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.
SuperPACs should be banned, but that of course can't happen because the ultra-cons believe that the ability to funnel unlimited amounts of cash to political campaigns is a matter of "free speech."
I have yet to see a talking dollar bill.
And before anyone asks, I believe all SuperPACs should be banned.
If they ban super pacs they should ban the liberal media which generates tens of millions of dollars in slanted publicity to democrat candidates.
NBC, MSN, Yahoo, CNN, AOL, Google. Virtually every major news and public platform is controlled by liberals. The only thing conservatives have its foxnews. You're misinformed about ultra-cons pushing PACs. It benefits left wingers way more in reverse.
If they ban super pacs they should ban the liberal media which generates tens of millions of dollars in slanted publicity to democrat candidates.
NBC, MSN, Yahoo, CNN, AOL, Google. Virtually every major news and public platform is controlled by liberals. The only thing conservatives have its foxnews. You're misinformed about ultra-cons pushing PACs. It benefits left wingers way more in reverse.
Only "liberal" media - which to you is all media that is not conservative? The only thing "conservatives" has is Fox news? What about Trinity Broadcasting and all the radio programs that are hosted by Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Mark Levin, Michael Medved, Dennis Miller, Sean Hannity, etc., etc.? Shouldn't they, too, be banned???
In 1947, as part of the Taft-Hartley Act, the U.S. Congress prohibited labor unions or corporations from spending money to influence federal elections, and prohibited labor unions from contributing to candidate campaigns (an earlier law, the 1907 Tillman Act, had prohibited corporations from contributing to campaigns). In response to these limitations, the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO) created a separate political fund that it called the Political Action Committee. This was the first political action committee.
An end around congress..... From an agency that answers to the President.
The case of the Mexican donor setting up shell accounts to fund a Politicians in California for his personal gain is a bit different that "all" political pacs. The best way to stop the foreign money like this particular case is to throw every single person involved in prison. I'm betting that since the Democratic National Committee also took his money, that doesn't happen. They have "no comment".
The two cases you listed in Texas are very different. Both articles are from 2011.
The "conservative" in the link bothers Republicans as much as he does the Democrats, I don't see any "personal gain" ...... he just wants them to stop spending money frivolously in bad times. 2011 was definitely a "bad time" when all States were cutting back, searching for dollars and facing the Debacle of ObamaCare. Michael Sullivan isn't a Political Money donor of any magnitude at all - his "currency" is Sunshine. He makes a list of what everyone is doing and makes it public. I have ZERO problem with that.
Dr. James R. Leininger of San Antonio is a better example of "grand ideas of how the world should be run according to their playbook." His playbook is his 'Christian viewpoint'. I don't believe that has any place in Government.
The Leftist example is a good one. Steve Mostyn and his wife both finance and control the Democratic Party in Texas ..... it's also why the Democratic Party in Texas can't get any traction at all. Mostyn is all about his profit margin as a shady Trial Lawyer. Wendy Davis is running for Governor of Texas because she has the support of the Mostyns - they say "jump", she asks "how high?".
The most powerful Political donor in Texas (and pretty high on the National list) was Bob Perry from Houston - he died last year and was an enigma to the very end. One of the most powerful money men in the Republican Party that also supported a lot of Liberal causes and never asked for anything. Never called to offer advice, say what he thought about an issue, never gave or attended a fund raiser, never asked that anyone be put on a board or in a position. A very different type of Political donor, who not only changed the face of Texas, but put his mark on US Politics also. He was both hated and loved, and little known. A man who donated a lot more money to 'supposed' Liberal causes, but not to Liberal candidates after Texas Democrats moved Left - The Democratic Party left Bob Perry, that was a serious split for the Dems.
Here's the other shoe. This one on the NRA. There is a move afoot to audit the NRA contributions. Many believe they have been operating illegally in all 50 states with no oversight.
One morning last month, Rhode Islanders woke up to the news that the National Rifle Association had been charged with the second-largest campaign finance ethics violation in state history. In a settlement reached by the Rhode Island Board of Elections, the NRA admitted that it improperly funneled money from its national Political Action Committee (or "PAC") to the Rhode Island-specific PAC, illegal under state law. The PAC was fined a historic $63,000.
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.
