Buttigieg campaign took money from Kavanaugh lawyers, issuing refund

[Morphine Prince 109,648]

South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg’s (D) presidential campaign announced Wednesday it will return donations from lawyers who represented Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh during his confirmation hearing. 

The campaign will send back thousands of dollars in donations to two top lawyers for Kavanaugh, saying it would not accept money from people who helped get the justice confirmed, The Guardian reported.  

Alexandra Walsh gave $7,200 to the campaign, of which $3,150 was returned due to donation limits, and Beth Wilkinson provided $2,800 to the campaign, according to The Guardian. 

The campaign told the news outlet that it made a mistake in accepting the donations after disregarding the lawyers’ role in the controversial confirmation hearing.

Source: https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/472225-buttigieg-campaign-returns-donations-from-kavanaughs-lawyers-report

 

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

At least he's giving it back.

I'm personally more interested in why hes still taking corporate money and why he won't commit to not giving important positions in his administration to people who donate to him... And how his donations from people in private health care, people who are anti-regulation, and pro military budget increases will affect his willingness to lead on policies that are actively against those people.

 

[Ziggy 14,010]

7 minutes ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

At least he's giving it back.

I'm personally more interested in why hes still taking corporate money and why he won't commit to not giving important positions in his administration to people who donate to him... And how his donations from people in private health care, people who are anti-regulation, and pro military budget increases will affect his willingness to lead on policies that are actively against those people.

 

My guess is because he likes to play the “not all xyz, if they’re qualified...” kind of thing. He’s the sort of person who tries really hard not to offend to the point of being offensive and ultimately not the most effective. Very midwestern in that sense. I don’t mean that as a diss, just a comment on his nature from what I’ve seen of him.

[ALGAYDO 35,056]

I’ll give him points for returning the money, but it kinda smells fishy to me. Like, they knew exactly who was donating that money, and gladly took it, up until they realized that it would be bad press to keep it. Maybe I’m a bit biased because of all of his controversies lately, but maybe I’m on the right track [stream Born This Way for clear skin] but it kinda just seems like a PR move to nip that would’ve-been controversy in the butt(igieg) before social media ran with it. Either way, at least it was returned! 

[Economy 52,842]

41 minutes ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

At least he's giving it back.

I'm personally more interested in why hes still taking corporate money and why he won't commit to not giving important positions in his administration to people who donate to him... And how his donations from people in private health care, people who are anti-regulation, and pro military budget increases will affect his willingness to lead on policies that are actively against those people.

 

Why is accepting Corporate donations always seen as such a bad thing???? (Excluding cases where they are asking for favours in exchange for support)

[Morphine Prince 109,648]

8 minutes ago, Economy said:

Why is accepting Corporate donations always seen as such a bad thing???? (Excluding cases where they are asking for favours in exchange for support)

Because usually that's the sole reason corporations pump money into candidates. 

[Economy 52,842]

5 minutes ago, Morphine Prince said:

Because usually that's the sole reason corporations pump money into candidates. 

Well then... I got a simple opinion on this... End the dam donations method

 

Most developed Nations (including mine) don't allow runners to take campaign Donations as to not give any unfair advantage over another

 

All MPs are given a set budget from Government and then each party a set budget for general election...

 

No one gets to have more bought ads or media exposure than another, it also means no special interest groups can buy you 

[HorusRa2 5,005]

19 minutes ago, Economy said:

Why is accepting Corporate donations always seen as such a bad thing???? (Excluding cases where they are asking for favours in exchange for support)

I’m sorry but you and I always disagree here. What other motivation does anyone or any entity have in donating to a political campaign? Because that means they have a political investment in it. Fact is that over the course of the years since money has been deemed as speech with Buckley vs Valeo and then Citizens United, the same politicians who took money that were talking about have always sided with their donors in terms of governance and public policy. As a result, the disparity between the very rich and the very poor continue to widen. People like me see this as a moral wrong and the only way forward is to change that system because the poor cannot financially support their candidates in the same way as do the rich. I know you don’t see corporations in the more vilified lenses that I do but my lived experience is what guides my viewpoint. I grew up in poverty and then watched my mother who worked constantly until she got cancer and died. She didn’t die in dignity and she never knew economic security. And I place a lot of that blame on the system we live in. It’s also why I get so very aggressive with the other people on here who think that the likes of Pete, Kamala and other centrists give a damn like the people who have the experience my mother and family have had. 

