We Are Who We Take Money From

New Party Needed! (4.00 / 1)

Why didn't they go after money from Blackwater and Haliburton? They could make their degradation complete.

---

by: Mayme @ Thu May 06, 2010 at 00:22:59 AM UTC

PROVERB: (4.00 / 2)

"Whose bread I eat his song I sing."
I do not sing Walmart's song, or Waste Management's or Monsanto's or any other corporate entity. Does anyone have the list of all of the corporate sponsors of last week's corporate NHDP dinner?  

---

by: Caroline French @ Thu May 06, 2010 at 02:47:46 AM UTC

What a shame (4.00 / 2)

When did taking money from Wal-Mart ever begin to make sense to the leaders at NHDP?  I'm very disappointed in all of them.

Give it to charity - preferably to one that fights for equal pay for women.  

---

by: Hope Not Fear @ Thu May 06, 2010 at 03:22:54 AM UTC

Money is a shield behind which all kinds of (0.00 / 0)

malfeasance and deprivation are perpetrated almost unnoticed.
It doesn't need to be that way.  Money can be a force for equalization.  WalMart making "donations" instead of paying fair wages and taxes is an insult to our intelligence.

---

by: hannah @ Fri May 07, 2010 at 07:31:03 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

No Corporate Money (4.00 / 1)

We should say "NO" to any corporate money.  Not even a "No Thanks."  Just "NO."  

Didn't Granny D. walk across the country and speak out against that?  Her cause continues.

---

by: Rep. Jim Splaine @ Thu May 06, 2010 at 04:27:04 AM UTC

I'd like to take this opportunity to make the point (0.00 / 0)

that political subdivisions are also corporations, artificial entities that carry out public functions--i.e. public corporations. We create them to spread/share risks and responsibilities and protect individuals from personal liability.  In exchange for that protection, the powers of our public corporations are strictly limited and the members may only perform the tasks that have been authorized.
Private corporations are just as artificial.  However, while they offer the same protection from liability and risk to the participants, instead of being strictly limited, private corporations have been allowed to act with the freedom to act which the natural person enjoys--i.e. do anything as long as it causes no obvious and intentional injury to another natural person (destroying another artificial person seems to be also OK).
So, in brief, we have allowed monsters to be made --monsters that are virtually immortal (unlike all natural persons) and virtually immune from control or restriction even after they have been proved to cause significant injury to man and nature (fines of money are not significant when the payer is otherwise immortal and immune).  
What's to be done?  Well, for a start, private corporations have to be strictly regulated via their charters and, if they violate the limitations and/or cause injury via intent or negligent behavior, the private corporation needs to be dissolved (capital punishment for bad corporations).
Monetary receipts by candidates for public office should be controlled at the recipient end, as are the receipts of office holders.  Public officials should be on notice from the very start that bribery (anticipatory or ex post facto) are not tolerated--not only unethical, but against the law.  "No man can serve two masters."  So, when he purports to serve both a public and a private corporation, one is going to be defrauded and fraud is a really basic crime.  Letting it pass under cover of law by lawmakers undermines the integrity of the law itself.

People should not be elected to make laws to suit their friends.

The notion that artificial persons have the rights of natural persons is ludicrous and hubristic.  You'd almost think man created artificial persons that are immortal and infallible to "improve" on what the Creator of man came up with. It's not the natural person that's born immoral; it's the artificial one, the one whose freedom from responsibility is supposed to be secured by strict limits on its behavior.

---

by: hannah @ Fri May 07, 2010 at 08:06:51 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

How much? (4.00 / 2)

From what corporations? Did corporations solicit NHDP or the other way around? Were implications considered? Did NHDP promise anything to the corporate donors?

---

by: Caroline French @ Thu May 06, 2010 at 12:06:31 PM UTC

We are who we take money from (4.00 / 3)

As I said on Facebook,  I was the prime sponsor a couple of years ago of the Wal-Mart Bill in the NH House that was written to make Wal-Mart devote at least 8% of its payroll towards providing health insurance for their employees.  As a good Democrat, I am appalled at the fact that the NHDP would take Wal-Mart's money at a Democratic event that charged Democratic Party attendees $100 a plate.

Though invited,I couldn't afford to go.  Now I'm glad I didn't attend.  Marcia Moody

---

by: marciagm @ Thu May 06, 2010 at 14:42:53 PM UTC

This could be a useful and serious discussion (4.00 / 4)

if party leaders choose to enter it.

• Is it practical to have a zero-tolerance policy for corporate contributions?
• If not: are there limits that the Party should adopt? For example, a cap on percent of contributions from corporate sources vs. individuals?
• I'm guessing Stonyfield Farms Yogurt is more popular with Dems than Walmart. Do we want to have different rules for contributions from different corporations?
• If so, what would the metrics be and who would calculate them?

