Big Sky | Big Money | Big Lies | Big News | Conservative Non Profit Groups

[Procrustes Stretched]

Big Sky | Big Money | Big Lies | Big News | Conservative Non Profit Groups

Let us hope President Obama is reelected or this stuff will be swept under the rug.

Dark Money Group’s Bank Records Suggest Ties to Campaign Work

November 2, 2012, 10:12 pm ET by Kim Barker , ProPublica and Rick Young and Emma Schwartz, FRONTLINE

Bank documents for a controversial conservative social welfare nonprofit released Friday by Montana officials contradict assertions by a former top official of the group.

The records show Allison LeFer signed many of the checks paid out by Western Tradition Partnership, or WTP, from April 2008 to October 2010.

LeFer also operates a printing business that did work for political candidates, but her husband, Christian LeFer, a key player in WTP between 2008 and 2010, has maintained that the couple kept her work and his strictly separate.

The bank records appear to contradict this, however, indicating Allison LeFer was involved with WTP. Separate records from candidates show they paid her printing company for work.

Outside groups like WTP are not allowed to coordinate with candidates, largely because contributions to candidates are subject to strict limits. Outside groups can take unlimited amounts of money.

Attempts to get a hold of Christian and Allison LeFer were unsuccessful Friday night.

also see: A tale of money and politics from Montana, the epicenter of the campaign finance debate.

watch the responses from Wingnut Nation Unhinged: either attack the source(s), attack the Original Poster of the thread, attack with red herrings and straw men, or deflect with non sense and idiotic posts that take the thread off topic

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Okay, allow me to explain..

this goes to the heart of Justice Kennedy's imbecilic arguments in his ruling in Citizens United

ProPublica and Frontline have written extensively (re: Documents Found in Meth House Bare Inner Workings of Dark Money Group?) about how boxes of documents found in a meth house in Colorado and sent to Montana authorities pointed toward possible coordination between candidates and outside spending groups, including WTP. The group was a focus of a Frontline film broadcast earlier this week.

The boxes contained files for 23 candidates for state office in Montana. They also held fliers and questionnaires from outside spending groups. One group, WTP, seemed to be pulling the strings, working with campaigns on strategy and surveys.

Although small, WTP has won national attention for its attempts to fight campaign-finance restrictions. Its lawsuit overturned Montana’s ban (re: High Court’s Radicals Hold Fast on Citizens United?) on corporate spending in elections, extending the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision to all states.

The group also has been engaged in a long-running dispute with Montana campaign-finance regulators. It has sued Montana over its ruling two years ago (pdf) that WTP was acting as a political committee and should have to report its donors. That lawsuit will be heard in March.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Here you go...

On its website, American Tradition Partnership, formerly WTP, describes itself as a grassroots lobbying organization fighting against radical environmentalists. It says it hasn’t engaged in politics or advocated for or against the election of candidates. Instead, it says it simply educates voters on how candidates stand on issues.

 

[Mr. H.]

Sorry- can't resist...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4VtuMLMKg4]Rush - The Big Money (12/7/91) - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

If you don't read this interview you have no one else to blame for your ignorance. First you should know who James Bopp is ( James Madison Center for Free Speech ) ...then read on. Good luck:

James Bopp: What Citizens United Means for Campaign Finance

James Bopp: What Citizens United Means for Campaign Finance | Big Money 2012 | FRONTLINE | PBS

Dante actually agrees with some of what he says, but he seems to mask his ideology with appeals to patriotism and the founders/framers. He's righteous, even as he rails against righteous reformers. He may even have deluded himself over time, who knows, but he's one smart strategist and tactician.


then again....Bopp just may be a lying fuck of a shill for shady interests who want to take back America (take back to what?)

 

[Mr. H.]

I'm inclined to side with the husband in that the couple kept her work and his strictly separate.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I'm inclined to side with the husband in that the couple kept her work and his strictly separate.

you would hope so, but the truth is most all of those groups are lying or stretching the truth.

the evidence may hang them. but it will affect(effect) little. this scam is huge. the campaign finance people have been strategically laying the ground work for this for decades. I have been following it from afar...but that's a whole nother story

 

[Mr. H.]

