Gop Coding Error Reveals Donor Secrets

[whitehall]

When libs can state with a straight face that big corporations don't donate to democrats the freaking hypocrites might have a point. Until then you are still stuck with Obama.

 

[JimH52]

When libs can state with a straight face that big corporations don't donate to democrats the freaking hypocrites might have a point. Until then you are still stuck with Obama.

The GOP needs a better Coder.

 

[Boss]

Wonder how many $5 donors Hillary Clinton invited to her teas.....I bet most of them were LOL,

Get real. Obama didn't pay for the first billion dollar campaign in history off change little old black ladies went around and collected and there is no difference between a business sponsoring an event than there is Barbara Streisand hosting a $25K a plate fundraiser for Elizabeth Warren.

All Citizens United did was stop the pretense of fundraising. Both sides do it and both sides do it exactly the same ways.

All Citizens United did was stop the pretense of fundraising.
It wasn't about fundraising. There was a capitalist who wanted to capitalize on Hillary Clinton's run for president by distributing a video about her. The FEC ordered them to cease selling it and pull it off the shelves because it amounted to an 'illegal political contribution' at election time, violating McCain-Feingold. Citizen's took it to court and it went all the way to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court ruled that businesses have the free speech right to distribute such materials at any time. None of this has anything to do with how much a candidate can receive from political donors. That was the argument that failed, that Citizen's amounted to a 'political donor' because of the nature of the video.

Nothing was changed about the way corporations can contribute to politicians. They've always been able to do so. Along with PACs, unions, social organizations, lobbies, etc. Everything has to be reported and is public record. The issue in Citizen's was the first amendment rights of individuals if they happen to belong to a company selling a video at election time. The SCOTUS ruled this is an inalienable right, therefore they do have it at all times, even when part of a group, like a corporation.

 

[Stephanie]

hey, if the left doesn't have some "boogeyman" they can't run their dirty politics on the people

 

[Luddly Neddite]

hey, if the left doesn't have some "boogeyman" they can't run their dirty politics on the people

You mean like a homa-sax-shull with a dildo?

@Stephanie just never knows when to shut up.

 

[MaxGrit]

kooooock

 

[HUGGY]

Scummy GOPers have a perfectly good response to these allegations.

"I know you are...But what am I ?"

 

[TemplarKormac]

When libs can state with a straight face that big corporations don't donate to democrats the freaking hypocrites might have a point. Until then you are still stuck with Obama.

The GOP needs a better Coder.

Erm, liberals need a new coder. At least the GOP got to the website stage.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Scummy GOPers have a perfectly good response to these allegations.

"I know you are...But what am I ?"

Liberals reply with....

RACIST!

 

[HUGGY]

You people wouldn't know a "Liberal" if one came up and socked you straight in your pie hole.

GOP definition of a "liberal" : "A Liberal" is someone that won't vote against their own best interests.

Fascists have been at war with intelligent voters since Goebles ran the NAZI information dissemination for Hitler.

Can't help you here scum. I don't vote for you traitors or "liberals".

Better try your political terrorism on some one else.

 

[Stephanie]

SNIP:
As Harry Reid Rails on Kochs, Dem Dollars Dwarf GOP



AP
BY: Washington Free Beacon Staff
September 23, 2014 9:44 am


As top Democrats rail against the supposed outsized influence of Republican political donors, Democratic political groups are vastly out-raising their counterparts, Politico reported on Tuesday.
“Democrats love to cast Republicans as the party of big money, beholden to the out-of-touch billionaires bankrolling their campaigns,” reporters Ken Vogel and Tarini Parti noted. “But new numbers tell a very different story—one in which Democrats are actually raising more big money than their adversaries.”

Among the groups reporting the biggest political ad spending, the 15 top Democrat-aligned committees have outraised the 15 top Republican ones $453 million to $289 million in the 2014 cycle, according to a POLITICO analysis of the most recent Federal Election Commission reports, including those filed over the weekend — which cover through the end of last month.


