• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

Polotick

Active member
Joined
Jul 3, 2011
Messages
374
Reaction score
224
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Election reform, anyone? This is a dance around election contribution laws and I personally expect some pretty bad fallout over this.

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.
The existence of the million-dollar donation — as gleaned from campaign and corporate records obtained by NBC News — provides a vivid example of how secret campaign cash is being funneled in ever more circuitous ways into the political system.

The company, W Spann LLC, was formed in March by a Boston lawyer who specializes in estate tax planning for “high net worth individuals,” according to corporate records and the lawyer’s bio on her firm’s website.

The corporate records provide no information about the owner of the firm, its address or its type of business.
Firm gives $1 million to pro-Romney group, dissolves - politics - Decision 2012 - msnbc.com

Laughing
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Re: Super PAC's try end around

Citizens United was a disasterous decision. I hope Alito is eating his head shake.

 
Re: Super PAC's try end around

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.
 
Re: Super PAC's try end around

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.

we have the best government money can buy

this is description of a legal bribe is but another example of it
 
Re: Super PAC's try end around

That's right, if people choose to spend their money bribing the legislature, that's their business!

Now I'm going to go out and buy some crack cocaine and hire a htiman to rub out my noisy neighbors.
 
Re: Super PAC's try end around

we have the best government money can buy

this is description of a legal bribe is but another example of it

I'm not sure how that addresses my point. If someone thinks candidate A is the best candidate and they want to spend $1 million telling others what they think, why is that your business?

It's not different than what each candidate will do. The next presidential election will see hundreds of millions of dollars spent with each candidate saying "I'm the best" but someone else can't spend their money stating "I believe he's the best"?
 
Re: Super PAC's try end around

Election reform, anyone? This is a dance around election contribution laws and I personally expect some pretty bad fallout over this.

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.
The existence of the million-dollar donation — as gleaned from campaign and corporate records obtained by NBC News — provides a vivid example of how secret campaign cash is being funneled in ever more circuitous ways into the political system.

The company, W Spann LLC, was formed in March by a Boston lawyer who specializes in estate tax planning for “high net worth individuals,” according to corporate records and the lawyer’s bio on her firm’s website.

The corporate records provide no information about the owner of the firm, its address or its type of business.
Firm gives $1 million to pro-Romney group, dissolves - politics - Decision 2012 - msnbc.com

Laughing

No, we won't reform that. It doesn't seem like something Washington would pay attention to; so long as they're getting money they're happy. The only campaign finance reform they'll pass is one which would hamper challenges to incumbents.
 
Re: Super PAC's try end around

I'm not sure how that addresses my point. If someone thinks candidate A is the best candidate and they want to spend $1 million telling others what they think, why is that your business?

It's not different than what each candidate will do. The next presidential election will see hundreds of millions of dollars spent with each candidate saying "I'm the best" but someone else can't spend their money stating "I believe he's the best"?

The problem is that tax exempt organizations like the Mormon Church, can't donate to political campaigns and maintain their tax exempt status. So they funnel it through one of these dummy companies and presto-changeo Churches can fund their favorite politician's campaign.

Not to mention, the people should know who sponsors their candidates. If big oil gives a candidate 1 billion for his campaign and then he votes in their favor all the time, it'd be a safe assumption that he was bought.
 
Re: Super PAC's try end around

The problem is that tax exempt organizations like the Mormon Church, can't donate to political campaigns and maintain their tax exempt status. So they funnel it through one of these dummy companies and presto-changeo Churches can fund their favorite politician's campaign.

Sort of like P.P. does? Anyway, have a link showing where they do this?

Not to mention, the people should know who sponsors their candidates. If big oil gives a candidate 1 billion for his campaign and then he votes in their favor all the time, it'd be a safe assumption that he was bought.

If you are against doing that, how exactly will knowing where the money came from change anything? Will your position not stay exactly the same no matter what?
 
Re: Super PAC's try end around

I'm not sure how that addresses my point. If someone thinks candidate A is the best candidate and they want to spend $1 million telling others what they think, why is that your business?
how anyone spends their money, such that they do not use the funds to bribe public officials, is of no concern to me
i oppose the state of china, or an international corporation, or the mafia being able to buy influence with the politicians who are charged with representing me

and you confuse free speech with (a 'gift' of) money. they are not synonymous

It's not different than what each candidate will do.
so, you want us to believe every political candidate will expect to receive $1 million from an unidentifiable source

The next presidential election will see hundreds of millions of dollars spent with each candidate saying "I'm the best" but someone else can't spend their money stating "I believe he's the best"?
but will each of those politicians be receiving $1 million from an unidentifiable source? normally, when someone spends their money - in this case significant money - they expect something in return

i want to know who is buying our elected officials. if the transfer of funds is legitimate, why the need to conceal it?
 
