Page 13 of 24 FirstFirst ... 3111213141523 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 232

Thread: Firm gives $1 million to pro-Romney group, then dissolves(edited)

  1. #121
    Sage
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    59,990

    Re: Super PAC's try end around

    Quote Originally Posted by 1Perry View Post
    I'm going to grant you one free clue. I never did this. I might in a different context but not this one.
    So you won't answer a simple and relevant question? You can deny it all you want but you have said that limiting donations is the same as limiting free speech. There's no other conclusion that can be drawn from that besides the one I posted. If you think differently, then post it. We're trying to have a discussion about the issue, so why not participate and talk about the issue instead of posting partisan arguments about how "Obama does it too!"
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

  2. #122
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Seen
    03-16-12 @ 11:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,624

    Re: Super PAC's try end around

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    So you won't answer a simple and relevant question? You can deny it all you want but you have said that limiting donations is the same as limiting free speech. There's no other conclusion that can be drawn from that besides the one I posted. If you think differently, then post it. We're trying to have a discussion about the issue, so why not participate and talk about the issue instead of posting partisan arguments about how "Obama does it too!"
    I've disagreed with almost every single poster in this thread. I've discussed things honestly with my beliefs just as they have concerning theirs. You are incapable of discussing a topic honestly.

    As you've proven here.

    While disagreeing with many others here, I respect their differences of opinions. I have none for yours.

  3. #123
    Sage
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    59,990

    Re: Super PAC's try end around

    Quote Originally Posted by 1Perry View Post
    I've disagreed with almost every single poster in this thread. I've discussed things honestly with my beliefs just as they have concerning theirs. You are incapable of discussing a topic honestly.

    As you've proven here.

    While disagreeing with many others here, I respect their differences of opinions. I have none for yours.
    So you won't even discuss your position on these issues in a thread meant for posters to discuss these issues?

    You can whine about me all you want, but I'm not the only one here. We can all see your unwillingness to discuss the issue and refusing to contribute anything besides "Obama did it too" is an odd way of "respecting" differences
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

  4. #124
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,762

    Re: Super PAC's try end around

    After re-reading the original article in the OP and some of the commentary in this thread, I want to make a minor clarification.

    The $1 million dollar campaign donation went as far as getting to the Restore Our America PAC, per the article. So, technically speaking the money hasn't reached Mitt Romney...yet. However, the issue remains how can a campaign donation of this size be allowed and no one knows exactly who made the contribution?

    FACT: We know the money came from W Spann, LLC.

    FACT: We know W Spann, LLC passed on the funds to the Restore Our America PAC.

    FACT: We know the PAC was setup by "a group of former Romney political aides to boost the former Massachusetts governorís presidential bid".

    FACT: We know that Mitt Romney has had a very lucrative business career.

    FACT: We know that the last known address for W Spann, LLC was "590 Madison Ave., a 43-story, ultra-modern office building in the heart of midtown Manhattan". As the former Governor of New Jersey and a businessman, it's not hard to assume Mitt Romney has had dealings with corporate execs in the past. No crime here, but you have to admit the very high probability of such relationships.

    FACT: We know that soon after W Spann, LLC made the donation to Restore Our America PAC, they went out of business.

    FACT: We know that the only person who knows who were the true owners of W Spann, LLC is the attorney who helped establish the LLC, Cameron Casey, and he's not talking.

    Put all that together and it's not difficult to conclude that W Spann, LLC was used as a front to funnel money to the PAC who would then pass on those funds to Mitt Romney. What makes this "legal" is the fact that all Restore Our America has to do is list W Spann, LLC on their public filing as the entity that made the campaign contribution. They aren't required to say who the parent owner is (or in this case, was), and that's the problem! If this practise of "pop-up" corporations is allowed, you could have massive amounts of campaign donations sent to PACs that are then funnelled through front companies like W Spann, LLC and the public will never know exactly who sent the money. It's like saying Blockbuster Video made a $5 million campaign contribution to President Obama via Priorities USA (PAC) only you don't know if this was a decision made by its Board of Dir., its CEO or corporate President. And then *POOF* Blockbuster suddenly goes out of business yet Priorities USA can claim, "Sorry! All we know is we got the check from Blockbuster Video; it's not our concern who decided to send it. It's only a problem if the check doesn't clears."
    Last edited by Objective Voice; 08-05-11 at 01:48 PM.

