Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Koch brothers. Again. Where's the snooze smiley? Do you really want us to list the millionaires and billionaires contributing to Democrats? And I'm not even talking about their Hollyweird donors.
I heard that the KOCH brothers have budgeted 900 million dollars for the Presidential campaign. They are very serious about keeping their privilege and power. I expect they will do everything possible to destroy The Donald and who ever wins the Democratic primary. The KOCH brothers are the very image of THEM.
I can only hope that Bernie Sanders straight forward populism can overcome the money and power of the THEM that controls both parties and our economy.
Trump has his own billions to spend, they won't start that kind of pissing contest. I'm really seeing that Americans WANT to see a Trump/Sanders contest, at least we'll get some entertainment and it will send a message to the bought and paid for establishment lackeys.
Billionaire capitalist businessman vs. Socialist labor advocate.
It was a simple name change to scare the populace. Citizen United has absolutely NOTHING to do with campaign financing. Nothing.
False. The unlimited donations didn't exist prior to Citize's United. You didn't have people donating $10 million to a candidate, a PAC or Super PAC prior to Citizens United. That case resulted in the unlimited donations as long as the PAC is "technically" separate from a candidate
You didn't have people donating $10 million to a candidate, a PAC or Super PAC prior to Citizens United. That case resulted in the unlimited donations as long as the PAC is "technically" separate from a candidate
It's still illegal to donate $10 million to a candidate. Yes, one can give $10 million to a Pac but then the story about "dark money" falls apart. That has to be documented.
It should also be noted that Pac existed long before the law that brought about the Citizen United lawsuit.
The hard money is not "cleaner" or "better" than the soft money. In fact, nearly two-thirds of hard money comes from a tiny group of mostly wealthy individuals and special interest Political Action Committees (PACs). Many of these hard money donors are the same cast of characters that are giving soft money contributions, and they are giving for the same reasons: to gain access to elected officials and to influence policy. Another 12 percent of hard money comes from wealthy candidates contributing to their own campaigns as they seek not just access, but membership in Washington’s halls of power.
We are still using this ploy today.
There is a purpose behind the mislabeling of hard money as "good" political money. It opens the door for hard-money-dependent candidates to falsely claim that they are running campaigns free of corrupting contributions. And if hard money contributions are perceived as innocent, the campaign finance reform debate becomes confined to regulation of soft money, and the door is opened to the unholy tradeoff of banning soft money in exchange for loosening regulations on hard money.
The two parties can only control the money gave directly to them. They've done nothing to change that. The only money they went after was money they could not control.
It's still illegal to donate $10 million to a candidate. Yes, one can give $10 million to a Pac but then the story about "dark money" falls apart. That has to be documented.
I didn't say otherwise, what I said was it opened the door for the Super PAC's which allow for unlimited donations. You can't donate $10 million to a specific candidate or $10 million to a candidate's connected PAC, but you can donate $10 million to a Super PAC that supports a specific candidate as long as that SUPER PAC is 'technically' separate from that candidate
Would one of the conspiracy theorists here please explain to us all why the Koch brothers are so prominent a target? I've moved in conservative / libertarian circles for over forty years, and had never heard of them until about eight years ago.
You can't "repeal" Citizens United, BTW; it's an organization, rather than a law; and I'm sure that the near-identical "moneyed few" on the other side of the fence want those laws slanted so as to favor only their side.
But don't worry; the Chicago gangsters working with their puppet -- the one in the White House -- working hard at packing the courts and thwarting the Constitution in order to get their way.
Last edited by 2nd trick op; 08-06-2015 at 08:43 AM..
Okay so five candidates participated in the Koch forums la begged for money. What I don't get is why Ted Cruz courts them. I actually don't get why anyone who fancies himself conservative deals with them. They are very establishment. They believe in amnesty, they want to cut all corporate subsidies, they railed against big banks. It's very similar to a lot of sanders platform. It goes to show how we need to get big money out of elections.
of course they believe in amnesty....they're investments are tied up in companies that hire illegals.....
