[PLUG-TALK] [PLUG] todays supreme court decision.

[Michael Rasmussen]

On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 04:34:26PM -0800, Rich Shepard wrote:
>    As the Oregonian's editorial board wrote in today's paper, the only change
> from the Supreme's decision is that payments can once again be made directly
> and openly. Yes, restrictions were put on political contributions as far
> back as Teddy Roosevelt's administration in 1906, but all this did was
> change the structure and methods, not the amounts or effects.
> 
>    PACs (Political Action Committees) have been around for years. There are
> no restrictions on how much money any individual or group can contribute to
> a PAC. There are trade association PACs and trade union PACs. It's across
> the political spectrum. When direct candidate contributions were limited by
> the McCain/Feingold bill, indirect contributions that complied with the new
> law were created -- legally -- and fed the same amounts as before. It was
> called "soft money" but seemed to be the same "hard cash."
 
I fully understand that point Rich.

Consider:
In 2007-2008 Exxon Mobile injected approximately $.8 million into the political discussion
through their PAC.  During the trailing tweleve months it's had $188.55 Billion is 
gross profit and currently have $12.6 Billion in cash.

Now that they don't have to go through their PAC they can spend what they see fit.

Perhaps a single basis point (.01 of one percent) of gross profit is deemed worthwile to
influence key legislation.  That drop in the bucket amounts to almost $19 Million.
If it's legislation they're serious about getting passed it's not unreasonable to think
50 basis points of even 1% of gross profit would be deemed a reasonable expenditure.  

And that's just from one player in the oil industry.  If there were to all act together
there is **nothing** individual citizens can do to be heard.

References:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gene-karpinski/supreme-court-decision-wi_b_431510.html
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=XOM

Incidently, I didn't learn about the XOM PAC spending through the linked article, but 
I can't dig up where I did read it at the moment.  My original source stated that XOM
PAC spent $1million last year. 

-- 
      Michael Rasmussen, Portland Oregon  
  Trading kilograms for kilometers since 2003
    Be appropriate && Follow your curiosity
          http://www.jamhome.us/
The Fortune Cookie Fortune today is:
Q:	What is printed on the bottom of beer bottles in Minnesota?
A:	Open other end.