How is austerity doing in Europe

[Rshermr]

Tania says:

Again, as you have already learned (or rather didn't learn) those anonymous contributions to anyone (including Super PACs) are limited to $50 dollars. Any contributions excess $50 dollars must be promptly disposed of and cannot be used on anything related to Campaigning, Elections or the Candidate in question. This means that this money cannot be used on anything political. At all. Why you believe Corporations are contributing millions of dollars a year just so only a very small port of those contributes can actually be used in for political advocacy is beyond me, but no one knowledgeable in Corporate Finance believes corporations are allocating their Treasury Funds so poorly.

You need to read the following. Your paragraph above is untrue:

Traditional political action committees are bound by a $5,000 annual limit on the size of contributions they can accept from individuals and are prohibited from accepting contributions from corporations and labor unions. A super PAC is freed from these restrictions under two conditions: The PAC must neither 1) give money directly to a candidate or other political committees that give directly to candidates, nor 2) coordinate how it spends its money with a federal candidate. As long as those two conditions are met, a super PAC may accept donations directly from corporate or union treasuries and in amounts that are limited only by the size of donors' bank accounts. Movie mogul Jeffrey Katzenberg wrote a $2 million check to the super PAC backing President Obama's reelection; casino magnate Sheldon Adelson and his wife have reportedly underwritten a super PAC backing Newt Gingrich to the tune of $10 million. Neither of these donations could have been legally given to a traditional PAC.
Nine things you need to know about super PACs - Sunlight Foundation Reporting Group

So, what else is allowed by Citizens United:

Currently, the cap on individual contributions is $5,000 a year. Donors to traditional union and corporate PACS must work for or own shares in those corporations or belong to those unions. They must be identified and the amounts of their donations made public. By contrast, super PACs can accept money in unlimited amounts from unions, corporations and unaffiliated individuals as well as from non-profit organizations that have been incorporated under innocuous-sounding names and that do not have to report the sources of their funding. That means individuals and entities with whom candidates might not wish to be publicly associated can support their campaigns anonymously.

This paragraph came from the same source as above.

So very little of what you have said is true. No $50 limit. No $5000 limit, which may have confused you. No limit on corporate contributions. And so on.
Jesus, me dear, you have been masquerading as an expert on Citizens United. Your statements have NO relation to the real world. Hell, a corporation can set up it's own super pac, with a cute name.

Then, Tania says:

The FEC gives a complete detail of who is donating and why. We already know the Corporations who are donating and to whom. If you believe Corporations are concerned about who they publicly support, then I'm afraid you don't know as much as you profess. Also, if you are so concerned about anonymous donations, you shouldn't be looking towards Corporations anyway. You should be looking towards 501(c)4 Non-Profit Organisations. These non-profits don't have to disclose their donors, unless someone gives the money to the non-profit specifically to run political ads, then these donors MUST be reported to the Federal Election Commission.

That is nonsense, if you understand what Citizens United allows. If you did understand, the following would not be any surprise:

Do super PACs have to disclose the sources of their funding?
That depends on what you mean by "disclose." Like other political action committees, super PACs do have to file regular financial disclosure forms with the Federal Election Commission But because they are permitted to accept money from incorporated entities that do not have to make the sources of their funding public, it's possible for them to keep the names of actual donors undisclosed. In 2010, a super PAC that was active in one of that year's marquee House races listed a single donor: a 501(c)(4) organization that does not have to disclose its donors. This is what is known among some campaign finance lawyers as "the Russian doll problem."
Nine things you need to know about super PACs - Sunlight Foundation Reporting Group

Then, Tania does not believe how much Super Pacs contributed. Could have found out easily enough, but wants me to educate her, apparently:

And I don't know where you got that $629 Million Corporate Contributions figure. As far as I can see only $71.8 Million Super PAC funds were raised by businesses in the 2012 election cycle.

As of July 23, 2013, 1,310 groups organized as Super PACs have reported total receipts of $828,224,595 and total independent expenditures of $609,417,654 in the 2012 cycle. Super PACs | OpenSecrets

Note that was what had been reported to date. Other sources show more or less, dependent on when they reported.

Then, tania says:

Not going to even bother digging deeper to see how much was raised since Citizens United was repealed.

Citizens united was NOT REPEALED, me dear.
Sen. Tom Udall continued his efforts to repeal Citizens United, the Supreme Court decision that

opened the floodgates for corporate spending in elections.

Udall introduced legislation with Sen. Michael Bennett, D-Colo., that would repeal the decision.

Udall introduces legislation to repeal Citizens United | New Mexico Telegram

These congressmen and others would probably not be trying to repeal a decesion that had already been repealed. And I thought you were an expert!!!

Then Tania says:

Again, the Supreme Court held that Corporations and Unions have the right to spend their money on Treasury Funds to advocate elections for the defeat of candidates. Not to give money directly to those candidates or to those campaigns, but to spend money to say that those people should be reelected or defeated in their runs for political office. Supreme Court precedent establishes a clear line of segregation between expenditures for a campaign and independent expenditures. If you think this hasn't helped you at all, you really don't know as much as you claim.

What I think, me dear, is that you have no clue. Please read the referenced article from above. You obviously have no clue.

Then, this statement from Tania:

If the Government can control any amount of money you are willing to use to express your opinion, then it abridge your right to Freedom of Speech. If you don't believe Freedom of Speech is important to you, then I know plenty of nations where you can migrate to. The right to criticise our government and it's elected officials is a highly concentrated part of our democracy and way of life. The only naivety I am hearing are the people who believe Government will use its power to restrict speech benevolently, when it's already been shown in the past that the same Central government is not above infringing on your individual liberties.

OK. Back to square one. You think corporations making unlimited contributions (yes, unlimited. Read the above) is a good thing. Good for you.

But hopefully you have learned something. Like no $50 limit. Where you got that, I have NO idea.

 

[AmazonTania]

This paragraph came from the same source as above.

So very little of what you have said is true. No $50 limit. No $5000 limit, which may have confused you. No limit on corporate contributions. And so on.
Jesus, me dear, you have been masquerading as an expert on Citizens United. Your statements have NO relation to the real world. Hell, a corporation can set up it's own super pac, with a cute name.

I have a serious question: Is English your secondary language? You have a serious error of misreading what another person post on here. Or maybe you don't seen to understand the difference between an Anonymous contribution and a Regular Contribution.

(3) A candidate or committee receiving an anonymous cash contribution in excess of $50 shall promptly dispose of the amount over $50. The amount over $50 may be used for any lawful purpose unrelated to any Federal election, campaign, or candidate.

11 CFR 110.4 - Contributions in the name of another; cash contributions (2 U.S.C. 441f, 441g, 432(c)(2)). | Title 11 - Federal Elections | Code of Federal Regulations | LII / Legal Information Institute

Any anonymous contributions must not exceed $50 dollars. That is a law which is already in the books.

That is nonsense, if you understand what Citizens United allows. If you did understand, the following would not be any surprise:

Your comprehension is so bad, you don't even understand that you quoted a source which supports what I said 100%.

That depends on what you mean by "disclose." Like other political action committees, super PACs do have to file regular financial disclosure forms with the Federal Election Commission But because they are permitted to accept money from incorporated entities that do not have to make the sources of their funding public, it's possible for them to keep the names of actual donors undisclosed. In 2010, a super PAC that was active in one of that year's marquee House races listed a single donor: a 501(c)(4) organization that does not have to disclose its donors. This is what is known among some campaign finance lawyers as "the Russian doll problem."

The FEC gives a complete detail of who is donating and why. We already know the Corporations who are donating and to whom. If you believe Corporations are concerned about who they publicly support, then I'm afraid you don't know as much as you profess. Also, if you are so concerned about anonymous donations, you shouldn't be looking towards Corporations anyway. You should be looking towards 501(c)4 Non-Profit Organisations. These non-profits don't have to disclose their donors, unless someone gives the money to the non-profit specifically to run political ads, then these donors MUST be reported to the Federal Election Commission.

I'll try to dumb this down for you, because it's clear you don't understand what this entails. There are many different types of Code 501(c) organizations, which are also known as 'Non-Profit' Organizations. These Organisations are formed by individuals, groups and even local, state and federal governments. Many of the are really irrelevant to the initial point, because they all are required to disclose their financial statements to the IRS for Non-Profit tax exempt status, by law and all are required to disclose their donors publicly to quality for non-profit status. The only non-profit organization where this doesn't apply are 501(c)4 organizations: Civic Leagues, Social Welfare Organizations, and Local Associations of Employees. This is different from a 501(c)3 non-profit, which does has to disclose their financial statements, and are prohibited from getting involved in any kind of political activity at all. These are institutions like churches.

501(c)4 are civic leagues who work to operate exclusively for the promotion of social welfare and because they operate in civics they do not have to publicly disclose their financial statements, and do not have to publicly disclose their donor information. This is UNLESS, they receive a donation for the specific purpose of running a political advertisement, also known as 'electioneering communications,' then this 501(c)4 is required by law to disclose this donor.

Then, Tania does not believe how much Super Pacs contributed. Could have found out easily enough, but wants me to educate her, apparently:

As of July 23, 2013, 1,310 groups organized as Super PACs have reported total receipts of $828,224,595 and total independent expenditures of $609,417,654 in the 2012 cycle. Super PACs | OpenSecrets

Note that was what had been reported to date. Other sources show more or less, dependent on when they reported.

Corporate contributions to super PAC's was over $629M.

Do you even proofread what you write before posting it? You clearly said Corporate Contributions to Super PACs were over $629 Million Dollars, but your source doesn't show that. Your source says that Super PACs have reported $828,224,595 in contributions. This is the amount Super PACs have made in total receipts altogether, NOT the amount corporations have contributed.

And I find it hilarious that you actually think you are educating someone when you don't even know the difference between a 'receipt' and an 'expenditure.' That's pretty fucking sad...

Citizens united was NOT REPEALED, me dear.
Sen. Tom Udall continued his efforts to repeal Citizens United, the Supreme Court decision that
Udall introduces legislation to repeal Citizens United | New Mexico Telegram

These congressmen and others would probably not be trying to repeal a decesion that had already been repealed. And I thought you were an expert!!!

Maybe I should have been clear. The Citizens United I am referring to deals with Public Law 107 - 155: Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. There are a number of Statutes at Large in regards to the Citizens United decision. A couple of these statutes have been removed.

What I think, me dear, is that you have no clue. Please read the referenced article from above. You obviously have no clue.

Maybe you should actually read it, before taking a basic English class.

OK. Back to square one. You think corporations making unlimited contributions (yes, unlimited. Read the above) is a good thing. Good for you.

But hopefully you have learned something. Like no $50 limit. Where you got that, I have NO idea.

