|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
71.193.162.219
Why would one be anxious about hiding one's political contributions? I mean, everyone here is courageous enough to let his feelings known. Why are Chamber of Commerce donors and others so.... cowardly?
Is it a free speech issue to fund political elections, anonymously? Where does it say so, my Republican friends, in the Constitution, since you like EXACTITUDE from it?
"The Chamber, the nation’s largest business-lobbying group, has pledged to spend $75 million backing pro-business candidates in the Nov. 2 elections. Just last week, it reported $1 million ad campaigns against California Senator Barbara Boxer and New Hampshire Senate candidate Paul Hodes.
The DNC ad also targets Crossroads GPS, an advocacy group advised by Republican strategist Karl Rove and former Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie. Because it’s set up as an issue-advocacy group, Crossroads GPS also doesn’t have to disclose its donors.
“Ed Gillespie and Karl Rove run one of them -- tens of millions of dollars from undisclosed donors, under benign names like the American Crossroads fund,” Axelrod said. “Why not simply disclose where this money is coming from?”
Neither Rove nor Gillespie is on the board or staff of Crossroads GPS or its sister group, American Crossroads, though they helped conceive of the groups and raise money for them. American Crossroads does disclose its donors."
(BusinessWeek.com)
Follow Ups:
and finally know whats in the building and on the books.
You never learn do you Tincup?
-------------
We must be the change we wish to see in the world. -Gandhi
crazy you sound?
-------------
We must be the change we wish to see in the world. -Gandhi
Oh, I guess ever since you were calling Soros a socialist.
You complete azz.
In the later days of his campaign, he received 200 $1M gift cards. Obviously this was done to maintain secrecy. After preaching a campaign of "transparency", he never did reveal his donors. Seems like he preached "transparency" while thriving in his world of deceit.
a
Only the extremely naive would think otherwise.
... contributors in payments of less than $200, which are not required by law to report. Legally, anything less than $200 is non-disclosed. (A law that we seriously need to "change")
Imagine that, ... a lawyer finding a way to skirt around the law.
Really.
Not all 842,000 will be pertainent, ... The first several pages should have plenty to sink your teeth into.
receiving millions from under $200 overseas donors---- and keeping them.
I looked at several of your Google stories and found nothing. Nada. Bumpus.
That's the problem: innuendos with no substance.
It's called, "slime," Jack.
Now, you do the math. You receive millions of dollars in small increments. You're going to check EVERY single one to determine where the check or money order is from???
That's a far cry, of course, from getting millions of dollars of ads from just a few buddies....
... him a free pass.
It's okay, Tin. Everyone sees through it.
was it, exactly?
Yes, Republicans have corporation buying them and of course the filthy rich who Bush hope to buy. Instead they bought him.
Major contributors can make millions of little donations, with the current rules/regs.
You act as though Obama didn't cater to Corporate Anti-America. Via "Stimulous Program' and bailouts without guidelines/regulations of any sort.
Both sides are bought and paid for, Norm. Only the naive think differently.
I don't think Obama had major donors divide their contributions. I also do not believe that the Democrats are as bought as the Republicans. See below for The Washington Posts information from the Federal Elections Commission.
... after the mid-term sway of 2010, when Republicans take back control. Then the Democrats will have to spend more to regain power.
We need campaign finance reform. Even then, lawyers will figure out another loophole, as they did with millions recieved under the $200 non-disclosed donations, just 2 years ago.
They learned their lesson and along with a Republican SC decision can now dump millions as they see fit.
I think 2008 was an anomaly as in all prior contests Republicans outspent Democrats at the presidential level.
I doubt that Republicans will take control of the House or have 60 votes in the Senate, but either way they will not be in control. I expect nothing will happen either way in the next two years. Democrats in the Senate and Obama can easily block any actions and having learned from the Republicans they will probably avoid all bipartisan efforts. I suspect that the American public will totally write off either party, but I don't know where they will go thereafter.
I can post several videos from those channels, supporting my statement.
Folks aren't happy with the economy. They believed that the TRILLIONS of dollars of "Stimulous Package" money was going to stimulate the economy. It did not happen.
It is only a fool who would predict midterm elections, much less whether the Republican will gain control of the House much less the 60 senators to control the Senate.
Presidential job approval scores are somewhat related to how many seats the president's party loses in the Midterm election. Only Carter and Clinton had approval levels close to that of Obama. Carter lost 11 seats and Clinton 53 or an average of 32. Republicans need 40. Incidentally, Obama's approval levels are now increasing. Are willing to make a judgment based on this?
Nobody even attempts to predict the Senate elections over the years.
Why is the media willing to make the guess? They would have nothing to interest the public without a horse race. Will the Republicans win control, etc.
Probably the public is more unhappy with Bush passed TARP than the Stimulus package, assuming they even know the difference.
and I made a type error, it was 1M $200 gift cards - for the exact reason you indicate.
LOL.
reminding Tincup of the things he tries to ignore makes him run and hide. I won't mention the making him look like the idiot he is.
.....
a
Both sides cheat, Norm. Certainly a man of your age/experience shopuld realize that.
Simply put, we need campaign expenditure limitations. Given the USSC's decisions there is only one way, publicly financed campaigns with NO soft money expenditures allowed.
....
Why do you think they are called the GOP, (Grand Old Party)....
When they politicians that they elect pay off with extreme benefits, is that not payback?
Should union money go into politics?
Why did the GM unions get more equity in the company than the bond and share holders?
-Rod
And is it right when public employee unions do it?
First off your response has nothing to do with my post.
Donations by a union is donations made by its members. Donations made by large corporations are not made ,or approved, by its stock holders......
Should union money go into politics?
Yes why not? A union is a group of people that join together and elect leaders to speak for them with one voice.
Rod, do you live in an area that has an association? If so do you have covenants, (bylaws), ? Do you pay dues? Do you elect board members? Then guess what you belong to a union.....
Why did the GM unions get more equity in the company than the bond and share holders?
Never really looked into it..... But as far as share holders you know damn well in the case of bankruptcy share holders are the first to get f*cked. Union shop or non union shop, stock shares are wiped out.
It's socialism I tell you, socialism!
But that's okay. We're accustomed to your typical diarrhea squirts.
What is needed are real laws limiting funding so that elections are not bought.
You guys will never have that as your owners will not allow it. To pick on unions just proves how alienated you righties are.
You guys are total tools and happy about it... and then you go on your merry way fucking up the rest of the world.
How are those two wars panning out for you?
Oh those were genuine questions!
Obviously unions are to be outlawed in the New Korporatist Amerika.
Just curious.
Edits: 10/10/10
a
Anyone can now spend anything on "independent" support of a candidate. They only have to report contributions directly paid to candidates or party organizations. You ain't seen nothing yet. Stick a fork in America; its done. Bush appointees have done what three generations of American enemies couldn't.
With the rise of the Tea Party, I finally understand what happened in Germany in 1932.
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: