Government Motors Resumes Political Donations

[Perchoutofwater]

GM Resumes Political Giving

 

By JOSH MITCHELL

 

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.

Washington Wire

 

The beneficiaries include Midwestern lawmakers, mostly Democrats, who have traditionally supported the industry's legislative agenda on Capitol Hill, including Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D., Mich.), Sen. Sherrod Brown (D., Ohio) and Rep. John Dingell (D., Mich.).

 

The list also includes Virginia Rep. Eric Cantor, the House Republican Whip, who would likely assume a top leadership post if Republicans win control of the House in November.

 

It isn't unusual for big companies like GM to spend on political campaigns, but complicating GM's situation is that the company is majority-owned by the U.S. government. GM is planning to return to the public stock markets later this year, allowing the U.S. to begin to sell off its roughly 61% stake in the company.

 

GM spokesman Greg Martin said the company stopped making political contributions in spring 2009 to focus on its taxpayer-financed bankruptcy reorganization.

 

"As we've emerged as a new company, we're not going to sit on the sidelines as our competitors and other industries who have PACs are participating in the political process," Mr. Martin said. He called GM's political action committee is "an effective means for our employees to pool their resources and have their collective voice heard."

 

Mr. Martin added that the company has supported members of both parties who "approach issues thoughtfully" and "support a strong auto industry."

 

WSJ

 

I have a really big problem with this, as long as the government owns any of GM. This really disgusts me, when I think of how the bond holders were screwed over, and now they are giving political donations.

[driveby]

WSJ

 

I have a really big problem with this, as long as the government owns any of GM. This really disgusts me, when I think of how the bond holders were screwed over, and now they are giving political donations.

and the Delphi non-union employees.

[dmarc117]

redistribution. aleast komrade didnt lie about that!!!!!!!

[TimC]

Sing it with me....

 

"It's the circle of life"

[bpwallace49]

This really shouldnt be allowed. I really dont know how they can legitimately defend this action . .

[yo mama]

This really shouldnt be allowed. I really dont know how they can legitimately defend this action . .

If only the "conservative" wing of the supreme court had thought of this when then decided Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Remember - corporations have the 1st amendment right to free speech!

[bpwallace49]

If only the "conservative" wing of the supreme court had thought of this when then decided Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Remember - corporations have the 1st amendment right to free speech!

 

While that is very distasteful, I was more speaking to the fact that it is a gubmnet owned enterprise . . . that is contributing to gubment re-election campaigns.

 

That just doesnt pass the smell test.

[yo mama]

While that is very distasteful, I was more speaking to the fact that it is a gubmnet owned enterprise . . . that is contributing to gubment re-election campaigns.

 

That just doesnt pass the smell test.

If it were up to me only actual human beings who are legally registered and entitled to vote would be able to make political campaign contributions. But hey, I'm just one of those "crazy liberals."

[Ursa Majoris]

If it were up to me only actual human beings who are legally registered and entitled to vote would be able to make political campaign contributions. But hey, I'm just one of those "crazy liberals."

This.

 

But as long as things are as they are, why should GM be discriminated against? Aren't they a corporation too?

[yo mama]

This.

 

But as long as things are as they are, why should GM be discriminated against? Aren't they a corporation too?

Yes. While I despise the idea of GM making campaign contributions, there is currently no (legal) basis to treat GM differently any other corporation.

[Deathpig]

Pseudo-government companies already contribute to politicians (Fannie and Freddie, for example). I'm sure this was probably a 'but we always did this' thing and not some crazy conspiracy. It's not particularly wise, especially with the negative reception to the bailout and some of the shady stuff that went down (bondholders being screwed), but I don't think it's illegal.

[detlef]

If it were up to me only actual human beings who are legally registered and entitled to vote would be able to make political campaign contributions.

Man that would be nice.

 

However, like Ursa says, either you can or you can't and this needs to be filed under, "sucks mightily but not illegal".

[Azazello1313]

If it were up to me only actual human beings who are legally registered and entitled to vote would be able to make political campaign contributions. But hey, I'm just one of those "crazy liberals."

 

were the kind of donations we're talking about held to be "illegal" before the decision you're complaining about? if not, this is a complete red herring.

 

in any case, I don't think this should be "illegal". the part I have a problem with, now as ever, is the government bailout and subsequent oligarchic takeover, ignoring normal bankruptcy precedent to favor political allies. when it comes to these contributions, I just hope consumers take notice, and I hope voters take notice of who's receiving the dough.

[Ursa Majoris]

when it comes to these contributions, I just hope consumers take notice, and I hope voters take notice of who's receiving the dough.

We're on the same page with that, then.

[Clubfoothead]

I agree with John McCain, communist and traitor, on Citizens United vs. FEC. The decision is a f*cking travesty. You can try and explain to my why corporations should be extended the rights of actual citizens if you like. You'd just be wasting your time. It's offensive. Is GM behaving extra offensively? Sure but at this point what does it even matter?

[Azazello1313]

opensecrets.org

 

funny thing you might notice....their contributions, lobbying, all go back well before this year's supreme court ruling. that case had absolutely nothing to do with the kind of donations we're talking about here, it was about whether corporations, unions and associations have the right to broadcast "electioneering" ads. bringing it up is just a pathetic red herring to try and change the subject.

[Ursa Majoris]

opensecrets.org

 

funny thing you might notice....their contributions, lobbying, all go back well before this year's supreme court ruling. that case had absolutely nothing to do with the kind of donations we're talking about here, it was about whether corporations, unions and associations have the right to broadcast "electioneering" ads. bringing it up is just a pathetic red herring to try and change the subject.

