Foreign Governments Heavily Invested In Republicans (lobbyist, illegals, lobby, crimes)
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.
Democrats are hypocrites of the highest order. They didn’t mind one bit when Bill Clinton was taking scads of cash from the Chinese. Nor did democrats care that Bammer collected untold dollars that were never traced and clearly included money directly from foreigners.
Now all the sudden when some proxy that does adds in support for republicans (very different from direct contributions to an actual candidate) Democrats are outraged.
It’s disgusting. It is typical of the left. And everyone ought to know that the democrats yelling about this are lying hypocrites who will do anything, say anything to win an election without any regard to truth.
You people need to face the facts. Americans don’t like tax and spend liberals. Americans reject Keynesian Economics. Americans aren’t European socialists and when a nut lies his way into the Whitehouse trying to convince everyone he isn’t what he is, we will figure it out and we will kick said lying Euro-socialist out on his snooty butt!
If Clinton was taking campaign donations illegally, I think Ken Starr would have had that covered...he didn't leave a stone unturned if he could find or imagine one.
I personally don't have that big of a problem with foreign donations, but I have a major problem with anonymous ones. The problem with nonprofits is the use of their tax exempt status to shield political gifts, especially since the two SCOTUS rulings this year concerning who can give, and how much the nonprofits can spend. The whole game is suddenly much bigger, and the rules need to be clarified or changed on how those dollars can be used--although there are regulations concerning what percent of their income a group can use directly for a candidate, groups are calling other work "issue campaigns" where they're essentially doing a hit piece on the opposition--it's a defacto gift to the candidate. It is a VERY big deal. Congress needs to take those issues head on.
This isn't a republican or a democrat thing--it's a good government thing. You can go on all you like about what the dems have or haven't done, but the bottom line is that if it's wrong, it's wrong. Using the excuse that other have done it in the past, so it's ok for "my team" is hypocritical at best.
If Clinton was taking campaign donations illegally, I think Ken Starr would have had that covered...he didn't leave a stone unturned if he could find or imagine one.
I personally don't have that big of a problem with foreign donations, but I have a major problem with anonymous ones. The problem with nonprofits is the use of their tax exempt status to shield political gifts, especially since the two SCOTUS rulings this year concerning who can give, and how much the nonprofits can spend. The whole game is suddenly much bigger, and the rules need to be clarified or changed on how those dollars can be used--although there are regulations concerning what percent of their income a group can use directly for a candidate, groups are calling other work "issue campaigns" where they're essentially doing a hit piece on the opposition--it's a defacto gift to the candidate. It is a VERY big deal. Congress needs to take those issues head on.
This isn't a republican or a democrat thing--it's a good government thing. You can go on all you like about what the dems have or haven't done, but the bottom line is that if it's wrong, it's wrong. Using the excuse that other have done it in the past, so it's ok for "my team" is hypocritical at best.
Ken Star's investigation didn’t cover campaign contributions. it was about bill Clinton telling lies under oath.
This thread is about the BAD Chamber of Commerce because they get some funds from overseas.
This is not a general thread. It is a democrat talking point that is being talked about everywhere by liberals in general.
These liberals don’t clean their own house but they yell and scream about something that really isnt an issue.
The US. CoC does collect funds from overseas and those funds are used for certain legal things here in the USA that have nothing to do with political ads.
The Chamber also does do political ads, as is their right. What liberals are doing is connecting two things that are not connected but no one really looks at the truth so it is a good attack.
This is a dirty underhanded false and hypocritical attack by democrats. Period.
Bottom line here, the USCoC collects some few hundred thousand dollars from overseas. They also collect millions from Americans. Then they spend some subset of the dollars they collect from Americans on political ads. They are not spending more money on political ads than they collect from Americans. There is no real issue here but liberals doing what liberals do are lying to win political points because they cannot simply run on their record.
Americans have utterly rejected the liberal record.
They thought they could actually trust the word of the President of the United States and the intelligence briefings presented by his administration--you know--that no responsible leader would deliberately lie to lead us into a war.
Guess that theory got blown out of the water fast.
Not quite...
Quote:
...dive into Rockefeller's [Democrat W. Va.] report, in search of where exactly President Bush lied about what his intelligence agencies were telling him about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, and you may be surprised by what you find.
On Iraq's nuclear weapons program? The president's statements "were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates."
On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile laboratories? The president's statements "were substantiated by intelligence information."