 

Just saw your your other post. We would need to overturn both Buckley Vs Valeo and citizens united and then move forward to publicly funded elections and paper ballots and audits. The only candidates with this platform that I know of is Bernie & Tulsi. 

[Morphine Prince 109,648]

Just now, Economy said:

Well then... I got a simple opinion on this... End the dam donations method

 

Most developed Nations (including mine) don't allow runners to take campaign Donations as to not give any unfair advantage over another

 

All MPs are given a set budget from Government and then each party a set budget for general election...

 

No one gets to have more bought ads or media exposure than another, it also means no special interest groups can buy you 

Many of us want this overturned and this is the court case that made all this money in politics worse: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC

Or we can have more regulations in place because the way huge corporations just buy off our government is ridiculous. 

[Economy 52,842]

2 minutes ago, HorusRa2 said:

I’m sorry but you and I always disagree here. What other motivation does anyone or any entity have in donating to a political campaign? Because that means they have a political investment in it. Fact is that over the course of the years since money has been deemed as speech with Buckley vs Valeo and then Citizens United, the same politicians who took money that were talking about have always sided with their donors in terms of governance and public policy. As a result, the disparity between the very rich and the very poor continue to widen. People like me see this as a moral wrong and the only way forward is to change that system because the poor cannot financially support their candidates in the same way as do the rich. I know you don’t see corporations in the more vilified lenses that I do but my lived experience is what guides my viewpoint. I grew up in poverty and then watched my mother who worked constantly until she got cancer and died. She didn’t die in dignity and she never knew economic security. And I place a lot of that blame on the system we live in. It’s also why I get so very aggressive with the other people on here who think that the likes of Pete, Kamala and other centrists give a damn like the people who have the experience my mother and family have had. 

 

Just saw your your other post. We would need to overturn both Buckley Vs Valeo and citizens united and then move forward to publicly funded elections and paper ballots and audits. The only candidates with this platform that I know of is Bernie & Tulsi. 

Fair enough. It is true u can sway with donations and the wealthy have disproportionately more power... That's why the government funded system is better I think

 

However it's true that I don't necessarily always see corporations as the enemy... We need companies for jobs, innovation and wealth creation...

 

The issue is a regressive tax system and specific individuals who abuse their power

 

U need to wage war on the system as well as target the top 0.1% for wealth redistribution... Going after Corporations from an economic point of view is the wrong target...

 

I'm talking about stuff like taxes here not fair regulation which I fully support...

 

I'm also not saying I support some of the loopholes that exist or Trumps exxagerated tax cuts...

 

But I'm saying the big issue causing wealth inequality isn't Corporations. It's the very wealthy not paying their fair share in taxes and the government not having enough revenue for the social programs we need

[HorusRa2 5,005]

3 minutes ago, Economy said:

Fair enough. It is true u can sway with donations and the wealthy have disproportionately more power... That's why the government funded system is better I think

 

However it's true that I don't necessarily always see corporations as the enemy... We need companies for jobs, innovation and wealth creation...

 

The issue is a regressive tax system and specific individuals who abuse their power

 

U need to wage war on the system as well as target the top 0.1% for wealth redistribution... Going after Corporations from an economic point of view is the wrong target...

 

I'm talking about stuff like taxes here not fair regulation which I fully support...

 

I'm also not saying I support some of the loopholes that exist or Trumps exxagerated tax cuts...

 

But I'm saying the big issue causing wealth inequality isn't Corporations. It's the very wealthy not paying their fair share in taxes and the government not having enough revenue for the social programs we need

Don’t disagree with anything here. I do think a lot of the stock buybacks and huge compensation packages that result and things like that is an example of corporate greed though. 

Id also add that if we quit waging wars everywhere and spending trillions of dollars there, we could probably have more funds for domestic policies. It’s not a very popular opinion though among either party. We spend way more than other countries on the military because we act as an empire abroad and that should end too. If not only so we can take care of our people but so that people across the world do not have to fear the US toppling their governments and creating regime change. 

[President Biden 5,898]

1 hour ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

At least he's giving it back.

