I GOTZ A QUESTION!!

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Why do Republicans favor unlimited corporation election funds for politicians but want to limit union election funds?

well as most Republicans are in the south, they want to limit the union funding as it defeated them in a war during 19th century, and as corporations are opposing the union, it is very natural that they support them. Freedom from Union oppression!

Also there is a good chance is the corporations win, they will re-introduce slavery, so it is a win-win scenario.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Please indicate the specific position the GOP has taken against union contributions. This at least would give a frame of reference rather than debating an assertion without reference in the OP.

Point being is that the GOP more or less holds that Citizen v. United is the proper rulling and that it allows equally for union and corporate donations to be protected by free speech and freedom of association, no matter how idiotic the union associations are.

[MrFun]

Union election funds should be limited because you don't have a choice to pay them and because it's basically swiping money from the taxpayer to elect democrats.

You're retarded, if you believe this.

[Fake Boris]

Please don't quote him

[MrFun]

Almost at very end of this video, Maddow talks about how Tennessee allows corporations to make campaign donations, but prohibits unions from doing the same thing.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

[MrFun]

And WTF do my postings show extra embedded text that is not needed?

[MrFun]

Please don't quote him

I is sorry.

[giblets]

And WTF do my postings show extra embedded text that is not needed?

Why couldn't you cut it out?

Almost at very end of this video, Maddow talks about how Tennessee allows corporations to make campaign donations, but prohibits unions from doing the same thing.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

[MrFun]

There - I found the text in the full embedded text that I needed to delete.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Almost at very end of this video, Maddow talks about how Tennessee allows corporations to make campaign donations, but prohibits unions from doing the same thing.

First and foremost. Maddow

Secondly after realizing it was Maddow I went tothe local papers to understand the issue as it is highly improbable that a nonslanted story can be gleaned from the source used. Again Maddow

As I understand it the issue is twofold. In agreement with Citizen v. United or at least the spirit thereof given it deals with contributiosn to individuals, Tennesee GOP lawmakers drafted a bill (signed into law by the GOP governor albeit with reservations http://www.timesunion.com/news/artic...ns-1406748.php) that allows private business to contribute to candidates where until now they were prevented from doing so. Not so much a controversial issue as it is keeping with the SCOTUS's interpretation (or at least the spirit) of the supreme law of the land.

The second issue is the rub IMO. Tennesee has like other states before them (Ala Walker in Wisconsin, Ohio, Massaachusetts, more to come) targeted public service unions as being prevented from collective bargaining and furthermore prevents the use of union collected dues to go towards political contributions. There is a distinction public and private unions at play here, but the issue is muddy. Obviously both actions the removal of bargaining rights and political contributions are a measure to reduce governmental costs and corruption, however the analogous sole sourced contractor/company working for the government is not similarly precluded from campaign contributions. One would hope that there is enough oversight to prevent these sole sourced contractors from gaining undue influence through campaign contributions, but as John Murtha (PMA corporation) shows even when exposed to the light of day entrenched power finds a way to stay there.

In reality the attempt to compare and contrast the two sources of campaign donations is in itself a disengenous ploy. It presumes a hugely slanted donations basis for one party in one set of contributions and a hugely slanted donations basis for the other party for the other set of contributions.

So while one may expect unions to favorably contribute to Democrats as opposed to republicans, the expectation is that similarly industry/corporate contributions are hugely slanted to repubs. This has not been the case. Corporate contributions are more a fair weather friend contribution. As the corporations take stock of the political climate, they tend to give to the suspected winners of the given cycle. So as one would expect, Maddow, being the disingenuous mench she is, only seems to take offense to the issue of corporate giving now that the cycle seems to have reversed itself and that corporation are giving in slightly higher numbers to GOP vs. Dems.

[MrFun]

Okay so Maddow over simplified the issue.