So working in finance I got a letter like this. It included helpful donation levels like:
* Normal salary employee: $100 a year
* Mid level pointy hair boss: $1000 a year
* Double level pointy hair boss: $10,000 a year
I can't remember exact numbers but was that ballpark.. what they asked for the normal guy making 100k was small, what they wanted form the double pointy boss making 300k was a lot more.
Either way, SuperPACs are out of control and we need some mad finance reform. When have lobbyists ever helped the consumer?
I am not sure you can blame the SuperPACs exactly. It is the morons who allow their workforce to be politicised and exploited that need be be reformed.
> It is the morons who allow their workforce to be politicised and exploited that need be be reformed.
Can you explain more?
From a business standpoint, the leadership wants the stock price to go up. Their stock is worth more, and they make more money.
Historically, money going to lobbying has a very good return. Say $1 spent lobbying can give your business a $100 return or more if the right laws pass or don't pass. So I hardly thing the executives are "idiots" for telling their workforce to contribute. Do I have moral issues with it? Yes. But I think they are smart and working within the law. The only solution is to fix the law.
> "For your convenience, DisneyPAC has implemented a payroll deduction system, through which your contributions to the PAC will be deducted from your weekly paycheck"
The idea of suggesting employees donate to your PAC is tacky, but payroll deductions are just over the top.
While they're at it, they should ask their employees to donate to a fund to help the company purchase office supplies.
When I worked at AT&T, we (annually) had presentations by a PAC and if you wanted to have a payroll deduction done, you would stay behind after. They took attendance for these presentations (and for other things like United Way).
This is very common. I have been solicited to contribute to PACs at multiple employers. At each employer everyone has understood the career consequences of not contributing. No threat was needed. The law should really require some sort of firewall where corporate management can not know who has or hasn't contributed.
I have worked at some very politically charged places, where I was solicited for PAC donations, and declined. It had no effect on my career.
And it makes no sense that employers would even want to retaliate. All PACs want from employees is money, and individual donors are limited to $5,000/year. Anyone who can afford to donate $5,000, would probably cost more than $5,000 to replace, in recruiting, training, and lost productivity.
I'm genuinely pleased /you/ haven't been burned by it.
You know sometimes people think those who disagree with them must be stupid? You know how not everyone being paid the same wage is actually worth the same to the business? You know how managers want to lose the "dead wood." You know how we see firing as a part of corporate culture and it comes up here often. "If you aren't willing to fight to keep them you should fire them." Optimal staff turnover ratios that managers are judged on etc.
That.
"I just don't think you're really committed to the goals and ideals of Disney corporation and would be better suited working elsewhere."
Disney has 185,000 employees. Their PAC received contributions over $200 from 144 people in the 2014. If they're going to use PAC contributions to pick employees to keep, they're going to have a hard time.
Wow, the concept of a PAC is something I never even knew existed. I don't think I get it. Isn't an employer supposed to be a source of money for the employee, not the the other way around. Hypothetically, if Disney have 180K employees, and each did contribute $1000 a year, that comes to $180 million a year.
Now, if the company made around $5bn profit a year, $180m is a mere 3.6% of their profits - why is such a move funded out of the pockets of employees, and not the company profits (i.e. the shareholders). I know why, but if it's really that important, shouldn't it be a company investment and not an employee investment?
Of course my figures are extremely exaggerated, as the actual money raised is in the low millions.
It looks bad if a politician accepts a $1000 donation from Disney, but less bad if the politician accepts 1000 $1 donations from 1000 of Disney's employees. I believe this is the premise under which PACs operate.
What I find odd is that PACs only seem to accept contributions from a company's employees. Like, why can't just anyone contribute to the Apple PAC, or the Google PAC, the way that they can contribute to the Wikimedia Foundation or to the EFF to make political change?
I see, thank you. The way you put it has made a lot more sense. I guess the motivation should be if the employee really does feel the cause is important they can voluntarily donates. It is scary to think your career could in some way be reflected if you don't based on the other comments.
