"Far Right" can't win for GOP? ...BS!

[Jroc]

Cruz is a major crony capitalist, the same as HRC.

"He's not a rich man unlike your leftist heroes and establishment Republicans"

His net worth is almost two million and will 100 times that when he leaves the Senate.
Ted Cruz R-Texas 2011 OpenSecrets

ranks 53rd in the Senate with an estimated net worth* of $1,836,022 in 2011.

I must be fabulously wealthy as well when we include my house, cars ect..... How come i don't feel rich?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Because "rich" is a state of mind emotionally, and apparently you are emotionally deficient. Why?

 

[Boss]

Okay... So in order to make their LIE work,

"donations of unlimited money with no disclosure" has suddenly changed into some 501c groups being exempt from disclosure for certain kinds of "ads" during a campaign.

First thing is, a 501c is NOT a 527 group. Would any of you kiddies like to know what the difference is? A 501c is six various types of non profit organizations where the NP's main function is not primarily political advocacy. This includes groups like Chambers of Commerce, religious organizations, social welfare groups, farm/business/trade organizations... that sort of thing. These groups are allowed to run ads which do not endorse a particular candidate but rather a political issue, message or view in general.

NPs who are specifically political in nature are 527s. They can raise unlimited money because is is from an unlimited number of people. They must disclose all funding and expenditures per CFR laws and are restricted in the amounts contributed per candidate and/or election cycle.

IN NO CASE is there ever "donations of unlimited money with no disclosure" to ANY political candidate.

 

[edthecynic]

First thing is, a 501c is NOT a 527 group. ... IN NO CASE is there ever "donations of unlimited money with no disclosure" to ANY political candidate.

As is typical of the far Right, when caught lying, they lie some more with more authoritativeness. Any donation from 501(c)s to 527s only has to disclose the amount of the donation, not the donors, as you well know. That is the loophole to the 527 reporting requirements, as you also well know.

Political Nonprofits
Politically active nonprofits -- principally 501(c)(4)s and 501(c)(6)s -- have become a major force in federal elections over the last three cycles. The term "dark money" is often applied to this category of political spender because these groups do not have to disclose the sources of their funding -- though a minority do disclose some or all of their donors, by choice or in response to specific circumstances.

These organizations can receive unlimited corporate, individual, or union contributions that they do not have to make public

 

[JakeStarkey]

Ed has Boss turned around and bent over the saw horse: Boss has been Bossed.

The fact is this: Ed tore Boss's lackluster defense apart.

 

[Boss]

First thing is, a 501c is NOT a 527 group. ... IN NO CASE is there ever "donations of unlimited money with no disclosure" to ANY political candidate.

As is typical of the far Right, when caught lying, they lie some more with more authoritativeness. Any donation from 501(c)s to 527s only has to disclose the amount of the donation, not the donors, as you well know. That is the loophole to the 527 reporting requirements, as you also well know.

Political Nonprofits
Politically active nonprofits -- principally 501(c)(4)s and 501(c)(6)s -- have become a major force in federal elections over the last three cycles. The term "dark money" is often applied to this category of political spender because these groups do not have to disclose the sources of their funding -- though a minority do disclose some or all of their donors, by choice or in response to specific circumstances.

These organizations can receive unlimited corporate, individual, or union contributions that they do not have to make public

Hey, you can start using big bold fonts, it won't make your lies any more true. 501c groups... AGAIN... are NOT primarily political groups. A "political" non-profit is a 527.

So you're nit picking on groups like the NAACP, US Chamber of Commerce and Southern Baptist Convention.... who can have unlimited and undisclosed donations because they are not primarily political in nature. 501c groups are specifically limited to a certain amount they can contribute per candidate and/or election cycle.

What you are trying to say is, because a group like the NAACP runs an ad promoting (for example) tax breaks for minorities... they should be forced to disclose all funding from all sources. Unfortunately, the SCOTUS doesn't agree with you.

Terms like "Dark Money" are constructed and designed intentionally by liberal liars who want to skew perspective and promote their propaganda.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Anymore than Boss's illustrated graphics make his silly comments true: 716, 691 above for instance.

 

[Boss]

Wow, JakeFromStateFarm... you sure do a lot of brown-nosing liberals to be a "moderate independent" as you've claimed. Too funny... you're like a Playboy bunny standing on her soapbox screaming about empowering women and respecting their minds. .

 

[JakeStarkey]

Wow, JakeFromStateFarm... you sure do a lot of brown-nosing liberals to be a "moderate independent" as you've claimed. Too funny... you're like a Playboy bunny standing on her soapbox screaming about empowering women and respecting their minds. .