$50 Limit on Anonymous Contributions
An anonymous contribution is limited to $50. Any amount in excess of $50 may not be used for federal election purposes. 110.4(c)(3).

FEC CHAPTER 2

The only thing I've really learned is the only thing worse than a fool, is the person still willing to talk reason with him. Only on the internet can anyone actually encounter such an a concentrated force of self-aware ignorance. And it would have actually been funny, if we know there aren't many more people like you.

 

[Rshermr]

This paragraph came from the same source as above.

So very little of what you have said is true. No $50 limit. No $5000 limit, which may have confused you. No limit on corporate contributions. And so on.
Jesus, me dear, you have been masquerading as an expert on Citizens United. Your statements have NO relation to the real world. Hell, a corporation can set up it's own super pac, with a cute name.

I have a serious question: Is English your secondary language? You have a serious error of misreading what another person post on here. Or maybe you don't seen to understand the difference between an Anonymous contribution and a Regular Contribution.

Yes indeed, me dear. Did you read the post I gave you???? Just wondering. Apparently not.

(3) A candidate or committee receiving an anonymous cash contribution in excess of $50 shall promptly dispose of the amount over $50. The amount over $50 may be used for any lawful purpose unrelated to any Federal election, campaign, or candidate.

11 CFR 110.4 - Contributions in the name of another; cash contributions (2 U.S.C. 441f, 441g, 432(c)(2)). | Title 11 - Federal Elections | Code of Federal Regulations | LII / Legal Information Institute

SO, ARE YOU IGNORANT OR DISHONEST OR BOTH. U.S.C. 441 pertains to THE MCCAIN-FEINGOLD ACT, of 2002. You should know that it was the act that was taken down by Citizens United. The statutes you are basing your argument on have not been in existence since late 2009 So, me dear, please read the document I provided you and see if you can learn something ABOUT THE SUBJECT WE ARE DISCUSSING (AT LEAST THE REST OF US) CALLED CITIZENS UNITED

Any anonymous contributions must not exceed $50 dollars. That is a law which is already in the books.
IF THE LAW STILL EXISTED, WHICH IT DID NOT. AND IF THE SUPERPAC WAS REALLY, REALLY STUPID.
So, good. That means you would get to see that the contribution came from a 501C4 with a really descriptive name. Please try again. The source I gave you explains, should you actually care. Or do not. And just be ignorant. AND CONTINUE TO THINK MCCAIN-FEINGOLD STILL EXISTS.

Your comprehension is so bad, you don't even understand that you quoted a source which supports what I said 100%.
Sorry. It explained quite clearly why that is untrue.
My comprehension is fine. I want to know the facts. You do not. Better allows you to push your agenda.

501(c)4 are civic leagues who work to operate exclusively for the promotion of social welfare and because they operate in civics they do not have to publicly disclose their financial statements, and do not have to publicly disclose their donor information. This is UNLESS, they receive a donation for the specific purpose of running a political advertisement, also known as 'electioneering communications,' then this 501(c)4 is required by law to disclose this donor.

Problem is, me dear, that the (now pay attention) CONTRIBUTIONS ARE NOT RECEIVED WITH A SPECIFIC PURPOSE ATTACHED.

Now, I provided this information before. Aparently it did not stick, me poor ignorant person. Let's try it again, and I will highlight the relevant parts in RED:

"Do super PACs have to disclose the sources of their funding?
That depends on what you mean by "disclose." Like other political action committees, super PACs do have to file regular financial disclosure forms with the Federal Election Commission. But because they are permitted to accept money from incorporated entities that do not have to make the sources of their funding public, it's possible for them to keep the names of actual donors undisclosed. In 2010, a super PAC that was active in one of that year's marquee House races listed a single donor: a 501(c)(4) organization that does not have to disclose its donors. This is what is known among some campaign finance lawyers as "the Russian doll problem.

So, there you go. Can you tell red from black?? If so, pay attention, particularly, to the red sentence. And try to understand you are quoting law that has been struck down.

Your childish description of 501's was a waste. Do you really think any corporation that wants to keep it's name from being known relative to how much it is donating and to whom would bother with a $50 contribution?? Go to opensecrets web site some time, and try to figure out who is giving what to whom. And perhaps WONDER at why two attempts to pass the Disclose Act failed in congress, along partisan lines. If what you thought was true, was true, there would have been no reason to try to pass the Disclose Act.

Then, this gem:
Quote:
Citizens united was NOT REPEALED, me dear.
Sen. Tom Udall continued his efforts to repeal Citizens United, the Supreme Court decision that
Udall introduces legislation to repeal Citizens United | New Mexico Telegram

These congressmen and others would probably not be trying to repeal a decesion that had already been repealed. And I thought you were an expert!!!

Maybe I should have been clear. The Citizens United I am referring to deals with Public Law 107 - 155: Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. There are a number of Statutes at Large in regards to the Citizens United decision. A couple of these statutes have been removed.


Maybe I should have been clear. The Citizens United I am referring to deals with Public Law 107 - 155: Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. There are a number of Statutes at Large in regards to the Citizens United decision. A couple of these statutes have been removed.

Right. You were not talking about citizens united, as we all know it. You were talking about a 2002 case. Not ever called Citizens United, but rather the BIPARTISAN CAMPAIGN REFORM ACT OF 2002. Also known as the McCain–Feingold Act. Not Citizens United. So, me dear, you were talking about a different law. It was, as a matter of fact, a law that was eliminated by the Supreme Court when deciding Citizens United. So, ar you saying that you are either so ignorant or so untruthful that you were talking about attributes of a completely different law??? Really, me girl. Honesty is a really good attribute. Get some.

OK. Back to square one. You think corporations making unlimited contributions (yes, unlimited. Read the above) is a good thing. Good for you.



FEC CHAPTER 2

The only thing I've really learned is the only thing worse than a fool, is the person still willing to talk reason with him.

Only on the internet can anyone actually encounter such an a concentrated force of self-aware ignorance. And it would have actually been funny, if we know there aren't many more people like you.

Interesting how caustic you get when you are caught lying, me dear. Let's take a look at a couple of your profound errors: 1.You are quoting facts from a law that was stricken down by the very law you have it confused with. 2. Based on 1, you have made a myriad of false statements. 3. You suggested I know nothing of Citizens United, when you do not know it well enough to keep it from being confused with a law that it negated. 4. Nothing in your post has any validity at all, as far as I can see. 5. You just wasted a lot of time for the small number of people who read your drivel.
To keep it really, really simple for you, let me explain: Citizens United and McCain Feingold relate to each other kind of like an oil refinery and an oil tanker. Only one does not eliminate the other.

 

[AmazonTania]

Yes indeed, me dear. Did you read the post I gave you???? Just wondering. Apparently not.

SO, ARE YOU IGNORANT OR DISHONEST OR BOTH. U.S.C. 441 pertains to THE MCCAIN-FEINGOLD ACT, of 2002. You should know that it was the act that was taken down by Citizens United. The statutes you are basing your argument on have not been in existence since late 2009 So, me dear, please read the document I provided you and see if you can learn something ABOUT THE SUBJECT WE ARE DISCUSSING (AT LEAST THE REST OF US) CALLED CITIZENS UNITED

IF THE LAW STILL EXISTED, WHICH IT DID NOT. AND IF THE SUPERPAC WAS REALLY, REALLY STUPID.
So, good. That means you would get to see that the contribution came from a 501C4 with a really descriptive name. Please try again. The source I gave you explains, should you actually care. Or do not. And just be ignorant. AND CONTINUE TO THINK MCCAIN-FEINGOLD STILL EXISTS.

I really do not know where to begin with this. So much wrong in just so little words.

1) There are 13 sections which are a part of 2 USC 441, and only 5 of which was actually a part of McCain-Feingold. The only part of McCain-Feingold which was declared unconstitutional was 2 USC § 441a, not 2 USC § 441.

2) 2 USC § 441 has nothing to do with McCain-Feingold, and was drafted before the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act and has to do with penalties of more than $1,000 fine or more than 1 year imprisonment for violation of this act. 2 USC § 441 has be repealed long before 2010.

3) ALL LAWS which have been repealed from the US Code or Federal Register are clearly shown they have been repealed. Exactly like what is shown here in the case of 2 USC 441. There are some instances where the laws are repealed given a specific period of time. If the law has been removed on the books, it is clearly updated in the US Code or Federal Register. 11 CFR 110.4 is still in the books and was not repealed.

4) 2 USC 441 has nothing to do with 11 CFR 110.4.

5) McCain Fiengold also has nothing to do with 11 CFR 110.4.

6) There is a reason why there is a limit on $50 Dollar anonymous contributions: Donors which an excess of $50 must have their information disclosed.

(1) For contributions in excess of $50, such account shall include the name and address of the contributor and the date of receipt and amount of such contribution.

11 CFR 102.9 - Accounting for contributions and expenditures (2 U.S.C. 432(c)). | Title 11 - Federal Elections | Code of Federal Regulations | LII / Legal Information Institute

Are there are more inaccuracies you need to be corrected on?

My comprehension is fine. I want to know the facts. You do not. Better allows you to push your agenda.

No, your comprehension is really not fine. You really have no idea what you are trying respond to, and you are very clueless as to what the facts are. Seriously, you need to retake basic English.

Problem is, me dear, that the (now pay attention) CONTRIBUTIONS ARE NOT RECEIVED WITH A SPECIFIC PURPOSE ATTACHED.

Now, I provided this information before. Aparently it did not stick, me poor ignorant person. Let's try it again, and I will highlight the relevant parts in RED:

Sometimes it's just better to let people just dig themselves into a deeper hole...

(1) An account shall be kept of all disbursements made by or on behalf of the political committee. Such account shall consist of a record of:

(i) The name and address of every person to whom any disbursement is made;

(ii) The date, amount, and purpose of the disbursement; and

(iii) If the disbursement is made for a candidate, the name and office (including State and congressional district, if any) sought by that candidate.

(iv) For purposes of 11 CFR 102.9(b)(1), purpose has the same meaning given the term at 11 CFR 104.3(b)(3)(i)(A).

11 CFR 102.9 - Accounting for contributions and expenditures (2 U.S.C. 432(c)). | Title 11 - Federal Elections | Code of Federal Regulations | LII / Legal Information Institute

So, there you go. Can you tell red from black?? If so, pay attention, particularly, to the red sentence. And try to understand you are quoting law that has been struck down.

Your childish description of 501's was a waste. Do you really think any corporation that wants to keep it's name from being known relative to how much it is donating and to whom would bother with a $50 contribution?? Go to opensecrets web site some time, and try to figure out who is giving what to whom. And perhaps WONDER at why two attempts to pass the Disclose Act failed in congress, along partisan lines. If what you thought was true, was true, there would have been no reason to try to pass the Disclose Act.

