RNC considers selling TV rights of presidential primary debates

[Mr. Peepers]

Wow... just wow.

RNC considers selling TV rights of presidential primary debates - CNN.com

 

[Oddball]

So?

 

[Mr. Peepers]

So?

WTF... what do you mean "so"??? This can neither be legal nor ethical!

 

[Wry Catcher]

I suspect it's both legal and ethical; avarice being a traditional Republican value. That said a 'debate' by the Republican pols in waiting might rival a show on Discovery filming grass grow.

 

[DiamondDave]

And this would be different from obtaining funds thru fund raisers etc how??

I don't care if the DEMs or REPs or Greens or whatever party does this..

 

[Avatar4321]

What on earth would be illegal or unethical about this?

 

[Late2TheParty]

The RNC is in debt. They want/need the money.

 

[GHook93]

Wow... just wow.

RNC considers selling TV rights of presidential primary debates - CNN.com

LOL, imagine if MSNBC won them! They could have Matthews, Madcow and Overbite (coming back for a liberal biased reunion) tossing biased, race baiting and slanderous questions at them!

 

[Mr. Peepers]

I suspect it's both legal and ethical

"Larry Noble, an election law attorney with Skadden, Arps, described it as a "novel" concept but also said it raises a "serious question" as to whether it is even "possible under the law" to make such a payment beyond the federal contribution limits. Federal law caps an individual's and a political action committee's annual donation to a national party committee at $30,800."

How could it possibly be legal when the millions of dollars paid to the RNC for programming would be far above $30,800?

 

[Avatar4321]

The RNC is in debt. They want/need the money.

Who isn't in debt?

 

[Two Thumbs]

More faux out rage from the cheap seats

From the link;

Kirsten Kukowski, an RNC spokeswoman, confirmed that the issue was mentioned but added, "There isn't a proposal in front of the RNC to do that."

Noble noted it is not clear if the federal government's election enforcement arm would even weigh in on the matter if the RNC decided to sell the broadcast rights.

When the idea of selling the broadcast rights was suggested at the meeting, there was neither support nor opposition to it, said the two Republicans, who both requested anonymity to speak freely about the discussion.

The other Republican described the suggestion as "pretty distasteful, I think." But the GOP political operative also acknowledged the financial peril the RNC is in after former chairman Michael Steele's rocky two-year term.




It goes on. But I think I got the point across the peepers is full of shit.

 

[Oddball]

I suspect it's both legal and ethical

"Larry Noble, an election law attorney with Skadden, Arps, described it as a "novel" concept but also said it raises a "serious question" as to whether it is even "possible under the law" to make such a payment beyond the federal contribution limits. Federal law caps an individual's and a political action committee's annual donation to a national party committee at $30,800."

How could it possibly be legal when the millions of dollars paid to the RNC for programming would be far above $30,800?

Because it's not a donation.

Having trouble with basic vocabulary today?

 

[Mr. Peepers]

And this would be different from obtaining funds thru fund raisers etc how??

Because you would have supposedly objective news sources contributing directly to one party and one party only. It's very different.

 

[Avatar4321]

I suspect it's both legal and ethical

"Larry Noble, an election law attorney with Skadden, Arps, described it as a "novel" concept but also said it raises a "serious question" as to whether it is even "possible under the law" to make such a payment beyond the federal contribution limits. Federal law caps an individual's and a political action committee's annual donation to a national party committee at $30,800."

How could it possibly be legal when the millions of dollars paid to the RNC for programming would be far above $30,800?

Because it wouldnt be a political donation and that law applies only to political donations.

I would have thought the "donation" part of what you quoted would have made that obvious to anyone who is literate.

 

[Mr. Peepers]

It goes on. But I think I got the point across the peepers is full of shit.

Would you really put it past the RNC? I wouldn't. By the way, being "insulted" by a brainless neocon twit like you isn't particularly hurtful. Just thought you should know.

 

[Mr. Peepers]

Because it wouldnt be a political donation and that law applies only to political donations.

That's just semantics. For faux news, that is exactly what it would be - a political donation because they are heavily biased toward the right. Where do you draw the line?

 

[Two Thumbs]

It goes on. But I think I got the point across the peepers is full of shit.

Would you really put it past the RNC? I wouldn't. By the way, being "insulted" by a brainless neocon twit like you isn't particularly hurtful. Just thought you should know.

I'm not a neocon, not even close.

You don't know what you are talking about. You didin't read the whole link or it would not have been posted.

So you are either;
full of shit
can't read
can't comprehend what you are reading
or are
full of shit

serioulsy. What you are copy-pasting as proof that you are right actually is proving you wrong.

Rep to Avitar for pointing it out since you don't get it.

 

[Avatar4321]

It goes on. But I think I got the point across the peepers is full of shit.

Would you really put it past the RNC? I wouldn't. By the way, being "insulted" by a brainless neocon twit like you isn't particularly hurtful. Just thought you should know.

I have to question the credibility of anyone calling others brainless who doesn't read and comprehend their own quotes.

 

[Care4all]

is selling tickets for dinner to see a political candidate 'raising funds for the RNC' in campaign finance laws.... I believe it is?

If so, then how is selling Political candidate debates to a tv station for the purpose of raising funds for the RNC, any different, and not covered under finance laws?

 

[Avatar4321]

Because it wouldnt be a political donation and that law applies only to political donations.

That's just semantics. For faux news, that is exactly what it would be - a political donation because they are heavily biased toward the right. Where do you draw the line?

Semantics? How is it just sematics?

A donation is something given with no consideration provided for the donor.

When you purchase the broadcast rights for any type of things, you are clearly recieving consideration for your money. That would be the broadcast rights.

There is no donation involved. Your argument is pure nonsense. No court of law would ever find your argument credible unless it was so corrupt as to ignore the law, the english, language, and the facts of the situation.