You got caught being hypocritical, which is you to a T. You are not mainstream Republican, you are not even a real Conservative, just a far right pretender. You should respect all people, including women, my friend. The country does not need your elitist fascism meld of social con far right reactionary nonsense, neo-corporatism, and Tea Party.

 

[Boss]

Wow, JakeFromStateFarm... you sure do a lot of brown-nosing liberals to be a "moderate independent" as you've claimed. Too funny... you're like a Playboy bunny standing on her soapbox screaming about empowering women and respecting their minds. .

You got caught being hypocritical, which is you to a T. You are not mainstream Republican, you are not even a real Conservative, just a far right pretender. You should respect all people, including women, my friend. The country does not need your elitist fascism meld of social con far right reactionary nonsense, neo-corporatism, and Tea Party.

The problem is, you can't ever back up any of your claims. I am not a mainstream Republican or Republican of any kind, I don't belong to their party and never have. I am a Conservative, which we've established means "far right" to you. I do respect all people including women... never have stated otherwise. Not a neo-corporatist, do support the Tea Party. No evidence exists that I am "fascist, reactionary, elitist, neo or far" anything. I've challenged you to provide the evidence and you have simply continued to repeat your lies.

So you continue to lie about what I am and what I believe, insisting you speak for the rest of the country, claiming to know what they need and want. If we gave you tits, a blonde lesbo wig and stuck a persimmon in your mouth, you'd be Hillary Clinton!

 

[JakeStarkey]

l backed up that you are a hypocrite above, Boss. I backed up my claims without any difficulty. You simply don't like being outed as a far right reactionary. You are not a Real Conservative at all, merely a TP nut case. You have had your ass booted every time you tried to redefine traditional accepted terms. That will continue as long as you continue to act stupidly. I will continue to tell the truth about what you are and what you believe. "insisting you speak for the rest of the country, claiming to know what they need and want" is exactly what you are doing, and I am telling you that you do not speak for America.

 

[Boss]

l backed up that you are a hypocrite above, Boss. I backed up my claims without any difficulty. You simply don't like being outed as a far right reactionary. You are not a Real Conservative at all, merely a TP nut case. You have had your ass booted every time you tried to redefine traditional accepted terms. That will continue as long as you continue to act stupidly. I will continue to tell the truth about what you are and what you believe. "insisting you speak for the rest of the country, claiming to know what they need and want" is exactly what you are doing, and I am telling you that you do not speak for America.

Again, Jake, I do not fit your stereotypes. You have not backed up that I am a hypocrite in any way. You want to say I am a hypocrite because I don't live up to the stereotypes you've invented to define me.

I've not tried to redefine anything, I have only pointed out valid definitions and already accepted terms which contradict your redefined ones. I've not claimed that I speak for anyone, that is only coming from YOU.

You can be as committed as you want to continuing to lie and mislead people with false assertions, that suits me just fine. I'll be here to expose your lies and illustrate your idiocy along the way.

 

[edthecynic]

501c groups... AGAIN... are NOT primarily political groups. A "political" non-profit is a 527.

Again we see your far Right ideology of lying when confronted with the truth. To avoid revealing their donors the 501(c)s and the 527s work together. The 501c collects the unlimited anonymous money and then gifts it to the connected 527. For example, the 527 conservative Super PAC American Crossroads which supports conservative politicians, runs a 501(c)(4) known as Crossroads GPS to raise unlimited money and keep its donors hidden. Crossroads GPS raises the money and then gifts it to the 527 Super PAC which only has to disclose the amount Crossroads GPS contributed.

But as the all-knowing Bossy, you already knew this when you lied and denied knowing how the loophole worked.

 

[Boss]

501c groups... AGAIN... are NOT primarily political groups. A "political" non-profit is a 527.

Again we see your far Right ideology of lying when confronted with the truth. To avoid revealing their donors the 501(c)s and the 527s work together. The 501c collects the unlimited anonymous money and then gifts it to the connected 527. For example, the 527 conservative Super PAC American Crossroads which supports conservative politicians, runs a 501(c)(4) known as Crossroads GPS to raise unlimited money and keep its donors hidden. Crossroads GPS raises the money and then gifts it to the 527 Super PAC which only has to disclose the amount Crossroads GPS contributed.

But as the all-knowing Bossy, you already knew this when you lied and denied knowing how the loophole worked.