1) Laws which were stuck down are clearly removed from the US Code and the Federal Register. If you try to search for the Statute Code, the database will inform the research that the law has be repealed. You are wrong in this regard.

2)Corporations and 501(c)4 Tax exempt entities are completely different things. The only entity which can make a political contribution and not have to disclose it's information are 501(c)4 non-profit organizations. Any other Non Profit must disclose it's donors and financial statements by law. For-profit corporations cannot make donations without disclosing everything. And ideas to the contrary is just false.

3) The Disclosure Act has nothing to do with people being able to donate anonymous, and it was not preventative measure to limit Corporations. The Disclosure Act was a measure to increase the prevention campaigns and committees being able to take Foreign Contributions. There are already laws against Foreign Contributions.

Right. You were not talking about citizens united, as we all know it. You were talking about a 2002 case. Not ever called Citizens United, but rather the BIPARTISAN CAMPAIGN REFORM ACT OF 2002. Also known as the McCain–Feingold Act. Not Citizens United. So, me dear, you were talking about a different law. It was, as a matter of fact, a law that was eliminated by the Supreme Court when deciding Citizens United. So, ar you saying that you are either so ignorant or so untruthful that you were talking about attributes of a completely different law??? Really, me girl. Honesty is a really good attribute. Get some.

Maybe if I use less words it'll make a difference:

In the Citizen United Case, the Public Law I am referring to which was repealed was 2 USC 441a.

Get it now?

Interesting how caustic you get when you are caught lying, me dear. Let's take a look at a couple of your profound errors: 1.You are quoting facts from a law that was stricken down by the very law you have it confused with. 2. Based on 1, you have made a myriad of false statements. 3. You suggested I know nothing of Citizens United, when you do not know it well enough to keep it from being confused with a law that it negated. 4. Nothing in your post has any validity at all, as far as I can see. 5. You just wasted a lot of time for the small number of people who read your drivel.
To keep it really, really simple for you, let me explain: Citizens United and McCain Feingold relate to each other kind of like an oil refinery and an oil tanker. Only one does not eliminate the other.

I'm not even going to waste my time with this response, because I've already debunked everything you've said point by point. The only interesting thing is the more you speak, the more you realise how ignorant you are. And I honestly feel guilty because it's like I'm picking on a retard...

 

[Rshermr]

Tania says:

There is a reason why there is a limit on $50 Dollar anonymous contributions: Donors which an excess of $50 must have their information disclosed.

That is absolutely untrue. You are making the clear statement that contributions of over $50 would have to have their donors disclosed. Since this has not happened in all elections since 2010, then you are wrong. Sorry about that. But it is just the way it is.

Then Tania says:

I'm not even going to waste my time with this response, because I've already debunked everything you've said point by point. The only interesting thing is the more you speak, the more you realise how ignorant you are. And I honestly feel guilty because it's like I'm picking on a retard...

So, apparently you know something that all of the sources out there do not. You see, the fact that there have been millions in contributions by donors who have not been disclosed. Now, I would call that really, really ignorant. You are making an argument that does not pass the giggle test. Lets see:

The PACs are required to release the names of donors, however, a technicality in the disclosure rules allows donors to remain anonymous for months. Disclosure can be completely circumvented by PACs that create affiliated nonprofit 501(c)(4) organizations, which are not required to release the names of donors.
Read more: Super PACs Explained | Infoplease.com Super PACs Explained | Infoplease.com

But as a result of the Citizens United ruling that allows unlimited, untraceable money to be spent on political action groups, we will likely never find out who is behind the mystery dollars.
Read more: Anonymous Donor Writes Huge Check To GOP -- Thanks, Citizens United! | Care2 Causes

The court’s embrace of disclosure could hardly have been clearer. Yet we now have a system awash in anonymous donations to shadowy political groups. According to the reform-minded Center for Responsive Politics, advocacy groups spent approximately $305 million in the 2010 midterm federal elections, more than quadrupling the $70 million spent in the 2006 midterms. Few of these groups disclosed their donors; the "transparency" promised by Justice Kennedy is nonexistent.
Was the Court Conned in Citizens United? - Bloomberg

Independent groups that do not disclose the identity of their donors spent $132.5 million to influence elections nationwide this year, accounting for about a third of all spending by outside groups in the 2010 election cycle, a report released Friday found.
Anonymous donors spent $132M on 2010 campaign ads - politics - Decision 2010 | NBC News

So, me girl, calling me names will get you nowhere. Truth is truth. Evidence is evidence. Anonymous deductions are rampant, and have been since Citizens United. So, rail on as you want. You are wrong. Whether you believe there is a $50 limit or not really makes no difference. Millions of dollars have been anonymously donated to SUPERPAC's. which is all that matters. You can go on arguing there is a law not allowing over $50 all you want. I can find no reference to it being in effect after Citizens United. Period. If it is, so what. The fact is, lots and lots and lots of anonymous donations have occured.

The law that is there, and that should matter, is the one that Justice Kennedy assured us would make everything OK. the rule that all donations would have to be disclosed. Problem is, in less than a year, those running the SUPERPAC's had found ways around those rules. With millions of dollars of donations with no disclosure.
And, beyond that, the SuperPac folks found ways to postpone by months and months the disclosures they did make. Which, of course, made those disclosures of little value. They simply waited until people lost interest.

And yes, me dear, the Disclose Law was important. It was proposed BECAUSE disclosures were NOT happening as Kennedy had assured all. And saying it was not important simply shows your interest in seeing that disclosures would not occur. Odd, but there seem to be a fair number of people like you, who will twist every way possible to support Citizens United. They all seem to be far, far, far, far right wing sorts. Kinda like you seem to be.
Honestly, getting all hot under the collar and making disparaging remarks when I am simply trying to provide you with the truth seems odd. I would be mad at those providing me with the untrue things you are putting out there.

 

[AmazonTania]

Tania says:

There is a reason why there is a limit on $50 Dollar anonymous contributions: Donors which an excess of $50 must have their information disclosed.

That is absolutely untrue. You are making the clear statement that contributions of over $50 would have to have their donors disclosed. Since this has not happened in all elections since 2010, then you are wrong. Sorry about that. But it is just the way it is.

11 CFR 102.9 pertains to contributions above a certain limit. The more money one contributes, the more information this person must provide to the FEC. This law is still in the books and has not been removed. I'm sure its easier to pretend that these laws do not exist, but your intellectual dishonesty is really getting out of hand.

(a) An account shall be kept by any reasonable accounting procedure of all contributions received by or on behalf of the political committee.

(1) For contributions in excess of $50, such account shall include the name and address of the contributor and the date of receipt and amount of such contribution.

(2) For contributions from any person whose contributions aggregate more than $200 during a calendar year, such account shall include the identification of the person, and the date of receipt and amount of such contribution.

(3) For contributions from a political committee, such account shall include the identification of the political committee and the date of receipt and amount of such contribution.

(4) In addition to the account to be kept under paragraph (a)(1) of this section, for contributions in excess of $50, the treasurer of a political committee or an agent authorized by the treasurer shall maintain:

(i) A full-size photocopy of each check or written instrument; or

(ii) A digital image of each check or written instrument. The political committee or other person shall provide the computer equipment and software needed to retrieve and read the digital images, if necessary, at no cost to the Commission.

11 CFR 102.9 - Accounting for contributions and expenditures (2 U.S.C. 432(c)). | Title 11 - Federal Elections | Code of Federal Regulations | LII / Legal Information Institute

So, apparently you know something that all of the sources out there do not. You see, the fact that there have been millions in contributions by donors who have not been disclosed. Now, I would call that really, really ignorant. You are making an argument that does not pass the giggle test. Lets see:

Again, you are doing a very poor job of reading your own sources. Three of your sources again supports what I have already said: Non Profit organisations are donating to Super PACs and do not have to disclose their donors. One of your sources claims groups are making donations and do not have to disclose their information. Considering that none of your sources can actually prove their claims, I'm not going to consider it. Where is the proof of a particular person and/or organisation making a donation above a regulated limit and are not being disclosed?

So, me girl, calling me names will get you nowhere. Truth is truth. Evidence is evidence. Anonymous deductions are rampant, and have been since Citizens United. So, rail on as you want. You are wrong. Whether you believe there is a $50 limit or not really makes no difference. Millions of dollars have been anonymously donated to SUPERPAC's. which is all that matters. You can go on arguing there is a law not allowing over $50 all you want. I can find no reference to it being in effect after Citizens United. Period. If it is, so what. The fact is, lots and lots and lots of anonymous donations have occured.

Yes, lots of anonymous donations have occurred, as non-profit organisations. I don't know how many times you must be told, but you cannot make a donation above a certain amount without it being disclosed to the public. We know which portion of contributions are actually given by corporations and which ones are not:

​

Only 5% of all Super Pac fund raising were made by 501(c)4 non-profit organisations. The rest of the contributions were made by organisations which has to be reported. The only other demographic consist of other donations, which may very well consist of anonymous contributions.

The law that is there, and that should matter, is the one that Justice Kennedy assured us would make everything OK. the rule that all donations would have to be disclosed. Problem is, in less than a year, those running the SUPERPAC's had found ways around those rules. With millions of dollars of donations with no disclosure.
And, beyond that, the SuperPac folks found ways to postpone by months and months the disclosures they did make. Which, of course, made those disclosures of little value. They simply waited until people lost interest.

FEC regulations states that ALL contributions to Super PACs must be reported and anonymous contributions cannot exceed $50 (unless you are a 501(c)4 non-profit organisation). You say that Super PACs have found ways around these laws. Where exactly is your proof of these loopholes? The treasurer of a Super PAC is legally responsible for authorizing expenditures, monitoring contributions, depositing receipts in the PAC's designated bank account, keeping records of receipts and disbursements, and filing complete, accurate and timely reports of activity with the FEC. These reports must be updated Monthly, Quarterly, or during instances of an upcoming election cycle, every 48 hours.

11 CFR Parts 102, 103, 104 and 300 are very clear about these regulations.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2011-title11-vol1/xml/CFR-2011-title11-vol1-part102.xml

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2011-title11-vol1/xml/CFR-2011-title11-vol1-part103.xml

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2011-title11-vol1/xml/CFR-2011-title11-vol1-part104.xml

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2007-title11-vol1/xml/CFR-2007-title11-vol1-part300.xml

And yes, me dear, the Disclose Law was important. It was proposed BECAUSE disclosures were NOT happening as Kennedy had assured all. And saying it was not important simply shows your interest in seeing that disclosures would not occur. Odd, but there seem to be a fair number of people like you, who will twist every way possible to support Citizens United. They all seem to be far, far, far, far right wing sorts. Kinda like you seem to be.

Really? Because the ACLU was also oppose to the Disclosure act. I had no idea they were a far, far, far, far, far, far, far right wing organisation.

You seem to have only one shtick: repeating the same things over and over and praying someone will believe you. Substituting repetition for knowledge will get you no where.

 

[Rshermr]

Wow. You are really running out of game me dear. ACLU??? Wow. Wonder where you got that one. Could be you have been off in those bat shit crazy con sites again.

But all you have is blather, telling me how contributions must be disclosed. Which, me girl, is stupid. Sorry, everyone knows by now.
Here are a few more:

Right now, through creating multiple Limited Liability Corporations (LLC) or through anonymous PACs (501(c)3 or 501(c)4), it can be near impossible to trace where some of this money going into a candidate’s campaign is coming from.
Are Super PACs Good or Bad for Democracy?

Whether they know it or not, when politicians and journalists talk about anonymous funding of Super PACs they’re actually referring to 501(c)4s. The anonymity loophole makes this tax code classification an appealing choice for political benefactors who value large donations while keeping their names out of the news and corporate interests that want to avoid political fallout. Even Super PACs can’t offer that combination:
Sunshine for the Super PAC: The DISCLOSE Act Would Eliminate Anonymous Donors | The Georgetown Public Policy Review

A group aligned with the Tea Party has funneled more than $1.3 million in anonymous contributions to a super PAC working aggressively to unseat Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch and other congressional veterans, raising alarms among some watchdogs that these outside groups are emerging as a new avenue for secret political money.
Sponsored Links

FreedomWorks, a non-profit group that does not have to publicly disclose its donors, provided nearly half the money its affiliated super PAC, FreedomWorks for America, collected last year, as it launched an all-out campaign to defeat Hatch, Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., and others
Super PAC taps source of anonymous cash to target Hatch ? USATODAY.com

You are becoming a joke. this statement is classic Tania:

Yes, lots of anonymous donations have occurred, as non-profit organisations. I don't know how many times you must be told, but you cannot make a donation above a certain amount without it being disclosed to the public. We know which portion of contributions are actually given by corporations and which ones are not:

Here are the problems. First, the numbers do not add up to what other analysis shows. At all. And, me dear, you picked the contribution period for the 2010 race, with nearly all contributions made in 2010. Citizens United happened in Jan, 2010. Takes the crooks a couple years to find out how to best game the system. And 2012 was much worse. And 2014, and 2016.... Get it yet?? This is why thinking people are worried. This is why we have a push for the Disclose act, which ALL republicans voted against. Every Single One of them. And this is why far, far, far right cons say there is NO problem with Citizens United. And why they say, in the face of obvious and overwhelming evidence, that Citizens united is a good thing, and why there really is no problem with anonymous contributions to superPac's.

But this is really classic. You actually had the nerve to say:

This law is still in the books and has not been removed. I'm sure its easier to pretend that these laws do not exist, but your intellectual dishonesty is really getting out of hand.

Now try to listen, and try a little honesty. I said I could care less whether laws that do not work are on the books or not. What I care about is that Citizens United allows the wealthy to buy our politics, first, and that it is indeed largely anonymous contributions doing so. And that those anonymous contributions, according to ALL NONPARTISAN RESEARCHERS THAT ARE LOOKING AT THE ISSUE, ARE MAJOR AND GROWING IN SIZE. I hope if you see it in large type, you will understand. Though I think you will simply believe what you want.
Why, did you know that there were several thousand people killed in auto accidents by inebriated drivers under the age of 18, But that must not be true. Because alcohol consumption by those under 18 is illegal. Laws are on the books. Jesus.

 

[jasonnfree]

Wow. You are really running out of game me dear. ACLU??? Wow. Wonder where you got that one. Could be you have been off in those bat shit crazy con sites again.

But all you have is blather, telling me how contributions must be disclosed. Which, me girl, is stupid. Sorry, everyone knows by now.
Here are a few more:

Right now, through creating multiple Limited Liability Corporations (LLC) or through anonymous PACs (501(c)3 or 501(c)4), it can be near impossible to trace where some of this money going into a candidate’s campaign is coming from.
Are Super PACs Good or Bad for Democracy?

Whether they know it or not, when politicians and journalists talk about anonymous funding of Super PACs they’re actually referring to 501(c)4s. The anonymity loophole makes this tax code classification an appealing choice for political benefactors who value large donations while keeping their names out of the news and corporate interests that want to avoid political fallout. Even Super PACs can’t offer that combination:
Sunshine for the Super PAC: The DISCLOSE Act Would Eliminate Anonymous Donors | The Georgetown Public Policy Review

You are becoming a joke. this statement is classic Tania:

Yes, lots of anonymous donations have occurred, as non-profit organisations. I don't know how many times you must be told, but you cannot make a donation above a certain amount without it being disclosed to the public. We know which portion of contributions are actually given by corporations and which ones are not:

Here are the problems. First, the numbers do not add up to what other analysis shows. At all. And, me dear, you picked the contribution period for the 2010 race, with nearly all contributions made in 2010. Citizens United happened in Jan, 2010. Takes the crooks a couple years to find out how to best game the system. And 2012 was much worse. And 2014, and 2016.... Get it yet?? This is why thinking people are worried. This is why we have a push for the Disclose act, which ALL republicans voted against. Every Single One of them. And this is why far, far, far right cons say there is NO problem with Citizens United. And why they say, in the face of obvious and overwhelming evidence, that Citizens united is a good thing, and why there really is no problem with anonymous contributions to superPac's.

But this is really classic. You actually had the nerve to say:

This law is still in the books and has not been removed. I'm sure its easier to pretend that these laws do not exist, but your intellectual dishonesty is really getting out of hand.

Now try to listen, and try a little honesty. I said I could care less whether laws that do not work are on the books or not. What I care about is that Citizens United allows the wealthy to buy our politics, first, and that it is indeed largely anonymous contributions doing so. And that those anonymous contributions, according to ALL NONPARTISAN RESEARCHERS THAT ARE LOOKING AT THE ISSUE, ARE MAJOR AND GROWING IN SIZE. I hope if you see it in large type, you will understand. Though I think you will simply believe what you want.
Why, did you know that there were several thousand people killed in auto accidents by inebriated drivers under the age of 18, But that must not be true. Because alcohol consumption by those under 18 is illegal. Laws are on the books. Jesus.

According to your chart the unions have only a small part in donations, unlike what the right wing contends. It's mostly the wealthy and corporations that are swaying politics. Maybe we could take a chapter out of the book of republicans and demand that corporations show their U.S. birth certificate before they can have free speech (in the form of buying politicians).

 

[Rshermr]

Wow. You are really running out of game me dear. ACLU??? Wow. Wonder where you got that one. Could be you have been off in those bat shit crazy con sites again.

But all you have is blather, telling me how contributions must be disclosed. Which, me girl, is stupid. Sorry, everyone knows by now.
Here are a few more:

Right now, through creating multiple Limited Liability Corporations (LLC) or through anonymous PACs (501(c)3 or 501(c)4), it can be near impossible to trace where some of this money going into a candidate’s campaign is coming from.
Are Super PACs Good or Bad for Democracy?

You are becoming a joke. this statement is classic Tania:

Here are the problems. First, the numbers do not add up to what other analysis shows. At all. And, me dear, you picked the contribution period for the 2010 race, with nearly all contributions made in 2010. Citizens United happened in Jan, 2010. Takes the crooks a couple years to find out how to best game the system. And 2012 was much worse. And 2014, and 2016.... Get it yet?? This is why thinking people are worried. This is why we have a push for the Disclose act, which ALL republicans voted against. Every Single One of them. And this is why far, far, far right cons say there is NO problem with Citizens United. And why they say, in the face of obvious and overwhelming evidence, that Citizens united is a good thing, and why there really is no problem with anonymous contributions to superPac's.

But this is really classic. You actually had the nerve to say:

This law is still in the books and has not been removed. I'm sure its easier to pretend that these laws do not exist, but your intellectual dishonesty is really getting out of hand.

Now try to listen, and try a little honesty. I said I could care less whether laws that do not work are on the books or not. What I care about is that Citizens United allows the wealthy to buy our politics, first, and that it is indeed largely anonymous contributions doing so. And that those anonymous contributions, according to ALL NONPARTISAN RESEARCHERS THAT ARE LOOKING AT THE ISSUE, ARE MAJOR AND GROWING IN SIZE. I hope if you see it in large type, you will understand. Though I think you will simply believe what you want.
Why, did you know that there were several thousand people killed in auto accidents by inebriated drivers under the age of 18, But that must not be true. Because alcohol consumption by those under 18 is illegal. Laws are on the books. Jesus.

According to your chart the unions have only a small part in donations, unlike what the right wing contends. It's mostly the wealthy and corporations that are swaying politics. Maybe we could take a chapter out of the book of republicans and demand that corporations show their U.S. birth certificate before they can have free speech (in the form of buying politicians).

Of the largest 5 donors, who contributed about $160M, only one was a union, and donated to dems very predominantly. That contributor was $14M of the $160M. This is the site if you want to see actual donations WITHOUT agenda:
Top Overall Donors | OpenSecrets

 

[Barb]

Confidential Memo at the Heart of the Global Financial Crisis

http://www.gregpalast.com//vulturespicnic/pages/filecabinet/chapter12/5_protocol.pdf

 

[AmazonTania]

Wow. You are really running out of game me dear. ACLU??? Wow. Wonder where you got that one. Could be you have been off in those bat shit crazy con sites again.

The DISCLOSE Act was opposed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU),[28] which claimed that it "would inflict unnecessary damage to free speech rights and does not include the proper safeguards to protect Americans' privacy. The bill would severely impact donor anonymity, especially those donors who give to smaller and more controversial organizations."

DISCLOSE Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You were saying?

But all you have is blather, telling me how contributions must be disclosed. Which, me girl, is stupid. Sorry, everyone knows by now.
Here are a few more:

Right now, through creating multiple Limited Liability Corporations (LLC) or through anonymous PACs (501(c)3 or 501(c)4), it can be near impossible to trace where some of this money going into a candidate’s campaign is coming from.
Are Super PACs Good or Bad for Democracy?

Whether they know it or not, when politicians and journalists talk about anonymous funding of Super PACs they’re actually referring to 501(c)4s. The anonymity loophole makes this tax code classification an appealing choice for political benefactors who value large donations while keeping their names out of the news and corporate interests that want to avoid political fallout. Even Super PACs can’t offer that combination:
Sunshine for the Super PAC: The DISCLOSE Act Would Eliminate Anonymous Donors | The Georgetown Public Policy Review

I don't know whether or not it's because you cannot understand the issue or it's because your reading comprehension is very bad. You seem very content on proving my point for me and I've highlight in bold both of your quotes so that you can see for yourself.