Your grasp the the vernacular is impressive.

I would have used "effect".

Other than that, I got nuttin'.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The other thing they said in this PowerPoint demonstration — WTP — they said, “As you know, Montana has very strict limits on contributions to candidates, but there is no limit on how much you can give to this program.”

That’s right. It’s an issue advocacy program, advocating public policy positions. It doesn’t say anything about campaigns or elections or electing candidates.

Does this make, do you think, for a generally transparent electoral system in this country?

What do you mean, transparent? Electoral? Yes.

Well, I think we’d agree on a standard definition of transparent, right?

Well, there’s absolutely nothing about that that has anything to do with an election. You said a transparent electoral system. There’s nothing that you said that they are doing in that PowerPoint that said anything about an election. …

hmmmm...Bopp seems to bop around a lot. Sort of like arguing with Liability, Oddball Dude, and a few other fools who have convinced themselves that regular folks are hoodwinked by their bullcrap

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Your grasp the the vernacular is impressive.

I would have used "effect".

Other than that, I got nuttin'.

saw it as I hit 'submit reply' and on the edit, but getting tired running in and out of USMB tonight

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

cognitive dissonance on the right:

1) The NAACP and other Advocay groups need to keep donors secret so that people do not find out and punish people who fund them.
2) People do not care who funds a group and it's message

Except there is, as I understand it, another set of actors in the election this time around, these 501(c)(4)s, the social welfare groups, which are not required to disclose, right?

That’s right. Advocacy groups are not required to disclose their contributors, and thank God for that, because otherwise they would be driven out of the process.

How so?

Well, because people are concerned about contributing. Generally speaking, people are very reticent to contribute to overtly political entities. It’s much easier to raise money for the local charities or the hospital, Catholic Charities, whatever, than it is for political candidates. One of the reasons is associating yourself with political causes is much more controversial than giving to the local hospital.

So is that a good thing? Is secrecy in politics good?

Well, secrecy in government is not good, and secrecy about what politicians are doing is not good, but anonymity for citizens is [a] very important concept, because otherwise people won’t associate with them. Look, this was established in the l940s, when the state of Alabama wanted the membership lists of the NAACP [National Association for the Advancement of Colored People]. Well, why do you think they wanted that? What do you think was going to happen when they got that? They knew that if they asked for it, people would be reticent to support the NAACP in Alabama. …

Right. I get that, and you’re taking an especially charged example with the NAACP in the South in the ’40s and ’50s. But let me back it up for a minute and get back to the Supreme Court. Justice [Antonin] Scalia is the guy who said, “Democracy requires a certain amount of civic courage.” You’ve got to stand up and be counted.

Well, absolutely, and I’m for people standing up and being counted. The problem is that a lot of people are not willing to do that, so are we just going to exclude them? Are we going to have some courage test now to support a candidate, to support a cause that you’re in favor of? Or are we going to allow everybody to participate? Look, he’s just wrong on this. Surely in the l940s, when the NAACP didn’t want its membership lists to be disclosed, surely he would have supported them in that effort, because everyone knows what was going to happen. Number one, people were not going to associate with the NAACP unless they were prepared to get slammed by the local government, by citizens and the community, and that’s not the way our politics needs to be run. …

These 501(c)(4)s — the social welfare groups that are not required to disclose the sources of their contributions — doesn’t it sort of become shadowy when these social welfare groups can get away with not disclosing where their money comes from?

No, they’re not shadowy. We know who the NAACP is. That is a social welfare group.

Why do you keep bringing up the NAACP? I mean, there are more organizations, right?

Oh, sure. There’s the Sierra Club; there’s NARAL [Pro-Choice America]; there’s a whole ton of advocacy groups.

On both sides of the political aisle.