The analysis shows the fundraising edge widening in August, when the Democratic groups pulled in more than twice as much as their GOP counterparts—$51 million to $21 million. That’s thanks to a spike in massive checks from increasingly energized labor unions and liberal billionaires like Tom Steyer and Fred Eychaner.

Where's the NY slimes now?
ALL of it here
As Harry Reid Rails on Kochs Dem Dollars Dwarf GOP Washington Free Beacon

 

[Stephanie]

WHAT?

SNIP:
Rich Obama Donors Throw Lavish Party for Themselves
Anna Wintour, Tom Ford brush elbows with Ambassador Matthew Barzun.



Anna Wintour and Michelle Obama at a dedication ceremony for the Anna Wintour Costume Center / AP
BY: Caroline Lee Smith
September 17, 2014 11:51 am
Matthew Barzun, U.S. ambassador to the Court of St. James, opened the doors of Winfield House on Tuesday night to host a bash for his fashion-industry friends.
The party was co-hosted by Vogue London Editor-in-Chief Alexandra Shulman and J.Crew. It entertained dozens of wealthy Obama donors, including big-time fundraisers Anna Wintour and Tom Ford.
Barzun and Ford each raised more than $500,000 for Obama, while Wintour bundled $2.7 million for Obama’s 2012 campaign.
Brushing elbows with Barzun were models Jourdan Dunn, Cara Delevingne, and Suki Waterhouse as well as fashion moguls Christopher Kane, Emilia Wickstead, and Jenna Lyons.
Barzun and his wife Brooke spared no expense, bringing in a mobile DJ booth/dance floor called “The Fun Palace” that is surrounded by glass that has a switch to go from transparent to opaque. They served Champagne and Pabst Blue Ribbon.

ALL of it here:
Rich Obama Donors Throw Lavish Party for Themselves Washington Free Beacon

 

[MaxGrit]

Wonder how many $5 donors Hillary Clinton invited to her teas.....I bet most of them were LOL,

Get real. Obama didn't pay for the first billion dollar campaign in history off change little old black ladies went around and collected and there is no difference between a business sponsoring an event than there is Barbara Streisand hosting a $25K a plate fundraiser for Elizabeth Warren.

All Citizens United did was stop the pretense of fundraising. Both sides do it and both sides do it exactly the same ways.

All Citizens United did was stop the pretense of fundraising.
It wasn't about fundraising. There was a capitalist who wanted to capitalize on Hillary Clinton's run for president by distributing a video about her. The FEC ordered them to cease selling it and pull it off the shelves because it amounted to an 'illegal political contribution' at election time, violating McCain-Feingold. Citizen's took it to court and it went all the way to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court ruled that businesses have the free speech right to distribute such materials at any time. None of this has anything to do with how much a candidate can receive from political donors. That was the argument that failed, that Citizen's amounted to a 'political donor' because of the nature of the video.

Nothing was changed about the way corporations can contribute to politicians. They've always been able to do so. Along with PACs, unions, social organizations, lobbies, etc. Everything has to be reported and is public record. The issue in Citizen's was the first amendment rights of individuals if they happen to belong to a company selling a video at election time. The SCOTUS ruled this is an inalienable right, therefore they do have it at all times, even when part of a group, like a corporation.

"The issue in Citizen's was the first amendment rights of individuals if they happen to belong to a company selling a video at election time. The SCOTUS ruled this is an inalienable right, therefore they do have it at all times, even when part of a group, like a corporation."

Which will almost always be the case for publications, which are mass distributed by a corporation. Corporations which you get your books, CD, music, video, movies, fliers, etc. from.

 

[MaxGrit]

The issue in CU is that the government said they can ban all political speech formats 60 days to election time, if there is only a one word mention about the Candidate and politics and so on.

Government said it can ban: books, CD, music, video, movies, fliers, handouts, art, T-shirts, etc.

You were one S.C. vote away from effectively losing free speech.

Do you understand now Libs?

 

[sameech]

Wonder how many $5 donors Hillary Clinton invited to her teas.....I bet most of them were LOL,

Get real. Obama didn't pay for the first billion dollar campaign in history off change little old black ladies went around and collected and there is no difference between a business sponsoring an event than there is Barbara Streisand hosting a $25K a plate fundraiser for Elizabeth Warren.

All Citizens United did was stop the pretense of fundraising. Both sides do it and both sides do it exactly the same ways.

All Citizens United did was stop the pretense of fundraising.
It wasn't about fundraising. There was a capitalist who wanted to capitalize on Hillary Clinton's run for president by distributing a video about her. The FEC ordered them to cease selling it and pull it off the shelves because it amounted to an 'illegal political contribution' at election time, violating McCain-Feingold. Citizen's took it to court and it went all the way to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court ruled that businesses have the free speech right to distribute such materials at any time. None of this has anything to do with how much a candidate can receive from political donors. That was the argument that failed, that Citizen's amounted to a 'political donor' because of the nature of the video.

Nothing was changed about the way corporations can contribute to politicians. They've always been able to do so. Along with PACs, unions, social organizations, lobbies, etc. Everything has to be reported and is public record. The issue in Citizen's was the first amendment rights of individuals if they happen to belong to a company selling a video at election time. The SCOTUS ruled this is an inalienable right, therefore they do have it at all times, even when part of a group, like a corporation.

It has everything to do with how much corporations can contribute to politicians. They can basically operate as a PAC and can provide unlimited collateral support to a candidate or party. Taking away the quid pro quo directly does not mean it will not exist.

 

[Boss]

Wonder how many $5 donors Hillary Clinton invited to her teas.....I bet most of them were LOL,

Get real. Obama didn't pay for the first billion dollar campaign in history off change little old black ladies went around and collected and there is no difference between a business sponsoring an event than there is Barbara Streisand hosting a $25K a plate fundraiser for Elizabeth Warren.

All Citizens United did was stop the pretense of fundraising. Both sides do it and both sides do it exactly the same ways.

All Citizens United did was stop the pretense of fundraising.
It wasn't about fundraising. There was a capitalist who wanted to capitalize on Hillary Clinton's run for president by distributing a video about her. The FEC ordered them to cease selling it and pull it off the shelves because it amounted to an 'illegal political contribution' at election time, violating McCain-Feingold. Citizen's took it to court and it went all the way to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court ruled that businesses have the free speech right to distribute such materials at any time. None of this has anything to do with how much a candidate can receive from political donors. That was the argument that failed, that Citizen's amounted to a 'political donor' because of the nature of the video.

Nothing was changed about the way corporations can contribute to politicians. They've always been able to do so. Along with PACs, unions, social organizations, lobbies, etc. Everything has to be reported and is public record. The issue in Citizen's was the first amendment rights of individuals if they happen to belong to a company selling a video at election time. The SCOTUS ruled this is an inalienable right, therefore they do have it at all times, even when part of a group, like a corporation.

It has everything to do with how much corporations can contribute to politicians. They can basically operate as a PAC and can provide unlimited collateral support to a candidate or party. Taking away the quid pro quo directly does not mean it will not exist.

Again, it has nothing to do with political fundraising or contributions. CU was not contributing to a political campaign. They weren't offering free videos to promote a candidate. They were capitalists selling a video which happened to be about a politician who was running for office. Now people can assume intent all day long, they simply weren't contributing to a campaign.

You see, this has been distilled through all the liberal filters so that it comes out, corporations are now people and corporations can now operate as PACs... Corporations have always been able to operate as PACs, that is what a PAC is... a corporation. They've always been comprised of people and the Constitution has always said that people retain inalienable rights in spite of the groups they belong to. CU basically clarified that the provisions in McCain-Feingold are unconstitutional and violate the 1st Amendment.

 

[Erand7899]

Read some of the big GOP donors. Read all the Health Insurance companies that paid the GOP to come up with the "death panels" lies. Big Insurance is out to screw Americans and the GOP us helping them in every way that they can.

But you blind partisans cannot see that. The hate that you have for the black man in the White House overrides the GOP back stabbers. They are laughing all the bank with their big lobbiest checks
Showing how classy you are, huh?