---

by: elwood @ Fri May 07, 2010 at 23:23:15 PM UTC

Politics: It's About People (0.00 / 0)

Yes, it is possible to have a zero-tolerance policy for corporate contributions.  Good candidates need the discipline to say "No Thanks" concerning corporate contributions.

All politics is really simple:  it's about people.  It's not about selling influence.  It's not about who can buy the most advertisements from the campaign industry because they happen to raise the most money.  It's about people.  People vote for you because of your message and the things you do to help people.  

---

by: Rep. Jim Splaine @ Sat May 08, 2010 at 06:16:17 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Politics is about power. (4.00 / 2)

Some people vote for you because of your message.  Others see the world differently. The notion of self-interest is embedded in our cultural DNA in the US.  We are WalMart.  If it's not Wally World, it will be another super box store that behaves similarly.  This is the system and society we have built and deserve.  

WalMart plays by the rules (mostly) and suffers the consequences for breaking them.  They found a way to make money (not from me, I haven't shopped there in more than a decade) based on volume and logistics efficiencies.  

We live in an unjust world, and each of us, in our own way, rationalizes the material comfort we enjoy that is derived from the misery of others.  We are WalMart, and just don't like the reminder.

In the immediate aftermath of Since the start of the financial crisis, the Fed/Treasury lent, spent, or guaranteed $28 $29 trillion to save the banking system.

---

by: StraffordDem @ Sat May 08, 2010 at 19:31:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

check the labels in what you are wearing now... (0.00 / 0)

any of it made in the u.s.a.? any of it made by slaves, children, oppressed minorities...do you know, do you give a rat's tookus?

note to close readers: this might be sarcastic so think twice before reading to candidates for use in their attacks on each other

---

by: JonnyBBad @ Sun May 09, 2010 at 14:12:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I see your point, StraffordDem (0.00 / 0)

but, just because Wal-Mart exists and we have to accept a certain amount of complicity in creating the misery of others, does not mean that the Democratic Party should take money from them. The Democrats are supposed to be the party that champions working people.

My local Wal-Mart got all kinds of tax breaks for locating here, building a structure more reminiscent of a maximum security prison than a store, and on top of that, got variances for building in wetlands. They pay substandard wages, and in the parking lot are cars that are doing double duty as homes. Wal-Mart wages aren't high enough to afford housing around here.  This is a company that was taking out life insurance policies on employees so that the company would benefit in the event of employees deaths. This is a company that lacks conscience or ethics.

The Democratic Party can't call itself the champion of the working people and take money from Wal-Mart at the same time.  

---

by: susanthe @ Sun May 09, 2010 at 16:24:46 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

And I completely understand your point. (0.00 / 0)

Where do we draw the line?  These points have been argued for centuries - what is just?

WalMart's ethical paradigm is to comply with the law.  The variances and tax breaks that they get are provided by our fellow citizens, and the low-wage jobs are embraced by our neighbors.  Their business model would not survive higher wages - not that I care, but push out WalMart, and Acme moves in.  It's an endless and vicious cycle unless we pull the roots.

Maybe I'm too cynical, but as citizens we seem to care about these issues and as consumers we seem to perpetuate them.  So long as human motivation is driven by self-interest, and not even enlightened self-interest at that, I'm afraid we're tilting at windmills.

But I want you to be right.  I want to think that not taking WalMart money will make a difference.  But it won't.  They'll give it to someone else who will use it to beat our brains out.

In the immediate aftermath of Since the start of the financial crisis, the Fed/Treasury lent, spent, or guaranteed $28 $29 trillion to save the banking system.

---

by: StraffordDem @ Sun May 09, 2010 at 17:17:19 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

interesting (0.00 / 0)

that kind of defeatist thinking gives credence to those of us (and I include myself) who are beginning to believe there really isn't a dime's bit of difference between the two parties.  

---

by: susanthe @ Sun May 09, 2010 at 17:26:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I wouldn't label it defeatist - (0.00 / 0)

after all, I don't vote for WalMart with my greenbacks.  I do the best that I can but we all make compromises in life.  

Previously, I asked where do we draw the line...it's not a rhetorical question, and if we're going to practice exclusionary fundraising, I want to know by what principles we make those decisions.  Then, when we apply those principles fairly, let's see who is left to contribute.

We're all citizens of Omelas.  That's not defeatist, it's realist.  

In the immediate aftermath of Since the start of the financial crisis, the Fed/Treasury lent, spent, or guaranteed $28 $29 trillion to save the banking system.

---

by: StraffordDem @ Sun May 09, 2010 at 19:52:42 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

so (0.00 / 0)

you'll be defending Kelly Ayotte's fundraising then? You'll be urging Congresswoman Shea Porter to accept corporate PAC funds?