Yes. And the reason I bring up the NAACP is because they did go to the U.S. Supreme Court and they did win, and they won a very important principle: that private associations are undermined by public disclosure, so only in the most compelling circumstances is disclosure of their contributors, their members justified. That principle has continued throughout our campaign finance law up to this day, to today, and it is a very important principle. What it means is that only when an organization is a direct political actor — in other words, the test that the Supreme Court uses is, is your major purpose electing or nominating candidates? — if that is so, you can be required to disclose your donor, but if it’s not your major purpose — in other words, your major purpose is charitable activity or issue advocacy or lobbying — then you cannot be required to disclose your donor.

So just to be clear that I understand where you’re coming from, these 501(c)(4)s, these social welfare groups you don’t believe that are operating in the political arena, you don’t believe that they’re primarily political?

Well, again, see, you’ve painted with a broad brush. You said “that are operating in the political arena.” Well, what does that mean?

...

Should voters know where all the money behind that advertising is coming from?

If it’s direct political actors, they already do. They are reported. If it’s a PAC, if it’s a political party, if it’s a candidate, they do, because it’s reported, if they care, and frankly the vast majority of people don’t care. They don’t give a damn.

If it’s issues, though, if it’s these 501(c)(4)s, the public shouldn’t know where that money’s coming from?

The cost of the public knowing where that money comes from is too high, because it means people won’t associate with those activities and those groups are not directly involved in politics, as we understand it; that is, campaign-related activity.

It’s not involved as you understand it, as a student of these laws. Do you think the public understands it the same way?

Well, the public needs to make a distinction between campaign activity and issue advocacy, because they’re different. They’re directed differently, and they should be treated differently.

...

I want to get back into this issue of disclosure, because as you know, Western Tradition was involved in a case with the Montana Commission[er] on Political Practices a couple of years ago. The commission found that Western Tradition had violated Montana’s regulations and laws about disclosure and registration, but one of the things that came out in that case was this set of documents from Western Tradition. It was a presentation that Western Tradition used to solicit funds, and what they were saying to their donors was, verbatim, “If you decide to support this program, no politician, no bureaucrat and no radical environmentalist will ever know you helped make this program possible.”

Now, I understand that you believe that these advocacy groups ought to have the ability to get donations anonymously. Doesn’t it, though, when you see this kind of language, doesn’t it sort of cast a shadow on what they’re trying to do? …

No, not at all. There’s nothing in what they said that should trouble anybody. They were talking about issues. They were talking about their public policies. So, just like the NAACP can raise money anonymously to advocate their position on issues, so can this group, so can any group. So can all groups do that, when they’re advocating issues.

---

So it’s interesting. You talked about politicians, and you talked about the Founders. What is campaign finance law supposed to do for citizens?

Campaign finance laws don’t do anything for citizens other than stifle and limit them.

They don’t help understand where the money’s coming from? They really don’t do anything?

Not anything that they care about. People don’t care about that. The average voter could[n't] care less who’s “funding” a politician.

Really?

Of course.

Really?

How many stories have there been on Indiana, on who’s contributing to [Republican gubernatorial candidate U.S. Rep.] Mike Pence and to [Democratic gubernatorial candidate] John Gregg? I mean, you could count them on one hand, even though millions of dollars have been raised. Now, it is true that newspaper people care a little bit and as a result write those stories, but the average person doesn’t.. Could[n't] care less.

Is it a case maybe of not knowing what we don’t know?

No, because you know everything you want to know about who’s contributing to Pence and to Gregg, because it’s reported. You just don’t care.

But the people who are running the ads that say this candidate supports gun control or this candidate is opposed to abortion. I mean, we’ll never know where that money is coming from, will we?

Well, it depends on the context, but we may or we may not, but so what? That just means that people are not finding out something that they don’t care about.

Do you think people should care about where this money’s coming from?

Generally no, because it’s the message. You know, you either buy the argument or don’t buy the argument. Generally no, it doesn’t matter. Truth doesn’t change because of who’s funding it.

I don’t even know what to say. You actually think that?

I actually think that the truth doesn’t change based on who’s funding it. John Gregg is either a pro-life [candidate] or not. What difference does it make who’s funding that? The truth doesn’t change. What they say may change, but the truth of whether he is or not — and by the way, he is pro-life — he’s a Democrat running for governor. Whether he is or not doesn’t change by who’s funding the message on that.