You have noticed the Dem - Rep split over the last 20 years, haven't you? Because I don't recall you complaining about GM contributions until this year. How odd.

[Azazello1313]

You have noticed the Dem - Rep split over the last 20 years, haven't you? Because I don't recall you complaining about GM contributions until this year. How odd.

 

I wasn't an unwilling stockholder in the corporation until this year.

[cre8tiff]

If it were up to me only actual human beings who are legally registered and entitled to vote would be able to make political campaign contributions. But hey, I'm just one of those "crazy liberals."

 

Yep.

[Deathpig]

I agree with John McCain, communist and traitor, on Citizens United vs. FEC. The decision is a f*cking travesty. You can try and explain to my why corporations should be extended the rights of actual citizens if you like. You'd just be wasting your time. It's offensive. Is GM behaving extra offensively? Sure but at this point what does it even matter?

 

If only the "conservative" wing of the supreme court had thought of this when then decided Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Remember - corporations have the 1st amendment right to free speech!

 

Please forgive my ignorance, but can someone please explain exactly what about this particular Supreme Court ruling is so troubling? And if possible, in a cogent way, not a 'GMOZ TEH CORPZ HAZ TEH RIGHTZ!' way? As best I can tell, this decision basically ruled that it's unconstitutional for Congress to decide that certain groups of citizens cannot spend money within certain time periods before elections, but others can (media companies allowed to spend their money to 'influence' elections, but no other groups allowed). This doesn't give 'corporations all the rights of actual citizens', as they cannot vote, cannot serve on juries, cannot collect Social Security, etc. It gives corporations (and other groups of citizens, like unions) ONE right, the right to not have government suppress their voice.

 

Was this the first case to rule that associations of citizens have first amendment rights?

 

It appears that unions and corporations were under the same restrictions of McCain-Feingold, so what is the logic that shows changing when an add will air will suddenly create a massive tectonic shift altering political influence peddling from unions to corporations?

 

Is everyone here aware of the nature of a corporation? That it is, by definition, a pseudo-person (i.e. having many of the same legal rights as an actual person)? They can own assets and enter into contracts, they can be sued, they can be taxed. The one-liner outrage about corporations having rights as citizens is sort of weird to me, because before this ruling they, in fact, already had rights as citizens.

[Ursa Majoris]

I wasn't an unwilling stockholder in the corporation until this year.

So the fact that you're a stockholder colors your opinion? What about those of us that have 401k mutuals that may have chunks of companies that donate to the Repubs? I suppose we can just stop contributing, right?

[Ursa Majoris]

Please forgive my ignorance, but can someone please explain exactly what about this particular Supreme Court ruling is so troubling? And if possible, in a cogent way, not a 'GMOZ TEH CORPZ HAZ TEH RIGHTZ!' way? As best I can tell, this decision basically ruled that it's unconstitutional for Congress to decide that certain groups of citizens cannot spend money within certain time periods before elections, but others can (media companies allowed to spend their money to 'influence' elections, but no other groups allowed). This doesn't give 'corporations all the rights of actual citizens', as they cannot vote, cannot serve on juries, cannot collect Social Security, etc. It gives corporations (and other groups of citizens, like unions) ONE right, the right to not have government suppress their voice.

 

Was this the first case to rule that associations of citizens have first amendment rights?

 

It appears that unions and corporations were under the same restrictions of McCain-Feingold, so what is the logic that shows changing when an add will air will suddenly create a massive tectonic shift altering political influence peddling from unions to corporations?

 

Is everyone here aware of the nature of a corporation? That it is, by definition, a pseudo-person (i.e. having many of the same legal rights as an actual person)? They can own assets and enter into contracts, they can be sued, they can be taxed. The one-liner outrage about corporations having rights as citizens is sort of weird to me, because before this ruling they, in fact, already had rights as citizens.

This is the first defense of this travesty I have ever seen outside of some right wing blogs I occasionally laugh at. Hats off to you for being so coherent in trying so hard to defend the utterly indefensible.

[Perchoutofwater]

So the fact that you're a stockholder colors your opinion? What about those of us that have 401k mutuals that may have chunks of companies that donate to the Repubs? I suppose we can just stop contributing, right?

 

Ursa you are blinded by your anger here. There is a big difference in having the free will to change where your 401K is invested or stop contributing to it and using other investment vehicles and being forced to become a quasi-stockholder in GM.

 

BTW, if you outlaw all group donations for political ads, including unions and not just focus on corporations, then you might find more support for your argument. When you start picking which groups have free speech and which don't, and which groups have to provide disclosure on political ads and which don't you start violating the equal protection clause of the constitution don't you? Even if you don't any honest individual would see that as wrong.

[Ursa Majoris]

Ursa you are blinded by your anger here. There is a big difference in having the free will to change where your 401K is invested or stop contributing to it and using other investment vehicles and being forced to become a quasi-stockholder in GM.

 

BTW, if you outlaw all group donations for political ads, including unions and not just focus on corporations, then you might find more support for your argument. When you start picking which groups have free speech and which don't, and which groups have to provide disclosure on political ads and which don't you start violating the equal protection clause of the constitution don't you? Even if you don't any honest individual would see that as wrong.

 

The whole concept of a for-profit organization being treated as an individual under the constitution is laughable regardless of who the donations are going to. It amounts to buying government and bribery, as simple as that.

[Perchoutofwater]

The whole concept of a for-profit organization being treated as an individual under the constitution is laughable regardless of who the donations are going to. It amounts to buying government and bribery, as simple as that.

 

The same can be said for unions wouldn't you agree?