I'm personally more interested in why hes still taking corporate money and why he won't commit to not giving important positions in his administration to people who donate to him... And how his donations from people in private health care, people who are anti-regulation, and pro military budget increases will affect his willingness to lead on policies that are actively against those people.

 

Because he needs money in order to win. This election is a huge risk and not the time to put morals over effectivity. We need to WIN. That’s it. No political purity test. Also all corporations aren’t inherently evil. Bernie supports Ben & Jerrys? Would it be wrong if he took corporate money from them? I don’t really think so. 

[Economy 52,842]

3 minutes ago, HorusRa2 said:

Don’t disagree with anything here. I do think a lot of the stock buybacks and huge compensation packages that result and things like that is an example of corporate greed though. 

Id also add that if we quit waging wars everywhere and spending trillions of dollars there, we could probably have more funds for domestic policies. It’s not a very popular opinion though among either party. We spend way more than other countries on the military because we act as an empire abroad and that should end too. If not only so we can take care of our people but so that people across the world do not have to fear the US toppling their governments and creating regime change. 

On the military aspect I agree with u 100%. It's a big drain on both human and financial resources... Not only does it cost a lot of money to run military... But those millions of military personnel are wasted labor that don't do anything industrially productive... They don't create a good or service that can be sold and generate wealth... It does not help America on that trade deficit that Trump famously blames on all the trade deals while ignoring the impact domestic policies have on stuff like that

 

On Corporations. I agree sometimes there's greed... Even unethical practices or sales tactics, misleading advertisement etc... But honestly that's true of all businesses big and small alike... This is where regulations can help but never fully eliminate the problem unfortunately

 

But on the income inequality problem... I like to stress the importance of going after the reduculously wealthy not the companies themselves because:

 

#1 Corporations have ordinary shareholders too that are affected by their performance. Even if they don't invest directly your retirement funds do. No one could have retirement income at 65 to 67 for the last 15 years of their life without Corporate investments

 

#2 Despite everyone always hating on Corporate world for unfair profits... As a former investor that used to pick thru stocks I can tell you Corporations like Apple with insane profit margins of 27% of revenue, or crazy rapid expanding monopolizing companies like Amazon don't make up the typical listing. There's literally hundreds of listed Corporations with razor thin profit margins struggling to compete. Just because a company has gotten large and does business on a large scale does not always automatically mean they are all drowning in money

 

If we raised taxes on them (very significantly I mean) many would be forced to just raise prices to survive and in the end it's the consumers that would pay this tax. It would be a tax on every one not target at the rich

 

That's why I think it's important that people learn and remember to seperate these publicly traded companies with many thousands of share holders and thousands (in same cases hundreds of thousands of employees) from the top share holders who own billions in stock or CEOs that get payed exaggerated wages

 

Many thousands of people are directly employed or invested in each Corporation so those dynamics need to be taken into account

 

The true money hoarding happens with the billionaire individuals who pay lower taxes than we do cuz capital gains taxes are lower than income taxes and compound their money sitting on their asses every years

 

I'm not against closing some loopholes on Corporate taxes or reversing some of Trumps cuts (they didn't need to fall this much to be internationally competitive)... But u can only raise them so much without causing economic harm

 

But on individuals themselves, the handful of individuals who own more than millions of others combined, there's far more room for tax hikes and wealth redistribution

[HorusRa2 5,005]

4 minutes ago, Halsey said:

Because he needs money in order to win. This election is a huge risk and not the time to put morals over effectivity. We need to WIN. That’s it. No political purity test. Also all corporations aren’t inherently evil. Bernie supports Ben & Jerrys? Would it be wrong if he took corporate money from them? I don’t really think so. 

AOC was massively overspent by her opponent and she still won. You don’t have to take corporate money in order to win. You’re associating the win with the money when there’s also the component of the platform, the messenger and whether or not people feel you are going to fight for what you’re campaigning on. 

 

[roomdivide 132]

2 minutes ago, HorusRa2 said:

AOC was massively overspent by her opponent and she still won. You don’t have to take corporate money in order to win. You’re associating the win with the money when there’s also the component of the platform, the messenger and whether or not people feel you are going to fight for what you’re campaigning on. 

 

It helps being in one of the most liberal places in America.

Pete has to be a leader for all of America, for those who vote for him, and those who won't vote for him.