As you say, why only employees can donate and not other people seems odd as the whole point that it's not a corporation flexing it's muscles, but real genuine people with care for the cause.
There are different types of PACs. I forget the exact names, but some are directly attached to organizations, and can only solicit from org people like employees, directors, board members, etc., and some PACs are not affiliated with an org and can solicit from anybody. Emily's List is a famous pro-choice PAC that is not affiliated with any other organization.
As for why PACs exist--they exist for the reason any other organization exists. People can have a greater social impact if they pool their resources, than if they act individually. This is the fundamental basis for nonprofits, corporations, partnerhips, newspapers, churchs, clubs, etc... basically any collection of people brought together by a mission.
The specific thing that ONLY a PAC can do is give money directly to candidates. No other type of organization can give money to political candidates.
I work at a bank and we are asked to voluntarily sign a payroll deduction for our industry pac as well. They don't outright say it but it's generally understood that they keep track of who pays and who does not.
22 comments
[ 0.80 ms ] story [ 51.3 ms ] thread* Normal salary employee: $100 a year
* Mid level pointy hair boss: $1000 a year
* Double level pointy hair boss: $10,000 a year
I can't remember exact numbers but was that ballpark.. what they asked for the normal guy making 100k was small, what they wanted form the double pointy boss making 300k was a lot more.
Either way, SuperPACs are out of control and we need some mad finance reform. When have lobbyists ever helped the consumer?
Can you explain more?
From a business standpoint, the leadership wants the stock price to go up. Their stock is worth more, and they make more money.
Historically, money going to lobbying has a very good return. Say $1 spent lobbying can give your business a $100 return or more if the right laws pass or don't pass. So I hardly thing the executives are "idiots" for telling their workforce to contribute. Do I have moral issues with it? Yes. But I think they are smart and working within the law. The only solution is to fix the law.
SuperPACs are very different from PACs, despite the similar-sounding name--sort of like the Javascript vs. Java.
The idea of suggesting employees donate to your PAC is tacky, but payroll deductions are just over the top.
While they're at it, they should ask their employees to donate to a fund to help the company purchase office supplies.
Yeah. It's my understanding that similar issues are what led to the secret ballot.
And it makes no sense that employers would even want to retaliate. All PACs want from employees is money, and individual donors are limited to $5,000/year. Anyone who can afford to donate $5,000, would probably cost more than $5,000 to replace, in recruiting, training, and lost productivity.
You know sometimes people think those who disagree with them must be stupid? You know how not everyone being paid the same wage is actually worth the same to the business? You know how managers want to lose the "dead wood." You know how we see firing as a part of corporate culture and it comes up here often. "If you aren't willing to fight to keep them you should fire them." Optimal staff turnover ratios that managers are judged on etc.
That.
"I just don't think you're really committed to the goals and ideals of Disney corporation and would be better suited working elsewhere."
https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pacgave2.php?cycle=2014&cmt...
Now, if the company made around $5bn profit a year, $180m is a mere 3.6% of their profits - why is such a move funded out of the pockets of employees, and not the company profits (i.e. the shareholders). I know why, but if it's really that important, shouldn't it be a company investment and not an employee investment?
Of course my figures are extremely exaggerated, as the actual money raised is in the low millions.
What I find odd is that PACs only seem to accept contributions from a company's employees. Like, why can't just anyone contribute to the Apple PAC, or the Google PAC, the way that they can contribute to the Wikimedia Foundation or to the EFF to make political change?
As you say, why only employees can donate and not other people seems odd as the whole point that it's not a corporation flexing it's muscles, but real genuine people with care for the cause.
They legally can't ask anyone else for money.
As for why PACs exist--they exist for the reason any other organization exists. People can have a greater social impact if they pool their resources, than if they act individually. This is the fundamental basis for nonprofits, corporations, partnerhips, newspapers, churchs, clubs, etc... basically any collection of people brought together by a mission.
The specific thing that ONLY a PAC can do is give money directly to candidates. No other type of organization can give money to political candidates.
Previous discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10969721