Page 4 of 24 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 232

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

  1. #31
    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 AdamT View Post
    Of course it does: "A mystery company that pumped $1 million into a political committee backing Mitt Romney has been dissolved just months after it was formed...."
    You can't even get your own arguements straight.

    It doesn't make a bit of difference if it was given to him directly to support his campaign or whether it was given to someone else to spend on behalf of his campaign.

    It was not given to him directly and it was not on behalf of his campaign. Yes, this group would appear to support Romney but it is illegal for Romney to in any way be involved with them directly.

    How much was it worth Obama for Chris Matthews to go on national TV and say that Obama caused a tingle to run down his leg? What is this worth? How much does MSNBC expend having Chris Matthews pump up Obama?

    Since I've not seen you complain abuot that, why is it that someone else can't spend their own money to say that Romney causes a tingle to run down their leg?

  2. #32
    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
    Translation: Restore Our Future was a front to allow millions in campaign contributions to go directly to Mitt Romney. By shutting down the LLC, the PAC can try to claim attorney/client privilege in an effort to avoid disclosing exactly who the real campaign donors are. Thus, they skirt campaign finance laws. And since the Citizen's United case was upheld by the Supreme Court, you can't go after the LLC because it's no longer in business. The PAC can then claim, "Sorry, all we know is we have a check made out from W Spann LLC that cleared. The fact that said company has since gone out of business isn't our problem," and Mitt Romney gets to keep his cold $1 million political contribution.

    THIS IS WRONG!!! IT SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED!!
    Which is already illegal and if the feds believe this happened they have all the resources in the world to pursue it and you can bet they would.

    You are argueing that what is already illegal should be made illegal. Brilliant.

  3. #33
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,772

    Re: Super PAC's try end around

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    Just so we understand what just happened here, a "corporation" named W Spann LLC was formed, contributed $1 million to a political action committee (PAC), Restore Our Future, that has close ties to a former associate to a presidential candidate (Mitt Romney). That LLC has suddenly dissolved - disappeared -- no longer exsists - and the only known person who had any involvement with or knowledge of this company's organizational structure, i.e., ownership because LLC's are really limited liability companies (partnerships), is the lawyer who helped setup the LLC in the first place and he's not talking.

    Translation: Restore Our Future was a front to allow millions in campaign contributions to go directly to Mitt Romney. By shutting down the LLC, the PAC can try to claim attorney/client privilege in an effort to avoid disclosing exactly who the real campaign donors are. Thus, they skirt campaign finance laws. And since the Citizen's United case was upheld by the Supreme Court, you can't go after the LLC because it's no longer in business. The PAC can then claim, "Sorry, all we know is we have a check made out from W Spann LLC that cleared. The fact that said company has since gone out of business isn't our problem," and Mitt Romney gets to keep his cold $1 million political contribution.

    THIS IS WRONG!!! IT SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED!!
    I would like for the readers, especially those who honestly believe this contribution is legit, to go to first go to section 431 of FEC rules, read what is says concerning campaign contributions (specifically subparagraphs (2), (4) and (8)(B)(vi), pages 2 and 3), then go to section 441b (page 77) then come back here and tell me what's missing.

  4. #34
    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
    I would like for the readers, especially those who honestly believe this contribution is legit, to go to first go to section 431 of FEC rules, read what is says concerning campaign contributions (specifically subparagraphs (2), (4) and (8)(B)(vi), pages 2 and 3), then go to section 441b (page 77) then come back here and tell me what's missing.
    This was not a campaign contribution. Your aguement would get tossed.

    "Your honor, no I do not have anything outside of conjecture and the fact that I do not like the defendant but I demand that you put him away for life."

  5. #35
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,772

    Re: Super PAC's try end around

    Quote Originally Posted by 1Perry View Post
    Which is already illegal and if the feds believe this happened they have all the resources in the world to pursue it and you can bet they would.

    You are argueing that what is already illegal should be made illegal. Brilliant.
    No, what I'm arguing is it IS illegal, but people are attempting to argue in the affirmative that is is legal, i.e., yourself. You've argued that "people" should be allowed to make campaign contributions to whomever they wish. I'd argree with you if it were an individual who did it, i.e., Mr. John Q. Smith made a $1 million contribution to the Mitt Romney 2012 presidential campaign...". I'd be perfectly fine with that. But that's not what's happened here.

    What's happened is a front corporation was established and passed on a $1 million campaign contribution to a PAC. The corporation is then dissolved and per FEC Rules (likely under section 431(8)(B)(v)), the contribution is legal as long as it is used to submit printed information pertaining to the primary candidate's presidential campaign in the form of mail-order notifications, etc., etc. Furthermore, per section 441b(b)(1), because there was no "greviences, labor or wage disputes, or anything associated with employee-related problems" from the "corporation" nor the "labor organization", neither have to disclose where they got the money from. The missing part of the puzzle here, folks, is PAC! But if you read between the lines, for the purpose of providing financial aid to Mitt Romney's presidential campaign, the "labor organization" could have easily been viewed as either the LLC corporation or the PAC. Now that the LLC has been dissolved, you can't easily go back and force the disclosure of who the actual business owners were. As such, the PAC can just deny they ever knew who made the contribution and as long as the Romney camp sends out fliers or other printed materials, they can get away with this.
    Last edited by Objective Voice; 08-04-11 at 06:33 PM.