Both of your sources show that Non-Profit Organisations DO NOT have to disclose the information of their donors. This is perfectly normal, and three of your sources show this. Freedom Works, Tea Party groups, etc. They all have a type of 501(c) non-profit status and do not have to disclose their donors.

That's perfectly legal. You might think its bad, but this is perfectly legal. I am referring to your claims about the organisations without 501(c) status making anonymous donations to Super PACs without being reported. Where is your proof of this?

Here are the problems. First, the numbers do not add up to what other analysis shows. At all. And, me dear, you picked the contribution period for the 2010 race, with nearly all contributions made in 2010. Citizens United happened in Jan, 2010. Takes the crooks a couple years to find out how to best game the system. And 2012 was much worse. And 2014, and 2016.... Get it yet??

That's your assumption. Those are not the facts. Super PACs are required to report ALL of their donors to the FEC, where it is making available of their own website for any American who wants to look it up. The U.S. Public Interest Research Group has used data from The FEC and the Sunlight Foundation to complied aggregate information about the composition of donors since 2010 - 2011, as well as the 2012 Election Cycle. The only legitimate complaint is that some of their donations are contributed by Non-Profit Organisations, and they don't have to disclose their donors. Even still, they make up a very small percentage of the contributions relative to all the contributions which are required to be disclosed.

This is why thinking people are worried. This is why we have a push for the Disclose act, which ALL republicans voted against. Every Single One of them. And this is why far, far, far right cons say there is NO problem with Citizens United. And why they say, in the face of obvious and overwhelming evidence, that Citizens united is a good thing, and why there really is no problem with anonymous contributions to superPac's.

That's not true at all. You've had more partisan support for the Bill than you've had in opposition of it. Only 2 Republicans with 217 Democrats voted in favor of H.R.5175. 36 Democrats and 169 Republicans voted against the resolution. The Bill Died in the House, and all of the partisans voted in favor of it. Another example of talking out of your arse and not getting any of your facts straight.

Now try to listen, and try a little honesty. I said I could care less whether laws that do not work are on the books or not. What I care about is that Citizens United allows the wealthy to buy our politics, first, and that it is indeed largely anonymous contributions doing so. And that those anonymous contributions, according to ALL NONPARTISAN RESEARCHERS THAT ARE LOOKING AT THE ISSUE, ARE MAJOR AND GROWING IN SIZE. I hope if you see it in large type, you will understand. Though I think you will simply believe what you want.

Why, did you know that there were several thousand people killed in auto accidents by inebriated drivers under the age of 18, But that must not be true. Because alcohol consumption by those under 18 is illegal. Laws are on the books. Jesus.

That’s a terrible analogy for an overall terrible argument. All of your sources have supported my claims that these anonymous donations are being made by nonprofit organisations. This is perfectly legal and make up a very small percentage of all contributions in the election cycle. We know majority of where the contributions are coming from and we know who they are contributing to. FEC has very detailed information regarding this.

You have claimed that anyone, regardless of status individual status, are making anonymous donations of any amount and these contributions Super PACs are circumventing regulations by the FEC, and not reporting these donations. Where is your proof of this?

 

[Rshermr]

Relative to the aclu, you are back a ways. I did not doubt it. What I said was did you have a point??
You had one liberal source who did not like the disclose act. But, me dear, if you ran the list, kind of like a list on video, you would see hundreds of conservatives against it along with a couple of progressives. You know that. So, why are you wasting time with a non point like that?? You are looking really, really desperate.

Lets look at the next error you made:

Quote: Originally Posted by Rshermr View Post
This is why thinking people are worried. This is why we have a push for the Disclose act, which ALL republicans voted against. Every Single One of them. And this is why far, far, far right cons say there is NO problem with Citizens United. And why they say, in the face of obvious and overwhelming evidence, that Citizens united is a good thing, and why there really is no problem with anonymous contributions to superPac's.

That's not true at all. You've had more partisan support for the Bill than you've had in opposition of it. Only 2 Republicans with 217 Democrats voted in favor of H.R.5175. 36 Democrats and 169 Republicans voted against the resolution. The Bill Died in the House, and all of the partisans voted in favor of it. Another example of talking out of your arse and not getting any of your facts straight.

And, so yes, you had only 2 republicans voting in favor in the house. Which is what I would expect.

And the blue dog repubs voted against it. No surprise. Now, me dear, the bill was then still alive. Let me explain. A bill is normally introduced in the house, and dies if it does not pass. Needs 50%, since there is no filibuster in the house. Got that, me dear. So, had it failed in the house, it would have been all over. But it did not. It PASSED in the house. So, to be succinct, HR 5175 did not fail in the house, as you said. It PASSED, and moved on to the SENATE.
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h5175/show

So, here is the deal. the bill then FAILED in the senate, because it got exactly 0, as in ZERO, republican votes. Yup, it got about 59% of the vote. Well beyond a majority. BUT, you see, they do not call this senate the do nothing senate for nothing. They filibustered pretty much everything they could. And, me dear, they filibustered it here.
So, it was not me talking out of my arse. It was you. Do you use a clear plastic navel??
You really need to get a clue. What I said was true. And you just made a fool of yourself again. This is getting embarrassing for you.

The disclose act was brought up twice in 2010. It was defeated by republicans in the senate both times Both times the bill had well over 50% support in the senate, and both times senate republicans filibustered the bill. Because, of course, they could care less about the will of the people.
As could you.

Then, there is this little bit of dishonesty:

That’s a terrible analogy for an overall terrible argument. All of your sources have supported my claims that these anonymous donations are being made by nonprofit organisations. This is perfectly legal and make up a very small percentage of all contributions in the election cycle. We know majority of where the contributions are coming from and we know who they are contributing to. FEC has very detailed information regarding this.

Nonproffit organizations, me dear, as in 501C4 groups, who contributed to SuperPacs, who then spent the money on political activities. And those superpacs dutifully discloses that it got the money from a 501C4. So, if you call this little bit of avoiding the naming of the actual (original) contributor true disclosure, then you are a fool. No one but nut cases believes that. But you are correct. It is indeed legal. So, please, a bit of honesty would be appreciated. You are ruining any reputation as an honest broker that you may have had.

Then, continuing to tell untruths, Tania says:

You have claimed that anyone, regardless of status individual status, are making anonymous donations of any amount and these contributions Super PACs are circumventing regulations by the FEC, and not reporting these donations.

I am not sure what you were just trying to say. "Regardless of status individual status"??? "and these contributions Super PACs are circumventing regulations by the FEC" ???

I am not talking about FEC regulations. Not sure what status you are talking about.

Where is your proof of this?

What this is this, me dear. Is the point that yu really do not like the english language?? OK. I get it.

Here is the deal, Amazon. YOur silliness has proven a well known fact: A PERSON WITH A CLOSED MIND LEARNS NOTHING. You have proven that in spades.

 

[AmazonTania]

Relative to the aclu, you are back a ways. I did not doubt it.

Sure, you didn't...

Wow. You are really running out of game me dear. ACLU??? Wow. Wonder where you got that one. Could be you have been off in those bat shit crazy con sites again.

What I said was did you have a point??

Where?

You had one liberal source who did not like the disclose act. But, me dear, if you ran the list, kind of like a list on video, you would see hundreds of conservatives against it along with a couple of progressives. You know that. So, why are you wasting time with a non point like that?? You are looking really, really desperate.

You made an erroneous claim which was incorrect. If don't want anyone to call you out on these claims, perhaps it would be better if you took the time to examine your words carefully. Not to mention you can clearly see all of the interest who oppose the bill, many with no clear affiliation.

And, so yes, you had only 2 republicans voting in favor in the house. Which is what I would expect.

And the blue dog repubs voted against it. No surprise. Now, me dear, the bill was then still alive. Let me explain. A bill is normally introduced in the house, and dies if it does not pass. Needs 50%, since there is no filibuster in the house. Got that, me dear. So, had it failed in the house, it would have been all over. But it did not. It PASSED in the house. So, to be succinct, HR 5175 did not fail in the house, as you said. It PASSED, and moved on to the SENATE.
H.R.5175: DISCLOSE Act - U.S. Congress - OpenCongress

So, here is the deal. the bill then FAILED in the senate, because it got exactly 0, as in ZERO, republican votes. Yup, it got about 59% of the vote. Well beyond a majority. BUT, you see, they do not call this senate the do nothing senate for nothing. They filibustered pretty much everything they could. And, me dear, they filibustered it here.
So, it was not me talking out of my arse. It was you. Do you use a clear plastic navel??
You really need to get a clue. What I said was true. And you just made a fool of yourself again. This is getting embarrassing for you.

The first part in non underlined text is 'partially true'. The rest in underlined text is completely made up, and another example of talking out of your arse. The Support for cloture on S. 3628 was not 59%. Also 59% support is not majority needed to bring the debate onto the floor for a vote: It's 60%. And again, you still had more partisan support in favor of cloture than you did in opposition of it. No Republicans supported a vote for the bill, however, at least one Democrat voted against cloture.

In a world where information is freely available, it should really be impossible as wrong as you often are.

On the Cloture Motion S. 3628 -- GovTrack.us

The disclose act was brought up twice in 2010. It was defeated by republicans in the senate both times Both times the bill had well over 50% support in the senate, and both times senate republicans filibustered the bill. Because, of course, they could care less about the will of the people.
As could you.

It's not about the will of the people. It's about individual rights. The constitution insures the rights of individuals to engage in the political process without unnecessary risk of being harassed or embarrassment. Laws should be created to encourage Free Speech, not limit it.

Nonproffit organizations, me dear, as in 501C4 groups, who contributed to SuperPacs, who then spent the money on political activities. And those superpacs dutifully discloses that it got the money from a 501C4. So, if you call this little bit of avoiding the naming of the actual (original) contributor true disclosure, then you are a fool. No one but nut cases believes that. But you are correct. It is indeed legal. So, please, a bit of honesty would be appreciated. You are ruining any reputation as an honest broker that you may have had.

There is really nothing avoiding about it. It's not as if anyone can wake up one morning and decide to start their Non-Profit organisation. There is a lot of steps and regulations involved. A great portion of Treasury Funds come strictly from donations. Non-Profits take treasury funds and contribute these to Super PACs. It can falsely be determined that an ordinary citizen supports a candidate simply because it donated to a Non-Profit, which happened to make a contribution to a Super PAC. Because of this misconception, Non-Profit organisations are not required to disclose any of its donors. These organisations are only required to disclose if for specific contributions, depending on its purpose.

This law was made to protect individuals, not Non-Profits.

I am not sure what you were just trying to say. "Regardless of status individual status"??? "and these contributions Super PACs are circumventing regulations by the FEC" ???

