Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Plays Scathing 'Corruption Game': 'It's Already Super Legal for Me t

[Brain357]

It will be interesting to see if she calls out all the democrats running in

I haven't really followed her much yet, but she sure is right about our problems here. Now this is what we really need to fix. We need to vote out every politician who won't agree to fix this. Only way we will fix out corruption.

Watch: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez plays scathing campaign finance "corruption game"

“Let’s play a lightning round game," Ocasio-Cortez began. "I’m gonna be the bad guy and I want to get away with as much bad things as possible, ideally to enrich myself and advance my interests, even if that means putting my interests ahead of the American people."

"So," the 29-year-old asked the panel, "if I want to run a campaign that is entirely funded by corporate political action committees [PACs], is there anything that legally prevents me from doing that?"

"No," one expert, Karen Hobert Flynn, the president of the government accountability watchdog group Common Cause, said decisively.

Wow she may have inadvertently stumbled on something that is not completely crazy. Unfortunately if she has her way there would be nothing left of the U.S. in two or three election cycles there would be no reason to worry about PACs or any other form of corruption in our political system.

AOC Doesn’t Let the Facts Get in the Way of a Good Story
February 7, 2019 • By Scott Blackburn • Blog • Disclosure, First Amendment and Campaigns
Share This Article: hearing on H.R. 1. Common Cause tweeted that “@AOC exposes just how much ‘bad guys’ can get away with under the shameful state of our campaign finance laws.” Roll Call credited Ocasio-Cortez for turning the hearing on its head by saying that “dark money was ‘shaping’ questions about [the] reform bill.”

Ocasio-Cortez’s storytelling may have been persuasive to the uninformed. But it was also wrong.

Presenting herself as the hypothetical “bad guy” trying to destroy democracy, Ocasio-Cortez spun a tale about how she could (among other things) “use my special interest, dark money-funded campaign to pay off folks that I need to pay off to get elected.”

This dystopic vision of how campaigns work in America bears little semblance to reality. Let’s work backward:

1) You cannot use campaign funds for non-campaign related expenses. That includes “paying off folks.” Here, Ocasio-Cortez appears to be referencing the Stormy Daniels scandal and the “greenlight for hush money” she claims it represents. But she has the argument exactly backwards. Those who believe Trump committed a campaign violation think that the hush money needed to be paid with campaign expenses, and that Trump’s failure to do so was the problem. As IFS Chairman Bradley A. Smith previously argued, IFS believes the opposite is true. The crime would be if you did “pay off folks” with campaign money. The real “folks you need to pay off to get elected” are voters, and it turns out they cannot be bought. As we have written about over and over again, money doesn’t buy elections. Ocasio-Cortez should know this better than most!

2) “Dark-money funded campaigns” are not a thing. The source of all donations to candidates over $200 are fully disclosed to the FEC, which then publishes that information online for the world to see. “Dark money” refers to spending from nonprofit groups making expenditures independently of any candidate to voice their support or opposition to candidates and their policies. These groups cannot give money to candidates, so it’s impossible for any candidate to run a “dark-money funded campaign.” These groups are limited in how much they can spend on such campaign speech. Additionally, many groups that Representative Ocasio-Cortez slanders with the “dark money” label are not nefarious or secretive organizations, but respected civic groups with a long history of involvement in public affairs. These groups include nonprofits like the ACLU, NAACP, and Planned Parenthood – hardly voices that should be silenced in debates surrounding elections.

3) “Special interest” money does not dominate campaign coffers, even of the candidates you don’t like. This ties in to Ocasio-Cortez’s earlier assertion that a campaign could be entirely funded by corporate PAC donations. That’s true in the abstract – there’s nothing in the law to stop a candidate from trying – but completely divorced from the reality of how campaigns are funded. Notably, Ocasio-Cortez did not name any examples of this sort of campaign, because there aren’t any. In reality, all congressional campaigns are predominantly funded by individual donors, not corporate PACs. This is one reason why anti-corporate PAC pledges are widely seen by those who are familiar with the system as grandstanding. Even ignoring this reality, corporate PACs have a contribution limit of $5,000 to any campaign, so a candidate looking to fund their effort solely with PAC funds would have to find a remarkably broad coalition of so-called special interests to fund their campaign. Finally, corporate PACs are funded exclusively with donations from employees, executives, and board members of the company, whose contributions to the PAC are limited and publicly disclosed.

Ocasio-Cortez, like most politicians, is a Manichaean. There are the good guys and the bad guys; the goal is to stop the bad guys and help the good guys. If someone disagrees with you about a bill or policy, the only reason must be that they are the bad guy, or at least paid for by the bad guys. It also must mean that your bill will hurt those bad guys! That’s why they’re opposing it, and that confirms that the bill is good!

