Look who is buying the election

[Vidi]

Really? So, political parties should not have the right to influence elections?

They can SAY all they want, but they shouldn't be able to buy the whole process. Money does NOT equal speech.

The Citizens United decision says money IS free speech.

All the money in politics isn't a great thing, but my REAL problem is the anonymity given to that money.

Any foriegn interest, be it government or organization, can now spend unlimited amounts of money to influence our elections and their contribution never has to be disclosed to the public.

This means the Muslim Brotherhood, or The Saudi Royal family, could invest millions of dollars in a candidate, we would never know and it's all completely legal.

In my opinion, If you can't cast a vote, then you shouldn't be allowed to contribute money to a campaign or a PAC.

 

[asaratis]

A rather simplistic thread this is. Is it not common sense to expect a contributor to back the candidate he feels will most benefit the contributor?

Being a farmer, depending on his farm for a livelihood is not likely to vote for some asshole that proposes to end the concept of a family owned farm in favor of mega-farms and conglomerates.

Stupid thread indeed.

 

[Big Fitz]

Really? So, political parties should not have the right to influence elections?

They can SAY all they want, but they shouldn't be able to buy the whole process. Money does NOT equal speech.

The Citizens United decision says money IS free speech.

All the money in politics isn't a great thing, but my REAL problem is the anonymity given to that money.

Any foriegn interest, be it government or organization, can now spend unlimited amounts of money to influence our elections and their contribution never has to be disclosed to the public.

This means the Muslim Brotherhood, or The Saudi Royal family, could invest millions of dollars in a candidate, we would never know and it's all completely legal.

In my opinion, If you can't cast a vote, then you shouldn't be allowed to contribute money to a campaign or a PAC.

That was said by the SCOTUS decades ago.

I agree that all giving should be 100% transparent though with no bundling.

I also agree with the barring foreign money in elections. I know Gore got a lot from buddhist temples.

 

[dblack]

I also agree with the barring foreign money in elections. I know Gore got a lot from buddhist temples.

Yeah... the buddhists have been trying to undermine our democracy for decades.

 

[freedombecki]

I have no problem with unlimited campaign contributions to either party as long as there is full disclosure.

Care to compare Romney and Obama war-chests, since we're on the topic?
Or is that different, somehow?

Of course it isn't different. That's why they have to invest heavily in a spin room to fool other people into believing whatever suits their mood.

 

[freedombecki]

Look who is making political donations and what the presidebt is doing about them.

The enemies list.

Strassel: The President Has a List - WSJ.com

Try this thought experiment: You decide to donate money to Mitt Romney. You want change in the Oval Office, so you engage in your democratic right to send a check.

Several days later, President Barack Obama, the most powerful man on the planet, singles you out by name. His campaign brands you a Romney donor, shames you for "betting against America," and accuses you of having a "less-than-reputable" record. The message from the man who controls the Justice Department (which can indict you), the SEC (which can fine you), and the IRS (which can audit you), is clear: You made a mistake donating that money.

Are you worried?

This fundraiser of a president has shown an acute appreciation for the power of money to win elections, and a cutthroat approach to intimidating those who might give to his opponents.

He's targeted insurers, oil firms and Wall Street—letting it be known that those who oppose his policies might face political or legislative retribution. He lectured the Supreme Court for giving companies more free speech and (falsely) accused the Chamber of Commerce of using foreign money to bankroll U.S. elections. The White House even ginned up an executive order (yet to be released) to require companies to list political donations as a condition of bidding for government contracts. Companies could bid but lose out for donating to Republicans. Or they could quit donating to the GOP—Mr. Obama's real aim.

The White House has couched its attacks in the language of "disclosure" and the argument that corporations should not have the same speech rights as individuals. But now, says Rory Cooper of the Heritage Foundation, "he's doing the same at the individual level, for anyone who opposes his policies." Any giver, at any level, risks reprisal from the president of the United States.

As Dr. House's user title states, "Reported to AttackWatch."

Obama's search and destroy minions go on the hunt, find his "enemies" as he calls them, then he attacks them in public.

This is information most presidents are too busy to see. This President is so anal retentive it consumes him. I've said it elsewhere, and I'll say it again. President Obama's legacy will be that he was the "The Busybody President."

 

[The T]

Or this ...

Robert Draper Book: GOP's Anti-Obama Campaign Started Night Of Inauguration

Actually, I think we're all just numb to the low down, just short of all out treason, dirty tricks we've gotten from the most corrupt Republican party in our history.

I miss the old GOP.

How does that square with Obama's (and YOUR) Class Envy/Warfare?