I am not talking about FEC regulations. Not sure what status you are talking about.

Just so there is no confusion:

Truth is truth. Evidence is evidence. Anonymous deductions are rampant, and have been since Citizens United. So, rail on as you want. You are wrong. Whether you believe there is a $50 limit or not really makes no difference. Millions of dollars have been anonymously donated to SUPERPAC's. which is all that matters. You can go on arguing there is a law not allowing over $50 all you want. I can find no reference to it being in effect after Citizens United. Period. If it is, so what. The fact is, lots and lots and lots of anonymous donations have occured.

The law that is there, and that should matter, is the one that Justice Kennedy assured us would make everything OK. the rule that all donations would have to be disclosed. Problem is, in less than a year, those running the SUPERPAC's had found ways around those rules. With millions of dollars of donations with no disclosure.

And as much as your limited vocabulary doesn't surprise me, you should know that status is pertaining to legal status, such as individuals, legal personality, organisations, non-profits, etc. Going over your words, lets review some basic facts:

1. Anonymous contributions must not exceed $50 dollars. Any amount give over this amount must be quickly disposed of.
2. Any contributions over $50 to a candidate, organisation or committee must have the information disclosed to the public.
3. Contributions to 501(c)3 or 501(c)4 organisations are not required to disclose their donor information.

Besides non-profit organisations, no other institutions or individuals are allowed to make contributions above $50 dollars without Super PACs having to disclose this information. If you are suggesting otherwise, where is your proof of individuals or organisations which are donating, regardless of status, to Super PACs? You have already claimed that these Super PACs have found ways around these rules,' despite the overwhelming amount of rules requiring the disclosure of many contributions above a specific amount.

What this is this, me dear. Is the point that yu really do not like the english language?? OK. I get it.

A simple question was asked. All that really requires is a simple answer. If you don't have an answer, your silence will suffice.

Here is the deal, Amazon. YOur silliness has proven a well known fact: A PERSON WITH A CLOSED MIND LEARNS NOTHING. You have proven that in spades.

What exactly was I suppose to learn? I was the one doing the teaching and correcting you at every opportunity. What exactly are you knowledgeable about? It's not economics, nor is it law. I'm not even really sure what your purpose here to be honest other than being a glorified cheerleader for everyone other person.

 

[Rshermr]

The first part in non underlined text is 'partially true'. The rest in underlined text is completely made up, and another example of talking out of your arse. The Support for cloture on S. 3628 was not 59%. Also 59% support is not majority needed to bring the debate onto the floor for a vote: It's 60%. And again, you still had more partisan support in favor of cloture than you did in opposition of it. No Republicans supported a vote for the bill, however, at least one Democrat voted against cloture.

The point is, me dear, that the bill did not fail in the house as you said. It passed there. Remember, you said I was talking out of my arse when I said it got majority support. Passed and failed, you see, are different things.
Now, it is nice to see that you now know you understand about cloture, and related filibuster. Relative to a majority, you need to check the dictionary. 50.1% is a majority. You are, of course, talking about a filibuster proof majority.
Now, here is a short history lesson. I know you will learn nothing, because you prefer not to. If repubs do not want to filibuster a bill, and it gets over 50% it passes. In the past the great majority of bills that got a simple majority PASSED. Since 2006, very, very few bills got through the senate, because REPUBLICANS BROKE WITH ALL PAST RATIONALITY AND FILIBUSTERED OVER 90% OF BILLS BROUGHT FORWARD BY DEMS. So, the bill passed based on a simple majority. Repubs simply filibustered AGAIN.
So, I know you know this, You are pushing ridiculous points simply to hang on to a stupid concept. That concept being that it is a bad idea to have a law saying that donors need to disclose their votes, and votes can not be hidden by those in charge of spending those donations on politics.

By the way, as you surely know, the one dem who voted against cloture was harry reid. And he voted against, because he knew the bill was going to be filibustered, and if he HAD voted for the bill he would not have been able to bring it back up for another vote. And you had one other potential vote by an independent that did not vote, because hew said he was unable to. Both votes, of course, would not have overcome the repub filibuster. BECAUSE EVERY SINGLE REPUB VOTED AGAINST REQUIRING DISCLOSURE OF DONATIONS. Which, me dear, simply supports what I said. Hell, even the blue dogs in the senate did not vote against the bill. And they almost ALWAYS vote with the repubs.
You are proving the fact that it is possible to mislead by simply leaving out the evidence that provides the truth. That, me dear, is a fairly advanced type of lying.

Then you say the following:

And as much as your limited vocabulary doesn't surprise me, you should know that status is pertaining to legal status, such as individuals, legal personality, organisations, non-profits, etc. Going over your words, lets review some basic facts:
Anonymous contributions must not exceed $50 dollars. Any amount give over this amount must be quickly disposed of.
Any contributions over $50 to a candidate, organisation or committee must have the information disclosed to the public.
Contributions to 501(c)3 or 501(c)4 organisations are not required to disclose their donor information.

Got it. So, according to Tania:
1. Good. So therefor there are no contributions that have not been disclosed?? Got it.
2. Good. It was the intent of the supreme court to say all deductions should be disclosed. But they meant for any donor to be able to donate to a 501c4 which would then donate to a superpac, and then that donation would be disclosed as coming from the name of the superpac, completely hiding the name of the actual donor.
3. Good. Hundreds of independent sources say that Citizens United allows donors to contribute unlimited amounts anonymously, but you say that it is a. First, untrue, and then b. ok because it is legal.
4. Good. The fact that congress has attempted to pass the disclose act multiple times to require disclosure of contributions to political activities is great with you, because we do not need to know.
5, Good. Because just because anonymous contributions are INCREASING EXPONENTIALLY according to all investigative reports, we should understand that there are laws that stop it.
6. The vast majority of americans are a. Against the cu decision, b. want it reversed, c. want disclosure, you think it is absolutely fine that politicians vote against disclosure, because it is part of the "law".

Besides non-profit organisations, no other institutions or individuals are allowed to make contributions above $50 dollars without Super PACs having to disclose this information. If you are suggesting otherwise, where is your proof of individuals or organisations which are donating, regardless of status, to Super PACs? You have already claimed that these Super PACs have found ways around these rules,' despite the overwhelming amount of rules requiring the disclosure of many contributions above a specific amount.

And you suggest that it is not happening. Because there are laws. Which you call overwhelming. Read and learn. Point is, me dear, completely and totally obvious by now. The Supreme Court, as Kennedy stated, would not allow anonymous contributions with Citizens United. However, those in control of superpacs circumvented that ruling. There is no doubt of that. Only a true con tool would try to spin it differently. As you are doing. No one buys it, me dear. No one.
You believe corporations should be able to donate as much as they want, have NO restrictions, and be able to find ways around citizens united rules about disclosure. Got it.
We all understand.

What exactly was I suppose to learn? I

Get out your dictionary again. You were not suppose to learn anything. It would be supposed.

I was the one doing the teaching and correcting you at every opportunity.

Right. And now we all know that points 1 through 6 above are true. AND, we know you are delusional.

What exactly are you knowledgeable about? It's not economics, nor is it law.

That would be your opinion, me dear. And you know how much I value your opinion.

I'm not even really sure what your purpose here to be honest other than being a glorified cheerleader for everyone other person.

Now I know you think this sentence is good grammar, and makes perfect sense. Good for you.
But, me dear, what you fail to understand is that anyone reading this knows what your purpose is. I have brought it out. You have proven to be a conservative tool. In the pocket of the wealthy and powerful. Really, really, really obvious.

So, we understand that you believe citizens united is a good law. You believe there are laws against contributions being undisclosed, and therefor they are not. And you believe we should believe you, and not the overwhelming and obviously well researched information out there and readily available to all proving you are completely wrong. Got it.

 

[AmazonTania]

The point is, me dear, that the bill did not fail in the house as you said. It passed there. Remember, you said I was talking out of my arse when I said it got majority support. Passed and failed, you see, are different things.

Whether it or not majority of votes were reached in the House is irreverent. If the Bill didn't get any closer to a vote in the Senate, then it failed in the House.

The rest of your points there is just meaningless to the topic at hand.

Got it. So, according to Tania:
1. Good. So therefor there are no contributions that have not been disclosed?? Got it.

The laws are pretty clear: Non-Profits are the only organisations which do not have to disclose their donor information. You are the one suggesting that anyone can contribute any amount, and remain anonymous. Where is your proof?

2. Good. It was the intent of the supreme court to say all deductions should be disclosed. But they meant for any donor to be able to donate to a 501c4 which would then donate to a superpac, and then that donation would be disclosed as coming from the name of the superpac, completely hiding the name of the actual donor.

Where is the proof that any Justice on the Supreme Court made had such intention?

CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM?N

The decisions in the court case are perfectly clear. 2 USC 441b was found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and thus, removed the previous ban on corporations and organisations using their treasury funds for direct advocacy. In no way did the Supreme Court make any decision about non-profits and their donors.

If a non-profit receives a contribution from a donor, that organisation must provide a donor with a written disclosure statement. These statements are made for the IRS to examine, and no one else.

3. Good. Hundreds of independent sources say that Citizens United allows donors to contribute unlimited amounts anonymously, but you say that it is a. First, untrue, and then b. ok because it is legal.

Where is your proof of individuals or organisations which are donating, regardless of status, to Super PACs? You have hundreds of independent sources, but somehow, you cannot cite one. How is it that organisations beside a non-profit are able to make donations and Super PACs are not reporting their information?

4. Good. The fact that congress has attempted to pass the disclose act multiple times to require disclosure of contributions to political activities is great with you, because we do not need to know.

That was not the purpose of the Disclosure Act. The purpose of the Disclosure Act was as follows:

1. Prohibiting independent expenditures and electioneering communications by government contractors.
2. Applying a ban on contributions and expenditures by foreign nationals to foreign-controlled domestic corporations.
3. Treatment of payments for coordinated communications as contributions.
4. Treatment of political party communications made on behalf of candidates.

The only other additional requirement which are too verbose to get into are the addition requirements regarding independent expenditures: 24 hour reporting on anyone making a contribution aggregate the amount or exceeding $10,000, but mostly impractical requirements for anyone who chooses to participate in electioneering communications.

5, Good. Because just because anonymous contributions are INCREASING EXPONENTIALLY according to all investigative reports, we should understand that there are laws that stop it.

Where is your proof? Anonymous contributions made up a very small portion of total aggregate contributions in 2012. Over $855 Million total receipts were made by Super PACs' in 2012. Less than a percentage of contributions were made where the origins of that money was unknown. Only 2% of donations were made by contributors which are not required to disclose their donors.

6. The vast majority of americans are a. Against the cu decision, b. want it reversed, c. want disclosure, you think it is absolutely fine that politicians vote against disclosure, because it is part of the "law".

Again, you are partially right on a part which is seemly irrelevant. What majority of Americans want is not irrelevant. Everyone has the right to closure, unless they are making a contribution above a certain amount. You've claimed that anyone can do this, still remain anonymous and not have their information reported. Where is this proof?

And you suggest that it is not happening. Because there are laws. Which you call overwhelming. Read and learn. Point is, me dear, completely and totally obvious by now. The Supreme Court, as Kennedy stated, would not allow anonymous contributions with Citizens United. However, those in control of superpacs circumvented that ruling. There is no doubt of that. Only a true con tool would try to spin it differently. As you are doing. No one buys it, me dear. No one.

First of all, Kennedy made no such opinion.

CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM?N

Secondly, all you have to do is show me the proof. It's that simple. How is it that anyone can make a donation to a Super PAC, and this Super PAC are circumventing the laws in not reporting the information? The only legitimate cases are non-profits which are not required to disclose their donor information. If you have any other examples, I'm still interested in seeing it.

You believe corporations should be able to donate as much as they want, have NO restrictions, and be able to find ways around citizens united rules about disclosure. Got it.
We all understand.

There is already a restriction on how much Corporations can make. The only forums where there are no restrictions are Super PACs. Corporations can make an unlimited amount, the same as any other individual. However, you are suggesting the corporations can make these donations anonymously. That is not the case. If they are, show me the proof.

Right. And now we all know that points 1 through 6 above are true. AND, we know you are delusional.

Actually, not a single point you've brought up was actually true. Parts 2 and 4 are a figment of your imagination, and the rest you have absolutely no proof for. It's not what you know; it's what you can actually prove. Repeating a phrase over and over doesn't actually make it true.

That would be your opinion, me dear. And you know how much I value your opinion.

Maybe if you ignore all the facts, it's an opinion. The Facts are your economic understanding is very bad, and your legal knowledge is equally atrocious. I have a greater understanding of your legal system than you do, and you live here! How pathetic is that?

Now I know you think this sentence is good grammar, and makes perfect sense. Good for you.
But, me dear, what you fail to understand is that anyone reading this knows what your purpose is. I have brought it out. You have proven to be a conservative tool. In the pocket of the wealthy and powerful. Really, really, really obvious.

Who you think I am is not relevant to the discussion. Show me why I am wrong.

So, we understand that you believe citizens united is a good law. You believe there are laws against contributions being undisclosed, and therefor they are not. And you believe we should believe you, and not the overwhelming and obviously well researched information out there and readily available to all proving you are completely wrong. Got it.

All you have to do is show examples of anyone being able to make undisclosed donations, unreported by Super PACs. Feel free to offer more than just your ignorant say so.

 

[Rshermr]

Tania says:

Whether it or not majority of votes were reached in the House is irreverent. If the Bill didn't get any closer to a vote in the Senate, then it failed in the House.

The rest of your points there is just meaningless to the topic at hand.

Well, I am not sure what it takes to get it through your head. It passed the house vote. Period. It did not die there. It went to the senate, where it was voted on. Twice. You are being dishonest again. Obvious. If any bill is voted on in the senate, it has indeed passed the house. Lying will not make it different, me dear. Now, if you can show how a any bill is passed in the house, and then voted on in the senate, gets a majority yes vote in the senate, and is then filibustered indicates it died in the house, please bring that on. You can not, of course, because what you are saying is just plain dumb.
Ant the rest of what I said was relevant. Just not what you wanted to address.

The laws are pretty clear: Non-Profits are the only organisations which do not have to disclose their donor information. You are the one suggesting that anyone can contribute any amount, and remain anonymous. Where is your proof?

Proof. You have to have an open mind, me dear. You do not. I have provided proof and explained to you how it works too many times. You are simply playing games at this point.

Perhaps you would like to prove something. Prove why a corporation who does not want to have it's name disclosed gives to a 501c4 that they know can and will contribute to a super pac. And then, having done so the SuperPac would simply disclose that the 501C4, named, say, Citizens for Prosperity, would be disclosed. And therefor NO DISCLOSURE BY THE SUPER PAC WOULD BE MADE of the actual original source. THE CORPORATION. So, that meets your test. It would be legal. And unlimited donations could be so given and not divulged. Legal, me dear. So I guess in your mind that is no problem. Because we know that Citizens for Prosperity donated the money.

Most see this as a way to provide money to politics in an unlimited way, and see it as corrupting government. You do not. Got that.
But, hat is a really simple thing to understand. Somehow you do not want to understand it.

Where is your proof of individuals or organisations which are donating, regardless of status, to Super PACs? You have hundreds of independent sources, but somehow, you cannot cite one. How is it that organisations beside a non-profit are able to make donations and Super PACs are not reporting their information?

I have provided you that proof. Not my fault you are brain dead.

That was not the purpose of the Disclosure Act. The purpose of the Disclosure Act was as follows:
Prohibiting independent expenditures and electioneering communications by government contractors.
Applying a ban on contributions and expenditures by foreign nationals to foreign-controlled domestic corporations.
Treatment of payments for coordinated communications as contributions.
Treatment of political party communications made on behalf of candidates.

The only other additional requirement which are too verbose to get into are the addition requirements regarding independent expenditures: 24 hour reporting on anyone making a contribution aggregate the amount or exceeding $10,000, but mostly impractical requirements for anyone who chooses to participate in electioneering communications.

No, it was not. As in, it had more to it. You are simply stating untruths again, me dear. Very tacky.

Where is your proof? Anonymous contributions made up a very small portion of total aggregate contributions in 2012. Over $855 Million total receipts were made by Super PACs' in 2012. Less than a percentage of contributions were made where the origins of that money was unknown. Only 2% of donations were made by contributors which are not required to disclose their donors.

Nonsense. And you are happy with seing the name of a nonprofit, as in 501c4, as the disclosure. Tacky, and dishonest.

T

here is already a restriction on how much Corporations can make. The only forums where there are no restrictions are Super PACs. Corporations can make an unlimited amount, the same as any other individual. However, you are suggesting the corporations can make these donations anonymously. That is not the case. If they are, show me the proof.

Right. How many more times would you like proof. Go play your games elsewhere. You have been given proof.

Maybe if you ignore all the facts, it's an opinion. The Facts are your economic understanding is very bad, and your legal knowledge is equally atrocious. I have a greater understanding of your legal system than you do, and you live here! How pathetic is that?

Good for you. Great to see you are proud of yourself. Most stupid people are, me girl. It is a normal attribute that stupid people, in study after study, always think that they are very, very knowledgeable. Studies show, of course, that they are actually stupid. Just trying to help.

Who you think I am is not relevant to the discussion. Show me why I am wrong.

Wow. Touchy when someone points out that you are a con tool. But it is obvious, me dear. Dead obvious.

All you have to do is show examples of anyone being able to make undisclosed donations, unreported by Super PACs. Feel free to offer more than just your ignorant say so.

So, since the PAC does not disclose the name of the individual, or corporation, who made the contribution, when that contribution is anonymous, then you should be able to understand that NO ONE can name who made that contribution. But, if you are stupid, that would be the kind of statement you might make. And please, if you know how to name the person who was not disclosed, Feel free to offer more than just your ignorant say so.

 

[AmazonTania]

Well, I am not sure what it takes to get it through your head. It passed the house vote. Period. It did not die there. It went to the senate, where it was voted on. Twice. You are being dishonest again.

LMAO! There was no vote in the Senate. At all. The only vote which took place was the vote to end cloture and begin the voting process. Whatever became of the bill making process ended with the House version of the bill. You really don't know what you are talking about. And it's sad too because one only of us here is actually allowed to vote in American elections.

Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections Act (2010; 111th Congress S. 3628) - GovTrack.us

Proof. You have to have an open mind, me dear. You do not. I have provided proof and explained to you how it works too many times. You are simply playing games at this point.

If you provided proof, I wouldn't need to ask for it over again. The only proof you've shown were nonprofit organisations which did not have to disclose information of their donors. That supports my claim. It doesn't support yours in anyway. Just in case you are confused, these are your words against my words:

Truth is truth. Evidence is evidence. Anonymous deductions are rampant, and have been since Citizens United. So, rail on as you want. You are wrong. Whether you believe there is a $50 limit or not really makes no difference. Millions of dollars have been anonymously donated to SUPERPAC's. which is all that matters. You can go on arguing there is a law not allowing over $50 all you want. I can find no reference to it being in effect after Citizens United. Period. If it is, so what. The fact is, lots and lots and lots of anonymous donations have occured.

The law that is there, and that should matter, is the one that Justice Kennedy assured us would make everything OK. the rule that all donations would have to be disclosed. Problem is, in less than a year, those running the SUPERPAC's had found ways around those rules. With millions of dollars of donations with no disclosure.

And as much as your limited vocabulary doesn't surprise me, you should know that status is pertaining to legal status, such as individuals, legal personality, organisations, non-profits, etc. Going over your words, lets review some basic facts:

1. Anonymous contributions must not exceed $50 dollars. Any amount give over this amount must be quickly disposed of.
2. Any contributions over $50 to a candidate, organisation or committee must have the information disclosed to the public.
3. Contributions to 501(c)3 or 501(c)4 organisations are not required to disclose their donor information.

Besides non-profit organisations, no other institutions or individuals are allowed to make contributions above $50 dollars without Super PACs having to disclose this information. If you are suggesting otherwise, where is your proof of individuals or organisations which are donating, regardless of status, to Super PACs? You have already claimed that these Super PACs have found ways around these rules,' despite the overwhelming amount of rules requiring the disclosure of many contributions above a specific amount.

Perhaps you would like to prove something. Prove why a corporation who does not want to have it's name disclosed gives to a 501c4 that they know can and will contribute to a super pac. And then, having done so the SuperPac would simply disclose that the 501C4, named, say, Citizens for Prosperity, would be disclosed. And therefor NO DISCLOSURE BY THE SUPER PAC WOULD BE MADE of the actual original source. THE CORPORATION. So, that meets your test. It would be legal.

That doesn't meet any test I asked for, and what I asked for was very specific. I can't really tell if you are moving the goalpost or your reading comprehension is failing once again, but that is not what you were asked to prove. Noticed the words in Bold Underline.

I am referring to your claims about the organisations without 501(c) status making anonymous donations to Super PACs without being reported. Where is your proof of this?

How is it that organisations besides a non-profit are able to make donations and Super PACs are not reporting their information?

And it's already been explained to you that a non-profit making a donation to a Super PAC does not mean this non-profit is making a contribution on behalf of it's donors.