The world doesn’t work that way. Opponents of H.R. 1 are not bought by the fossil fuel industry, or big pharma, or some other nonsense. There are manylegitimate gripes with how this 570-page monstrosity of a bill hurts the fundamental First Amendment rights of all Americans. Ocasio-Cortez and supporters of the bill may think that those costs are outweighed by the benefits, or that it is more important to cast the symbolic anti-corruption vote than to deal with the policy ramifications of their proposal.

But they should at least learn how the system actually works now before they become so certain of how to fix it.

And yet every politician is owned by lobbyists and enter service with little and leave filthy rich. Sorry, but it's obvious they are all corrupt.

And AOC will be no different.

The odds are certainly with that, but one can hope.

 

[Brain357]

Getting rid of this corruption should really have bipartisan support from the people. Only crazy partisans can find anything wrong with it.

 

[Maxdeath]

It will be interesting to see if she calls out all the democrats running in
AOC Doesn’t Let the Facts Get in the Way of a Good Story
February 7, 2019 • By Scott Blackburn • Blog • Disclosure, First Amendment and Campaigns
Share This Article: hearing on H.R. 1. Common Cause tweeted that “@AOC exposes just how much ‘bad guys’ can get away with under the shameful state of our campaign finance laws.” Roll Call credited Ocasio-Cortez for turning the hearing on its head by saying that “dark money was ‘shaping’ questions about [the] reform bill.”

Ocasio-Cortez’s storytelling may have been persuasive to the uninformed. But it was also wrong.

Presenting herself as the hypothetical “bad guy” trying to destroy democracy, Ocasio-Cortez spun a tale about how she could (among other things) “use my special interest, dark money-funded campaign to pay off folks that I need to pay off to get elected.”

This dystopic vision of how campaigns work in America bears little semblance to reality. Let’s work backward:

1) You cannot use campaign funds for non-campaign related expenses. That includes “paying off folks.” Here, Ocasio-Cortez appears to be referencing the Stormy Daniels scandal and the “greenlight for hush money” she claims it represents. But she has the argument exactly backwards. Those who believe Trump committed a campaign violation think that the hush money needed to be paid with campaign expenses, and that Trump’s failure to do so was the problem. As IFS Chairman Bradley A. Smith previously argued, IFS believes the opposite is true. The crime would be if you did “pay off folks” with campaign money. The real “folks you need to pay off to get elected” are voters, and it turns out they cannot be bought. As we have written about over and over again, money doesn’t buy elections. Ocasio-Cortez should know this better than most!

2) “Dark-money funded campaigns” are not a thing. The source of all donations to candidates over $200 are fully disclosed to the FEC, which then publishes that information online for the world to see. “Dark money” refers to spending from nonprofit groups making expenditures independently of any candidate to voice their support or opposition to candidates and their policies. These groups cannot give money to candidates, so it’s impossible for any candidate to run a “dark-money funded campaign.” These groups are limited in how much they can spend on such campaign speech. Additionally, many groups that Representative Ocasio-Cortez slanders with the “dark money” label are not nefarious or secretive organizations, but respected civic groups with a long history of involvement in public affairs. These groups include nonprofits like the ACLU, NAACP, and Planned Parenthood – hardly voices that should be silenced in debates surrounding elections.

3) “Special interest” money does not dominate campaign coffers, even of the candidates you don’t like. This ties in to Ocasio-Cortez’s earlier assertion that a campaign could be entirely funded by corporate PAC donations. That’s true in the abstract – there’s nothing in the law to stop a candidate from trying – but completely divorced from the reality of how campaigns are funded. Notably, Ocasio-Cortez did not name any examples of this sort of campaign, because there aren’t any. In reality, all congressional campaigns are predominantly funded by individual donors, not corporate PACs. This is one reason why anti-corporate PAC pledges are widely seen by those who are familiar with the system as grandstanding. Even ignoring this reality, corporate PACs have a contribution limit of $5,000 to any campaign, so a candidate looking to fund their effort solely with PAC funds would have to find a remarkably broad coalition of so-called special interests to fund their campaign. Finally, corporate PACs are funded exclusively with donations from employees, executives, and board members of the company, whose contributions to the PAC are limited and publicly disclosed.

Ocasio-Cortez, like most politicians, is a Manichaean. There are the good guys and the bad guys; the goal is to stop the bad guys and help the good guys. If someone disagrees with you about a bill or policy, the only reason must be that they are the bad guy, or at least paid for by the bad guys. It also must mean that your bill will hurt those bad guys! That’s why they’re opposing it, and that confirms that the bill is good!

The world doesn’t work that way. Opponents of H.R. 1 are not bought by the fossil fuel industry, or big pharma, or some other nonsense. There are manylegitimate gripes with how this 570-page monstrosity of a bill hurts the fundamental First Amendment rights of all Americans. Ocasio-Cortez and supporters of the bill may think that those costs are outweighed by the benefits, or that it is more important to cast the symbolic anti-corruption vote than to deal with the policy ramifications of their proposal.

But they should at least learn how the system actually works now before they become so certain of how to fix it.