I'll bet they didn't even click on the link. They see what its about and immediately start their knee jerking.

The amazing thing is this is more proof that they are being screwed over and they refuse to even look at it or discuss it. These are some of the dumbest people I have ever seen.

Also interesting is that at least two of them - @TemplarKormac and @Stephanie don't even buy their own healthcare. Its paid for by others for them. These are the people who want to keep other people from buying their own healthcare insurance.

steph is getting free medical care all on the taxpayers dime

Same with TK.

They're a couple of fat ass, lazy, moochers who are against self sufficient Americans getting lower prices for the health care we pay for for them.

If they are self-sufficient, why would you be paying their healthcare?

You misunderstood.

Both @Stephanie and @TemplarKormac have said they are not self-sufficient. If "one" is not taking care of oneself, someone else has to do it for them.

In spite of being care of, they are against self-sufficient Americans getting lower prices for their health care.

That makes them, IMO, a couple of fat ass, lazy, moochers.

Left wing Liberal/Socialist and self sufficient are contradictory terms. If you were truely self sufficient, you wouldn't be advocating for a nanny government to kiss your boo boos and tuck you into bed at night. Apparently, you loons not only lie to us, but you lie to yourselves. You exist in a fantasy world.

 

[Erand7899]

You people wouldn't know a "Liberal" if one came up and socked you straight in your pie hole.

GOP definition of a "liberal" : "A Liberal" is someone that won't vote against their own best interests.

Fascists have been at war with intelligent voters since Goebles ran the NAZI information dissemination for Hitler.

Can't help you here scum. I don't vote for you traitors or "liberals".

Better try your political terrorism on some one else.

A Liberal is a Socialist, but most of them are not smart enough to know that. The rest lie and attempt to deceive their listeners. You can recognize the dumb ones by their attempts to convince themselves, and us, that they are like the founders. They are all for a brave new world, but they have no idea of what that brave new world would look like.

Yes, Liberals are easy to classify, but damn near impossible to educate. Their theme somg is 'Big Rock Candy Mountain", and they really believe it exists somewhere.

 

[Boss]

A Liberal is a Socialist, but most of them are not smart enough to know that. The rest lie and attempt to deceive their listeners. You can recognize the dumb ones by their attempts to convince themselves, and us, that they are like the founders. They are all for a brave new world, but they have no idea of what that brave new world would look like.

Yes, Liberals are easy to classify, but damn near impossible to educate. Their theme somg is 'Big Rock Candy Mountain", and they really believe it exists somewhere.

Lenin called them "useful fools" or as is often misattributed, "useful idiots." These people are vital to all socialist movements.

I classify liberals into three groups.

The intellectual progressive: These are the academic geniuses behind the socialist movement. They are very clever and cunning. While denying they are Communists or even Socialists they will intellectually defend Marx, Mao and the Communist system. They are smart enough to know that Communism and Socialism is a damaged brand, and it will never sell. So they are the ones who morph and twist the tenets of Marxism into a new and improved version.

The White-Guilt Liberal: Not as "racial" as it sounds. This group does include the white liberals who feel 'guilty' for their whiteness and seek to compensate by being overly benevolent to blacks. But it also includes a couple of generations of dumbed-down zombies who get some sort of personal gratification out of thinking they are 'fighting the good fight' or whatever. These people are basically illiterate on world history. They think history began yesterday. The world we currently reside in is (in their minds) like it was in 1950, 1942, 1963 or 1860. All these horrid problems exist and require liberal initiatives to fix, even though we've already lived through history and fixed them.

The Useful Idiot Liberal: These are the dumbest of the dumb. The activist liberal who cannot engage in any sort of meaningful debate without turning it into conflict and confrontation. They view themselves as 'intellectual progressives' because they have become proficient with cut and paste from the blogs of actual intellectual progressives. Their spelling and grammar are atrocious, on or below a junior high level. They are functioning illiterates in history, science, math, physics, literature or philosophy. But they can probably tell you what color underwear Jon Stewart is wearing.