The Blockade Tightens

A number of American corporations announced they're suspending campaign donations to the 147 Republicans objectors to last week's electoral process in Congress. In addition, there have been calls for the resignation of Texas Senator Ted Cruz and Missouri Senator Josh Hawley.

Dang! Who knew sedition and insurrection don't pay?

A growing number of major companies are halting political donations made to some Republican lawmakers after last week’s insurrection on the U.S. Capitol by pro-Trump rioters that left five dead, including a Capitol Police officer.

Some companies, like Google and Facebook, are halting all political spending.

Other companies, including Airbnb, FedEx and Ford Motor Company, have issued statements condemning the deadly attack and to say they are reevaluating political spending.

Source: Fox 5 NY - AT&T, Hallmark, American Express among companies pulling political contributions after pro-Trump Capitol riot

Share
up
15 users have voted.

Comments

Oh no's, more censorship. Sorry, but ya know...

up
2 users have voted.
Jen's picture

@Tipper Your name is perfect for a post about censorship. Every time I hear the name Tipper, the first word that comes to mind is censored or censorship. Almost like Tipper is just another word for censorship.

up
5 users have voted.

Is it great yet?

enhydra lutris's picture

@Jen

how many votes that was going to cost him, followed by wondering how many more his running the Clinton White House's "downsize and privatize the government project" would cost him and realized that I personally knew dozens or more.

be well and have a good one

up
4 users have voted.

That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

@Jen ok, I see what you did there, finally, it took a minute as in many. My algorithm determines my behavior. (the folks here are very serious, doncha think?)

up
2 users have voted.
TheOtherMaven's picture

Are you seriously suggesting rejection of Title 3 of the United States Code? The procedures followed by Congress on January 6 - INCLUDING the opportunity to challenge "irregular" returns - is explicitly set forth therein.

Title 3 is based on the Electoral Count Act, which was passed in 1887 to prevent the recurrence of the messy 1876 election (the next two Presidential elections, in 1880 and 1884, were narrowly decided, adding further to the urgency). Both are extremely detailed and include numerous provisions at every stage of the process.

There is explicit provision for challenging any vote or votes from any state if there is any reason to suspect irregularities in the voting process; but the challenges must be made in writing and signed by both a sitting Senator and a sitting Representative, and the House and Senate are to confer separately over whether the challenge is valid. (There is no official penalty for "frivolous" challenges except peer disapproval.)

Politicians who take unpopular positions *do* leave themselves open to retaliation by corporate donors (cutting off funds), the mass media (ridicule for "frivolous" challenges), and voters (primarying and/or voting out of office at the next election). But to demand their resignation for following the law is a very, very dangerous move indeed.

up
12 users have voted.

There is no justice. There can be no peace.

@TheOtherMaven
In 1876 it was illegal for a corporation to contribute to a political campaign.

up
6 users have voted.

On to Biden since 1973

TheOtherMaven's picture

@doh1304

especially since the owners of corporations could and did buy politicians wholesale. But that is an entirely separate issue and should be discussed separately.

up
4 users have voted.

There is no justice. There can be no peace.

@TheOtherMaven
I was being sarcastic, but also I was pointing out how little effect a law that is not enforced has. U.S.Grant (president in 1875 - in 76 it was was ironically Hayes)was asked why he did not prosecute congressmen for taking bribes. Grant (a Republican) said that if he did it would weaken the Republican Party so badly it would risk restarting the civil war. Sound like something you've heard?

up
2 users have voted.

On to Biden since 1973

snoopydawg's picture

@TheOtherMaven

I’m betting that most of the people in congress who are saying that those congress members must be kicked out knows the rules too so why are they saying it? Cori Bush has been tweeting about this for 2 days as have others. Is it to keep people riled up? I think they are hoping for a mini civil war to break out. Keeps everyone distracted from ......?

up
11 users have voted.

The donor class doesn’t want it, and Americans elect the bribed. So suck it up.

The Ostrich should be the national bird not the Eagle

@snoopydawg is using Section 3 of the 14th to expel...

up
2 users have voted.
TheOtherMaven's picture

@peachcreek

That's what we have entirely too much of.

up
2 users have voted.

There is no justice. There can be no peace.

edg's picture

@TheOtherMaven

Abuse? How so? All it takes is a 2/3rds vote of both houses to forgive them.

up
2 users have voted.

@TheOtherMaven

claims of irregularities and implicit/tacit support of seditious riots at the capitol?

That the law permits these challenges doesn’t mean such challenges can or should go without response—including calls for resignations/expulsions in the case of frivolous challenges or challenges rooted in fomenting unrest and violence against congress.

up
2 users have voted.
TheOtherMaven's picture

@BayAreaLefty

but NOT expulsion!

up
1 user has voted.

There is no justice. There can be no peace.

@TheOtherMaven

is best punished by censure—an act which results in no consequences other than words in the congressional record, i.e. non punishment?

These people literally—not figuratively or indirectly—helped incite a coup attempt. And you think they need not face any real consequences?

That’s...interesting.

up
3 users have voted.
TheOtherMaven's picture

@BayAreaLefty

(which is what you are doing whether you are conscious of it or not).

Challenging of electoral votes IS LEGAL, IS PERMITTED, and FOLLOWS AN EXPLICITLY STATED PROCEDURE.

That there happened to be an intrusion of dumbass yahoos during the process IS IRRELEVANT.

If anything, the intrusion backfired because challenges that were previously considered were not made, and no challenge was upheld.

You might be able to make a case for "frivolous challenges", in which case Congressional censure is an appropriate response.

But if you demand the resignation or expulsion of Congressthings on the mere ACCUSATION of "wrong behavior", there are other names for that. Ugly names. Purge. Putsch. Pogrom.

And what you will have left is a government of the worst, by the worst, for the worst.

STOP. AND. THINK.

up
5 users have voted.

There is no justice. There can be no peace.

@TheOtherMaven

Kicking a senator out for participation in the incitement of a coup attempt is the same as rounding up and murdering my grandparents’ relatives for their ethnicity?

I’m just gonna disengage here, because what I want to write in response is not very polite.

up
3 users have voted.
CS in AZ's picture

@TheOtherMaven

follows an explicitly stated procedure.

Article I, section 5 of the United States Constitution provides that "Each House [of Congress] may determine the Rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two-thirds, expel a member."

There's a detailed process involved for each House of Congress. It starts with a member bringing a resolution forward with their complaint(s). Then it goes to an investigative committee. And so on.

If you want to defend the republicans who helped perpetuate the lies that led to the violence, based on 'they are allowed to!' then fine, but in that case so are the ones you are freaking out about. They also have every right to bring forward their complaints and push for disciplinary action. They may very well lose (almost certainly will), but just like the vote challengers, they are not breaking any rules by trying.

up
4 users have voted.

@TheOtherMaven
Maybe those questioning the vote are doing so to support a sedition, but that is a criminal charge and therefore must be proven, not just assumed.
But there is also a more critical point: The Democrats (in this case) are essentially elevating the Business Roundtable to a politburo. Not only are they saying that an assumably legitimate claim is grounds for expulsion but if it cannot be enforced then a community of boodlers (an archaic term meaning people who pay bribes) shall be the final arbiters.
The only law an honest person should fear is the law of unintended consequences. We have allowed corporate bribery to run rampant for 40 years, now we're going to cheer selective withdrawal of those bribes? Bad idea.

up
3 users have voted.

On to Biden since 1973

CB's picture

doesn't mean shit. In fact it's SOP. The corporate string pullers always pull back a year or so at this time to evaluate the success of their largess. K Street will be back in force well before the midterms.

Facebook, Twitter, Google and several dozen other corporations don't fund the Republicans in any event since they have had the Democrats in their pockets since the Obama years. It has been quite an incestuous relationship. BTW, the Dems could not have pulled off this election w/o the massive amount of assistance they got from the support and manipulation by social media.

"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country." - Edward Bernays

up
11 users have voted.

@CB

up
0 users have voted.

@CB
"You've got two years to convince me to bribe you again."

up
1 user has voted.

On to Biden since 1973

resurrected Reform Party perhaps?

up
1 user has voted.
enhydra lutris's picture

@Blue Republic

be well and have a good one

up
5 users have voted.

That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

@enhydra lutris

is a dominionist? How do you tell a rabid one from a generic one?

Sounds like a Canadian thing...

up
0 users have voted.
enhydra lutris's picture

@Blue Republic

Rabid one's also blame all of society's ills on the liberalizing doctrinal errancy of some long dead mainline religionista.

be well and have a good one

up
5 users have voted.

That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

travelerxxx's picture

@enhydra lutris

Thinks the country should be run according to god's laws.

I would edit that to say: "Thinks the country should be run according to their version of god's laws."

Not that the original isn't bad enough...

up
0 users have voted.