There is really nothing avoiding about it. It's not as if anyone can wake up one morning and decide to start their Non-Profit organisation. There is a lot of steps and regulations involved. A great portion of Treasury Funds come strictly from donations. Non-Profits take treasury funds and contribute these to Super PACs. It can falsely be determined that an ordinary citizen supports a candidate simply because it donated to a Non-Profit, which happened to make a contribution to a Super PAC. Because of this misconception, Non-Profit organisations are not required to disclose any of its donors. These organisations are only required to disclose if for specific contributions, depending on its purpose.

This law was made to protect individuals, not Non-Profits.

If you were paying attention instead of trying to score cheap points, you wouldn't have made such an erroneous error.

Now I'll ask you again, and this time, try to pay attention to the words: Do you have any prove that an individual or organisation, regardless of status, is making contributions to Super PACs and are not having their information disclosed.

Most see this as a way to provide money to politics in an unlimited way, and see it as corrupting government. You do not. Got that.
But, hat is a really simple thing to understand. Somehow you do not want to understand it.

For anyone with the same legal knowledge as you, it's simple. The rest of us educated individuals understand that these issues are not as simple as you think they are. There is really no limit to the amount of money people can donate to charity. There are millionaires and billionaires which have donated more than 65% of their fortune to charity before they have died. With mandatory disclosure laws on non-profits, it can easily be confused that philanthropist made a contribution or supports a candidate simply because the Non-Profit used treasury funds to lobby congress or to donate to Political Committees.

Which is why you were not asked about corporations making donations to non-profits, which made donations to Super PACs.' If AARP hosts a charity drive, and Goldman Sachs decides to become a sponsor. It could be misinterpreted that Goldman Sachs supports Obamacare, simply because Goldman was a Sponsor of AARP's charity drive. Very few people are honestly dumb enough to make this connection, except for you. This is why unless there is a specific purpose attached to the contribute, Non-Profit donations are to always be disclosed.

I have provided you that proof. Not my fault you are brain dead.

Where?

No, it was not. As in, it had more to it. You are simply stating untruths again, me dear. Very tacky.

No it wasn't. I've mentioned all the sections relating to the Bill. Perhaps you should read it sometime. Or maybe have someone else read it for you until your English improves.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-111hr5175ih/pdf/BILLS-111hr5175ih.pdf

Nonsense. And you are happy with seing the name of a nonprofit, as in 501c4, as the disclosure. Tacky, and dishonest.

Anyone can to to the FEC and look up contributions from all sources, as well as the Sunlight Foundation which uses the same data. It's really not my reality disagrees with you.

Right. How many more times would you like proof. Go play your games elsewhere. You have been given proof.

I'll keep asking until I either get something resembling proof, retract your claim, or make another claim.

It really doesn't matter to me.

Good for you. Great to see you are proud of yourself. Most stupid people are, me girl. It is a normal attribute that stupid people, in study after study, always think that they are very, very knowledgeable. Studies show, of course, that they are actually stupid. Just trying to help.

That's nice that your studies show that, but it's really sad that you can't understand based legal matters regarding your own country. That puts your basic education in question.

Wow. Touchy when someone points out that you are a con tool. But it is obvious, me dear. Dead obvious.

It doesn't matter to me who you think I am. Concentrating the discussion on me is not going to help you in any way.

So, since the PAC does not disclose the name of the individual, or corporation, who made the contribution, when that contribution is anonymous, then you should be able to understand that NO ONE can name who made that contribution. But, if you are stupid, that would be the kind of statement you might make. And please, if you know how to name the person who was not disclosed, Feel free to offer more than just your ignorant say so.

Yeah, except that the FEC keeps records of ALL contributions and puts this data into a database for all Americans available who wants to look it up. The amount of information to disclose depends upon the amount of which was contributed, hence, my question: prove that an individual or organisation, regardless of status, is making contributions to Super PACs and are not having their information disclosed.

According to FEC data, less than a percentage of donations were made anonymous, which means that 99.9% of donations were made through other sources which are known to the public.

 

[Rshermr]

So, more drivel. Lots of untruths.
Lets look at your graph at the end, me dear. I noticed there was NO LINK. So, I went to the site that produced it. But was unable to find it. What a surprise. Here is the graph that shows what demos.org says are secret, or unreported, contributions.


Million-Dollar Megaphones: Super PACs and Unlimited Outside Spending in the 2012 Elections | Demos

So, where you got the "under 1% " graph I do not know. You will notice I provided a link. How about you do the same. Because I have read their report and your contention of under 1% bears no relationship to what they have to say. They said, in fact, the following:

Of the spending reported to the FEC, $12.7 million, or 7.6 percent was secret spending, not traceable to an original source.

Same link, same page.

Other groups are spending millions to influence our votes without reporting their donors. And, millions of dollars of this “dark money” is doubly-secret—not only are the donors undisclosed, but the spending itself is not reported to the public in any systemic way.

Same link

 

[Rshermr]

Then, tania makes the following post, the untruth of which is very easy to establish.

LMAO! There was no vote in the Senate. At all.

So, I thought you understood something about votes in the senate, and filibusters, and cloture votes. Either you do not, or you are simply floating a lie to see if it gets by.
The Senate takes on bills passed by the house. If the house passes a bill, it goes to the senate for consideration. Once the bill is put into the form the senate wants, then you get VOTES. Specifically, if the other party has said they will filibuster, then the votes are procedural, to see if the bill has a chance to overcome a filibuster. If it does, it goes forward. If not, there is generally a vote for cloture, to put the bill aside, or to kill it, essentially.
Now pay attention, me girl. The disclose bill passed in the house. You have said several times it did not, but it did. You were WRONG.
The bill, in the House form, went to the senate. The senate modified the bill, primarily to accommodate repubs. The repubs said they WOULD FILIBUSTER the bill if it was passed by a simple majority. So, a procedural vote was taken, in which it was determined that the bill would not pass the filibuster requirement of the republicans.
So, I guess I could say I am LMAO at you, me dear. But it is way too childish. But maybe you should go laugh your ass of at what you said, because it was kinda funny. Nice try.

The only vote which took place was the vote to end cloture and begin the voting process. Whatever became of the bill making process ended with the House version of the bill. /QUOTE]

And so, there were two votes relative to the bill. One a procedural vote to see if the filibuster of the repubs could be overcome. One set the bill aside. It was later brought back up, with more changes, in 2010. So, no, me dear, the bill did not die in the house. And you are wrong about the vote on the bill. It was voted on. And the bill was not killed even in the Senate, it was simply set aside for further consideration at a later time. A few months later.

You really don't know what you are talking about. And it's sad too because one only of us here is actually allowed to vote in American elections.

See the above respnse, Someone does not understand how votes in congress works. And that, me girl, as you and I have just shown, is YOU. Since you are ignorant, it is probably better not to make nasty remarks about those trying to help you. And I do try. Sorry it does not take.

You keep bringing this bill up, trying to change history. Someone has an agenda, me dear. Look in the mirror. I told you the truth from the beginning. And you have either been wrong, or just plain lied, on several occasions. You may as well stop, now, me dear. You have wasted enough of everyone's time. You will not win this debate. Because your premise is wrong, and ignorant, and stupid.

Here. Try to learn something:

A unified Democratic caucus supported the legislation, voting 59-39 on a procedural vote that needed 60 votes to pass.

Republicans successfully filibustered the DISCLOSE Act in July as well, after the House narrowly passed the bill in June.
Senate Republicans Again Block DISCLOSE Act, Designed to Reveal Special Interest Spending - OpenSecrets Blog

By the way, should you care, this is a good place to find out what the Disclose Act was about. Though I am certain you do not care.

 

[AmazonTania]

So, more drivel. Lots of untruths.
Lets look at your graph at the end, me dear. I noticed there was NO LINK. So, I went to the site that produced it. But was unable to find it. What a surprise.

Well that means that you're a complete moron, because the graph I used is on the same exact website you just provided...

Which probably leaves the impression that you didn't even read your own source. Is that a safe bet?

Here is the graph that shows what demos.org says are secret, or unreported, contributions.

View attachment 27429
Million-Dollar Megaphones: Super PACs and Unlimited Outside Spending in the 2012 Elections | Demos

So, where you got the "under 1% " graph I do not know. You will notice I provided a link. How about you do the same. Because I have read their report and your contention of under 1% bears no relationship to what they have to say. They said, in fact, the following:

I doubt that you've actually read it, because you would have seen the graph that I used plan as day. Also, what is up with your comprehension? The graph you attached doesn't show unreported contributions. All the contributions in your graph are accounted for clearly show on the bottom: Total Reported outside Spending for 2012 Cycle: $167.5 Million Dollars ($154 Million + $12.7 Million). What it does show is the total non-secret spending plus the total secret spending. And I'll show you why it's considered total secret spending in a second.

Of the spending reported to the FEC, $12.7 million, or 7.6 percent was secret spending, not traceable to an original source.

Same link, same page.

Other groups are spending millions to influence our votes without reporting their donors. And, millions of dollars of this “dark money” is doubly-secret—not only are the donors undisclosed, but the spending itself is not reported to the public in any systemic way.

Same link

[/QUOTE]

Now I am 100% certain you didn't read the source. If you did actually read your source, you wouldn't have actually quoted the closing remarks. Also, you would have understood that the report is explaining the same thing that I've been trying to explain to you: 501(c)4 Non-Profit organisations role in donating to Super PACs'. Hell, you could have figured that out just by reading the first paragraph.

Although each major party presidential candidate will likely break previous fundraising records, the big story of the 2012 election has been the role of Super PACs, nonprofits and outside spending generally.

You would have also understood that the 7.6% in unreported funds are clearly from Non-Profit Organisations.Without realising it you attached the second figure. I guess I will have to do all of the work for you.

This is the first figure which shows all reported contributions from all sources: $137 Million from Super PACs, $15 Million from 527 Political Organisations, $9 Million from 501(c)4s', 3 Million from 501(c)6s', $1 Million from Unions and a few hundred Thousand from other sources.

Now lets review Figure 2 (your graph):

As I have said before, what is being shown is the reporting of non-secret spending versus secret spending. $154 Million consist of non secret spending and $12.7 Million consist of spending which was kept secret. Looking at the numbers from the first chart, we can see what contributions towards 'non-secret spending.' There was $137 Million from Super PACs,' $15 Million from 527, $1 Million from Unions and $127,000 from other sources. This contributes to roughly $154 Million as estimated by the chart in Total 'Non Secret Spending.'

There are only two other organisations left, and through simple process of elimination, even you should be able to figure out what these two are:

The 7.6% of secret spending money comes from non profit organisations. What a shocker. I don't know how many times you've proven my point, but I've never seen such a bigger fail. If this isn't the evidence you need to improve your reading proficiency around these forums, I don't know what is...