• Welcome to BradleyFans.com! Visitors are welcome, but we encourage you to sign up and register as a member. It's free and takes only a few seconds. Just click on the link to Register at the top right of the page, and follow instructions. If you have any problems or questions, click on the link at the bottom right of the page to Contact Us.

OT- Congratulations to Bradley grad Mike Unes!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Da Coach said:
Here is a list of the top donors for the 2008 election-
http://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/topcontribs.php?cycle=2008

Your argument is a non-sequitur- Regardless of where any unions might place on the Fortune 500 list, what matters is how much money they donate, and who they donate it to.

Note that there are unions at slots 8,20,26,29,30,32,38,41,42,44,45,and 51. That's at least 12 different unions among the top 51 donors.
And note who the top donors (business or unions) give money to- predominately the Democrats- 23 of the top 50 are listed as strongly or solidly Democratic, while only 1 of the top 50 donors is listed as either solidly or strongly Republican.
45 of the top 100 are Democratic, while only 4 are Republican.

Again, I am fine with any restrictions placed on donations. But lets apply them equally, and it should include union donations, too.
Click to expand...

LAST ELECTION! You can't judge on ONE ELECTION, Obama winning was a forgone conclusion. The Bush administration doomed any Republican no matter who they were. If you are a company, who would you donate to if you know who is going to to win? The losing side, so you alienate those in charge for the next four years? Anyone who couldn't bring themselves to donate to the Dem's just didn't donate. Come on. This is PoliSci 101.


EDIT:

In an up in the air election, it is a very different story:

http://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/topcontribs.php?cycle=2002&Bkdn=DemRep
 
Da Coach said:
Funny that you would post that link as an example.
According to their statistics, business donations favored Democrats over Republicans 54% to 46%.
But Labor donations favored Democrats 92% to 8% for Republicans.
So who is trying to influence the elections more? And which party appears to benefit more?
In the case of labor donations it is overwhelmingly slanted.
Click to expand...

It is laughable that you are emphasizing the labor donations which account for 2.7% of the overall donations for the 2008 campaign. See the link that I provided.:wink:8) As for the corporate donations, everyone likes a winner and people wanting to buy influence are not going to donate to a losing campaign. Again, I am calling for open disclosure for ALL DONATIONS regardless of party. What is wrong with that? The conservative ruling from the Supreme Court does not allow us to know who is contributing to the various campaigns!
 
houstontxbrave said:
Throw money and more money and more money. Let anyone and everyone give as much as they want. Without regard for where this money comes from just get it.

It was not right with the Unions, it is not right with the Corporations and the leveling of "the playing field" decison.

Having candidates (votes) bought regardless of where the vote was bought from I dont believe is what was the idea when the idea of United States citizens voting and deciding on representation was established.

Being ok with this is just sad.
Click to expand...

Well said. Very much agree!
 
Beninator said:
It is laughable that you are emphasizing the labor donations which account for 2.7% of the overall donations for the 2008 campaign. See the link that I provided.:wink:8) As for the corporate donations, everyone likes a winner and people wanting to buy influence are not going to donate to a losing campaign. Again, I am calling for open disclosure for ALL DONATIONS regardless of party. What is wrong with that? The conservative ruling from the Supreme Court does not allow us to know who is contributing to the various campaigns!
Click to expand...

We are on the EXACT same page.
 
amckillip said:
LAST ELECTION! You can't judge on ONE ELECTION, Obama winning was a forgone conclusion. The Bush administration doomed any Republican no matter who they were. If you are a company, who would you donate to if you know who is going to to win? The losing side, so you alienate those in charge for the next four years? Anyone who couldn't bring themselves to donate to the Dem's just didn't donate. Come on. This is PoliSci 101.
Click to expand...


I am not going to respond further, but to act like Obamas victory was a foregone conclusion more than a month before is a bit ridiculous.

McCain was up in some polls as late as September. I would take a wild guess at 90% of fundraising being done before the end of September.

Thats all
 
I'm done, too.
I am all for reforming the campaign finance laws, but it has to be done in a fair and non-partisan way. The old laws were unfair because they allowed some entities like unions to donate unlimited amounts (with the huge majority of it going to one party), while restricting other entities (whos donations have historically not favored one party over the other).
The problem is that I do not think politicians in today's climate are capable of doing it in a fair and non-partisan way.
 
Da Coach said:
I'm done, too.
I am all for reforming the campaign finance laws, but it has to be done in a fair and non-partisan way. The old laws were unfair because they allowed some entities like unions to donate unlimited amounts (with the huge majority of it going to one party), while restricting other entities (whos donations have historically not favored one party over the other).
The problem is that I do not think politicians in today's climate are capable of doing it in a fair and non-partisan way.
Click to expand...

I am done too and you are right todays politicians will not change anything when it comes to campaign finance laws... why? Because they are the ones who get to decide on any changes. And they are not going to limit the money coming in to them... it is a serious joke that an elected official gets to decide if any limitations should be placed on contributions. Same with term limits and same with lobbists.

The whole thing needs to be reformed, but what is more likely is the same old same old regardless of whether Unes or Obama or a Squirrel is elected. GREED, pure simple GREED. From the White House, to the Governors to City Councils.
 
Why isn't this thread locked? This tread was about congratulating a Bradley graduate on winning an election. It quickly devolved into political whining.

I don't know much about Unes or his politics, but I'm glad he won b/c of how horrible the Mike Smith attack ads were.
 
You are the first to suggest it be locked.
It is clearly labeled as Off Topic. It is Bradley related, and the discussion does not violate any rules. But I am fine with ending it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top