Should citizens in this country be able to find that information? Should they be able to learn who’s funding?

Not generally. They don’t care.

That’s not the question. Just because they don’t care doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t be able to know, right?

No. I’m sorry. Well, then are you’re just patronizing them? Sorry, you ignorant Hoosiers, you should want to know this. Well, actually they could[n't] care less because it’s not relevant to them. It’s not relevant.

You’re the one who said they shouldn’t know because they don’t care, right, and my question is —

No, I said they shouldn’t be told or shouldn’t be disclosed. I forget how you put the question, but to be clear on what I meant, things shouldn’t be required based on voter information, which is the only justification for disclosure that’s ever been upheld, if they don’t care. It’s not relevant to them.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

It’s kind of interesting that you’ve spent your life in this and you believe people don’t care.

I have been a county chairman, I have been an official of the state Republican Party, and now I’m a member of the Republican National Committee. I’ve never had a single person ask me who funds those organizations that I’ve led.

And from that you take that people don’t care.

That people don’t care. No, no, not just from that. I’m just giving you an example of polling, of anything that you would use to determine what people care about. Every indicia is that they don’t care — polling, the number of stories in the press, questions that they ask, any indicia.

ahem

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

here is something that disturbs me -- comparing the Federalist arguments to issue ads, lobbying ads, advocacy ads...

Of course some people do, because they don’t think that the messenger matters. The message can rise or fall on its own merits. For instance, the Federalist Papers, the most important documents ever written short of our Constitution and the Declaration of Independence in the history of our country, was done anonymously, and the reason was that even though they understood that some people would disregard it because they don’t know who wrote it, they were willing to pay that price in exchange for the arguments standing on their own merit. So that’s the choice a speaker makes in determining anonymity, and it’s a choice that the listener makes and not the government. And notice in neither case was it the government. And the reformers want the government, not private citizens, to make these decisions. …

The Federalist arguments were made for an up or down vote on a system of government, that had been hashed out by all sides behind closed doors in secret, but...like Bopp, Dante loves distinctions...but the election/advocacy/issue ads unlike the Federalist (papers), are not addressing an argument being made by people we elected to act in our best interests, as the Federalists and anti Federalists were acting in their duties to write the US Constitution.

When we have groups arguing over environmental laws/issues, social issues/laws, .. and more, we are not being represented .. we did not agree to send these people to conventions to hash out the arguments in our nations best interests. No, these groups have an agenda....these groups are the 'factions' Madison wrote about. Madison was not warning against political parties per se. Madison was arguing about factions within a group. Factions have agendas apart from a larger group .. think right wingers in the GOP. A faction has taken over the GOP party.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

yet I agree with some (maybe more than people realize) of what Bopp has to say. I just think because he has a vested interest he has to be dishonest in speech if not thought


that's it

see y'all on/after the election

Dante
:cool
dD

 

[MeBelle]

<snip>
that's it

see y'all on/after the election

Dante
:cool
dD

Dammit! I wanted to dance with you before you 'left'.
It's close to my birthday

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Okay, allow me to explain..

this goes to the heart of Justice Kennedy's imbecilic arguments in his ruling in Citizens United

ProPublica and Frontline have written extensively (re: Documents Found in Meth House Bare Inner Workings of Dark Money Group?) about how boxes of documents found in a meth house in Colorado and sent to Montana authorities pointed toward possible coordination between candidates and outside spending groups, including WTP. The group was a focus of a Frontline film broadcast earlier this week.

The boxes contained files for 23 candidates for state office in Montana. They also held fliers and questionnaires from outside spending groups. One group, WTP, seemed to be pulling the strings, working with campaigns on strategy and surveys.

Although small, WTP has won national attention for its attempts to fight campaign-finance restrictions. Its lawsuit overturned Montana’s ban (re: High Court’s Radicals Hold Fast on Citizens United?) on corporate spending in elections, extending the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision to all states.

The group also has been engaged in a long-running dispute with Montana campaign-finance regulators. It has sued Montana over its ruling two years ago (pdf) that WTP was acting as a political committee and should have to report its donors. That lawsuit will be heard in March.