You pretend Obama isn't getting big Corporate donors...

 

[The T]

Look who is making political donations and what the presidebt is doing about them.

The enemies list.

Strassel: The President Has a List - WSJ.com

Try this thought experiment: You decide to donate money to Mitt Romney. You want change in the Oval Office, so you engage in your democratic right to send a check.

Several days later, President Barack Obama, the most powerful man on the planet, singles you out by name. His campaign brands you a Romney donor, shames you for "betting against America," and accuses you of having a "less-than-reputable" record. The message from the man who controls the Justice Department (which can indict you), the SEC (which can fine you), and the IRS (which can audit you), is clear: You made a mistake donating that money.

Are you worried?

This fundraiser of a president has shown an acute appreciation for the power of money to win elections, and a cutthroat approach to intimidating those who might give to his opponents.

He's targeted insurers, oil firms and Wall Street—letting it be known that those who oppose his policies might face political or legislative retribution. He lectured the Supreme Court for giving companies more free speech and (falsely) accused the Chamber of Commerce of using foreign money to bankroll U.S. elections. The White House even ginned up an executive order (yet to be released) to require companies to list political donations as a condition of bidding for government contracts. Companies could bid but lose out for donating to Republicans. Or they could quit donating to the GOP—Mr. Obama's real aim.

The White House has couched its attacks in the language of "disclosure" and the argument that corporations should not have the same speech rights as individuals. But now, says Rory Cooper of the Heritage Foundation, "he's doing the same at the individual level, for anyone who opposes his policies." Any giver, at any level, risks reprisal from the president of the United States.

As Dr. House's user title states, "Reported to AttackWatch."

Obama's search and destroy minions go on the hunt, find his "enemies" as he calls them, then he attacks them in public.

This is information most presidents are too busy to see. This President is so anal retentive it consumes him. I've said it elsewhere, and I'll say it again. President Obama's legacy will be that he was the "The Busybody President."

It's what shit-disturbing Community Organizers do.

Obama is a malignant narcissist. It's ALL about himself...NOT the people.

It's that simple.

 

[Trajan]

oops

Oh well, I'm leaving my mistake there. Maybe it will give some of you a smile. Here's the link I meant to post.

Corporate Campaign Contributions Show Some Industries Giving Up Appearance Of Bipartisanship

oh I see and when obama got the lions share of union contributions, and a huge share of Energy co. $$$ were they giving up their bi-partisanship then?

 

[The T]

oops

Oh well, I'm leaving my mistake there. Maybe it will give some of you a smile. Here's the link I meant to post.

Corporate Campaign Contributions Show Some Industries Giving Up Appearance Of Bipartisanship

oh I see and when obama got the lions share of union contributions, and a huge share of Energy co. $$$ were they giving up their bi-partisanship then?

These people as the OP really belive Statists aren't taking Corporate donations...? [As they in the same breath decry/demonize them]?

 

[Vidi]

oops

Oh well, I'm leaving my mistake there. Maybe it will give some of you a smile. Here's the link I meant to post.

Corporate Campaign Contributions Show Some Industries Giving Up Appearance Of Bipartisanship

oh I see and when obama got the lions share of union contributions, and a huge share of Energy co. $$$ were they giving up their bi-partisanship then?

If the bar graphs in the linked article are to be believed, then he didnt recieve the "lions share" of the energy money. According to those graphs, the D's recieved less than half what the R's recieved.

 

[Trajan]

oops

Oh well, I'm leaving my mistake there. Maybe it will give some of you a smile. Here's the link I meant to post.

Corporate Campaign Contributions Show Some Industries Giving Up Appearance Of Bipartisanship

oh I see and when obama got the lions share of union contributions, and a huge share of Energy co. $$$ were they giving up their bi-partisanship then?

If the bar graphs in the linked article are to be believed, then he didnt recieve the "lions share" of the energy money. According to those graphs, the D's recieved less than half what the R's recieved.

you're right, I apologize, I was thinking of and should have written banks and the securities mob...

 

[Vidi]

oh I see and when obama got the lions share of union contributions, and a huge share of Energy co. $$$ were they giving up their bi-partisanship then?

If the bar graphs in the linked article are to be believed, then he didnt recieve the "lions share" of the energy money. According to those graphs, the D's recieved less than half what the R's recieved.

you're right, I apologize, I was thinking of and should have written banks and the securities mob...

yeah thats totally accurate. I like the last line of the linked article:

As Public Citizen's Weissman said, "I still remain flabbergasted by their genuine horror at Obama given that they've been coddled, but it's there."

As if they havent had, either bought or bullied, Obama in their pocket this whole time.