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

Re: Super PAC's try end around

1Perry said:

The two parties could agree to do this. When do you think they will?

Click to expand...

We shouldn't leave it to politicians and their political parties to regulate themselves.

Re: Super PAC's try end around

sangha said:

We shouldn't leave it to politicians and their political parties to regulate themselves.

Click to expand...

They will never do it voluntarily because it would mean giving up their fundraising advantage over challengers.

Re: Super PAC's try end around

AdamT said:

They will never do it voluntarily because it would mean giving up their fundraising advantage over challengers.

Click to expand...

The DISCLOSE Act (S. 3628) was proposed in July of 2010. The bill would have amended the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to prohibit foreign influence in Federal elections, prohibit government contractors from making expenditures with respect to such elections, and it established additional disclosure requirements with respect to spending in such elections. The bill would impose new donor and contribution disclosure requirements on nearly all organizations that air political ads independently of candidates or the political parties. The legislation would require the sponsor of the ad to appear in it and take responsibility for it. Obama argued that the bill would also reduce foreign influence over American elections. Democrats needed at least one Republican to support the measure in order to get the 60 votes to overcome GOP procedural delays, but were unsuccessful.

Re: Super PAC's try end around

Polotick said:

The DISCLOSE Act (S. 3628) was proposed in July of 2010. The bill would have amended the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to prohibit foreign influence in Federal elections, prohibit government contractors from making expenditures with respect to such elections, and it established additional disclosure requirements with respect to spending in such elections. The bill would impose new donor and contribution disclosure requirements on nearly all organizations that air political ads independently of candidates or the political parties. The legislation would require the sponsor of the ad to appear in it and take responsibility for it. Obama argued that the bill would also reduce foreign influence over American elections. Democrats needed at least one Republican to support the measure in order to get the 60 votes to overcome GOP procedural delays, but were unsuccessful.

Click to expand...

Exactly. At any given time one side or the other will perceive that a particular campaign reform measure will give the other side some kind of advantage, so they will oppose it.

Re: Super PAC's try end around

Polotick said:

The DISCLOSE Act (S. 3628) was proposed in July of 2010. The bill would have amended the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to prohibit foreign influence in Federal elections, prohibit government contractors from making expenditures with respect to such elections, and it established additional disclosure requirements with respect to spending in such elections. The bill would impose new donor and contribution disclosure requirements on nearly all organizations that air political ads independently of candidates or the political parties. The legislation would require the sponsor of the ad to appear in it and take responsibility for it. Obama argued that the bill would also reduce foreign influence over American elections. Democrats needed at least one Republican to support the measure in order to get the 60 votes to overcome GOP procedural delays, but were unsuccessful.

Click to expand...

Is your concern that Obama who will raise $1 billion in campaign funds will not have enough money in the next election.

Re: Super PAC's try end around

AdamT said:

Exactly. At any given time one side or the other will perceive that a particular campaign reform measure will give the other side some kind of advantage, so they will oppose it.

Click to expand...

It's because they don't seek position to serve, but to rule.

Re: Super PAC's try end around

sangha said:

So you have no opinion?

I understand. It's OK when Romney does it, but its' wrong when Obama does it.

IOKIYAR

Click to expand...

Thanks for proving my point.

Re: Super PAC's try end around

washunut said:

Is your concern that Obama who will raise $1 billion in campaign funds will not have enough money in the next election.

Click to expand...

Try to read some more. I support restricted spending on all campaigns, equal playing fields, and full disclosure of all contributions. I will not get involved in your left/right screeching.

Re: Super PAC's try end around

Polotick said:

Try to read some more. I support restricted spending on all campaigns, equal playing fields, and full disclosure of all contributions. I will not get involved in your left/right screeching.

Click to expand...

Make it a Constitutional Admendment. I imagine the states would pass it. It's never going to happen though as Congress would never pass it. I'm not about to agree on curtailing the free speech of individuals while politicians can say whatever they please.

Re: Super PAC's try end around

1Perry said:

Make it a Constitutional Admendment. I imagine the states would pass it. It's never going to happen though as Congress would never pass it. I'm not about to agree on curtailing the free speech of individuals while politicians can say whatever they please.

Click to expand...

It would require a constitutional amendment even if Congress was willing to do it -- thanks to our brilliant SC.

Re: Super PAC's try end around

1Perry said:

Make it a Constitutional Admendment. I imagine the states would pass it. It's never going to happen though as Congress would never pass it. I'm not about to agree on curtailing the free speech of individuals while politicians can say whatever they please.

Click to expand...

I would support something like this, but apathy among many and blind following among others will insure this will never come to pass. Even if it got close I am afraid Congress would set the limits so high as to render them useless anyway. I am also against matching funds in presidential races.

In my dream world here this would reduce political attacks, hopefully, and force a candidate to tell me their position instead of spending all their time insulting their opponents position. I loathe election years for this reason.

Re: Super PAC's try end around

1Perry said:

Thanks for proving my point.

Click to expand...

Only if your point is that IOKIYAR

It's a simple question, Perry and a very relevant one. What do you think of all this Big Money flowing into campaigns? Would you supporting limiting the amts an individual or corp can donate to a candidate? Would you support limiting the amts a politician can spend on a campaign? Would you support any form of public financing for campaigns, and if so, what forms?

Or will your comments be limited to "Obama did it too!!" which I, for one, find extremely partisan and unpersuasive because I think that Obama (and nearly all the dems in congress) is just as beholden to corporate interests as any republican

Re: Super PAC's try end around

1Perry said:

Make it a Constitutional Admendment. I imagine the states would pass it. It's never going to happen though as Congress would never pass it. I'm not about to agree on curtailing the free speech of individuals while politicians can say whatever they please.

Click to expand...

So you don't support any limits on the money flowing into political campaigns, so why complain about the money Obama received from Goldman Sachs? I know, I know, you wanted to show the mythical "hypocrisy" of the "libs" even though they have expressed their support for limiting this money no matter which side it goes to. :roll:


And I noticed that you keep referrnig to "individuals". Are you OK with corporations donating money to political campaigns?

Are you OK with foreign money being given to candidates? Right now, it is not hard for a foriegn interest to get their money into a candidates campaign.

Re: Super PAC's try end around

AdamT said:

It would require a constitutional amendment even if Congress was willing to do it -- thanks to our brilliant SC.

Click to expand...

Yes, screw em all for upholding our Constitutional rights. For not allowing incumbants shut up anyone willing to say anything bad about them. (this is exactly what McCain/Feingold tried to do)

Re: Super PAC's try end around

1Perry said:

Yes, screw em all for upholding our Constitutional rights. For not allowing incumbants shut up anyone willing to say anything bad about them. (this is exactly what McCain/Feingold tried to do)

Click to expand...

So you believe that corporations have a constitutional right to give unlimited funds to a politician? Then why complain about Obama getting money from GS?

Re: Super PAC's try end around

Polotick said:

I would support something like this, but apathy among many and blind following among others will insure this will never come to pass. Even if it got close I am afraid Congress would set the limits so high as to render them useless anyway. I am also against matching funds in presidential races.

In my dream world here this would reduce political attacks, hopefully, and force a candidate to tell me their position instead of spending all their time insulting their opponents position. I loathe election years for this reason.

Click to expand...

I fully understand this but the answer isn't in shutting out only one voice. (the publics)

Re: Super PAC's try end around

sangha said:

So you believe that corporations have a constitutional right to give unlimited funds to a politician? Then why complain about Obama getting money from GS?

Click to expand...

I'm going to grant you one free clue. I never did this. I might in a different context but not this one.

Re: Super PAC's try end around

1Perry said:

Yes, screw em all for upholding our Constitutional rights. For not allowing incumbants shut up anyone willing to say anything bad about them. (this is exactly what McCain/Feingold tried to do)

Click to expand...

The problem lies in the underlined words.

I do not think anyone has any problem with the Constitutional rights of their fellow American citizens in this regard.

Re: Super PAC's try end around

1Perry said:

I fully understand this but the answer isn't in shutting out only one voice. (the publics)

Click to expand...

It's the Big Money of the few that is shutting out the voices of the many. Why should a corporation get to give massive amounts of money to a candidate?

Do you support a US-based corp giving money to candidates even though the corp is owned by foreigners?

Re: Super PAC's try end around

1Perry said:

I fully understand this but the answer isn't in shutting out only one voice. (the publics)

Click to expand...

Isn't that already happening? I also defend free speech, or what little of that right yet remains. I have not proposed silencing anyone, I have suggested that they are required by law to at least have the balls to identify their voice. The OP wasn't about freedom of speech even remotely, it was about a deliberate attempt to circumvent the law from a position of secrecy.

I hope you can see the difference. If not, go yell "Bomb" in any airport, all will become clear.

Re: Super PAC's try end around

1Perry said:

I'm going to grant you one free clue. I never did this. I might in a different context but not this one.

Click to expand...

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!"

Re: Super PAC's try end around

sangha said:

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!"

Click to expand...

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.

Re: Super PAC's try end around

1Perry said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

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 governor’s 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."

Re: Super PAC's try end around

Objective Voice said:

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!

Click to expand...

For all we know, the money came from Al Queda