Goldman, the company, is not allowed to contribute to candidates. What OpenSecrets means when it says that is Goldman employees contributed. Which is unsurprising. Goldman has tens of thousands of well-payed employees in a heavily Democratic state. Who would they contribute to?
Why do we know where contributions come from? Why are they not anonymous? I think it'd be better if candidates had no idea where all that money came from.
The concept of a nation-state depends upon closed-source sovereignty. Anonymous money could be coming from anyone or any foreign nation-state, thus usurping and subverting the sovereignty nation state.
However, this is a problem that already exists because it is easy enough for a foreign entity to use a third party shell to do this (i.e. AIPAC).
What I mean is that it should be anonymous to the candidate. One way to accomplish that is to have all donations pass through a central fund that passes it on to the candidates. Some government organization could check whether the donation meets the rules and do something else with it when it doesn't.
That would make it an unaccountable black box, though. That would not be good in the interest of transparency. On the other hand, there are plenty of unaccountable black boxes already.
The candidate who would be most likely to make sure they keep their jobs and are not prosecuted for fraud.
>Goldman, the company, is not allowed to contribute to candidates. What OpenSecrets means when it says that is Goldman employees contributed.
This is a null distinction. "Goldman Sachs" is not a person, it is a brand name: words on a piece of paper or on the front of a building. Though I understand how this could be confusing as the law (once again, words on paper) says that articles of incorporation (words on paper) are literally people.
When someone says "Goldman" they are of course referring to the persons who work or invest together under the banner name "Goldman Sachs". Like when someone says "the US did x" they are of course referring to citizens, and not the flag.
Thanks for saying this. I really wish the media would stop talking about candidates receiving donations from companies, which, as you point out is not possible.
You could look at the Clinton speaking fees, and contributions to the Clinton foundation as buying access and favour from large companies. Also, corporations can contribute unlimited funds to a candidates SuperPac (which we swear doesn't coordinate directly with the campaign! Wink, wink!)
The Clintons made hundreds of millions off speaking fees and donations to their foundation, Presidential library, etc. We've perfected many avenues for graft here in the US.
"The United States Supreme Court held (5–4) that the First Amendment prohibited the government from restricting independent political expenditures by a nonprofit corporation. The principles articulated by the Supreme Court in the case have also been extended to for-profit corporations, labor unions and other associations. By allowing unlimited election spending by individuals and corporations, the decision has "re-shaped the political landscape" of the United States."
Citizens United did not affect the ban on corporations donating to candidates. Subsequent to Citizens United, the Supreme Court denied certiorari to Danielczick vs. U.S., which would have implicated that issue.
Contributions to candidates implicates very different concerns. The biggest difference, in my opinion, is that in Citizens United the law targets people who are not running for office. The ban on corporate contributions to candidates can be seen as a regulation on the candidate who may be required to bear such additional regulation as part of running for office.[1]
[1] That is not the orthodox explanation for the distinction. The orthodox explanation invokes Buckley v. Valeo's balancing test, and notes that the free speech concerns are less in the case of direct campaign contributions and the corruption risk is greater. I don't like balancing tests so I don't find that persuasive.
Citizens United was not about, and did not change, the restriction on "candidates receiving donations from companies", which is what OP was discussing.
Considering the maximum campaign contribution is $2,700 per candidate, I think it's safe to say they plan on influencing the election without relying on directly funding candidates. That does not mean that the candidates aren't responsive to these alternative funding streams.
Another example of how this money corrupts the position of politicians can be seen in the Clinton Foundation.
"Giustra is a Canadian mining magnate who became a large donor for the Clinton Foundation 11 years ago, going on to set up the ‘Great White North’ chapter of the foundation. He currently sits on the board.
The billionaire later became an example of the foundation’s murky ties between donors and apparent political favors, due to the 2005 dinner with Giustra, Bill Clinton, and Kazakhstan president Nursultan Nazarbayev – and the deal that “stunned the mining industry, turning an unknown shell company into one of the world’s largest uranium producers in a transaction ultimately worth tens of millions of dollars to Mr Giustra,” wrote the New York Times, quoting analysts."
> You have to look more broadly than just direct contributions to candidates
No. Citizens United only covered direct contributions to candidates, and while it is correct that you should look more widely to ascertain the overall workings of the American electoral system, the second you do so you are no longer evaluating the impacts of Citizens United.
> Consider the Koch brothers [...] Giustra is a Canadian mining magnate who became a large donor for the Clinton Foundation
You are now talking about independent expenditures by individuals, which ALSO was not impacted by Citizens United. Neither example you give is something which was illegal prior to Citizens United, but legal afterwards. (And in fact, one of the examples took place before Citizens United, so um...)
As a result, your post just underscores how unimportant (and overhyped) Citizens United was, once you "look more broadly than just direct contributions to candidates".
