Clearly making policy at number 59...

Try reading website you posted:

LOL you make it sound like they are hiding something.
The Kochs are missing 2% but the Unions are missing alot more.

What would piss me off is if I lived in California and saw they were a large contributor via University of California.

At this point, their involvement in dark money PACs is well-known fact. These are qualified as "not affiliated".

You are right the unions are horrible for not showing who they give their money to.

On topic of unions, if you were a rational individual you would be strongly pro-union. Free and efficient markets would benefit you not one iota, you have to be invested into markets to gain anything from them. You are firmly on Labor part of the equation, yet your political convictions are pro-Capital.

So while your jobs are outsourced, wages slashed, benefits cut in a booming markets you cheer for more of the same.

Unionized and government jobs are pretty much the only way for blue collar to make it into the middle class. More you slash them, more people you push into poverty. All of that so you could save 5c on a burger in McD or 10c on some household item in Wallmart.

If that is true, why are the non-union auto workers at foreign owned plants getting better pay than union workers?

While I do think that, hypothetically, Unions can be useful the current union landscape needs drastic reform. Unions have become less about sensibly representing workers, and more about the union bosses and their political allies.

I also have some personal experience, when I was in school I worked at Fedex for a while. Lots of my co-workers and Fedex lifers actually came from UPS, both for higher pay and to get away from the unions.

Unions are failing, not because of right-wing opposition... but because they are failing at actually representing and helping the class of worker they are supposed to empower.

You really need to stop with everytime we bring up jobs all you talk about is McD or BK or Wally World.

I don't even know anyone who works at a fast food joint that is not a kid.

I am middle class and have a job that cannot be outsourced to anywhere.

The USA is still the largest manufacturer.

Just spouting random bullshit makes you look like a fool.

First, they do not. At least not in right to work states. Auto workers in right to work states make substantially (to the tune of 40%) less.

As to everywhere else - to keep Unions out. The mere threat of unionization is what keeps wages up, you remove that threat and they immediately go down. Now I realize this is not normally a falsifiable statement, but I suggest looking up at manufacturing wages pre and post specific states transitioning to right to work. Numbers are out there, but I do not have any I can share with you.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/48277.html

I was talking about the article writers not the subjects. Naturally you have only bad things to say about those you oppose but nothing to say about those you support even when they do what you oppose.The quote you highlighted has nothing to do with the Kochs unless you also have the same to say about unions.

My stance on unions is following:

I do not support public sector unions. They should not exist since it is conflict of interest.

I support private sector unions, and see them as a necessary evil.

On political contributions:

I do not support any kind of organizational political contributions - be it from unions, corporations, trade organizations or whathaveyou.

I support full disclosure and personal limits to all political contributions. I also support per-voter public subsidies to political parties.

I view SuperPACs, no-profits that hide contributor lists, and any kind of 'dark money' as affront to democracy. These people belong in jail.

Well we agree on most.
Only thing we disagree on is I don't think its anyones business who gives to who.
If its going to be a tax break then it should be know but the idea that you think you need to know who gave who money makes you Big Brother.

What is this "I also support per-voter public subsidies to political parties." not sure what this means.

I wont ever agree with public political subsidies. I understand the thinking behind it, but to me it just looks like status quo reinforcement.

Once pols can start directly voting themselves bigger campaign warchests, and their cronies bigger campaign consulting paydays dont expect it to end well.

Every time you vote, party you vote for gets small, like 1$, public contribution. It is like reverse poll tax. The idea behind it twofold - not only all votes start matter, and not only ones in tie-breaking states; and votes outside of mainstream parties no longer simply protest votes.

You need to know is to keep money from buying disproportionate influence. If you can only donate, say up to $10,000 per candidate, then you can't buy legislation no matter your net worth. At the very least, it informs other voters of your conflicts of interest.

The alternative, of whoring themselves out to outside interests and lobbyists, leads to much less desirable outcomes.

Good example is Bloomberg - true independent politician. You might disagree with his politics, but you can't claim that it was tainted by the outside money. People voted for him, and for what he stood for, not for what his donors stood for.

Huh. Wait. I think you are confused. Very, very confused.

Going to see if you accidentally used wrong name before I comment. I cannot possibly believe you are talking about Bloomberg.

Mayor of New York. You might dislike his politics, you certainly should dislike his third term, but you have to appreciate his independence. Whatever he has done, you could be sure this was not because of campaign debts to lobbyists.

When talking about a billionaire there is more to money-interest than campaign debt.

I have a hard time thinking turning Manhattan into a panopticon police state, empowering the financial corp private militias despite his anti-gun stance, and working with the CIA to turn NYC police and surveillance forces into a veritable enforcement arm of said private corporate powers had nothing to do with his financial and business ties to said Wall St powers.

I also heard he stopped beating his wife.

That's a dirty rumor! He hasn't stopped.

Uhm hm. You realize that Wall St are his CUSTOMERS? Cant tell if your back in troll territory or just that clueless. His main business is selling data to Wall St.

If you keep having high levels of confidence in your analysis despite utilizing low levels of information, you are going to keep embarrassing yourself.

Yes Derid, you totally busted me doing wrongthink again.

Its not hard.

Seriously though - defending a guy who has done the things Bloomberg has, on behalf of the firms that made him a billionaire?

You act like they either arent his customers, or the actions mentioned earlier havent been widely documented by left, right and center.

But I went over this some months back here. How many lefties love Bloomberg because of a couple of his vocal stances, even though he is a thoroughly corrupt git who actively pushes for the kind of corporatist police state they claim to hate.

So yeah, kind of ironic - you intended sarcasm but spoke plain truth.