Tag Archives: Herman Cain Koch Brothers

Totally Twisted Quote Tuesday 10/2/12

Herman Cain: Just Another Koch Whore?

Long Ties to Koch Brothers Key to Cain’s Campaign

The title actually made me picture Cain as a marionette, with the brothers as the “manipulators.” Looks like that picture isn’t too far fetched.

His ties come from his involvement with the Koch brothers’ group, Americans for Prosperity. 9-9-9 is actually Rich Lowrie’s plan. He just happened to serve on Americans for Prosperity’s advisory board.

Cain’s campaign manager, Mark Block, lead the Wisconsin chapter of Americans for Prosperity. Block was involved in a political scandal where he illegally worked with a group to get a Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice re-elected. The lawsuit against him was settled. He paid a fine and agreed to stay out of politics for 3 years. Hmm. Interesting character to have as your campaign manager.

This is why I wish corporate money was kept out of politics completely. I don’t like that there are corporations behind politicians – Republicans or Democrats. It’s obvious why. If someone gave you a ton of money for your campaign, wouldn’t you feel indebted to them? They might be even more direct: “I will give you a bajillion dollars if you can introduce a bill, vote this way, etc. if/when you’re elected.”

That’s just messed up. Are we hearing their opinion or the opinion of the people who are bankrolling them? Without the money, it will be a lot easier to figure out what the candidate’s opinions are. Can we get the money out of politics?

The group Get Money Out is leading the effort! I learned about this group on through Larry of woodsgateview on lobotero’s site, Info Ink. Get Money Out wants a Constitutional amendment to simply, get the money out of politics. Right now, they’re gathering signatures for a petition and working on the amendment. Here are their two drafts of a Constitutional amendment:

1. “No person, corporation or business entity of any type, domestic or foreign, shall be allowed to contribute money, directly or indirectly, to any candidate for Federal office or to contribute money on behalf of or opposed to any type of campaign for Federal office. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, campaign contributions to candidates for Federal office shall not constitute speech of any kind as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution or any amendment to the U. S. Constitution. Congress shall set forth a federal holiday for the purposes of voting for candidates for Federal office.”

2. “No non-citizen shall contribute money, directly or indirectly, to any candidate for Federal office. United States citizens shall be free to contribute no more than the equivalent of $100 to any federal candidate during any election cycle. Notwithstanding the limits construed to be part of the First Amendment, Congress shall have the power to limit, but not ban, independent political expenditures, so long as such limits are content and viewpoint neutral. Congress shall set forth a federal holiday for the purposes of voting for candidates for Federal office.”

I like and lean toward #1. A corporation could give $100 to a whole bunch of people to contribute and have them tell the candidate what they (the corporation) wants.

Maybe there should be a limit to how much a candidate can spend on a campaign. It should be an amount that many people wouldn’t have trouble raising on their own. Newspapers and news channels could give them each equal time and space to “sell” themselves. No frills. Just what they stand for and we can decide.

Which draft do you like? Let Get the Money Out know. They have a debate going on, and you can leave a comment. You can also sign their petition.

Maybe something can change. It’s a long shot, but at least Get the Money Out, with our help, is taking it.