  5. #125
    Sage
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    59,990

    Re: Super PAC's try end around

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    Put all that together and it's not difficult to conclude that W Spann, LLC was used as a front to funnel money to the PAC who would then pass on those funds to Mitt Romney. What makes this "legal" is the fact that all Restore Our America has to do is list W Spann, LLC on their public filing the entity that made the campaign contribution. They aren't required to say who the parent owner is (or in this case, was), and that's the problem!
    For all we know, the money came from Al Queda
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

  6. #126
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,762

    Re: Super PAC's try end around

    A good play on sarcasm, sangha, but seriously this can lead to problems with public disclosure very quickly.

  7. #127
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Seen
    03-16-12 @ 11:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,624

    Re: Super PAC's try end around

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    After re-reading the original article in the OP and some of the commentary in this thread, I want to make a minor clarification.

    The $1 million dollar campaign donation went as far as getting to the Restore Our America PAC, per the article. So, technically speaking the money hasn't reached Mitt Romney...yet. However, the issue remains how can a campaign donation of this size be allowed and no one knows exactly who made the contribution?
    You have to answer why it's your business to know what others want to spend their money on. The requirement is on you to make a valid arguement why we must curtail the rights of others, not up to them to defend their right to exercise them.

    Put all that together and it's not difficult to conclude that W Spann, LLC was used as a front to funnel money to the PAC who would then pass on those funds to Mitt Romney.
    If so, that would be illegal and we already have ways to address this.

    What makes this "legal" is the fact that all Restore Our America has to do is list W Spann, LLC on their public filing as the entity that made the campaign contribution. They aren't required to say who the parent owner is (or in this case, was), and that's the problem! If this practise of "pop-up" corporations is allowed, you could have massive amounts of campaign donations sent to PACs that are then funnelled through front companies like W Spann, LLC and the public will never know exactly who sent the money. It's like saying Blockbuster Video made a $5 million campaign contribution to President Obama via Priorities USA (PAC) only you don't know if this was a decision made by its Board of Dir., its CEO or corporate President. And then *POOF* Blockbuster suddenly goes out of business yet Priorities USA can claim, "Sorry! All we know is we got the check from Blockbuster Video; it's not our concern who decided to send it. It's only a problem if the check doesn't clears."
    Unless you are somehow a party to Blockbuster it's not really your concern is it? You are like the rest jumping to conclusions. I have no reason to believe that the millions Soros sent to moveon.com were then funneled to Obama. I'm not going to argue that we must stop this because someone *might* abuse it. People abuse the right to vote by trying to sign up the dead but that's not an arguement to remove people's right to vote.

  8. #128
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Super PAC's try end around

    Quote Originally Posted by 1Perry View Post
    People can spend their money how ever they wish. If they want to simply blow it like shown here, they don't have to explain their actions.

    Some will spend 1 million on a new Bugatti, others in frittering it away like this example. It's amazing how bad others want control of other peoples money.
    How is this kind of thing any different than an outright bribe?
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  9. #129
    long standing member
    justabubba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:08 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    36,124

    Re: Super PAC's try end around

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    How is this kind of thing any different than an outright bribe?
    it's now a legal bribe
    known as a "campaign contribution"
    we are negotiating about dividing a pizza and in the meantime israel is eating it
    once you're over the hill you begin to pick up speed

  10. #130
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Seen
    03-16-12 @ 11:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,624

    Re: Super PAC's try end around

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    How is this kind of thing any different than an outright bribe?
    So moveon.com was nothing but a bribe to Obama? Of course it wasn't. Sure they expect things but you expect things by voting.

    I might put a sign out front stating "Vote for Candidate A" is that a bribe? If I have enough money I might buy 10,000 signs because I really like candidate A and want others to show their support for him. Is this a bribe?

Page 13 of 24 FirstFirst ... 3111213141523 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •