Putinesque in Russia; etc., etc.
Now, our American news media are wasting our time by devoting tons of time and space to the Iowa Republican caucuses. Does anybody remember who they selected last time? Mike fucking Huckabee! Why would anybody take Iowa Republicans seriously? As of tonight's network news, Santorum is surging there.
Anyway, back in the summer of 1976, I pulled off the interstate for want of a vodka gimlet in Harlan, Iowa, and found myself in a bar that turned out to be the hangout for local government officials. I can say with more than reasonable certitude that they were not evangelical Christians, but they still held Jimmy Carter in very high regard. Harlan, they said, was "Carter Country." I stayed for several days, and had a hell of a good time.
Jimmy Carter is the kind of man we all would like to have as our president. Sadly, our disgustingly corrupt political system cannot accept a genuinely good man at its helm. The presidency did its best to corrupt Jimmy Carter but, fortunately for him, he did not win a second term. He's been spending the rest of his life making up for the damage he was forced to do in those four sad years. Yes, he's the best ex-president in American history, and if his beliefs about redemption are correct, I'd imagine he's redeemed by now — but he still keeps trying, harder and harder.
Iowa doesn't matter — nor does New Hampshire. It's all just a show. Even without the Citizens United decision, it still would be all about the money. Obama has been sucking up to Wall Street just as hungrily as he did four years ago, and any Republican who wins their nomination will be just as deeply in Wall Street's pocket.
Let's all sing along with the chorus from Les Mis: "We want a revolution — now."
Now, our American news media are wasting our time by devoting tons of time and space to the Iowa Republican caucuses. Does anybody remember who they selected last time? Mike fucking Huckabee! Why would anybody take Iowa Republicans seriously? As of tonight's network news, Santorum is surging there.
Anyway, back in the summer of 1976, I pulled off the interstate for want of a vodka gimlet in Harlan, Iowa, and found myself in a bar that turned out to be the hangout for local government officials. I can say with more than reasonable certitude that they were not evangelical Christians, but they still held Jimmy Carter in very high regard. Harlan, they said, was "Carter Country." I stayed for several days, and had a hell of a good time.
Jimmy Carter is the kind of man we all would like to have as our president. Sadly, our disgustingly corrupt political system cannot accept a genuinely good man at its helm. The presidency did its best to corrupt Jimmy Carter but, fortunately for him, he did not win a second term. He's been spending the rest of his life making up for the damage he was forced to do in those four sad years. Yes, he's the best ex-president in American history, and if his beliefs about redemption are correct, I'd imagine he's redeemed by now — but he still keeps trying, harder and harder.
Iowa doesn't matter — nor does New Hampshire. It's all just a show. Even without the Citizens United decision, it still would be all about the money. Obama has been sucking up to Wall Street just as hungrily as he did four years ago, and any Republican who wins their nomination will be just as deeply in Wall Street's pocket.
Let's all sing along with the chorus from Les Mis: "We want a revolution — now."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)