  6. #36
    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
    No, what I'm arguing is it IS illegal, but people are attempting to argue in the affirmative that is is legal, i.e., yourself. You've argued that "people" should be allowed to make campaign contributions to whomever they wish. I'd argree with you if it were an individual who did it, i.e., Mr. John Q. Smith made a $1 million contribution to the Mitt Romney 2012 presidential campaign...". I'd be perfectly fine with that. But that's not what's happened here.
    Good, we are past the idea that this was gave to a campaign.

    What's happened is a front corporation was established and passed on a $1 million campaign contribution to a PAC. The corporation is then dissolved and per FEC Rules (likely under section 431(8)(B)(v)), the contribution is legal as long as it is used to submit printed information pertaining to the primary candidate's presidential campaign in the form of mail-order notifications, etc., etc. Furthermore, per section 441b(b)(1), because there was no "greviences, labor or wage disputes, or anything associated with employee-related problems, the "corporation" or "labor organization", does not have to disclose where they got the money from. The missing part of the puzzle here, folks, is PAC! But if you read between the lines, for the purpose of providing financial aid to Mitt Romney's presidential campaign, the "labor organization" could have easily been viewed as either the LLC corporation or the PAC. Now that the LLC has been dissolved, you can't easily go back and force the disclosure of who the actually business owners were. As such, the PAC can just deny they ever knew who made the contribution and as long as the Romney camp sends out fliers or other printed materials, they can get away with this.
    Sorry, this is nothing but pure subjecture on your part. Nothing else. Guilty because you don't like it and once again, it's worthless to quote rules pertaining to campaigns when this is not a part of a campaign.

    Soros gave a ton of money to moveon.org. That was not a part of the Obama campaign. It did not (rightly) fall under the rules that a campaign must abide by. There are reasons why an individual would wish to be anonymous especially if you have money. Paybacks can be a bitch. Just ask P.P.

  7. #37
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: Super PAC's try end around

    Quote Originally Posted by 1Perry View Post
    You can't even get your own arguements straight.

    It doesn't make a bit of difference if it was given to him directly to support his campaign or whether it was given to someone else to spend on behalf of his campaign.

    It was not given to him directly and it was not on behalf of his campaign. Yes, this group would appear to support Romney but it is illegal for Romney to in any way be involved with them directly.

    How much was it worth Obama for Chris Matthews to go on national TV and say that Obama caused a tingle to run down his leg? What is this worth? How much does MSNBC expend having Chris Matthews pump up Obama?

    Since I've not seen you complain abuot that, why is it that someone else can't spend their own money to say that Romney causes a tingle to run down their leg?
    Dude, get a hold of yourself. The money was given to an organization wholse sole purpose is to benefit Romney's campaign. IOW, it was given to someone else to spend on behalf of Romney's campaign (obviously without the campaign's direct input).

  8. #38
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,772

    Re: Super PAC's try end around

    Quote Originally Posted by 1Perry View Post
    Sorry, this is nothing but pure subjecture on your part. Nothing else. Guilty because you don't like it and once again, it's worthless to quote rules pertaining to campaigns when this is not a part of a campaign.
    What?

    The following is the opening paragraph taken directly from the linked article in the OP:

    A mystery company that pumped $1 million into a political committee backing Mitt Romney has been dissolved just months after it was formed, leaving few clues as to who was behind one of the biggest contributions yet of the 2012 presidential campaign.
    Unless you failed reading comprehension, how in the world can you or anyone else claim the funds did not go directly to Mitt Romney's presidential campaign? What was it? A personal loan?

    Soros gave a ton of money to moveon.org. That was not a part of the Obama campaign.
    If Moveon.org received a rather generous campaign contribution from George Soros but Moveon.org failed to disclose who they got the donation from because Mr. Soros purposely remained a myster contributor, yes, I'd be rather upset about that. Seeing that your hypethetical is worse than the plausable outcome I've outlined, I'd say Mitt Romney may have some 'xplainin' to do whereas Moveon.org or George Soros don't. But if and when such happens, I would hope folks would come clean about where the donations came from. I don't think that's asking too much.

    Now, stop trying to deflect.
    Last edited by Objective Voice; 08-04-11 at 07:07 PM.

  9. #39
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: Super PAC's try end around

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    No, what I'm arguing is it IS illegal, but people are attempting to argue in the affirmative that is is legal, i.e., yourself.
    Sorry, as horrible as it is, it is legal per the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United.

  10. #40
    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 AdamT View Post
    Dude, get a hold of yourself. The money was given to an organization wholse sole purpose is to benefit Romney's campaign.
    So what?

    IOW, it was given to someone else to spend on behalf of Romney's campaign (obviously without the campaign's direct input).
    Here you go again. Pure subjecture on your part, nothing else. Was moveon.com nothing more than a front for the Obama campaign? (not that any of my other questions get answered)

Page 4 of 24 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... 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
  •