Re: Super PAC's try end around

how anyone spends their money, such that they do not use the funds to bribe public officials, is of no concern to me
i oppose the state of china, or an international corporation, or the mafia being able to buy influence with the politicians who are charged with representing me

and you confuse free speech with (a 'gift' of) money. they are not synonymous

They are giving this money for their voice to be heard.

so, you want us to believe every political candidate will expect to receive $1 million from an unidentifiable source

The source was identified.

but will each of those politicians be receiving $1 million from an unidentifiable source? normally, when someone spends their money - in this case significant money - they expect something in return

I saw in the USAToday that Jeffery Katzenberg was going to spend 2 million of his own money to help re-elect Obama. What do you expect he will get in return? Each and every one of us vote in the expectation that we will get something back in return for that vote.

i want to know who is buying our elected officials. if the transfer of funds is legitimate, why the need to conceal it?

Nobody gave a penny to Romney.
 
Re: Super PAC's try end around

They set up a political entity which is required to report all donations just like any other political entity. Planned Parenthood does the same thing.

Is it right? I can say that a good arguement can be made either way but it must include all non profits.

Are tax exempt religious institutions supposed be supporting political campaigns?
 
Re: Super PAC's try end around

Are tax exempt religious institutions supposed be supporting political campaigns?

Not a fair question. Are tax exempt entities supposed to be supporting political campaigns? If you want to argue that none of them should be allowed to set up side ventures to do this, I'll not argue. As long as it covers all of them.
 
Re: Super PAC's try end around

I would argue that there should be no private campaign contributions, period. Elections should be 100% publicly financed.
 
Re: Super PAC's try end around

we have the best government money can buy

this is description of a legal bribe is but another example of it

You're right.... wonder what all the folks that paid $35,800. last night to have dinner with Obama and another $10,000. to have their pictures taken with him expect in return????
 
Re: Super PAC's try end around

Sort of like P.P. does? Anyway, have a link showing where they do this?



If you are against doing that, how exactly will knowing where the money came from change anything? Will your position not stay exactly the same no matter what?

You are such a Good Citizen™.
 
Re: Super PAC's try end around

I would argue that there should be no private campaign contributions, period. Elections should be 100% publicly financed.

Public money can only come from private sources. No, it's absolutely wrong to state that we should give politicians billions of dollars to lie to us and not have any recourse to call them on it.

That would not stop what you are complaining about. I asked above and I'll ask again, if Romney would spend 60 bazillion dollars would it ever change your mind to vote for him?

Now, if he simply said that he agreed with everything you believed in and would vote accordingly if you voted for him, would you then consider it?
 
Re: Super PAC's try end around

No attempt at answering my questions?

Ask an intelligent one. We as Americans have the right to know where the money comes from. It's the law. If there is nothing underhanded why is who they are such a big secret? What are they hiding?

In the original thread title I phrased it so that this was about Super PAC's, but that was changed without my consent, opening the door to make this a left/right thing which was totally not my intention.

Any politician that would accept this kind of donation is automatically suspect.
 
Re: Super PAC's try end around

Ask an intelligent one. We as Americans have the right to know where the money comes from.

Cop out.

It's the law. If there is nothing underhanded why is who they are such a big secret? What are they hiding?

If it's the law, what is the problem? Enforce it. The answer is in removing the rights of others because no one will enforce the law?

In the original thread title I phrased it so that this was about Super PAC's, but that was changed without my consent, opening the door to make this a left/right thing which was totally not my intention.

Left/right? I support the left spending their money however they see best also. I noted the 2 million Katzenberg is going to spend to help re-elect Obama. I have no desire to stop him. It's his money.

Any politician that would accept this kind of donation is automatically suspect.

Read it again. Romney DIDN'T accept anything. This is a group that believes Romney is the best choice and is saying so. They didn't give the money to Romney.
 
Re: Super PAC's try end around

Being able to give a million dollars to a politician anonymously is a real problem. It makes it very easy for foreign countries, criminals and people with conflicts of interest to pay off politicians in secret. It is much harder to get away with bribing a congressmen in return for contracts if you can compare campaign donors vs people who received contracts. I am generally in favor of people having their privacy, but in this case the consequences are too severe to accept.
 
Re: Super PAC's try end around

Being able to give a million dollars to a politician anonymously is a real problem.

Once again, that is not what is being questioned here.

It makes it very easy for foreign countries, criminals and people with conflicts of interest to pay off politicians in secret. It is much harder to get away with bribing a congressmen in return for contracts if you can compare campaign donors vs people who received contracts. I am generally in favor of people having their privacy, but in this case the consequences are too severe to accept.

Politicians still must keep track of where every penny comes from.
 
Re: Super PAC's try end around

Once again, that is not what is being questioned here.


That is EXACTLY what is being questioned here.
 
Back
Top Bottom