The US elections in November, 2010.

[Warren Dew]

Why the FUCK would someone spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on a campaign? Or, millions? There is one answer: because they expect to make it back, with interest.

It's hard to see how Meg Whitman would make more money than she already has by being Governor. I suppose she might hope to keep more of what she has.

As you said, though, I think the general motivation for running for office is power over other people, rather than money. Of course, that's even worse than being greedy.

In Massachusetts, we occasionally have businessmen who seem to see it as kind of a civic duty to be governor for a bit. I get to vote for one of these - Charlie Baker - today. Unfortunately they usually leave after a term or two; I guess they figure they've done their duty by then.

[Coito ergo sum]

Why the FUCK would someone spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on a campaign? Or, millions? There is one answer: because they expect to make it back, with interest.

It's hard to see how Meg Whitman would make more money than she already has by being Governor. I suppose she might hope to keep more of what she has.

As you said, though, I think the general motivation for running for office is power over other people, rather than money. Of course, that's even worse than being greedy.

In Massachusetts, we occasionally have businessmen who seem to see it as kind of a civic duty to be governor for a bit. I get to vote for one of these - Charlie Baker - today. Unfortunately they usually leave after a term or two; I guess they figure they've done their duty by then.

I am sure that these folks pull shenanigans like .... pay PR companies that they they own high fees for certain "contracted" activities....i.e. - John Smith for Governor raises $1,000,000, and hires XYZ, Inc., a public relations and marketing firm, to make the signs and arrange for advertising. XYZ, Inc., though, is wholly owned by ABC Holding Company, LLC, which is wholly owned by The John Smith Family Living Trust.... So, he basically contracts with himself a cost much higher than the actual cost, and in that way skims off the top.

I have no proof, but I bet they do that shit all the time, and wash the money through different businesses. You know - get Front Corporation (wholly owned by the candidate) to be the supplier of food and water and office supplies to the campaign. Pay the Front Corporation a flat contract price well above the cost of the water and food and supplies, and skim the difference.

[maiforpeace]

Why the FUCK would someone spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on a campaign? Or, millions? There is one answer: because they expect to make it back, with interest.

Fuck it if Meg becomes our new governor, though Brown is no gem either.

The way I see it, Brown is 10x more preferable to Meg.

I had resisted giving in to what I had previously thought was easy cynicism.....but, I think maybe South Park was right...we really are only left with a choice between a giant douche and a turd sandwich.....

One of Meg's ads is so lame...she essentially says the same thing - "I know you don't like the choices you have but..."

[Coito ergo sum]

Why the FUCK would someone spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on a campaign? Or, millions? There is one answer: because they expect to make it back, with interest.

Fuck it if Meg becomes our new governor, though Brown is no gem either.

The way I see it, Brown is 10x more preferable to Meg.

I had resisted giving in to what I had previously thought was easy cynicism.....but, I think maybe South Park was right...we really are only left with a choice between a giant douche and a turd sandwich.....

One of Meg's ads is so lame...she essentially says the same thing - "I know you don't like the choices you have but..."

Well, it's either Meg or Governor Moonbeam....so, it seems the analogy is apt...lol

[Warren Dew]

Well, it's either Meg or Governor Moonbeam....so, it seems the analogy is apt...lol

Being honest is no way to be successful as a politician, though.

[maiforpeace]

Well, it's either Meg or Governor Moonbeam....so, it seems the analogy is apt...lol

Being honest is no way to be successful as a politician, though.

[Coito ergo sum]

By not expressing it to their employees at all.
And no, the issue is not 'what they did do'.
It is what they are trying to do, it is the motivations for it and it is the implications.

McD's has a well documented history of punishing employees who went against the Company's political interests as much as they could. They could easily find out who an employee voted for because people tend to talk about that stuff, it was how they did it before.

QUite frankly it can fuck off. It has no right to campaign to its employees. A corporation is not an individual, a corporation has no right to free speech.

Like Harrah's Casino? http://www.nationalreview.com/battle10/ ... abeth-crum

The Harrah’s employee who forwarded the emails asked not to be identified due to fear of reprisal. The employee said the pressure from upper management was “disturbing.”

“We were asked to talk to people individually to find out why they had not yet voted and to fill in these spreadsheets explaining why,” the employee said. “I did not feel comfortable doing that.”

“It put me in a very awkward position,” the employee added, saying the level of coordination between Harrah’s upper management, the culinary union, and the Reid campaign was “disgusting.”

Calls to Harrah’s management were not immediately returned. Jan Jones’ assistant said at 10:25 EST that she would attempt to track down an executive who could comment.

A spokesman with the Federal Election Commission declined to comment on the case, but encourages anyone who feels that an election-law violation has occurred to file a complaint with the commission.

Now THAT'S some "implications..." LOL

[Warren Dew]

The email, which is legible, albeit barely:



A full PDF is available at Coito's link.

[Coito ergo sum]

Frankly, I don't care that Harrah's supervisors were driving employees to the polls and looking to push their agenda. The easy way for employees to handle it is to vote the way they want to vote, and to hell with the boss. Just wondering why the tame-by-comparison McDonald's letter sparked outrage, while the much more sinister Harrah's behavior did not. I wonder....

[Warren Dew]

Driving people to the polls is fine.

Supervisors keeping track of whether they go crosses the line for me.

[eXcommunicate]

Frankly, I don't care that Harrah's supervisors were driving employees to the polls and looking to push their agenda. The easy way for employees to handle it is to vote the way they want to vote, and to hell with the boss. Just wondering why the tame-by-comparison McDonald's letter sparked outrage, while the much more sinister Harrah's behavior did not. I wonder....

Well, quite frankly I think both suck.

[Coito ergo sum]

Frankly, I don't care that Harrah's supervisors were driving employees to the polls and looking to push their agenda. The easy way for employees to handle it is to vote the way they want to vote, and to hell with the boss. Just wondering why the tame-by-comparison McDonald's letter sparked outrage, while the much more sinister Harrah's behavior did not. I wonder....

Well, quite frankly I think both suck.

That would be the most consistent position to take, although I think one must acknowledge that in terms of degree, the Harrah's activity appears a tad bit more egregious....based on what we know...

[Coito ergo sum]

Driving people to the polls is fine.

Supervisors keeping track of whether they go crosses the line for me.

I don't think the employees were being given a choice as to whether they went... not by the sounds of the emails, if you read the whole email chain - and lf you read what the employee who blew the whistle said about what was happening...

But, then again, I don't really care - if Harrahs said - we're going to pay you, but you are required to get on this bus and drive to the polls - then go to the polls. Vote as you please - leave the thing blank - whatever - the employer can't know.

Not a big deal - but, certainly less tame than McDonald's making their opinion known.

[Ian]

Pardon the interruption, but I think Coito and I should clarify the rules of our little wager (over who controls the Senate after the elections).

It's conceivable that the full results will not be known for days or weeks, what with potential recounts in Washington, Alaska, etc. Until there are no disputed elections (or the outcome of one will not affect the overall Senate control either way), I think whomever loses can hold off on "paying up".

[eXcommunicate]

If the Rs take the Senate, then the forecasts are way off. Yesterday's aggregates were calling for an 86% probability of D control of the Senate, with something like 77% probability of R control of the House.