GM (Government Motors) has revived political giving!

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704129204575506352139305206.html

General Motors Co. has begun to once again contribute to political campaigns, lifting a self-imposed ban on political spending put in place during the auto maker's U.S.-financed bankruptcy restructuring last year.

The Detroit company gave $90,500 to candidates running in the current election cycle, Federal Election Commission records show.

Isn't that a conflict of interest?

That depends. Who is GM supporting? It could well be that the candidates supported by GM will do just what GM wants them to do. So what would be the conflict?

ziggy wrote:That depends. Who is GM supporting? It could well be that the candidates supported by GM will do just what GM wants them to do. So what would be the conflict?

It is called quid pro quo. O just got 30 billion more in stimulus funds to shore up the UAW.

Keli wrote:http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704129204575506352139305206.html

General Motors Co. has begun to once again contribute to political campaigns, lifting a self-imposed ban on political spending put in place during the auto maker's U.S.-financed bankruptcy restructuring last year.

The Detroit company gave $90,500 to candidates running in the current election cycle, Federal Election Commission records show.

Isn't that a conflict of interest?

I would think it is since it is our tax dollars that bailed the jerk water out of their own incompetence.

Wouldn't that be the American tax payers lobbying as any money GM has made and will make for the next couple of decades technically belongs to those who pay taxes?

Ziggy,

I am actually quite surprised that this does not bother you. Don't you think money plays a too important role in campaigns? And here is a corporation that has received public money giving cash to particular candidates.

SheikBen wrote:Ziggy,

I am actually quite surprised that this does not bother you. Don't you think money plays a too important role in campaigns? And here is a corporation that has received public money giving cash to particular candidates.

A corporation pretty much owned by Labor so apparently that makes it ok for them to donate.

SheikBen wrote:Ziggy,

I am actually quite surprised that this does not bother you. Don't you think money plays a too important role in campaigns? And here is a corporation that has received public money giving cash to particular candidates.

Keli's question was, "Isn't that a conflict of interest?". If GM is getting what it is paying for- politicians to work for GM's interests from the inside- then again, what is the conflict?

Armon Ayers wrote:

ziggy wrote:That depends. Who is GM supporting? It could well be that the candidates supported by GM will do just what GM wants them to do. So what would be the conflict?

It is called quid pro quo.

OK. So what's the problem? The SCOTUS said that corporate contributions to political campaigns are OK. So again, as long as GM gets what its campaign contribution dollars are paying for, what is the conflict of interest?

Quid pro quo does not represent a conflict of interest. Quid pro quo represents that the parties share common interests- in this case a shared leachery of each party (politicians and GM) upon the other. It is a match made in political and corporate heaven.

During the hearings, when asked if as secretary of defense he could make a decision adverse to the interests of General Motors, Wilson answered affirmatively but added that he could not conceive of such a situation "because for years I thought what was good for the country was good for General Motors and vice versa."
http://www.crossingwallstreet.com/archives/2009/06/whats_good_for.html

Surely Engine Charlie could not have gotten it wrong.

Ziggy,

If Amtrak or the Post Office were giving money to the Republicans, I have to imagine you would cry bloody murder.

SheikBen wrote:Ziggy,

If Amtrak or the Post Office were giving money to the Republicans, I have to imagine you would cry bloody murder.

Where is you folks' sense of humor?

Sheik, I was crying "bloody murder" when Bush first proposed corporate bailouts in 2008- and when Obama's gang of corporate pimps continued them in 2009. And I have been crying "bloody murder" for decades about ALL private contributions- both individual and corporate PAC contributions- to political campaigns. So I am just spoofing with Keli here. I just could not resist asking him to tell us precisely what is the "conflict of interest" he references here.

The government gives zillions of $$$$$ of corporate welfare money to GM- which few if any of you here seem to care about. Most here prefer to obsess about welfare payments to unemployed parents. And now GM gives money to politicians running for public office. Seems to me that instead of a "conflict of interest" there are more and more common interests between GM and certain politicians- both Democratic and Republican. So again, what is the conflict of interest?

Ziggy,

If you are saying that GM's giving is just one more example of tax dollars ultimately going, through a "laundering process" to political campaigns, I agree with you.

I am against corporate welfare and in favor of unemployment assistance. I am against additional bureaucracies and regulations that are bad for domestic production. I don't think anyone here, including the far right and the fringe right, has any problem with unemployment assistance.

SheikBen wrote:Ziggy,

If you are saying that GM's giving is just one more example of tax dollars ultimately going, through a "laundering process" to political campaigns, I agree with you.

I am against corporate welfare and in favor of unemployment assistance. I am against additional bureaucracies and regulations that are bad for domestic production. I don't think anyone here, including the far right and the fringe right, has any problem with unemployment assistance.

I do if it keeps being extended. There was in interesting article in the Wall Street Journal, which equated unemployment benefits to welfare. The conclusion they reached and I agree with is that unemployment beneifts discourages people from actively seeking employment. I have no problems with upto 6 months, so long as it is paid on the state level and no federal money goes into it. Anything past 6 months is little more than welfare in my book.

The government gives zillions of $$$$$ of corporate welfare money to GM- which few if any of you here seem to care about.

That's why Hacker hasn't been here in the last year.

The government didn't give anything to GM, it bailed out the UAW.

ohio county wrote:

The government gives zillions of $$$$$ of corporate welfare money to GM- which few if any of you here seem to care about.

That's why Hacker hasn't been here in the last year.

The government didn't give anything to GM, it bailed out the UAW.

So that makes corporate welfare OK- if it goes to a corporation whose employees are unionized? I don't think you find that ok, OC, nor do I.

ziggy wrote: The government gives zillions of $$$$$ of corporate welfare money to GM- which few if any of you here seem to care about.

Does anyone know the real reason Ziggy makes those intentionally dishonest "Cover Your Ass and change the subject" statements like above?

SamCogar wrote:

ziggy wrote: The government gives zillions of $$$$$ of corporate welfare money to GM- which few if any of you here seem to care about.

Does anyone know the real reason Ziggy makes those intentionally dishonest "Cover Your Ass and change the subject" statements like above?

I am just trying to learn from the best of 'em- from SamCogar hisself. And that pisses Sam off to no end!

SamCogar wrote:

ziggy wrote: The government gives zillions of $$$$$ of corporate welfare money to GM- which few if any of you here seem to care about.

Does anyone know the real reason Ziggy makes those intentionally dishonest "Cover Your Ass and change the subject" statements like above?

because he has really little to say