Will we here calls for disclosing donors?

Quantum Windbag

Gold Member
May 9, 2010
58,308
5,099
245
It seems that the biggest spender in the current election is a group by the name of AFSCME.

The 1.6 million-member AFSCME is spending a total of $87.5 million on the elections after tapping into a $16 million emergency account to help fortify the Democrats' hold on Congress. Last week, AFSCME dug deeper, taking out a $2 million loan to fund its push. The group is spending money on television advertisements, phone calls, campaign mailings and other political efforts, helped by a Supreme Court decision that loosened restrictions on campaign spending. "We're the big dog," said Larry Scanlon, the head of AFSCME's political operations. "But we don't like to brag."
The 2010 election could be pivotal for public-sector unions, whose clout helped shield members from the worst of the economic downturn. In the 2009 stimulus and other legislation, Democratic lawmakers sent more than $160 billion in federal cash to states, aimed in large part at preventing public-sector layoffs. If Republicans running under the banner of limited government win in November, they aren't likely to support extending such aid to states.


Public-Employees Union Is Now Campaign's Big Spender - WSJ.com

Will we here Obama calling on them to disclose everyone who donates to them, and prove that no foreign money is being spent to buy elections?
 
It seems that the biggest spender in the current election is a group by the name of AFSCME.

The 1.6 million-member AFSCME is spending a total of $87.5 million on the elections after tapping into a $16 million emergency account to help fortify the Democrats' hold on Congress. Last week, AFSCME dug deeper, taking out a $2 million loan to fund its push. The group is spending money on television advertisements, phone calls, campaign mailings and other political efforts, helped by a Supreme Court decision that loosened restrictions on campaign spending. "We're the big dog," said Larry Scanlon, the head of AFSCME's political operations. "But we don't like to brag."
The 2010 election could be pivotal for public-sector unions, whose clout helped shield members from the worst of the economic downturn. In the 2009 stimulus and other legislation, Democratic lawmakers sent more than $160 billion in federal cash to states, aimed in large part at preventing public-sector layoffs. If Republicans running under the banner of limited government win in November, they aren't likely to support extending such aid to states.


Public-Employees Union Is Now Campaign's Big Spender - WSJ.com

Will we here Obama calling on them to disclose everyone who donates to them, and prove that no foreign money is being spent to buy elections?

I guess a better question would be, will the Republicans?
 
It seems that the biggest spender in the current election is a group by the name of AFSCME.

The 1.6 million-member AFSCME is spending a total of $87.5 million on the elections after tapping into a $16 million emergency account to help fortify the Democrats' hold on Congress. Last week, AFSCME dug deeper, taking out a $2 million loan to fund its push. The group is spending money on television advertisements, phone calls, campaign mailings and other political efforts, helped by a Supreme Court decision that loosened restrictions on campaign spending. "We're the big dog," said Larry Scanlon, the head of AFSCME's political operations. "But we don't like to brag."
The 2010 election could be pivotal for public-sector unions, whose clout helped shield members from the worst of the economic downturn. In the 2009 stimulus and other legislation, Democratic lawmakers sent more than $160 billion in federal cash to states, aimed in large part at preventing public-sector layoffs. If Republicans running under the banner of limited government win in November, they aren't likely to support extending such aid to states.


Public-Employees Union Is Now Campaign's Big Spender - WSJ.com

Will we here Obama calling on them to disclose everyone who donates to them, and prove that no foreign money is being spent to buy elections?

I guess a better question would be, will the Republicans?

Nice deflection. Obama and his sycophants were the first to raise the issue, so wouldn't you expect them to step up and disclose who their contributors are?
 
It seems that the biggest spender in the current election is a group by the name of AFSCME.




Public-Employees Union Is Now Campaign's Big Spender - WSJ.com

Will we here Obama calling on them to disclose everyone who donates to them, and prove that no foreign money is being spent to buy elections?

I guess a better question would be, will the Republicans?

Nice deflection. Obama and his sycophants were the first to raise the issue, so wouldn't you expect them to step up and disclose who their contributors are?