For example, the 527 conservative Super PAC American Crossroads which supports conservative politicians, runs a 501(c)(4) known as Crossroads GPS to raise unlimited money and keep its donors hidden. Crossroads GPS raises the money and then gifts it to the 527 Super PAC which only has to disclose the amount Crossroads GPS contributed. ....And the 527 is limited in the amount they can donate or spend per candidate and election cycle, per Federal Election laws.

Also... this is done because it's the law and how 501(c) groups must operate to remain within the law. They can't be "political activist groups" and retain 501(c) status... it's illegal... they can lose their 501(c) status or go to prison. There are also several watchdog groups keeping track of who is reporting what and this has resulted in several 527s being fined by the FEC for violations. So you're pointing your finger at something that looks nefarious but is actually how the law states it must be done.

It's a great accomplishment, you having dragged the thread far away from the OP topic to discuss Campaign Finance Reform... but please, let's not think that you've cajoled me into an argument defending McCain-Feingold. I am merely contradicting your false assertion that candidates can receive "unlimited donations" from any source. Are current campaign funding laws perfect? Hell no! But they also aren't allowing unrestricted and unlimited amounts of secret money to be donated to candidates.

 

[edthecynic]

501c groups... AGAIN... are NOT primarily political groups. A "political" non-profit is a 527.

Again we see your far Right ideology of lying when confronted with the truth. To avoid revealing their donors the 501(c)s and the 527s work together. The 501c collects the unlimited anonymous money and then gifts it to the connected 527. For example, the 527 conservative Super PAC American Crossroads which supports conservative politicians, runs a 501(c)(4) known as Crossroads GPS to raise unlimited money and keep its donors hidden. Crossroads GPS raises the money and then gifts it to the 527 Super PAC which only has to disclose the amount Crossroads GPS contributed.

But as the all-knowing Bossy, you already knew this when you lied and denied knowing how the loophole worked.

For example, the 527 conservative Super PAC American Crossroads which supports conservative politicians, runs a 501(c)(4) known as Crossroads GPS to raise unlimited money and keep its donors hidden. Crossroads GPS raises the money and then gifts it to the 527 Super PAC which only has to disclose the amount Crossroads GPS contributed. ....And the 527 is limited in the amount they can donate or spend per candidate and election cycle, per Federal Election laws.

Also... this is done because it's the law and how 501(c) groups must operate to remain within the law. They can't be "political activist groups" and retain 501(c) status... it's illegal... they can lose their 501(c) status or go to prison. There are also several watchdog groups keeping track of who is reporting what and this has resulted in several 527s being fined by the FEC for violations. So you're pointing your finger at something that looks nefarious but is actually how the law states it must be done.

It's a great accomplishment, you having dragged the thread far away from the OP topic to discuss Campaign Finance Reform... but please, let's not think that you've cajoled me into an argument defending McCain-Feingold. I am merely contradicting your false assertion that candidates can receive "unlimited donations" from any source. Are current campaign funding laws perfect? Hell no! But they also aren't allowing unrestricted and unlimited amounts of secret money to be donated to candidates.

Wrong and wrong, as usual.

Buckley v. Valeo: struck down limitations on campaign expenditures, on independent expenditures by individuals and groups, and on expenditures by a candidate from personal funds

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission: held that the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting political independent expenditures by corporations, associations, or labor unions as had been expressed in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, known as the McCain-Feingold Act.

 

[Boss]

501c groups... AGAIN... are NOT primarily political groups. A "political" non-profit is a 527.

Again we see your far Right ideology of lying when confronted with the truth. To avoid revealing their donors the 501(c)s and the 527s work together. The 501c collects the unlimited anonymous money and then gifts it to the connected 527. For example, the 527 conservative Super PAC American Crossroads which supports conservative politicians, runs a 501(c)(4) known as Crossroads GPS to raise unlimited money and keep its donors hidden. Crossroads GPS raises the money and then gifts it to the 527 Super PAC which only has to disclose the amount Crossroads GPS contributed.

But as the all-knowing Bossy, you already knew this when you lied and denied knowing how the loophole worked.

For example, the 527 conservative Super PAC American Crossroads which supports conservative politicians, runs a 501(c)(4) known as Crossroads GPS to raise unlimited money and keep its donors hidden. Crossroads GPS raises the money and then gifts it to the 527 Super PAC which only has to disclose the amount Crossroads GPS contributed. ....And the 527 is limited in the amount they can donate or spend per candidate and election cycle, per Federal Election laws.

Also... this is done because it's the law and how 501(c) groups must operate to remain within the law. They can't be "political activist groups" and retain 501(c) status... it's illegal... they can lose their 501(c) status or go to prison. There are also several watchdog groups keeping track of who is reporting what and this has resulted in several 527s being fined by the FEC for violations. So you're pointing your finger at something that looks nefarious but is actually how the law states it must be done.