---

by: susanthe @ Sun May 09, 2010 at 20:13:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm defending fairness. (0.00 / 0)

Where do you draw the line?  No corporate PAC funds for any political candidate?  What about individuals who are shareholders in corporations, can their money be accepted?


In the immediate aftermath of Since the start of the financial crisis, the Fed/Treasury lent, spent, or guaranteed $28 $29 trillion to save the banking system.

---

by: StraffordDem @ Sun May 09, 2010 at 20:38:09 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I like the fact (0.00 / 0)

that my Congresswoman accepts no corporate PAC funds. I don't have to worry that she's voting on behalf of ....Wal-Mart. Money DOES matter. If I were willing to accept any old cash in the name of "fairness" - than I'd be a Republican. Fairness and political expedience are not synonyms in my dictionary.

Which brings us right back to there not being a dime's worth of difference between the two parties, if this is what we advocate.  

---

by: susanthe @ Sun May 09, 2010 at 20:47:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I want my NHDP to champion the middle class and low wage workers. (0.00 / 0)

Below is part of a letter to the editor dated May 9, 2010 in Crain's, a New York business website.  Applebaum describes why WalMart  toadyism is dangerous.  I want my NHDP to support the middle class and low wage workers.  I don't breathe the rare air in the town of Strafford.  I live ½ mile from a Walmart and the view from here is different.  I really care about where my NHDP is headed.  The cynics are saying again that both parties are alike.  Look where that got us last time they said that.   The party leaders are not the same as the party employees.  I hope that the party employees are reading this.

"A living wage is not a mere notion

While I don't expect a business publication like Crain's to champion the cause of working people or agree with unions that Walmart is a bad employer ("Armory's loss is Walmart's gain," May 3), I find it offensive that you would look at working people with such disdain.

Instead of dismissing the economic struggles of our city's hardworking cashiers, floor-sweepers and security guards who are definitely not "paid enough to raise a family here," Crain's readers would have been better-served if you had taken aim at the real problem. No one benefits from an economy where taxpayer money is used to create jobs that keep workers in poverty.

In this economy, there is a growing chasm between rich developers and working families who are struggling to stay in the middle class."

Stuart Appelbaum
President
Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union

---

by: Caroline French @ Sun May 09, 2010 at 18:27:14 PM UTC

Is it something I said? Rare air...really? (0.00 / 0)

Please, simply explain the governing principles you have in mind more clearly so that we can more broadly, and fairly, apply them.  What about Timberland? Can we accept their money?  Remember that Timberland, in addition to being a local company, owns or contracts with a string of factories around the world that have atrocious working conditions and where the tanning process spews environmental havoc.  Do you think any business is without challenges?  It's the nature of the system.

I agree with your view of WalMart, and you raise legitimate points.  But I am uncomfortable applying standards to one company that are not applied across the board.  

In the immediate aftermath of Since the start of the financial crisis, the Fed/Treasury lent, spent, or guaranteed $28 $29 trillion to save the banking system.

---

by: StraffordDem @ Sun May 09, 2010 at 20:10:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

perhaps you could explain (0.00 / 0)

how it is that taking money from Wal-Mart doesn't taint the NHDP? I'd really be interested to hear more about your concept of "fairness."

I worked part time in Berlin for about 6 years. When I first went to work up there, there were 2 supermarkets - an IGA in Berlin, and one in Gorham whose name escapes me. It was a Stop n' Shop or something like that.

Then Shaws came to town and built an enormous store. The Stop n' Shop went out of business. Intown IGA, still holding.

Finally, Wal-Mart built an veritable fortress (another blueprint stolen from a maximum security prison) called a "SuperStore" in Gorham. This palace contains a full supermarket. The gigundo Shaws now sits empty. And the people who can afford to, continue to shop at the IGA in Berlin which is owned by local folks.

There was a Timberland Store here in Conway. They didn't get huge tax breaks, they didn't get a variance to build on wetlands. Their being here didn't close all the other shoe and boot stores down. Wal-Mart is the largest employer in the world. Trying to compare Timberland to Wal-Mart is like comparing dinosaurs to ants.  

---

by: susanthe @ Mon May 10, 2010 at 01:34:53 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Our Congresswoman (0.00 / 0)

sets the bar.  No business PAC money. Period. Our NHDP should establish the same bar.  

---

by: Caroline French @ Sun May 09, 2010 at 23:11:37 PM UTC

Unilateral Disarmament? (0.00 / 0)

I say, folly!

However, I am compelled to agree. WALMART? WTF?

http://www.fixcongressfirst.org/

http://youstreet.org/


"Ill writers are usually the sharpest censors." - John Dryden

---

by: Jack Mitchell @ Sun May 09, 2010 at 23:27:51 PM UTC