Equal or 'More Equal'? That is the question!

[AVG-JOE]

Although super PACs are required to divulge major donors, loose disclosure rules allow contributors to withhold their names and mask their donations by setting up corporations to maintain their anonymity. One of Restore Our Future's early donors, Edward Conard, masked a $1 million contribution last year behind an unknown company, W Spann LLC, until public pressure forced him to acknowledge his name and affiliation with Romney's former private equity firm, Bain Capital.
(Emphasis added)

Rove Super PAC Posts $4.6M in Donations in May

Apparently, by calling his SuperPac a "Social Welfare Organization" rather than a "Political Action Committee" donations can remain far more anonymous.

If a few wealthy individuals want to influence elections, shouldn't we at least know who they are?

How much anonymous money is influencing American elections that originates overseas?

This is a real problem folks, transparency in all things politics is one of the three keys to equality among citizens.

Are some of us "more equal" than others?
Animal Farm - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[SniperFire]

If a few wealthy individuals want to influence elections, shouldn't we at least know who they are?

No. They must have told you that in commie school.

But if the TV ads bother you that much, just turn it off.

It is a free country, you know!

 

[AVG-JOE]

We can never be free until we have transparency in politics.

 

[SniperFire]

We can never be free until we have transparency in politics.

'Transparency in politics'?

What are you, 10 years old?

 

[mal]

Although super PACs are required to divulge major donors, loose disclosure rules allow contributors to withhold their names and mask their donations by setting up corporations to maintain their anonymity. One of Restore Our Future's early donors, Edward Conard, masked a $1 million contribution last year behind an unknown company, W Spann LLC, until public pressure forced him to acknowledge his name and affiliation with Romney's former private equity firm, Bain Capital.
(Emphasis added)

Rove Super PAC Posts $4.6M in Donations in May

Apparently, by calling his SuperPac a "Social Welfare Organization" rather than a "Political Action Committee" donations can remain far more anonymous.

If a few wealthy individuals want to influence elections, shouldn't we at least know who they are?

How much anonymous money is influencing American elections that originates overseas?

This is a real problem folks, transparency in all things politics is one of the three keys to equality among citizens.

Are some of us "more equal" than others?
Animal Farm - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hey dude... That's great and all... But aren't you forgetting something?...

#frivolousfridayflamefest



peace...

 

[California Girl]

Although super PACs are required to divulge major donors, loose disclosure rules allow contributors to withhold their names and mask their donations by setting up corporations to maintain their anonymity. One of Restore Our Future's early donors, Edward Conard, masked a $1 million contribution last year behind an unknown company, W Spann LLC, until public pressure forced him to acknowledge his name and affiliation with Romney's former private equity firm, Bain Capital.
(Emphasis added)

Rove Super PAC Posts $4.6M in Donations in May

Apparently, by calling his SuperPac a "Social Welfare Organization" rather than a "Political Action Committee" donations can remain far more anonymous.

If a few wealthy individuals want to influence elections, shouldn't we at least know who they are?

How much anonymous money is influencing American elections that originates overseas?

This is a real problem folks, transparency in all things politics is one of the three keys to equality among citizens.

Are some of us "more equal" than others?
Animal Farm - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What does 'originates overseas' mean? If, for example, I decide to donate to Romney's campaign... but a majority of my money 'originates overseas' - that somehow is different to another American whose money 'originates' in the US? I am an American, regardless of where my money comes from.

I have an issue IF it is foreign money from foreigners that is being donated.. but I see no reason why an American cannot donate to a campaign, regardless of the source of their money.

And... where does this 'equal' crap come into it? Does the Constitution guarantee a lifetime of 'equality'? If so, why should any of us bother to work?

 

[Gremlin-USA]

We can never be free until we have transparency in politics.

Transparency?

You mean the 7 Biggest Lies of Obama?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umhe3OeuXgE&feature=related]Barack Obama - Transparency or not? - YouTube[/ame]

If half of what Obama Promised were true, our Nation would be a much better place

.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Although super PACs are required to divulge major donors, loose disclosure rules allow contributors to withhold their names and mask their donations by setting up corporations to maintain their anonymity. One of Restore Our Future's early donors, Edward Conard, masked a $1 million contribution last year behind an unknown company, W Spann LLC, until public pressure forced him to acknowledge his name and affiliation with Romney's former private equity firm, Bain Capital.
(Emphasis added)

Rove Super PAC Posts $4.6M in Donations in May

Apparently, by calling his SuperPac a "Social Welfare Organization" rather than a "Political Action Committee" donations can remain far more anonymous.

If a few wealthy individuals want to influence elections, shouldn't we at least know who they are?

How much anonymous money is influencing American elections that originates overseas?

This is a real problem folks, transparency in all things politics is one of the three keys to equality among citizens.

Are some of us "more equal" than others?
Animal Farm - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What does 'originates overseas' mean? If, for example, I decide to donate to Romney's campaign... but a majority of my money 'originates overseas' - that somehow is different to another American whose money 'originates' in the US? I am an American, regardless of where my money comes from.

I have an issue IF it is foreign money from foreigners that is being donated.. but I see no reason why an American cannot donate to a campaign, regardless of the source of their money.

And... where does this 'equal' crap come into it? Does the Constitution guarantee a lifetime of 'equality'? If so, why should any of us bother to work?