Not a deflection. It was the Republicans who hid behind the USSC ruling when they were asked, so why should it be any different for the Democrats?
 
I guess a better question would be, will the Republicans?

Nice deflection. Obama and his sycophants were the first to raise the issue, so wouldn't you expect them to step up and disclose who their contributors are?

Not a deflection. It was the Republicans who hid behind the USSC ruling when they were asked, so why should it be any different for the Democrats?

The President is demanding through his intermediaries that Republican supporters disclose. He is making a forceful claim that if they refuse to disclose that ALONE means laws were broken ( when they were not) and that they have something to hide.

Now we find out HIS party is doing the EXACT same thing? And you claim it is not deceitful or wrong?
 
The American voter should have the right to know who's paying for all that crap on TV. This is not a Republican or Democratic issue. Could it be that the contributors are ashame to be identified with this type of campaigning? I certainly would be.
 
Nice deflection. Obama and his sycophants were the first to raise the issue, so wouldn't you expect them to step up and disclose who their contributors are?

Not a deflection. It was the Republicans who hid behind the USSC ruling when they were asked, so why should it be any different for the Democrats?

The President is demanding through his intermediaries that Republican supporters disclose. He is making a forceful claim that if they refuse to disclose that ALONE means laws were broken ( when they were not) and that they have something to hide.

Now we find out HIS party is doing the EXACT same thing? And you claim it is not deceitful or wrong?

1st point: No he didnt..Link?

2nd point: American donations and Foriegn donations are the same in looney land but not in reality.
 
It seems that the biggest spender in the current election is a group by the name of AFSCME.

The 1.6 million-member AFSCME is spending a total of $87.5 million on the elections after tapping into a $16 million emergency account to help fortify the Democrats' hold on Congress. Last week, AFSCME dug deeper, taking out a $2 million loan to fund its push. The group is spending money on television advertisements, phone calls, campaign mailings and other political efforts, helped by a Supreme Court decision that loosened restrictions on campaign spending. "We're the big dog," said Larry Scanlon, the head of AFSCME's political operations. "But we don't like to brag."
The 2010 election could be pivotal for public-sector unions, whose clout helped shield members from the worst of the economic downturn. In the 2009 stimulus and other legislation, Democratic lawmakers sent more than $160 billion in federal cash to states, aimed in large part at preventing public-sector layoffs. If Republicans running under the banner of limited government win in November, they aren't likely to support extending such aid to states.


Public-Employees Union Is Now Campaign's Big Spender - WSJ.com

Will we here Obama calling on them to disclose everyone who donates to them, and prove that no foreign money is being spent to buy elections?

Why, is it a big secret? Must be shady if Republicans don't want to talk about it.
 
They should all disclose their funding sources, imo.

Now that doesn't happen very often, I actually agree. every dime should be accounted for. And posted for all to see.

Left Right or middle.
I also think politicians should wear their sponsors logos on their shirts.

So one of these would have been worn by the Clintons?

wealthchart.gif
 
I guess a better question would be, will the Republicans?

Nice deflection. Obama and his sycophants were the first to raise the issue, so wouldn't you expect them to step up and disclose who their contributors are?

Not a deflection. It was the Republicans who hid behind the USSC ruling when they were asked, so why should it be any different for the Democrats?

Because the Democrats should be consistent. Or is that word to big for you?
 
The American voter should have the right to know who's paying for all that crap on TV. This is not a Republican or Democratic issue. Could it be that the contributors are ashame to be identified with this type of campaigning? I certainly would be.

Why should we have a right to know?
 
They should all disclose their funding sources, imo.

I disagree, but at least you are consistent, thus proving you are not partisan.
Why don't you think they should disclose their funding sources? IMO, we should have transparency in government and I'm kind of surprised that you disagree with this...or am I misunderstanding you?

I fully support transparency in government, but this is not government. During the Jim Crow years some states used donor lists to retaliate against companies and individuals that advocated for civil rights. That alone is enough reason for me to continue the tradition of anonymous donations to organizations that engage in political speech, even if they advocate positions I disagree with.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top