And yet every politician is owned by lobbyists and enter service with little and leave filthy rich. Sorry, but it's obvious they are all corrupt.

There are a few that have entered public life rich to start with.
JFK, LBJ, Trump all come to mind immediately.

Doesn't trump bill himself as The King of Debt?

Not sure about that but I bet his bank account is bigger then yours. What you consider your debt is probably pocket change.

But I can't sell my name to put on buildings and I can borrow from American banks and not even ONE bankruptcy.

First off if you think that I am going to take the word of someone with serious TDS as to no bankruptcy and that they can borrow money you are seriously mistaken.
Second I have no doubt that if Trump wanted to borrow the little amount you would be able to borrow any bank would probably do it on a signature loan in a heartbeat. He has had troubles getting billions in loans from some banks.

Lastly look at any company and tell me any that have not filed for debt restructuring. He has allowed some bussinesses to use his name but he had little to no say over how they were run.

You want to talk like you are wealthy and know so much, show everyone your tax returns. If you have over a million some of us may consider listening to your rants.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Getting rid of this corruption should really have bipartisan support from the people. Only crazy partisans can find anything wrong with it.

Do you even know what you mean by "corruption"?

 

[Hellokitty]

Getting rid of this corruption should really have bipartisan support from the people. Only crazy partisans can find anything wrong with it.

It's disingenuous. AOC is trying to callout one form of corruption while quietly engaging in another.

 

[Brain357]

Getting rid of this corruption should really have bipartisan support from the people. Only crazy partisans can find anything wrong with it.

It's disingenuous. AOC is trying to callout one form of corruption while quietly engaging in another.

She is calling out one of the worst. We would all be much better off without it.

 

[BluesLegend]

What has this stupid moron contributed in her entire life? I'm guessing not a damn thing, she should

How many times did she go bankrupt and screw 1000's like the moron in the WH now? It's not so much as to what she has contributed but what she hasn't like the vile racist pervert Trump has

We are talking about Cortez, the idiot who's qualified at nothing.

 

[BluesLegend]

What has this stupid moron contributed in her entire life? I'm guessing not a damn thing, she should

How many times did she go bankrupt and screw 1000's like the moron in the WH now? It's not so much as to what she has contributed but what she hasn't like the vile racist pervert Trump has

Like most 10-year-olds, she's never had any money or business with which to go bankrupt. All she has are silly ideas that might suit ten-year-olds.

Just maybe if she hangs out in congress long enough she can make millions like the swine there now?

Holy crap we agree on something. Congress is a rotted festering boil on the nation.

 

[Brain357]

What has this stupid moron contributed in her entire life? I'm guessing not a damn thing, she should

How many times did she go bankrupt and screw 1000's like the moron in the WH now? It's not so much as to what she has contributed but what she hasn't like the vile racist pervert Trump has

We are talking about Cortez, the idiot who's qualified at nothing.

She was elected. That's as qualified as any politician.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

There is one HUGE difference. You can be a bit of a loon and be in Congress where there are over 500 others to smooth out your lunacy. But there is one President. If that President is a loon then it's not going to be good for America. When you say he has his share of problems, his share of problems have long since become OUR share of problems with the first two years of no one there to iron those problems out. In the last month he has been told in public once "NO" and he almost lost his mind. Any President should be told forcefully no once in awhile and deal with it. Now that he's finally figured out that he's been demoted from King down to the lowly position of President (Oh, the Horrors) he might turn out okay.

Trump is not nuts. He's a successful billionaire business mogul with a narcissistic personality disorder for sure, but he's by no means an idiot. AOC somehow obtained an Economics degree from Boston College and the best she could do was get a job as a bartender and her FAQ section of her Green New Deal read like something a high school freshman would have written, hence, the reason it's since been pulled from the site.

 

[danielpalos]

I haven't really followed her much yet, but she sure is right about our problems here. Now this is what we really need to fix. We need to vote out every politician who won't agree to fix this. Only way we will fix out corruption.

Watch: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez plays scathing campaign finance "corruption game"

“Let’s play a lightning round game," Ocasio-Cortez began. "I’m gonna be the bad guy and I want to get away with as much bad things as possible, ideally to enrich myself and advance my interests, even if that means putting my interests ahead of the American people."

"So," the 29-year-old asked the panel, "if I want to run a campaign that is entirely funded by corporate political action committees [PACs], is there anything that legally prevents me from doing that?"

"No," one expert, Karen Hobert Flynn, the president of the government accountability watchdog group Common Cause, said decisively.

That is why we have a Congress of the People. We subscribe to Capitalism and know capital is an influence.

How many lobbyists, lobby for policy considerations from Congress?

Congress should be establishing National goals for our Republic.

 

[williepete]

You should have seen the leftbat frootloop who was on Tucker last night, trying to do damage control.
Hilarious.

Thanks for pointing this out. I dug out the video and watched it. Comedy gold.

Segment starts at 18:18