It's a great accomplishment, you having dragged the thread far away from the OP topic to discuss Campaign Finance Reform... but please, let's not think that you've cajoled me into an argument defending McCain-Feingold. I am merely contradicting your false assertion that candidates can receive "unlimited donations" from any source. Are current campaign funding laws perfect? Hell no! But they also aren't allowing unrestricted and unlimited amounts of secret money to be donated to candidates.

Wrong and wrong, as usual.

Buckley v. Valeo: struck down limitations on campaign expenditures, on independent expenditures by individuals and groups, and on expenditures by a candidate from personal funds

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission: held that the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting political independent expenditures by corporations, associations, or labor unions as had been expressed in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, known as the McCain-Feingold Act.

*sigh* Buckley v. Valeo was a 1976 case which struck down limits on spending in campaigns, but upheld the provision limiting the size of individual contributions to campaigns. Citizens also had nothing to do with limits on individual campaign contributions.

So again, not remotely wrong and not remotely wrong, yet here is eddy boy... his mouth is farting smoke into a mirror as he attempts to illustrate his own version of truth.

Pathetic and sad.

 

[zeke]

But they also aren't allowing unrestricted and unlimited amounts of secret money to be donated to candidates.

The above is what you are grasping as your "proof" that campaign finance methods are just fine the way they are
And that there are not unlimited donations going DIRECTLT to the candidates..

What difference does it make that the money is not in the hands of the politician vs the money being in the hands of a political organization that will spend that money on the candidates behalf?

But bossy, you really make your self look stupid when you refuse to Google. Or try and deny what everybody that writes and reports about politics knows; there is unlimited, undisclosed campaign money flowing into the political coffers of every politician running a national election campaign.

And there will be more money (disclosed and undisclosed) spent this election cycle than ever before.

Funny thing is, no matter how much Repubs spend, they will still lose the Presidential election. At least I hope that's the case. If the unions and Soros can spend close to the amount the Kochs and Addleson will spend.

Aren't you glad there is Democrat money to offset the Republican money? I am.

 

[Boss]

But they also aren't allowing unrestricted and unlimited amounts of secret money to be donated to candidates.

The above is what you are grasping as your "proof" that campaign finance methods are just fine the way they are
And that there are not unlimited donations going DIRECTLT to the candidates..

What difference does it make that the money is not in the hands of the politician vs the money being in the hands of a political organization that will spend that money on the candidates behalf?

But bossy, you really make your self look stupid when you refuse to Google. Or try and deny what everybody that writes and reports about politics knows; there is unlimited, undisclosed campaign money flowing into the political coffers of every politician running a national election campaign.

And there will be more money (disclosed and undisclosed) spent this election cycle than ever before.

Funny thing is, no matter how much Repubs spend, they will still lose the Presidential election. At least I hope that's the case. If the unions and Soros can spend close to the amount the Kochs and Addleson will spend.

Aren't you glad there is Democrat money to offset the Republican money? I am.

What difference does it make that the money is not in the hands of the politician vs the money being in the hands of a political organization....
All the difference in the world when you're claiming there are unlimited donations to candidates happening. One is not the other, they are two different things that are not the same thing. So that makes it a different thing. Do you comprehend?

Now we really have to be special kind of stupid to believe that our Congress spent months and months back in 2001-02 debating and considering the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Act of 2002, addressing all the assorted complicated problems and issues with regard to disclosure and transparency of campaign finance.... BUT... we now somehow mysteriously have this rogue "dark money" and unlimited, undisclosed and unreported "secret money" flowing freely to the candidates.

....Who the hell were the idiots who passed CFR?

I'll give you a hint... it wasn't ME or the Tea Party, we were opposed to it!

 

[edthecynic]

501c groups... AGAIN... are NOT primarily political groups. A "political" non-profit is a 527.

Again we see your far Right ideology of lying when confronted with the truth. To avoid revealing their donors the 501(c)s and the 527s work together. The 501c collects the unlimited anonymous money and then gifts it to the connected 527. For example, the 527 conservative Super PAC American Crossroads which supports conservative politicians, runs a 501(c)(4) known as Crossroads GPS to raise unlimited money and keep its donors hidden. Crossroads GPS raises the money and then gifts it to the 527 Super PAC which only has to disclose the amount Crossroads GPS contributed.

But as the all-knowing Bossy, you already knew this when you lied and denied knowing how the loophole worked.