On chemical weapons, then? "Substantiated by intelligence information."
On weapons of mass destruction overall (a separate section of the intelligence committee report)? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information." Delivery vehicles such as ballistic missiles? "Generally substantiated by available intelligence." Unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to deliver WMDs? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information."
As you read through the report, you begin to think maybe you've mistakenly picked up the minority dissent. But, no, this is the Rockefeller indictment. So, you think, the smoking gun must appear in the section on Bush's claims about Saddam Hussein's alleged ties to terrorism.
But statements regarding Iraq's support for terrorist groups other than al-Qaeda "were substantiated by intelligence information." Statements that Iraq provided safe haven for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other terrorists with ties to al-Qaeda "were substantiated by the intelligence assessments," and statements regarding Iraq's contacts with al-Qaeda "were substantiated by intelligence information." The report is left to complain about "implications" and statements that "left the impression" that those contacts led to substantive Iraqi cooperation.
Ken Star's investigation didn’t cover campaign contributions. it was about bill Clinton telling lies under oath.
Ken Starr investigated every real or imagined "crime" he could find in numerous investigations of the Clinton administration, and the only wrong doing ever found was lying under oath about having sex in the Lewinsky case. If he didn't investigate campaign contributions, I think it's reasonable to say that there was no shred of evidence to justify an investigation. The comment on Clinton came up in regard to comments here that the Obama administration is hypocritical on this issue--that they've taken foreign and illegal funds as well, and that Obama should be investigated. My comments on Clinton were specific to the witch hunt that surrounded his administration, and how irresponsible and costly it would be to conduct another one unless there is real proof of wrongdoing. My apologies if you think those comments were off task--I don't think they were..
This thread is about the BAD Chamber of Commerce because they get some funds from overseas.
Did you read the link the OP posted? The link is about the Chamber, and it's use of multinational corporations to at least partially fund $75 million in attack ads. Because of the chambers nonprofit status, those donations are shielded from the public. That document was leaked, or no one would have ever known who the donors were. The Chamber is an example of the larger issue--that many nonprofits can use that tax exempt status to shield donations. The types of nonprofits we're discussing here are allowed to use some funds to work directly on behalf of candidates, as long as they spend 50% of their income on public education, etc. Until this year, those groups were limited on how much they could spend in total, and who they could take donations from. Two SCOTUS rulings this year changed that. Suddenly we're talking about massive amounts of money that can come in from corporate donors, with no limitations.
Some of the eligible nonprofit groups are not only channeling 50% of those corporate donations to candidates, but it looks like they're either violating the rules, or skirting the intention of the law with the rest of the money, by running attack ads on opponents that they're calling "issue education," or "lobbying." The laws governing how nonprofits can use those donations need to be tightened up and clarified by Congress. The Chamber is only being used as an example because someone found a list of the monies coming in--the more serious issue is that many other groups may be taking in much more in corporate funding anonymously, and may be using them almost exclusively for campaign work. The issue needs to be investigated, and the laws and rules need to be changed.
This is not a general thread. It is a democrat talking point that is being talked about everywhere by liberals in general.
Thank you so much for clarifying the point of the thread for me. And I missed the point in what way?
These liberals don’t clean their own house but they yell and scream about something that really isnt an issue.
I don't know what "these liberals" are doing, but I personally think that using massive amounts of cash from hidden donors to fund attack ads is bad government--especially when you're getting tax exempt status for your organization to do it. This isn't a democrat or republican issue--it's a good government issue. If you think the "liberals" have handled campaign contributions inappropriately, then I'm sure you'll support reforming the system for everyone, right? The Chamber isn't the only organization doing this--reform needs to apply to groups on both the liberal and conservative sides. Congress needs to make changes in the laws governing these groups.
The US. CoC does collect funds from overseas and those funds are used for certain legal things here in the USA that have nothing to do with political ads.
Of course the chamber does legal activities. As a small business owner, I'm a member of my local chamber.
The Chamber also does do political ads, as is their right. What liberals are doing is connecting two things that are not connected but no one really looks at the truth so it is a good attack.
The chamber, under their tax exempt status, has every right to spend half of their income on political ads--the other half or more has to be directed to other purposes. The Chamber may have done absolutely nothing wrong under the existing law, so I'm as confused as you are that they're taking all the heat for this. However, they bring attention to the issue of whether or not other groups really are abusing the process--a likely candidate is Karl Rove's new group--American Crossroads. They're taking in millions of dollars in corporate funding for attack ads and campaign work, but there is very little evidence that they have another purpose. Again, one of the questions is whether or not some of the "issue education" is really just back door contributions to a candidate.
