• 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)

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!

Apparently you didn't read the articles linked to my last post before responding. Obama accepted internet donations from people with names like "Good Will" among many others. These were not isolated incidents and about as "transparent" as watching the health care debates on CSPAN. That's just a fraction of of the fraud committed.

Controversy Over Obama's Small Donors - The Daily Beast

The Obama campaign has shattered all fund-raising records, raking in $458 million so far, with about half the bounty coming from donors who contribute $200 or less. Aides say that's an illustration of a truly democratic campaign. To critics, though, it can be an invitation for fraud and illegal foreign cash because donors giving individual sums of $200 or less don't have to be publicly reported. Consider the cases of Obama donors "Doodad Pro" of Nunda, N.Y., who gave $17,130, and "Good Will" of Austin, Texas, who gave more than $11,000—both in excess of the $2,300-per-person federal limit. In two recent letters to the Obama campaign, Federal Election Commission auditors flagged those (and other) donors and informed the campaign that the sums had to be returned. Neither name had ever been publicly reported because both individuals made online donations in $10 and $25 increments. "Good Will" listed his employer as "Loving" and his occupation as "You," while supplying as his address 1015 Norwood Park Boulevard, which is shared by the Austin nonprofit Goodwill Industries. Suzanha Burmeister, marketing director for Goodwill, said the group had "no clue" who the donor was. She added, however, that the group had received five puzzling thank-you letters from the Obama campaign this year, prompting it to send the campaign an e-mail in September pointing out the apparent fraudulent use of its name.
 
Re: Super PAC's try end around

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).

As are the donors to Romney's campaign.
 
Re: Super PAC's try end around

As are the donors to Romney's campaign.

1Perry,

Let's not play ignorant here. You know very well I'm referring to the W Spann, LLC contribution. And thanks for acknowledging that he did, in fact, receive a campaign contribution - indirectly though it may be - from this "corporation" that suddenly no longer exsists.

As for the claims made by the Prof and his conservative cohert (sorry, dude...can't pronounce your screen name let alone read it; so I'll just call you "the mystery person with lettering similar to the artist formerly known as" and leave it at that), you do know those claims of questionable campaign contributions are so pre-President Obama, right? If you can show that they were, in fact, illegal AND that the President's campaign directors did not repay the funds when questioned concerning them, I'm with in denouncing them 100%. With few exceptions, we know exactly who made contributions to the 2008 Obama presidential campaing, by name and company association. We don't have that information where Mitt Romney and W. Spann, LLC are concerned. That's the difference here.
 
Last edited:
Re: Super PAC's try end around

As for the claims made by the Prof

i made no claims

politico, wapo, abc, huffpo, lat and msnbc did

they said that obama was the top recipient of bp cash and his epa waived impact studies

they said obama was tops on aig's list, too, they also said tim geithner's fed instructed aig to keep sweetheart secrets from the sec

in conclusion, the sources noted that obama was #1 with the forlorn f's which were exempted from his massive regulatory reform

all i contributed was a question

change worth believing in, anyone?
 
Re: Super PAC's try end around

1Perry,

Let's not play ignorant here. You know very well I'm referring to the W Spann, LLC contribution. And thanks for acknowledging that he did, in fact, receive a campaign contribution - indirectly though it may be - from this "corporation" that suddenly no longer exsists.

He recieved nothing from them. "Indirectly" what the hell is that supposed to mean? Yes, they obviously said nice things about him. Is that now a crime?

As for the claims made by the Prof and his conservative cohert (sorry, dude...can't pronounce your screen name let alone read it; so I'll just call you "the mystery person with lettering similar to the artist formerly known as" and leave it at that), you do know those claims of questionable campaign contributions are so pre-President Obama, right? If you can show that they were, in fact, illegal AND that the President's campaign directors did not repay the funds when questioned concerning them, I'm with in denouncing them 100%. With few exceptions, we know exactly who made contributions to the 2008 Obama presidential campaing, by name and company association. We don't have that information where Mitt Romney and W. Spann, LLC are concerned. That's the difference here.

As far as I know (and you know) we know the names of everyone that has made a contribution to Romney's campaign. No exceptions.
 
Re: Super PAC's try end around

i made no claims

politico, wapo, abc, huffpo, lat and msnbc did

they said that obama was the top recipient of bp cash and his epa waived impact studies

they said obama was tops on aig's list, too, they also said tim geithner's fed instructed aig to keep sweetheart secrets from the sec

in conclusion, the sources noted that obama was #1 with the forlorn f's which were exempted from his massive regulatory reform

all i contributed was a question

change worth believing in, anyone?

I guess sweetheart deals aren't based upon keeping your name a secret.
 
Re: Super PAC's try end around

i made no claims

politico, wapo, abc, huffpo, lat and msnbc did

they said that obama was the top recipient of bp cash and his epa waived impact studies

they said obama was tops on aig's list, too, they also said tim geithner's fed instructed aig to keep sweetheart secrets from the sec

in conclusion, the sources noted that obama was #1 with the forlorn f's which were exempted from his massive regulatory reform

all i contributed was a question

change worth believing in, anyone?

Those are interesting conclusions, given the fact that Obama didn't take ANY corporate donations.
 
Re: Super PAC's try end around

i made no claims

politico, wapo, abc, huffpo, lat and msnbc did

But you referenced them in an attempt to support your "unspoken" claim that President Obama's no different where his 2008 presidential campaign contributions were concerned. Based on your references, the actions by the two - Obama and Romney - are somewhat different.

they said that obama was the top recipient of bp cash and his epa waived impact studies

they said obama was tops on aig's list, too, they also said tim geithner's fed instructed aig to keep sweetheart secrets from the sec

in conclusion, the sources noted that obama was #1 with the forlorn f's which were exempted from his massive regulatory reform

all i contributed was a question

And what does him receiving large campaign contributions have to do with the issue at hand? Again, the issue isn't how much either has received; it is how they received it. So, again, if you can provide proof that Obama either while campaigning in 2008 or even now as President, has received campaign contributions that were illegal or as ethically questionable as the contribution Romney's received, then I'm right there with you denouncing the President's actions.
 
Re: Super PAC's try end around

Those are interesting conclusions, given the fact that Obama didn't take ANY corporate donations.

Correct! His campaign contributions came from "individuals" - people, not businesses or business entities (corporations).
 
Re: Super PAC's try end around

Those are interesting conclusions, given the fact that Obama didn't take ANY corporate donations.

His largest single donation came from Goldman Sachs that is indeed a corporation.
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1059713017 said:
Apparently you didn't read the articles linked to my last post before responding. Obama accepted internet donations from people with names like "Good Will" among many others. These were not isolated incidents and about as "transparent" as watching the health care debates on CSPAN. That's just a fraction of of the fraud committed.

Controversy Over Obama's Small Donors - The Daily Beast

Did you expect that he would have people manually accepting each of the millions of donations he received, who actively screened out suspicious names? Or is it more likely that donations were accepted automatically through an automated online system?
 
Did you expect that he would have people manually accepting each of the millions of donations he received, who actively screened out suspicious names? Or is it more likely that donations were accepted automatically through an automated online system?

I guess the "screening process" didn't work too well now did it? The security measures to prevent illegal or anonymous contributions from flowing into its accounts were ineffective. So therefore, it was OK for Obama's campaign to accept donations from unknown donors then? Because that's what happened. You obviously still haven't read the articles before responding to them.
 
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.

Don't forget to bring back some hookers for the rest of us!!!
 
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"?

A corporation is not a person.
 
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?

I think people just want to know who are paying their leaders, which is a reasonable inquiry... Nobody is trying to stop campaign contributions or tell people what to do with their money, you're just trying to distort the **** out of this conversation.
 
Re: Super PAC's try end around

His largest single donation came from Goldman Sachs that is indeed a corporation.

His largest single donation was $2,300 -- the individual donation limit. He did not accept donations from Corporations or PACs. If individuals who worked for Golmand chose to support him, what was he supposed to do? Say no thanks? I don't like the company you work for?
 
Re: Super PAC's try end around

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.

Religious orgs get their tax exemption in return for staying out of electoral politics. Tax avoidance schemes are a crime.
 
Re: Super PAC's try end around

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?

It would depend on where the money came from. If it came from Al Queda, you can be damn sure it would have an effect.
 
Re: Super PAC's try end around

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.

BS it is a fair question. And if you're not going to argue his point, then you shouldn't have a problem with understanding other people's concern about things like this happening.
 
Re: Super PAC's try end around

Nobody gave a penny to Romney, read the article again.

Then why did you argue that it is OK for a "person" (your word) to give however much they wanted to a politician?
 
Re: Super PAC's try end around

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.

The use of straw donors is a crime
 
Re: Super PAC's try end around

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?

If somebody else had that much money to spend on a run for office, don't think that person, whoever they are, would probably be better than Obama or Romney if not just as good for the job? You can't pretend that money has nothing to do with it... money is power, it's advertising, it's bus tours, it's setting up campaign offices and recruiting volunteers, etc.
 
Re: Super PAC's try end around

If somebody else had that much money to spend on a run for office, don't think that person, whoever they are, would probably be better than Obama or Romney if not just as good for the job?

I would never vote for either one. My arguement isn't based upon how good of a candidate Romney is. My arguement would apply to anyone running for office.

You can't pretend that money has nothing to do with it... money is power, it's advertising, it's bus tours, it's setting up campaign offices and recruiting volunteers, etc.

If Romney had 12 bazillion dollars to spend, would he ever change your mind about him?
 
Re: Super PAC's try end around

His largest single donation was $2,300 -- the individual donation limit. He did not accept donations from Corporations or PACs. If individuals who worked for Golmand chose to support him, what was he supposed to do? Say no thanks? I don't like the company you work for?

According to Federal Election Commission figures compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics, Goldman Sachs' political action committee and individual contributors who listed the company as their employer donated $994,795 during 2007 and 2008 to Obama's presidential campaign, the second-highest contribution from a company PAC and company employees.

You do realize how easy it is to look this stuff up don't you?

Goldman Sachs was top Obama donor - CNN
 
Back
Top Bottom