I think that.... perhaps.... truffmocker is afraid of the big bad corporations.
She has a Frankenstein right behind her, yet she doesn't want to see it.
US SIF: Socially Responsible Investing (SRI) Facts
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I think that.... perhaps.... truffmocker is afraid of the big bad corporations.
FEC Republicans Are Making Citizens United Even Worse | ThinkProgress
Last month the six FEC commissioners killed on a 3-3 vote a motion to begin consideration of Van Hollens suggestions. By law, the agency may have only three members of any political party. By tradition, the president chooses three commissioners and the other partys Senate leader chooses three. The three Republican appointees Commissioners Caroline Hunter, Donald McGahn II and Matthew Petersen were the three no votes. The same trio also made headlines last month when they took the view that even coordination between Super PACs and candidates might not qualify as coordination between Super PACs and candidates.
The lawsuit is still pending.
Because of these loopholes, virtually none of the funders behind the Super PAC attack ads in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina will be disclosed until well after the voters there have cast their ballots. And the funders behind 501(c)(4) attack ads may never be known.
So while it was the Supreme Courts majority that opened the floodgates for corporate money in our elections, it is the deadlocked FEC that is keeping voters from even knowing where that money comes from.
How about turning off the TV when Super PAC ads come on?
It sends a message loud and clear that the people do not like the ads.
Believe me they will change those ads really quick when they find out that they are not being watched or they are not working.
Supreme Court Blocks Ban on Corporate Political Spending - NYTimes.com
Citizens United is a holding that the First Amendment prohibits government from placing limits on independent spending for political purposes by corporations and unions! The 5–4 decision originated in a dispute over whether the non-profit corporation Citizens United could air a film critical of Hillary Clinton, and whether the group could advertise the film in broadcast ads featuring Clinton's image.
Campaign Finance Rules: How Much Can a Business Contribute?
Federal law actually prohibits corporations from making contributions or expenditures on federal campaigns. However, corporations may set up what election law refers to as “separate segregated funds” (SSFs), more commonly known as PACs, in order to hold money in a separate bank account and make political contributions.
How much a PAC can contribute depends upon whether or not it is a multi-candidate PAC. A multi-candidate PAC is a political committee that has been registered for at least six months, has received contributions from more than 50 contributors and has made contributions to at least five federal candidates.
Multi-candidate PACs can contribute up to $5,000 per election to candidate committees; $5,000 per year combined to state, district and local party committees; and $15,000 per year to national party committees. PACs that are not multi-candidate can contribute $2,000 per election to candidates; $10,000 per year combined to state, district and local party committees; and $25,000 per year to national party committees!
so you think the PO is jsut doing what everyone else has to do?
How many entities have to fund decades of pension in a couple of years?
FEC Republicans Are Making Citizens United Even Worse | ThinkProgress
Last month the six FEC commissioners killed on a 3-3 vote a motion to begin consideration of Van Hollens suggestions. By law, the agency may have only three members of any political party. By tradition, the president chooses three commissioners and the other partys Senate leader chooses three. The three Republican appointees Commissioners Caroline Hunter, Donald McGahn II and Matthew Petersen were the three no votes. The same trio also made headlines last month when they took the view that even coordination between Super PACs and candidates might not qualify as coordination between Super PACs and candidates.
The lawsuit is still pending.
Because of these loopholes, virtually none of the funders behind the Super PAC attack ads in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina will be disclosed until well after the voters there have cast their ballots. And the funders behind 501(c)(4) attack ads may never be known.
So while it was the Supreme Courts majority that opened the floodgates for corporate money in our elections, it is the deadlocked FEC that is keeping voters from even knowing where that money comes from.
How about turning off the TV when Super PAC ads come on?
It sends a message loud and clear that the people do not like the ads.
Believe me they will change those ads really quick when they find out that they are not being watched or they are not working.
Why did the republicans not what the American people to know all the facts?
Tell us why the republican party is trying to distory the Post Office which the founders were willing to pay for?
And the funders behind 501(c)(4) attack ads may never be known.
Aren't 501(c)(4) non-profit organizations that must operate exclusively for the promotion of social welfare?
Tell us why the republican party is trying to distory the Post Office which the founders were willing to pay for?
News flash TM.
It's social entitlements that are killing the Post Office.
Operationally speaking, the USPS nets profits every year. The financial problem it faces now comes from a 2006 Congressional mandate that requires the agency to pre-pay into a fund that covers health care costs for future retired employees. Under the mandate, the USPS is required to make an annual $5.5 billion payment over ten years, through 2016. These prepayments are largely responsible for the USPSs financial losses over the past four years and the threat of shutdown that looms ahead take the retirement fund out of the equation, and the postal service would have actually netted $1 billion in profits over this period.
The Dems passed this mandate when they took over in 2006, TM not the repubs.
Tell us why the republican party is trying to distory the Post Office which the founders were willing to pay for?
News flash TM.
It's social entitlements that are killing the Post Office.
Operationally speaking, the USPS nets profits every year. The financial problem it faces now comes from a 2006 Congressional mandate that requires the agency to pre-pay into a fund that covers health care costs for future retired employees. Under the mandate, the USPS is required to make an annual $5.5 billion payment over ten years, through 2016. These prepayments are largely responsible for the USPSs financial losses over the past four years and the threat of shutdown that looms ahead take the retirement fund out of the equation, and the postal service would have actually netted $1 billion in profits over this period.
The Dems passed this mandate when they took over in 2006, TM not the repubs.
TM: You lied!!!
World: No, You Lied!
TM: No You Lied!!!
TM: You lied!!!
World: No, You Lied!
TM: No You Lied!!!
World: No, You Lied!!!.
World: No, You Lied!!!.