I didn't say otherwise, what I said was it opened the door for the Super PAC's which allow for unlimited donations. You can't donate $10 million to a specific candidate or $10 million to a candidate's connected PAC, but you can donate $10 million to a Super PAC that supports a specific candidate as long as that SUPER PAC is 'technically' separate from that candidate
You've always been able to spend $10 million on an election if you wanted to.
The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (McCain/Feingold) did absolutely nothing about what people see as the problem. This article is from the first election after the law was passed.
THE 2004 CAMPAIGN: FUND-RAISING; Financial Firms Are Bush's Biggest Donors, Study Reports
By GLEN JUSTICE
Published: January 9, 2004
WASHINGTON, Jan. 8— A new study released Thursday shows that employees and political action committees of brokerages, banks and credit companies make up 6 of President Bush's top 10 career contributors, a clear indicator of his increasing support from the financial sector.
In a similar study during the 2000 election, no major financial services firms were among the top 10.
The study was conducted by the nonpartisan Center for Public Integrity and published as a book, ''The Buying of the President 2004.'' It looks at top contributors to Republican and Democratic presidential candidates over the course of their public careers.
''This money is not coming from backyard bake sales and barbecues,'' said Charles Lewis, the center's executive director. ''It's coming from powerful special interests who want something.''
All the law did was try and make it harder for those outside of the two parties to have a say.
I've used similar examples many times and no one ever addresses it.
How is it O.K. for candidate A to say "Planned Parenthood is profiting off of selling fetus parts" but it's somehow wrong for Planned Parenthood to come out with an ad that states their side of the position?
That is what the law did. Within 60 days of an election outside groups were excluded from the process. In general, why is it O.K. for a candidate to attack a group say 45 days before an election but it's wrong for that group to be able to defend itself?
That is why the lawsuit was brought. That is why the ACLU was one of the biggest proponents of the lawsuit.
You've always been able to spend $10 million on an election if you wanted to.
The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (McCain/Feingold) did absolutely nothing about what people see as the problem. This article is from the first election after the law was passed.
THE 2004 CAMPAIGN: FUND-RAISING; Financial Firms Are Bush's Biggest Donors, Study Reports By GLEN JUSTICE Published: January 9, 2004
WASHINGTON, Jan. 8— A new study released Thursday shows that employees and political action committees of brokerages, banks and credit companies make up 6 of President Bush's top 10 career contributors, a clear indicator of his increasing support from the financial sector.
In a similar study during the 2000 election, no major financial services firms were among the top 10.
The study was conducted by the nonpartisan Center for Public Integrity and published as a book, ''The Buying of the President 2004.'' It looks at top contributors to Republican and Democratic presidential candidates over the course of their public careers.
''This money is not coming from backyard bake sales and barbecues,'' said Charles Lewis, the center's executive director. ''It's coming from powerful special interests who want something.''
All the law did was try and make it harder for those outside of the two parties to have a say.
I've used similar examples many times and no one ever addresses it.
How is it O.K. for candidate A to say "Planned Parenthood is profiting off of selling fetus parts" but it's somehow wrong for Planned Parenthood to come out with an ad that states their side of the position?
That is what the law did. Within 60 days of an election outside groups were excluded from the process. In general, why is it O.K. for a candidate to attack a group say 45 days before an election but it's wrong for that group to be able to defend itself?
That is why the lawsuit was brought. That is why the ACLU was one of the biggest proponents of the lawsuit.
The issue is the unlimited donations "outside groups" can now get from Individual donors, that didn't happen before. There were limits Individuals could contribute, now we have individuals contributing $10 million.
The issue is the unlimited donations "outside groups" can now get from Individual donors, that didn't happen before. There were limits Individuals could contribute, now we have individuals contributing $10 million.
There have been pacs for a long time. The first one was created in 1944.
So, I'll ask again......Candidate A claims that Planned Parenthood is profiting off of aborted fetus body parts. He (or she) has the media to state his positions here. The nightly news, the paper media, campaign stops, etc.
Why is it wrong for Planned Parenthood to form a Pac and have a supporter donate $5 million for them to have the ability to defend themselves and yes, even attack back?
If you don't wish to answer I'll ignore anything else you say.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
