Did Matty Buy A State Law Prohibiting State Land Purchases For New Bridge?

[Meddle]

Lansing— The family whose patriarch owns the Ambassador Bridge has spent more than $1 million since 2009 in its legislative fight against a new span between Detroit and Canada.

That fight continues: Just last week, the GOP-led Senate approved a ban against state purchases of land for the bridge.

The Detroit News, using figures compiled by the Michigan Campaign Finance Network, a political watchdog group, found the family of Manuel “Matty” Moroun made political donations totaling more than $105,000 in the last five years to 18 of the 26 GOP senators who voted in favor of the New International Trade Crossing spending prohibition.

http://www.detroitnews.com/article/2...021/1409/METRO

[morebread]

With government like this, who needs democracy!?

[DetroitPlanner]

What does the bill say? Does it say that no State moneys can be used, or that the State cannot own it? There is a big difference.

[Gorath]

Whatever happened to “Let The People Decide”? Surely such a law forbidding the buying of land for the new bridge should be enshrined in the state constitution. Matty should get a constitutional amendment proposal on the upcoming fall elections right? The people should decide.

[MikeyinBrooklyn]

Don't leap to the conclusion that because the Senate passed it that it will become law. The House needs to pass it, and the Governor sign it, which he almost certainly will not.

Also, please only get indignant over the Moroun's political spending if you get indignant over all such spending; labor unions as a category dwarf all other categories of donors [[even evil bridge owners), and donate very heavily to the left. If that doesn't bother you, then this doesn't logically either. My suspicion is that most people upset are upset over direction of the spending, not that there is spending.

[Hermod]

$5833.33 for each of the 18 senators. Is buying one really that cheap?

[Honky Tonk]

$5833.33 for each of the 18 senators. Is buying one really that cheap?

I think if you buy all 18 there's some kind of discount.

[Wesley Mouch]

Whatever happened to “Let The People Decide”? Surely such a law forbidding the buying of land for the new bridge should be enshrined in the state constitution. Matty should get a constitutional amendment proposal on the upcoming fall elections right? The people should decide.

The people elect representatives. If they elect fools who can be purchased for under $6,000, I think 'the people have decided'.

Consider electing better people. Fewer Union lackeys. Fewer tea party fools.

[Detroitnerd]

labor unions as a category dwarf all other categories of donors [[even evil bridge owners), and donate very heavily to the left. If that doesn't bother you, then this doesn't ligically either. My suspicion is that most people upset are upset over direction of the spending, not that there is spending.

Yeah it doesn't bother me. You know why? It's not true.

[motz]

Also, please only get indignant over the Moroun's political spending if you get indignant over all such spending; labor unions as a category dwarf all other categories of donors [[even evil bridge owners), and donate very heavily to the left. If that doesn't bother you, then this doesn't logically either. My suspicion is that most people upset are upset over direction of the spending, not that there is spending.

Matty Moroun isn't an organization devoted to workers rights. Matty Moroun is a man devoted to making more money for himself. That is where I draw issue, that Matty Moroun is doing this for his own personal gain, and no one elses.

Queue response about Unions being there only for their own gain in 3, 2, 1...

[Wesley Mouch]

Yeah it doesn't bother me. You know why? It's not true.

DN's insightful comment did get me thinking. I thought labor unions were a major source of campaign contributions, but is that true? Or is my bias showing?

A little 'googling' provided less information that I expected, but this site stood out: http://www.followthemoney.org/database/top10000.phtml

Yes, the NEA is #1... but there are also some major industrial concerns right up there. A few surprises... Realtors... well sure. A protected market. And ActBlue... presumably a left-leaning advocacy group in at #9. Biggest surprise is the number and size of the Indian Bands. Probably no limits on Indian gambling heading out of committee.

Here's the list... thank DN for the inspiration.

	Rank	Contributor Industry	State-level Total	Federal Total	↓Combined Total↓
	1	NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION Public Sector Unions	$53,672,972	$2,676,297	$56,349,269
	2	PECHANGA BAND OF LUISENO MISSION INDIANS Tribal Governments	$43,360,697	$599,754	$43,960,451
	3	PENN NATIONAL GAMING Gambling & Casinos	$40,457,347	$65,100	$40,522,447
	4	MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS Tribal Governments	$38,453,597	$600,312	$39,053,909
	5	SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION Public Sector Unions	$32,778,494	$2,921,463	$35,699,957
	6	NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS Real Estate	$23,712,744	$4,878,390	$28,591,134
	7	LAKES ENTERTAINMENT Gambling & Casinos	$25,692,898	$2,000	$25,694,898
	8	TRIBES FOR FAIR PLAY NO ON 94 95 96 & 97 Tribal Governments	$24,754,413	$0	$24,754,413
	9	ActBlue Liberal Policy Organization	$0	$23,183,948	$23,183,948
	10	AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS Tribal Governments	$21,650,925	$428,276	$22,079,201
	11	AFSCME Public Sector Unions	$18,083,364	$2,883,292	$20,966,656
	12	COMMUNITY FINANCIAL SERVICES ASSOCIATION Payday/Title Loans	$19,963,260	$198,760	$20,162,020
	13	CLEAN ENERGY FUELS CORP Oil & Gas	$18,814,600	$37,200	$18,851,800
	14	PG&E CORP Electric Utilities	$16,130,016	$419,484	$16,549,500
	15	EDISON INTERNATIONAL Electric Utilities	$14,520,142	$613,419	$15,133,561

[Danny]

The second bridge to Canada is done deal. There is absolutely nothing Marty the 'Maroon!' can do to halt it. He can fight the new bridge and die a old cranky man.