The other issue--some of the discussion in this country and the article have focused more on the fact that "foreign" companies are funding the campaigns (most of them are multinational, plus foreign funding is no longer illegal). I'm not as concerned with foreign funding, as long as it's all public record, and there are very STRICT guidelines on how the money can be used. I think the bigger issue is that those foreign or multinational corporations have very deep pockets. Now that they are allowed to give unlimited amounts of money, I think the rules of the game need to be adjusted, so the process is more accountable to the public. Voters should have the right to know who is funding issue campaigns, so they can decide if that group is working in their best interest or not. They should also clarify the IRS guidelines on how those funds can be used by tax exempt agencies.
This is a dirty underhanded false and hypocritical attack by democrats. Period.
I don't think its dirty or underhanded to raise issues about making the process more accountable to the public--that's what good government SHOULD do. I don't think the Chamber of Commerce should be painted as evil villains on this one either--I think there are far worse groups, and that the Chamber is only being used as an example because their corporate donor list was leaked. My opinion--some liberal leaning pundits have made very confusing, and not always logical arguments about this, but that doesn't mean there's not an important point at the bottom of it all.
Bottom line here, the USCoC collects some few hundred thousand dollars from overseas. They also collect millions from Americans. Then they spend some subset of the dollars they collect from Americans on political ads. They are not spending more money on political ads than they collect from Americans. There is no real issue here but liberals doing what liberals do are lying to win political points because they cannot simply run on their record.
Americans have utterly rejected the liberal record.
Ken Starr worked FOR Janet Reno, the Attorney General. He had to get her permission before he could proceed into any investigation. He also had to keep her informed as he went. She could stop him at any time she chose. You act like he had carte blanche authority to do whatever he pleased. Ain't so.
The report describes what it calls "strong circumstantial evidence" that six individuals with strong ties to the Chinese, including the Riadys, may have funneled foreign money into political campaigns during the 1996 U.S. election cycle. It singles out one of the six, California immigration consultant and longtime Democratic fund-raiser Maria Hsia, as "an agent of the Chinese government," although it cites no specific actions taken in support of this alleged role.
A new article by Kenneth Vogel at Politico.com explains why Obama will most likely avoid an FEC audit, despite legitimate complaints and documentation of fraud. While the article doesn’t satisfactorily cover the background of why Obama is in hot water over this (namely turning off online fraud checks), it does provide an excellent write-up on the process by which the FEC determines an audit:
Ken Starr worked FOR Janet Reno, the Attorney General. He had to get her permission before he could proceed into any investigation. He also had to keep her informed as he went. She could stop him at any time she chose. You act like he had carte blanche authority to do whatever he pleased. Ain't so.
I know, but she was also in a "darned if you do, darned if you don't" situation. The republicans were repeatedly accusing the Clinton people of coverups. If she didn't approve the investigations, then she would have been accused of "covering up the cover up." It was a viscous circle, made worse by the overly broad powers of investigation granted to the special prosecutor--he could basically subpoena anyone with a remote connection to the investigation, drawing them out forever to keep them in the public eye, without ever finding real evidence. In every instance, the Clinton's were found innocent of wrongdoing, until the Lewinsky case.
As I said, I can't stand Bill Clinton as a husband or a person, but his downfall was primarily personal rather than professional. Another lengthy, partisan inspired free for all investigation into a president, just because the republicans "can", on skimpy grounds, would be a nightmare for this country.
LoL, funny stuff. It takes about 3 seconds of logical deduction to see through the screams.
1) A non-profit takes in money from its members, a number are foreign national business owners that benefit from globalism.
2) It donates that money to politicians, who all are from one political affiliation.
Is it going to select candidates that a) will appease their membership so they continue to give it money or b) send money to those who don't represent its members interests, including the foreign nationals.
Anyone who passed the 6th grade should figure it out themselves, but some people are slow.
Anyone who doesn't see it and still votes along their contribution lines (especially if their job is at risk by foreign competition) needs a severe mocking. I know I am laughing to the point of crying all the way to the bank. Since mine is not, I invest very heavily globally, and I benefit from cheaper goods made pretty well anywhere from the same stuff. I benefit no matter who wins.
Go America, where you can convince the dumb to vote against their own interests. It's a comedic goldmine.
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.