For example, the 527 conservative Super PAC American Crossroads which supports conservative politicians, runs a 501(c)(4) known as Crossroads GPS to raise unlimited money and keep its donors hidden. Crossroads GPS raises the money and then gifts it to the 527 Super PAC which only has to disclose the amount Crossroads GPS contributed. ....And the 527 is limited in the amount they can donate or spend per candidate and election cycle, per Federal Election laws.

Also... this is done because it's the law and how 501(c) groups must operate to remain within the law. They can't be "political activist groups" and retain 501(c) status... it's illegal... they can lose their 501(c) status or go to prison. There are also several watchdog groups keeping track of who is reporting what and this has resulted in several 527s being fined by the FEC for violations. So you're pointing your finger at something that looks nefarious but is actually how the law states it must be done.

It's a great accomplishment, you having dragged the thread far away from the OP topic to discuss Campaign Finance Reform... but please, let's not think that you've cajoled me into an argument defending McCain-Feingold. I am merely contradicting your false assertion that candidates can receive "unlimited donations" from any source. Are current campaign funding laws perfect? Hell no! But they also aren't allowing unrestricted and unlimited amounts of secret money to be donated to candidates.

Wrong and wrong, as usual.

Buckley v. Valeo: struck down limitations on campaign expenditures, on independent expenditures by individuals and groups, and on expenditures by a candidate from personal funds

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission: held that the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting political independent expenditures by corporations, associations, or labor unions as had been expressed in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, known as the McCain-Feingold Act.

*sigh* Buckley v. Valeo was a 1976 case which struck down limits on spending in campaigns, but upheld the provision limiting the size of individual contributions to campaigns. Citizens also had nothing to do with limits on individual campaign contributions.

So again, not remotely wrong and not remotely wrong, yet here is eddy boy... his mouth is farting smoke into a mirror as he attempts to illustrate his own version of truth.

Pathetic and sad.

Again, dark money has been in the news for years, and yet, as is typical of the far Right, you still lie pretending ignorance.

Buckley v. Valeo in addition to striking down limits on candidate expenditures, the decision also invalidated limits on independent spending (spending not coordinated with the candidate or his campaign) and limits on expenditures of candidates’ personal funds.

501(c)s can devote no more than half of their funds to political spending if they want to retain their nondisclosing tax-exempt status. However no one is holding them to account! Since the Internal Revenue Service got hammered for oversight activities that were at best overzealous, at worst partisan, many of these groups can essentially do whatever they want, unchallenged. When the IRS began looking more closely at nonprofits it was accused in 2013 of targeting conservative and Tea Party groups, including Rove’s Crossroads GPS, as well as politicizing the granting of its coveted 501(c)(4) status to them. The agency apologized, and former IRS official Lois Lerner lost her job.

Since then there has been no oversight on how much is spent on politics. Furthermore, the 501(c)s play games with what is "political" and what is "educational." So as a result, in spite of anything the law might say, IN PRACTICE there is no limit to undisclosed dark money.

 

[Boss]

Again, dark money has been in the news for years....

Well yes it has been Ed, Liberals have this long-standing issue with big money backing the capitalist cow they are trying to bring down. They screamed and hollered about "dark money" for years until some Republicans finally listened and helped them pass campaign finance laws in 1976, then revised it numerous times before passing massive bipartisan legislation in 2002, spearheaded by a "moderate" who bought into the liberal meme. And IF we passed another comprehensive act to deal with whatever mythical problem liberals believe is happening now, it still will not end this debate. You'll be right back here in a few years, telling us about the same "dark money" funding the candidates you don't like.

What you want is a system which allows Liberals to pretty much do whatever the hell they goddamn-well please, legal or not, and that's perfectly alright... but Conservatives or those who aren't Liberals, can go pound fucking sand! All your little special interest groups and unions, they can pour millions of dollars from anonymous donors into the campaigns of Liberal candidates and that's just fine with you. But Conservatives are going to have every possible avenue of funding undermined under the false narrative that it's somehow unethical or "corrupt" when someone actually gives money for a conservative cause.

Fuck You! We HAD campaign finance reform! John McCain led the charge along with MOST of the Democrats and some "Gang" of Republicans. Where did it get us in this debate? We're right back where we started... With loud-mouth Liberals screaming about the damn "dark money" funding candidates they don't like. Do moderates honestly not get the picture? That's MY question. I understand why the Liberals continue this shit, because it's successful for them! It works! They keep this balloon in the air until a few non-conservative idiot republicans decide to join democrats and give up some more, make some more rules and ways for liberal democrats to exploit an advantage.