A SuperPAC Man’s Mask Slips Off
Faced with an unlikely quotation of his from the past, Norman Mailer denied it saying, “I couldn’t have said that, it’s not within the range of my character.”
That would be a quaint response in today’s political world where SuperPAC blowhards with barrels of money are unleashed by Citizens United to say anything they want without taking responsibility for it.
Meet Joe Ricketts, the latest candidate for that old Monty Python title of rich twit of the year. An “up-by-the bootstraps billionaire” who decided to become “a player in the 2012 election,” Ricketts has set a new speed record for public stupidity by agreeing to and then backing off a $10 million ad campaign “linking President Obama to the incendiary race-infused statements of his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr.,” which immediately drew “waves of denunciation from Mitt Romney, the Obama campaign and much of the rest of the political world.”
Since the Supreme Court decided corporations are people, the parameters of America as a say-anything society have expanded to encompass some odd specimens. Describing Ricketts, an anonymous business associate says, “Half the time he’s a Libertarian and half the time he’s Rush Limbaugh.”
Ricketts’ public embarrassment was only accidental.
MORE.
Graphic via Chicagolist
Share This
You don’t seem to understand that corporations represent groups of people rather than individuals. So it’s easier to make your views knows through one entity than for all 100,000 or (insert number) employees/stockholders/CEOs to be constantly contacting their Congress folk.
The poor Congress would overwhelmed (and it would cost much more to answer) individual requests for action.
I don’t understand why you don’t comprehend this – George Will has explained it all so well, and so many times.
RS, sorry to rain on your rhetoric, but the truth sometimes does that.
Ricketts instantly rejected the Wright attack ad concept.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/05/george-will-slams-new-york-times-for-joe-ricketts-story/
It’s amazing how many of these attacks, by both sides, are NOT caught by us, the general public.
Ya, George is going to be busy apologizing for all the dross Citizen’s United will bring us in the next several months.
The gray area indicated by the Times spokesperson is still somewhat cloudy. Did Ricketts immediately reject it or did he reject it only after the leak was reported. I don’t know, and I doubt George does. He may, however, win the applelation of St. George for fighting the dragons of leaked misadventures of the Super Pacs invigorated by the Citizens United decision.
Yes. For you folks who keep moaning “now that corporations are people…”, what did you imagine they were before? They’re not vegetable or mineral, and they’re not groups of elk or crayfish, so what’s left?
Dr. J
Yes. For you folks who keep trying to assure us that corporations always speak for the people they represent, you have yet to convince us that they speak for the employees – only the stockholders (and not all of them) and the management.
You don’t really think the employees want the EPA muzzled, do you? I’m sure you understood the satire of my screed, including that sentence.
I have no problem with corporations being treated as entities as far as contracts go, but to use the enormous power and purse of a coporation to injure it’s employees is not only dishonorable, it’s strangling our representative democracy.
Of course they do. To the extent EPA action will, say, make gasoline more expensive, some employees would prefer to see the EPA muzzled. And their case will be argued by corporations like Exxon, even if that isn’t their employer.
Dr. J
How disingenuous. I suppose they want OSHA weakened, and more high risk oil drilling, and more fracking, all with fewer regulations, also?
You certainly seem have a poor opinion of working people’s intelligence. They understand very well what smog and oil spills and contaminated drinking water and factory safety is, and they know why all those things need to be regulated. And they know corporations will do their best to eliminate as many regulations, which keep their workers safe, as they can. Dishonorable!
If the corporation wants to speak for their employees through political largesse, they need to prove that their employees sanction their actions. Good luck with that.
Huh? I don’t see how you could believe the opposite, that employees as a class are of one mind on topics like fracking. I’m not even of one mind on it myself. I know virtually nothing about the geology or how far environmental concerns are justified, nor what the alternatives are if we stop it, nor in what ways those would be better or worse. I think issues like these make the news precisely because there isn’t a consensus.
You seem to be saying that corporations fighting for the interests of their shareholders and customers are acting dishonorably if employees don’t have the same interests. If you see it that way, fair enough. I don’t think that’s sufficient grounds to silence them, though I can see why you’d want to. Certainly democracy would go a lot smoother if we could silence the voices we find dishonorable or wrong-headed.
Now the corporations are fighting for influence in the best interests of their customers? If you see it that way, fair enough. I can’t see that removing regulations that keep their customers safe is in the customer’s best interest. Or the employee’s. Or the stockholder’s for that matter.
Democracy would go a lot smoother if we let every voter speak for themselves and have no entity speaking “for” them, especially when it is not in their best interest.
You seem to be saying corporations are acting honorably by having the opportunity to affect law making by unlimited contributions to the electoral and therefore the legislative process. And that they will do the best thing not only for their stockholders, but for their employees and for the nation in general.
I think they could do that, but the record doesn’t show that at all even when political contributions were somewhat within the realm of reason. Now – it’s a disaster for the physical and economical health of the nation. There must be some balance.
Let’s just cut to the chase shall we? The CU decision reeks of corruption. Dead skunks in the road are fragrant by comparison. RS knows this.
Z, regarding the chase. RS made comments regarding one man, Ricketts. Of course the CU case stinks, but that doesn’t mean you can tar one guy, just because he is a Rep. Wait, there will be plenty of SPs from the Dem side with down and dirty “messages”. (See the Cory Booker story thread, he is nauseated.)
Wow, the edit function is back, just corrected a spelling.
T.O., corporations generally lobby for things that will help them sell more, by lowering their costs or stifling competition or opening new markets. Different issues will affect different stakeholders, and what’s honorable depends on your point of view. Lowering costs means lowering prices, which benefits consumers but might hurt workers. Thwarting competition might make workers’ jobs more secure but raise prices for consumers. I don’t see clear honor or dishonor there, just competing interests.
I’m not even saying this system works well, just that it’s better than the alternatives. As we saw in CU, “letting voters speak for themselves” translates to incumbent politicians decide who gets a voice in politics. At least corporations are a diverse competitive group without a police force, which imho makes them more trustworthy. This was George Will’s underlying point; perhaps you’d address it?
Dr. J, as an avowed capitalist, I have to disagree with :”makes them more trustworthy”.
Although politicians generally look out for their constituency, of course sometimes their main concern is themselves, their party and getting elected/reelected.
Corporations on the other hand are first and foremost beholden to their shareholders and looking out for their own wallet fattening.
Yes, dduck, and what tends to fatten their wallets is producing more stuff that customers are keener to buy. That’s hardly a catastrophe.
Of course, other things that fatten their wallets may create pollution or hazards, or stifle competition, and that’s a good occasion for politicians to intervene to weigh costs and benefits on behalf of the rest of us. Unfortunately politicians tend to be complicit, particularly on competition-squashing regulations that allow them to look like champions of public safety. God forbid we should have unlicensed barbers at large.
If it were true that politicians generally look out for their constituencies as you suggest, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. The whole premise of the campaign finance reform crowd is that politicians are not adequately looking out for their constituencies.
Yup……………….
yup…………….