[Detroitnerd]

Sure, sure. Hahaha. And I knew somebody would go right there. And it looks very impressive, right? Look at how these top donors are donating more money! Why, the whole political system must be bought and paid for by left-wing wackos! Sign me up, Mr. Rand!

But, you know, that's misleading, because these are honest organizations that give their money right up front and let the public know their business. They're not like the Koch Brothers or the various corporations, chambers of commerce or other organizations that sluice their money through PACS, astroturf organizations or other front groups, all buying "issue ads" and all of that "free speech" protected -- and not objected to by these same voices decrying "labor contributions." Har-de-har-har.

Anyway, Wes, that's all beside the point. Because the statement I called BS on was "labor unions as a category dwarf all other categories of donors." When it comes to donations, the category that dwarfs all others is corporate America. Through its superPACs and other organizations, labor just can't hold a candle to the way big business has bought government. [[Although folks who hate unions are working 24 hours a day to find shoddy research designed to scare you into the arms of the Koch brothers ...

[Meddle]

Also, please only get indignant over the Moroun's political spending if you get indignant over all such spending;

I do. I oppose ALL such pay-for-play politics. I'd prefer to see political donations go into a blind pool for each party where no one knows who gave how much. That way there could be no [[OK, fewer) instances of rewarding legislation favorable to specific donors, like in this case.

[DetroitPlanner]

I do. I oppose ALL such pay-for-play politics. I'd prefer to see political donations go into a blind pool for each party where no one knows who gave how much. That way there could be no [[OK, fewer) instances of rewarding legislation favorable to specific donors, like in this case.

How would you propose to pay for political campaigns? I don't like it either, but I would not like it at all if we had to fund these out of tax dollars.

In the current environment you need to be very careful about how you choose to vote. Yes the popular candidates will have the more flashier campaigns, but they may not be the best person for the job.

[Honky Tonk]

How would you propose to pay for political campaigns? I don't like it either, but I would not like it at all if we had to fund these out of tax dollars.

In the current environment you need to be very careful about how you choose to vote. Yes the popular candidates will have the more flashier campaigns, but they may not be the best person for the job.

It's fine that people are allowed to contribute to the candidate of their choice, but it's gotten totally out of hand. The half-truth ads, the mud-slinging, the voice-overs, the sound-bites. Facts be damned. It's turned into "he with the most money wins". I think there should be some kind of cap on contributions, and full disclosure on who's backing whom.

[Meddle]

Yes the popular candidates will have the more flashier campaigns, but they may not be the best person for the job.

It's turned into "he with the most money wins". I think there should be some kind of cap on contributions, and full disclosure on who's backing whom.

As I stated above, ALL contributions go into a pot. Each candidate gets an equal share of that pot. Let it be about the quality of the message itself, not the quantity or flashiness.

This kind of process may give lesser known candidates that are not favorites of the monied or the corporations a more equal chance of getting their message out to the voters.


And it should be anonymous. That would prevent guys like Moroon from expecting favorable votes on bills they want to see passed. If politicians don't know where the money came from, they would have less reason to vote for personal or financial reasons. They'd be more inclined to vote on the merits of the bill.

[Wesley Mouch]

As I stated above, ALL contributions go into a pot. Each candidate gets an equal share of that pot. Let it be about the quality of the message itself, not the quantity or flashiness.

This kind of process may give lesser known candidates that are not favorites of the monied or the corporations a more equal chance of getting their message out to the voters.


And it should be anonymous. That would prevent guys like Moroon from expecting favorable votes on bills they want to see passed. If politicians don't know where the money came from, they would have less reason to vote for personal or financial reasons. They'd be more inclined to vote on the merits of the bill.

So Robert Davis gets the same money as Mike Duggan?

Oh, and I'll bet Rush Limbaugh would love this. He can run for President and get the same money as Joe Biden!

[mwilbert]

Also, please only get indignant over the Moroun's political spending if you get indignant over all such spending; labor unions as a category dwarf all other categories of donors [[even evil bridge owners), and donate very heavily to the left.

This is just not true.

If that doesn't bother you, then this doesn't logically either. My suspicion is that most people upset are upset over direction of the spending, not that there is spending.

No idea, but not true in my case. I don't think people realize how much campaign spending has risen in the recent past, but the level is now indefensible.

[motz]

This is just not true.

No idea, but not true in my case. I don't think people realize how much campaign spending has risen in the recent past, but the level is now indefensible.

Also Matty Moroun is a person, and unions are a body that represent a group of people with similar interests. That's kinda different.

[Honky Tonk]

As I stated above, ALL contributions go into a pot. Each candidate gets an equal share of that pot. Let it be about the quality of the message itself, not the quantity or flashiness.

This kind of process may give lesser known candidates that are not favorites of the monied or the corporations a more equal chance of getting their message out to the voters.


And it should be anonymous. That would prevent guys like Moroon from expecting favorable votes on bills they want to see passed. If politicians don't know where the money came from, they would have less reason to vote for personal or financial reasons. They'd be more inclined to vote on the merits of the bill.

I see your point and I'm starting to like your idea.

[Wesley Mouch]

This is just not true.

What's not true? That labor unions dwarf other contributions? OK. But are you suggesting they're not a major contributor?

[unclefrank]

At prices this cheap, almost anyone can own a State Senator!

[Honky Tonk]

At prices this cheap, almost anyone can own a State Senator!

But hurry, supplies are limited! [[offer void where prohibited by law)

[motz]

What's not true? That labor unions dwarf other contributions? OK. But are you suggesting they're not a major contributor?

According to the chart posted earlier... 3 out of the top 15 donors are unions. That's only 20% of the list. So keep on squawking about unions donating too much money and rigging elections or whatever. It's not like they represent workers and are interested in a political process that dictates workers rights or anything.