http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/10/number-of-competitive-house-races-doubles-from-recent-years/ Here's a good article talking about the House races overall. I'd bet that Republicans get the house but I'd also bet the under on 50 for house seats as Silver has the mean at 47-48 seats switching (albeit extremely high volatility on that number). He is one of my favorite statisticians not named Morey.
what does CEOs/stock-holders giving campaign contributions have to do with democracy? Denying these citizens the right to contribute would be an issue.
The issue isn't with CEOs or stock-holders. It's with corporations themselves, which are not, in fact, citizens.
Hmm yes you seem to have told us this before, circa early 2008 in very similar terms, texxx... http://bbs.clutchfans.com/showthread.php?p=3367363&highlight=intrade#post3367363
Ah! The old "Intrade" defense! Where oh where have we seen this before?!?!? How many different monikers for this BBS do you have tallanvor?
Corporations don't have money. Only humans can retain money. CEO/stock holders do have money. When some newspaper says WalMart is donating millions to some politicians, they mean either the CEO or the stockholders of Walmart are giving their money.
Defense of what? You should go bet if you think Democrats will retain the house. Go make some easy money.
WTF!!! Corporations can't retain earnings? Where did you get your business degree, in a box of Cracker Jacks?
Does your dog retain money? does your chair? Only humans retain money, and a corporation is not human. It is not difficult to understand. A corporation does not give money to a candidate because a corporation has no money. It's stockholders do and it's CEO does but not the corporation. SO as previously stated: When a newspaper claims some company is giving money to a candidate or cause, they mean the CEO or stockholders but not the corporation.
Umm, you need to re-learn Business 101. Money in a corporate account is corporate money and can only be used by the corporation for corporate purposes. That money cannot be accessed by shareholders unless it is distributed as dividends at the discretion of the management of the company, and it cannot be accessed by the CEO for their own use unless it is paid to the CEO by the company. As we saw with Target, and now with FOX (http://thinkprogress.org/2010/10/13/news-corp-donations/), corporations often give money without the consent of the owners of the corporation. If the CEO gives corporate money for personal purposes (as alleged here against FOX), that is a violation of law.
Uh, sorry, nottexxx, but yes they can, and yes they do, that's part of what Citizens United was about. That's why News Corp has been playing Santa Claus with its general treasury funds.
Money is given with the consent of the stockholder. When the stockholder buys the stock he does so with the understanding that his pooled money will be distributed by a CEO. Thus consent. Nobody forced the stockholder to buy stock.
Except a CEO can't just distribute money however he pleases either. But regardless, I agree that thee shareholder is consenting to the corporation distrbuting funds. That doesn't mean the shareholder is the one donating. The shareholder is just okaying the company making a contribution. It's no different than if a company buys 1000 iPads for its employees. That is a corporate expenditure of corporate cash - not an expenditure of the shareholder or the CEO. You're just spouting nonsense at this point. No one actually agrees with you on this topic - not the law, not the courts' interpretations, not the Democrats, not the Republicans, not anyone.
If a company bought 1000 iPads that would decrease the value of the stock (obviously very slightly if any). Thus it would be coming out of the stockholders pocket. The you're-wrong-because-everyone-thinks-so defense how mature. No wonder you post on forum with mostly liberals. BTW the supreme court agrees with me and so do many Republicans.
Yes, but irrelevant. It's still not the stockholders making the purchase - the claim you are making. LOL - you missed the entire point. The Supreme Court doesn't agree with you - nor do any Republicans or anyone else. They all make a clear distinction between corporate cash and personal donations. There are different rules and different disclosure requirements and different procedures. The SC just says that it's legal for corporations to donate. You're the only one who thinks that a corporation donating is the equivalent to a shareholder or CEO making a donation.
Hell no. You helped someone else feed the homeless. Or, for all you know, your contribution simply went into the charity's bank account and never got spent. Assuming it did get spent, the charity is the one that helped feed the homeless. You simply helped fund the charity. If I give you $50, and you take the $50 and buy some heroin, it doesn't mean I bought heroin. No court or sane person would charge me with buying heroin.
