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.
You got that right..I think the only Republican I heard speak out for further Campaign Financing reform was McCain. and even think he was one of the backers of that bill which did regulate the massive funds donated by Uber rich lobbyists and Corporations that was passed originally. Then of course the overturning it FEC regulations by SCOTUS in the Citizen United decision back in 2010 (Jan).
Only one guess who voted for that overturning?? Yep!! 5-4 vote!
Don't blame "D's" for that.. Regulations had been in place for decades..Mc Cain even wanted them to further restrict donations by those Uber Rich folks..then voila~~ Overturning of the Law by SCOTUS~~Jan 2010 forced BO or any other Politician to play by the new rules.. Supreme Court Overturns Campaign Spending Limits on Corporations - ABC News
Yep ..precisely..course he used SCOTUS decision to claim that. No way he could have used that prior to 2010!!
"Don't blame "D's" for that.. Regulations had been in place for decades.."
BUT, the dems CONTROLLED the White House, the Senate AND the House and got O Care passed.
If the dems cared so much, they had plety of time to change whatever they wanted.
Obama, "I have a phone and a pen".
He has changed everything else he wants, why NOT finance reform?
Save you indignation for the repubs because the FACTS don't back you up.
Not really sure how true this recent news is, especially since we all know Trump knows how to get money out of others, but the big problem either way is how money is utterly corrupting the principles of democracy.
Perot had the same appeal, Schwarzenegger, now Trump...
"I don't need anyone's money, I've got my own."
On the one hand it is novel to think a politician is not beholden to other monied special interests to do their bidding, but does this mean that America must now count on the uber-wealthy to do an end-around the political process everyone else must contend with?
What can possibly be wrong with that scenario?
Fortunately the path to become POTUS is a grueling one that requires more than just money and hopefully the grilling these candidates must survive will somehow deliver a better leader than who simply has the most money to spend on their campaign, but more and more, it sure seems like money is making ALL the difference in who we get to choose as POTUS in the end.
If Trump didn't have so much money, for example, I seriously doubt we'd even know who he is let alone consider him as a serious candidate for office, any office let alone the most powerful in world...
I would be embarrassed to use an article for Liberal Nation Rising to try to make an un-biased claim.
Do yum tink we care one iota what you want and don't want to hear?
Don't flatter yourself!
Just like a leftie, DEMAND that YOUR issue get all the media attention and you are free to exercise YOUR 1st Amendment right but, stifle all those who disagree with you.
Hypocrite at best!
Oh how "stifled" you seem! What a hoot, and awfully good drama I might add...
" I honestly think Martin O'Malley lost simply because Hillary has been known for decades and most couldn't be bothered to Google who he was. They already knew her."
Sorry O'Malley couldn't even get his Lt. Gov. elected Governor to replace him.
The "rain tax" man was doomed at the outset by the way he "governed" MD.
And as compared to the want to hear from anyone else, we want to hear from you exactly why?
I would be embarrassed to use an article for Liberal Nation Rising to try to make an un-biased claim.
There is no embarrassment that comes from what news is reported regardless the source, as long as the truth of the story is the focus. I made the comment that I wasn't sure about how factual the report might be, but I remain interested, and I've read similar reports elsewhere that makes the subject worthy of some consideration in my opinion. Just so happened to be an article "hot off the press" at the time as I Googled for the information.
"They know that they're not going to have enough money to be on TV in June and probably most of July, until they actually accept the nomination and get RNC funds, so they plan to just use earned media to compete on the airwaves," one GOP source familiar with Manafort's comments told the Examiner.
That's a far cry from Trump's public insistence that he signed a fundraising agreement with the RNC in order to help the party, not himself. "The RNC really wanted to do it, and I want to show good spirit," he said last week. "'Cause I was very happy to continue to go along the way I was."
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.