My point is that if we don't know who is donating to these PAC's, how do we know that they don't represent the Chinese Government?

How do we know that 95% of the funds in any given "Social Welfare Orginization" PAC, on either the Left or Right, didn't originate with a Saudi Prince?

This isn't a strictly partisan problem - anonymous influence is affecting BOTH sides of the asile. The republicans are just better at it.

 

[AVG-JOE]

We can never be free until we have transparency in politics.

Transparency?

You mean the 7 Biggest Lies of Obama?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umhe3OeuXgE&feature=related]Barack Obama - Transparency or not? - YouTube[/ame]

If half of what Obama Promised were true, our Nation would be a much better place

.

Proof of what happens when the campaign promises of a candidate meet the gridlock of Congress.

Don't expect much better from either of the current candidates.

 

[AVG-JOE]

And... where does this 'equal' crap come into it? Does the Constitution guarantee a lifetime of 'equality'? If so, why should any of us bother to work?

Yes. The constitution DOES promise all Americans equal political footing.

That was pretty much the point to drafting it in the first place.

 

[whitehall]

The left has been whining ever since SCOTUS ruled that money is speech and corporations have the same right to contribute to political causes as anyone else. Nobody seemed concerned when Al Gore was caught violating the law. We will just have to see if existing laws prevent China from contributing to comrade Obama's campaign.

 

[AVG-JOE]

I certainly don't mind folks donating whatever they want. And if they control the purse strings of a corporation, they should be able to contribute via that stream of income also.

What I have a problem with is the "special rules" allowing much of the political advertising we see to be anonymously aired.

If a multinational corporation or foreign government wants to influence our politics with large sums of money, we have a right to know who they are.

Why?

Because nobody gives away money without strings, and the bigger the donation, the stronger the strings.

 

[Big Black Dog]

I put one equal in my coffee every morning. Two equals is a bit too much.

 

[Vidi]

If Al Queda donates to one of these "Social Welfare Organizations" to support Obama...wouldnt you want to know?

In order to find out, the right would have to disclose their donors as well.

Im with Joe on this. Transparency is good. I want to know if another soveriegn nation or foreign organization is given money to elect a candidate.

 

[Vidi]

The left has been whining ever since SCOTUS ruled that money is speech and corporations have the same right to contribute to political causes as anyone else. Nobody seemed concerned when Al Gore was caught violating the law. We will just have to see if existing laws prevent China from contributing to comrade Obama's campaign.

Actually, the right should be concerned about this as well. After all, the current laws do NOT prevent China from donating to "comrade obamas" campaign.

If you cant cast a ballot, then you should be allowed to donate. Period.

 

[signelect]

Transparency is the myth that politicians are telling us the truth. First they don't know what the truth is and secondly by the very nature of the beast, politicians lie. Quit blaming all the issues on the President or congress, we, the voters are at fault because we have let them get away with it for years.

 

[Vidi]

Transparency is the myth that politicians are telling us the truth. First they don't know what the truth is and secondly by the very nature of the beast, politicians lie. Quit blaming all the issues on the President or congress, we, the voters are at fault because we have let them get away with it for years.

I agree with everything but the first sentence of your post.

Transparency is what we the people should DEMAND so we can stop letting them get away with it.

Greenies for you though.

 

[SniperFire]

And... where does this 'equal' crap come into it? Does the Constitution guarantee a lifetime of 'equality'? If so, why should any of us bother to work?

Yes. The constitution DOES promise all Americans equal political footing.

That was pretty much the point to drafting it in the first place.

That is ridiculous. If I have $100 to spend to support a candidate, and you have $0, the Constitution says this situation cannot stand because Americans are promised 'equal political footing'?

 

[Vidi]

And... where does this 'equal' crap come into it? Does the Constitution guarantee a lifetime of 'equality'? If so, why should any of us bother to work?

Yes. The constitution DOES promise all Americans equal political footing.

That was pretty much the point to drafting it in the first place.

That is ridiculous. If I have $100 to spend to support a candidate, and you have $0, the Constitution says this situation cannot stand because Americans are promised 'equal political footing'?

We each get one vote. We are therefore equal.

I think however that allowing foreign entities to sontribute to get candidates that are more sympathetic to their cause is nto something that will yeiold positive results.

 

[SniperFire]

BTW, Citizens United did NOT open the floodgates of foreign money influencing our elections.

That remains illegal. You could perhaps make an argument on the potential for weak enforcement on laundering by some sleazebag corporation, but the Bluman v. FEC ruling says:

JANUARY 13‚ 2012

Supreme Court Affirms Ban on Campaign Contributions and Independent Expenditures by Foreign Nationals

Foreign citizens who are legally living in the United States have no constitutional right to spend or contribute money in connection with U.S. elections for any government office, the Supreme Court reaffirmed in a one-sentence order this week. Without elaboration or any noted dissents, the Supreme Court upheld the lower-court decision of Bluman v. FEC that it is constitutional for Congress to bar foreign citizens legally living in the United States from monetarily participating in the campaign process. In so doing, the Supreme Court made clear that Citizens United v. FEC,1 the Court’s controversial opinion from January 2010, does not extend beyond United States citizens (including corporations).2'

Supreme Court Affirms Ban on Campaign Contributions and Independent Expenditures by Foreign Nationals