• 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)

Re: Super PAC's try end around

AdamT said:
That is EXACTLY what is being questioned here.
Click to expand...

Nobody gave a penny to Romney, read the article again.
 
Re: Super PAC's try end around

1Perry said:
Nobody gave a penny to Romney, read the article again.
Click to expand...

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's a large, anonymous contribution that is going to support Romney.
 
Re: Super PAC's try end around

AdamT said:
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.
Click to expand...

Sorry, it does not say this either.

It's a large, anonymous contribution that is going to support Romney.
Click to expand...

Again, if someone wants to blow their money in this way, it's not my business. I think you are a fool for spending even one cent on politicians, campaigns etc, but whatever, be one.
 
Re: Super PAC's try end around

1Perry said:
Sorry, it does not say this either.
Click to expand...

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...."
 
Re: Super PAC's try end around

1Perry said:
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.
Click to expand...

1Perry said:
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"?
Click to expand...

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!!
 
Last edited:
Re: Super PAC's try end around

AdamT said:
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...."
Click to expand...

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?
 
Re: Super PAC's try end around

Objective Voice said:
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!!
Click to expand...

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.
 
Re: Super PAC's try end around

Objective Voice said:
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!!
Click to expand...

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.
 
Re: Super PAC's try end around

Objective Voice said:
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.
Click to expand...

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."
 
Re: Super PAC's try end around

1Perry said:
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.
Click to expand...

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:
Re: Super PAC's try end around

Objective Voice said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Re: Super PAC's try end around

1Perry said:
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?
Click to expand...

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).
 
Re: Super PAC's try end around

1Perry said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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:
Re: Super PAC's try end around

Objective Voice said:
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.
Click to expand...

Sorry, as horrible as it is, it is legal per the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United.
 
Re: Super PAC's try end around

AdamT said:
Dude, get a hold of yourself. The money was given to an organization wholse sole purpose is to benefit Romney's campaign.
Click to expand...

So what?

IOW, it was given to someone else to spend on behalf of Romney's campaign (obviously without the campaign's direct input).
Click to expand...

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)
 
Re: Super PAC's try end around

1Perry said:
So what?



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)
Click to expand...

There is nothing subjective about it. It is a stone-cold fact. If you choose not to acknowledge reality there really isn't much to talk about.
 
Re: Super PAC's try end around

Objective Voice said:
What?

The following is the opening paragraph taken directly from the linked article in the OP:
Click to expand...

Sorry, I wasn't clear enough I guess. It was not a part of the Romney 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?
Click to expand...

He recieved nothing!! Well, nothing outside of kind words of support. His campaign did not get a penny from them. Nothing nada, or at least nothing that was exposed in the article.

The "2012 Presidential campaign" is a general term. It doesn't mean they gave the money to Romney.
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.
Click to expand...

It would still be none of your business.

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.
Click to expand...

Romney is under absolutely no obligation to explain the actions of those outside of his campaign.
 
Re: Super PAC's try end around

AdamT said:
There is nothing subjective about it. It is a stone-cold fact. If you choose not to acknowledge reality there really isn't much to talk about.
Click to expand...

I guess not. Throw him in prison your honor be damned with providing any facts.
 
Last edited:
Re: Super PAC's try end around

AdamT said:
Sorry, as horrible as it is, it is legal per the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United.
Click to expand...

You're right. It is legal. That's what makes this entire ordeal shameful. It shouldn't be allowed! Corporations should not be allowed to make such large contributions to political candidates directly or indirectly without disclosing who they are (i.e., the name of the corporation, its Board of Directors or corporate ownership). Why? Because it means that the power to influence elections is no longer in the hands of the people who cast their votes at the ballot box. Instead, the power is usurpted by the powerful PACs w/backing from corporations who in one check can put more money behind a candidate of their choosing than any 1,000 citizens can ever hope to achieve.

If the power to shape government truly belongs to the people, then the actions by W Spann, LLC and Restore Our Future illustrates just how we, the people, are losing that power more and more to the corporate interests.
 
Re: Super PAC's try end around

Objective Voice said:
You're right. It is legal. That's what makes this entire ordeal shameful. It shouldn't be allowed! Corporations should not be allowed to make such large contributions to political candidates directly or indirectly without disclosing who they are (i.e., the name of the corporation, its Board of Directors or corporate ownership). Why? Because it means that the power to influence elections is no longer in the hands of the people who cast their votes at the ballot box. Instead, the power is usurpted by the powerful PACs w/backing from corporations who in one check can put more money behind a candidate of their choosing than any 1,000 citizens can ever hope to achieve.

If the power to shape government truly belongs to the people, then the actions by W Spann, LLC and Restore Our Future illustrates just how we, the people, are losing that power more and more to the corporate interests.
Click to expand...

Agree 100%. I think the lobbying dollar must be the best investment in the world. Corporations can spread a paltry $10 or $15 million around Washington and land multi-billion-dollar contracts because of it.
 
Re: Super PAC's try end around

Ockham said:
This whole fake outrage over some company that funneled money is nothing new... it happens every election and not just with non-profit organizations either.

Obama Looks to 'Bundlers' for 2012 Re-Election Campaign - FoxNews.com
Click to expand...

But atleast the names of President Obama's campaign donors are public! Per the article, we know exactly who made the contributions and from which company their represent, if any (i.e., some of the donors are "former" employees of major corporations, not CEOs or the like).
 
Re: Super PAC's try end around

Objective Voice said:
But atleast the names of President Obama's campaign donors are public! Per the article, we know exactly who made the contributions and from which company their represent, if any (i.e., some of the donors are "former" employees of major corporations, not CEOs or the like).
Click to expand...

If it's done properly and within the law yes. However that's not always the case... and Mr. Hsu was one of the guys that got careless.
 
Obama accepted ONLY small donations -- no corporate donations. That's as transparent as you can get under the system we had in '08. Of course all bets are off, now. Unlimited anonymous contributions here we come!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom