pknopp
Diamond Member
- Jul 22, 2019
- 69,053
- 26,436
- 2,210
If you need so badly to be correct that you are standing on semantics? Fine, I'll tell you that you are right.
It still won't change the millions that are going to be fed into the system by trade groups, international finance, Big Pharma, Insurance industry, Org. Labor, etc.
. . . and the dozen oligarchs that run the place.
More money, less transparency: A decade under Citizens United
CHART2 by Open Secrets - Infogram
"OpenSecrets' original research indicates:
- Despite fears that elections would be dominated by corporations, the biggest political players are actually wealthy individual donors. The 10 most generous donors and their spouses injected $1.2 billion into federal elections over the last decade. That tiny group of major donors accounted for 7 percent of total election-related giving in 2018, up from less than 1 percent a decade prior.
- The balance of political power shifted from political parties to outside groups that can spend unlimited sums to bolster their preferred candidates. Election-related spending from non-party independent groups ballooned to $4.5 billion over the decade. It totaled just $750 million over the two decades prior.
- Even political candidates found themselves dwarfed by independent groups that in many cases morphed into effective arms of political campaigns and parties. Outside spending surpassed candidate spending in 126 races since the ruling. That happened just 15 times in the five election cycles prior.
- Despite promises from the court that monied interests would be required to reveal their political giving, the ruling gave new powers to dark money organizations. Groups that don't disclose their donors flooded elections with $963 million in outside spending, compared to a paltry $129 million over the previous decade.
- Major corporations didn't take full advantage of their new political powers. Corporations accounted for no more than one-tenth of independent groups' fundraising in each election cycle since the ruling. But secretly funded nonprofits and trade associations that influence elections take money from major companies in amounts that are mostly unknown.
- The ruling didn't reverse the ban on foreign money in elections, but it provided opportunities for foreign actors to secretly funnel money to elections through nonprofits and shell companies.. . . "
It wasn't semantics. It was simple facts. Do you have a problem with a discussion being based upon actual facts?
Yeah. . it IS semantics. The simple FACT is, you can give millions of dollars to a campaign, you just have to WORD it the right way. By definition, THAT IS SEMANTICS.
DUH!
Did you even watch that second video? It is so obvious that you are wrong. . ..
No you can not. It matters none how you word it.
