Mr. "cowdung" I was working the front lines of the recall and we financed our efforts by selling buttons that I made for $1 a piece - nobody from New York bought any that I know of. And I never implied that $2.3 billion was spent already, but those 28,000 job losses have been felt already. The $2.3 BILLION in tax breaks could have financed 50,000 jobs that carried a $40K salary - but Scotty would rather see that money collect interest in the high yield accounts of his corporate buddies (who only pay a 15% capital gains tax).

You also pay a 15% capitol gains tax, unless you write the IRS a check for over and above what you owe.

OK, nobody from New York bought one of your buttons. Do you really think that your button sales are at all comparable to the millions spent by out of state organizations to recall the republican senators last summer?

"Since June, Wisconsin has lost nearly 28,000 jobs, but Walker has handed out $2.3 BILLION in tax breaks for corporations and the rich - who are obviously NOT CREATING JOBS."

It sounds to me that you are trying to link the job losses and the $2.3 billion in tax breaks. Even the tense you used in your claim that the money 'could have financed' 50k jobs indicates that the money has already been spent on other things. Besides, you should realize that a large part of that $2.3 billion in tax breaks is targeted to companies that actually created new jobs in Wisconsin. You are correct that the money can finance many jobs--that is exactly how it will be used.

@Jason -

Like a true liberal, you never even answered any of CowDung's questions to you in your response. You do realize that, don't you?

It's a hit peace, he can't answer the questions the entire thing is just an emotional rant.

I think what Jason is trying to express here is the he wants HIS preferred 'pay for play' guy in the governor's office.

What happened first, the out of state union money or Walker taking out of state money himself? Can you really blame the guy for trying to fight fire with fire?

It's a good question, Cow. We may never know who started it, but it certainly started early on. Regardless of who started it, now it's just going to escalate and a lot of people around the U.S. are watching.

But I don't think it's just union money being donated to support the recall, so it's really time to stop framing it that way. Citizens United exacerbates the entire issue of campaign fundraising/finances, which damages both parties.

But don't you find it just a teensy bit hypocritical for Walker to point fingers about out-of-state fundraising? He should really just stop talking about it, then it would be a non-issue. When he keeps at it, people just have to continue pointing out his own. out-of-state patrons. Enough.

It's pretty clear who did not start it--it clearly wasn't Walker. His fundraising has only been going on for the last couple of months.

Walker had several months to consider the tactics being employed during the first round of recalls. After seeing the large amounts of money pouring into Wisconsin from out of state donors, it's no wonder that he's now looking to out of state donors to help defend his job.

Cow, take a look at this article from the NYT. It states that AFP had taken up union busting with Scott Walker before he was even sworn in as Governor. It also indicates that this was a multi-state agenda, and also that the Koch brothers had been big contributors to Scott Walker's election campaign. {I also remind that the Koch brothers were big contributors to the Republican Governors Association, and also to AFP.}

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/22/us/22koch.html?_r=1

Unions have been supporting Tom Barrett for years, it is true. But the article above shows that the Koch brothers alone have invested a significant amount of money in getting Scott Walker elected, and funding the anti-union initiatives taking place in Wisconsin and other states.

Walker and his handlers may only have had a few months to discuss specific tactics, but any good strategist would develop a contingency plan for any resistance. So I don't believe for a moment that they were caught flat-footed, and they have the financial chops to enact any defense/offense they wish.

From Jason's preferred news source regarding the recalls of July, 2011:

"Republicans will seek to cancel out this Democratic cash advantage through corporate-fueled paid media from groups like the Club for Growth. To counter that effort, Democrats have unions: A political action committee formed by a coalition of unions active in state recall races says it has raised more than $4 million in the past six weeks, and has $2 million on hand to help Democrats.
Its goal is to flip the state Senate to Democratic control.

In a filing prepared for the state Government Accountability Board, We Are Wisconsin listed more than $3 million in donations from the national AFL-CIO's Committee on Political Education. The group also received contributions in the hundreds of thousands of dollars - both cash and in-kind - from units of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees; the Wisconsin Education Association Council, the state's biggest teachers union; and the United Food and Commercial Workers."

And yet people wonder why Walker seeks his $ donations, out of state or otherwise? Because his opposition is comprised of NATIONAL unions, or "a PAC formed by a coalition of unions active in state recalls."

Here's the link for my preceding post:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/07/06/991874/-Small-donors,-unions-give-Democrats-cash-edge-in-Wisconsin-recall-elections?via=blog_1

@Bren -

The NYT article is a joke! It doesn't cite to sources of facts, relies heavily upon hear-say, and draws its conclusions from liberal activists making 'reasonable inferences.' In all reality, campaign finance records show that the Kochs donated about $46k to the 2010 Wisconsin elections. How many millions did the public sector unions put up? And yet, I've not once seen you deride the public sector unions for attempting to influence Wisconsin elections. Curious, I thought you were an independent?

If this is what you call proof to support your Koch Bros conspiracy theories while still claiming to be an independent, all I can say is WOW - you really need to wake up Bren OR just admit that you're a lefty liberal Democrat!

Mr. Hoffa, you are calling an article printed/posted in the Gray Lady a "joke?" How am I to take you seriously after that.

Steve, the right to recall is legal and democratic (small "d"). A problem with raising funds? No. Problem with going on a national attack campaign spouting mendacities about "Big Union bosses spurring the recall," and constantly griping about "out of state union money" funding the recall effort when he is doing the same thing. Neither suggest exemplary character to me.

Walker is not funding the recall with out of state money. He is defending his job with campaign donations. He did receive out of state donations in 2010, same with the Mayor.

The national unions are spurring this recall, they are funding it, they are going on the attack.

The first paragraph is whining about Walker getting out of state money for his possible campaign, something that wouldn't have been needed or happened if the unions and yourself were not forcing a recall.

I guess I live in the real world and see no point to this "article"

Why do we have to keep explaining things to you guys? At some point you got to figure this out on your own.

Steve, read the article linked in my 5:56pm post 1/26/2012. That article will shed a lot of light on why Scott Walker went after unions in Wisconsin after he was elected. It's not something Wisconsin needed, but it was something the Koch brothers and other AFP supporters wanted.

The national unions are not spurring this recall. They support it but there are many, many others who support it for reasons not specific to the collective bargaining issue.

I understand that you believe that recall supporters are misled, and that it's important to you that this is true. But the "reality" is that our state is now seen as the epicenter of a radical (and I call it seditious) attempt to change our country to permanently favor the wealthy few.

I'm offended that our state, a home for workers' rights, was targeted in this way, and hope that you would be too. Please read the article.

We have wanted the unions gone for a long long long time Bren. Now they have been cut down to size we can finally gain power of our state and financial sanity back.

As soon as you typed Koch I stopped reading. Find another boogie man in the closet of liberal nonsense.

"Patchreader 123" - I agree that these big-ticket fundraising events like Walker and Obama have held are moving politics in the wrong direction and do not represent the voice of the average person - which is why unions are so important - unions are made up of workers - the middle class employees of the wealthy employers who can afford the previously mentioned high-end fundraisers.
The wealthy are allotted a voice through large corporate and private campaign donations, but when you destroy unions, which typically decide to collectively donate to democratic candidates, you kill the voice of the middle class.
And all these articles about out-of-state union $ pouring in to fund the recall efforts are from the Summer recalls - not the current recalls!
And finally - the Democratic Party of WI has only raised $394,000 compared to the $4.5 Million that Scotty raised during the last 5 weeks - and the VAST majority of the DEM $ came from $10 and $5 donations - as will Obama's in the Fall.

Jason, are you suggesting that there will be no money coming from out-of-state Democratic sources, including the unions, for this current round of recalls?

Jason:

Thanks for the response. Yes, big $ truly distorts our political system. Read up on the Citizens United Supreme Court decision - I've posted numerous times in relation to it. Funny how this decision is NEVER mentioned in the GOP debates, nor was it mentioned in the SOTU address by Obama. Nobody dares to bite the hand that feeds it.

And yes, unions have their place. I am not against unions per se. Never have been. My family could have likely benefitted from union representation on more than one occasion. However, I have also seen unions distort a system or two, resulting in needless costs and worker incompetency.

You distinguishing the summer recalls from the present recalls in terms of $ donations is likely misguided. The recall supporters in the present recall have yet to find a candidate to run against Walker should the petition enable it. Lets revisit the $ donation issue if and when a candidate is declared.

My point is, recall supporters have national union support and $ donations while recall opposers have corporate support and $ donations. You criticizing the corporate $ donations of those you oppose while not acknowledging the national union $ donations of those you support is disingenuous and detracts from your credibility. It also fails to entirely address that the political campaign $ issue, REGARDLESS of party affiliation, is in dire need of reform.

@Jason
If only the unions could have used their millions to save the jobs of teachers in Milwaukee or Kenosha. However, that must be an acceptable loss in an attempt to regain the political strangle hold they had on the state.

Honestly, this concern about the money in general is overrated. It's always going to be there. The more we attempt to regulate it, the more it goes semi or completely underground.

The only upside of this whole recall effort is the influx of money into our state. And we could use it, given the message being sent to businesses in this state and outside of it by those behind the recall effort. It'll take us years to live that down. Might as well grab what we can, while we can. And if they're foolish enough to spend it on endless attack ads that become nothing more than annoying background noise after awhile, that's really their problem, not ours.

Take the ads on Patch, for instance. If the Obama campaign wants to dump money into endless ads and that help keep Patch afloat so I can come on here and criticize his administration as I see fit, that works for me.

Bob:

"Honestly, this concern about the money in general is overrated."

I respectfully disagree. The $ issues in U.S. politics is effectively removing the voting power from everyday citizens.

If a politician's political campaign is financed by outside interests that conflict with your own, and you cannot afford to donate $ in amounts competitive with such outside interests, will the politician vote in favor with your interest, or in favor of the outside interest? What does common sense tell you?

For example, large banks routinely give hundreds of thousands of $ to each presidential or congressional candidate during any given election, regardless of party affiliation. This is how banks were able to facilitate the sub-prime mortgage mess, as well as the ability to gouge people with ridiculous banking fees and egregious penalty interest rates. Maybe a Democrat was at the helm during the passage of these laws, maybe a Republican was. You can go on and on blaming either party because both are guilty of such actions.

Similar arguments may be made in relation to unions, lawyer associations, big pharma, health insurance (why no public option in Obama’s plan?), etc, etc, etc. Unless you and I fit squarely under the philosophy of one of the big donors, our interests may not be fairly represented. Thus, our individual say in politicized matters is effectively lost.

Patch, you can try, but you'll never get the moneyed interests out of politics. Creating laws that effectively force such influence deeper and deeper does nothing but obscure where that influence actually comes from. Better to have it out in the open where one can evaluate that influence than to still have it present, but unseeable.

There is enough of it that goes on undetected as is. If you were ever to attend one of the lower key private meet and greets held at peoples' homes that don't even make the news, you'd see cash being handed in unmarked envelopes to whichever handler is there with the candidate. The kind of restrictions you're calling far would only increase that type of activity.

Bob:

"....you can try, but you'll never get the moneyed interests out of politics." Agreed. $ in politics is as old as politics itself.

However, the $ billions floating around now (i.e., for our presidential election) is just way out of control. The 2012 election will likely be the most expensive in history....until the next one. Where does it end? Are we really electing a president "by and for the people" or a candidate selected by big $ interests?

Finally, the Supreme Court recognizing coporations as individuals deserving of 1st Amendment rights (the underlying reasoning for allowing corporations and other business entites to donate big $) is simply wrong. Ditto for allowing donating sources to remain anonymous via PACS (which allow for overseas donations to influence our federal elections).

I guess we'll just agree to disagree.
...

So how do you propose to effectively get the money out of politics, patchreader?

You guys are missing the obvious here: money and special interests can't vote, only people can. Just like only the elected representative can vote on legislation, not money. If politicians are being bought off during the campaign process, then it's easy - don't vote for them!

Either hold the politicians accountable for how they are voting, or vote in someone that hasn't taken any money at all. Pretty simple. The power is with the people, and regardless of what you may think, the Koch Bros' votes still count just as much as your vote or mine - one vote for one person.

Why must we always blame the proverbial 'drug dealer' instead of the 'drug addicts?' After all, isn't that the mentality that led to most of the problems that we now face today? If you take the addicts out of the equation, then all the money in the world wouldn't count for squat, would it?

And if media ads can effectively buy votes, well then the masses are dumb and that's what you get for living in a democratic republic - welcome to America! Obviously, the people must want a bought and paid for candidate. Who are any of us to attempt to deny the majority what they want and are constitutionally entitled to?

Wake up people!

Here's another thought for you guys:

If people and corps are giving you money because of who you are and your ideas, then it's no problem. It's only when they start giving you money to attempt to change you that it becomes a problem. So, where's the proof that money given to any specific candidate from any source was done so to change them as opposed to just supporting them?

Good luck with this one!

Which is precisely why worrying about it is pointless.

Again, if some groups want to plunk down 10's of millions of dollars in WI to essentially state that Scott Walker is a rat, or that he isn't, have at it. We could use some sort of compensation for putting up with the chaos that's been heaped upon this state over the past year.

It goes beyond what you say, JRH.

I urge you to read the 90 + page dissent written by Justice Stevens in the Citizens United case. It counter's your arguments far better and more eloquently than I can.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZX.html

Until then we'll have to agree to disagree.
...

Bob:

How? Start by amending the US Constitution to negate the Citizens United decision.

Read the dissent I posted above for JRH.

Gotta step away for a while.

Lots of work to do regarding earning a living.

"And all these articles about out-of-state union $ pouring in to fund the recall efforts are from the Summer recalls - not the current recalls! "

It looks like you are 'mistaken' once again Jason. There are plans to spend so much out of state union money on the current recalls that the Dems in other states are concerned that there may not be enough money to go around...

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/205965

"Organized labor’s plans to spend heavily to recall Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) has sparked angst on the left that the effort will come at the expense of Democrats in other states. "

Opensecrets.org isn't good enough?

Not a bad idea, Dave, although I kind of like the thing they do where the winner chugs a bottle of milk while someone pops sponsor hats on and off their heads while someone else shoots pictures. But I think that's Formula 1, not NASCAR. The milk tie in would be good for the state.

Seriously, I'd rather have full disclosure like that, but since the laws as set up currently, allow primarily for anonymous circumvention, it's not going to happen. Since there's absolutely no way to do away with it, it would be better to keep it above board and visible to all.

Stupid. Donations are private and personal and should be limitless. In the end a voter goes to the poll and makes a decision. No matter how many ads you put out it comes down to one idiot in a poll marking a line.

That's hilarious! The largest donors should also get naming rights, i.e. "Scott Walker, presented by Americans for Prosperity."

The politician should also credit sponsors during speeches, and perhaps do a few commercial breaks too:

"Blah, blah, blah, high bank foreclosures a growing problem in our state. And now a word from our sponsor, Bank of America. Looking to buying your first home? Visit BankofAmerica.com today and check out our adjustable rate mortgages."