Occupy Capitol Hill: OCH, a tax me more moment for America’s “Millionaire Party Patriots”

Image via Wikipedia

A Hoot

This is an absolute hoot-Millionaires occupying Capitol Hill, if only for a day, demanding to be taxed more!

Quote

Lobbyists for a day, a band of millionaires stormed Capitol Hill on Wednesday to urge Congress to tax them more.

They had a little trouble getting in. It turns out there are procedures, even for the really rich.

But once inside, their message was embraced by liberals and tolerated by some conservatives — including the ideological leader of anti-tax lawmakers, who had some advice for them, too.

Source:  TAX ME MORE

MJB’s Take

An OCH moment perhaps for America’s Patriotic Millionaires?

Where’s S. W. A. T.?

Where’s Mitt?

Where’s Newt?

Where’s Rick?

Blogroll Web

• Millionaires’ message to super committee members: Tax Us! (dontmesswithtaxes.typepad.com)
• Millionaires on Capitol Hill: Please tax me more! (sfgate.com)
• Millionaires ask Congress to raise their taxes (politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com)
• Millionaires at the Trough (caelumetterra.wordpress.com)
• Jack Abramoff says the system on Capitol Hill is “toxic” (piersmorgan.blogs.cnn.com)

Add On

Kim Zolciak‘s $1 Million Wedding (PHOTOS)

“FOR A FEW DOLLARS MORE”

It seems as though Kim Zolciak’s $58,000 wedding dress was only a small piece of the reality show star’s wedding pie. Life & Style is reporting that Zolciak and her husband Kroy Biermann spent almost $1 million on their extravagant nuptials.

So what pushed the pair’s extreme wedding budget over the top? Perhaps it was Zolciak’s three dress changes which totaled roughly $92,000.

“We spared no expense, you only do this once,” Kim told Life & Style. “This is it for me. It’s very expensive but we’re in a position where we’re able to do that and I’m thankful for that.”

Source: HUFF POST

Realated Web Coverage

• Real Housewives of Atlanta: Kim Zolciak… Kroy and Kim Got Married Yesterday… (stoopidhousewives.com)
• Seriously? Kim Zolciak’s wedding gets reality TV treatment (thegrio.com)
• Kim Zolciak Wedding Picture: The Best Day of Her Life! (thehollywoodgossip.com)
• Real Housewives of Atlanta: Kim Zolciak… Kim’s Spinoff Titled “Don’t Be Tardy For The Wedding” (stoopidhousewives.com)
• Kim Zolciak Spinoff: Coming to Bravo! (thehollywoodgossip.com)

Real Housewives: MJB invites your comments!

 

Small Business Political Money & Free Speech-Will Their Political Activism Lead To Gushers Of Political Cash And Campaign Ads?

After considering Ted Olsen’s comments in The Wall Street Journal about the impact of the SCOTUS decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, it is clear that the free speech rights of small business and their entrepreneurs were as much intended targets of the decision as those of major corporations. Olsen, the lawyer for Citizens United, said:

 The decisions that the Court today overruled rested on the faulty premise that political speech can be restricted in order to prevent corporate money from “distorting” political discourse. In fact, the vast majority of corporations are either nonprofit advocacy groups–like Citizens United–or small businesses. Far from “distorting” the political process, the speech of these corporations reflects the views of their members or the entrepreneurial individuals who formed the corporation. Permitting these individuals to have a voice in the political process adds an important perspective to the public debate and enables individuals of limited means to band together to counterbalance the political speech of the super-rich. McCain-Feingold silenced those speakers, and, as the Court concluded, was therefore impossible to reconcile with the First Amendment. 

That was a mouthful. Link: http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/01/21/free-speech-v-democracy-rounding-up-the-citizens-united-reactions/tab/article/

Apparently, Olsen envisions significant and substantially increased levels of activism in policy making and politics by thousands upon thousands of small businesses and entrepreneurs. Those are the legions of “S” Corps, LLC’s, LLP’s and their owners. For the most part, they have not been players in politics: they have not set up PACS; they do not have lobbyists; and, have not spent money on political ads.

But, they will have a lots of political money, heretofore untapped gushers of political cash in the millions of dollars, to spread around on the political playing field and deploy for all types of public affairs advocacy; to influence policy; and, to take sides and spend those millions on ads for political candidates they like or dislike influencing the outcomes of elections.

In that respect, whatever the original intent of the litigation was, the Citizens United decision has fostered a new, unchartered and possibly unlimited frontier for the deployment of political money and advertising dollars spent lavishly not only by major corporations, long term players in politics; but also, by small businesses and their owners, the new entrants.

 That conceivably will revolutionize, and perhaps even radicalize, politics, policy making and election outcomes well beyond the bounds as we now them!

 

Corporate Free Speech Decision May Usher In A New Era Of Political Rapid Responses & Heightened Public Interest To Corporate Activism

The SCOTUS decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission could unleash nearly unlimited expenditures of corporate treasury funds in politics.

One view is that the full impact of the decision probably will not be limited to an unprecedented expansion of corporate political advocacy directed at policy and the election or defeat of candidates for political office.  Another view, as articulated by Dr. Stephen R. Weissman, a former associate director for policy at the Campaign Finance Institute, is that the “decision is unlikely to change the political situation on the ground very much.” Los Angeles Times, Opinion (January 28, 2010). Link: http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jan/28/opinion/la-oe-weissman28-2010jan28

In any event, the decision in Citizens United is also likely to usher in a new era of political rapid responses by savvy politicians on a range of policy issues affecting corporations.

As corporations raise their profiles, advocate and engage in politics by hitting politicians for their  positions on policy issues, savvy politicians intuitively will respond and hit back. Increased spending for corporate speech and political advertising should generate significant media coverage. That spate of news articles, commentaries and editorials on corporate public affairs matters ostensibly will heighten the public’s interest.

Heightened public interest expands the political playing field. The more intense the debates, the attacks on politicians and the  media coverage, the better for the politics in general.  Savvy politicians and candidates for political office can take advantage of the new found political play, expensed for the most part by corporate political money, and prosper!

Certainly, there will be  legitimate concerns expressed about the possible corrosive influence of corporate political money on policy making and the outcomes of elections.

But, good politicians should be ready to hit back if they are attacked by corporations. 

And, shrewd candidates for political office should position themselves to take advantage of corporate political activism.