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

Re: Super PAC's try end around

A good play on sarcasm, sangha, but seriously this can lead to problems with public disclosure very quickly.

Re: Super PAC's try end around

Objective Voice said:

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?

Click to expand...

You have to answer why it's your business to know what others want to spend their money on. The requirement is on you to make a valid arguement why we must curtail the rights of others, not up to them to defend their right to exercise them.

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.

Click to expand...

If so, that would be illegal and we already have ways to address this.

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."

Click to expand...

Unless you are somehow a party to Blockbuster it's not really your concern is it? You are like the rest jumping to conclusions. I have no reason to believe that the millions Soros sent to moveon.com were then funneled to Obama. I'm not going to argue that we must stop this because someone *might* abuse it. People abuse the right to vote by trying to sign up the dead but that's not an arguement to remove people's right to vote.

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...

How is this kind of thing any different than an outright bribe?

Re: Super PAC's try end around

Kandahar said:

How is this kind of thing any different than an outright bribe?

Click to expand...

it's now a legal bribe
known as a "campaign contribution"

Re: Super PAC's try end around

Kandahar said:

How is this kind of thing any different than an outright bribe?

Click to expand...

So moveon.com was nothing but a bribe to Obama? Of course it wasn't. Sure they expect things but you expect things by voting.

I might put a sign out front stating "Vote for Candidate A" is that a bribe? If I have enough money I might buy 10,000 signs because I really like candidate A and want others to show their support for him. Is this a bribe?

Re: Super PAC's try end around

Kandahar said:

How is this kind of thing any different than an outright bribe?

Click to expand...

Well, there is no agreed upon quid pro quo, so it isn't a bribe per se. The problem with it, and the reason it's different from buying a car, is that it creates an appearance of impropriety, and an obvious risk that the beneficiary of the donation may feel obligated to perform some service for the donee in the future. It isn't just like buying a Bugatti; it's like buying a Bugatti and giving it to a politician.

Some people will give large donations just because they favor a candidates positions, with no expectation of favors. But human nature being what it is, other people will clearly expect some return on their investment, and some politicians will be happy to do favors in exchange for future support.

The question is, should we allow this system to exist, given the rather high risk of corruption? Free speech? I thought that's why we had elections. One man one vote and all that....

Re: Super PAC's try end around

1Perry,

So, you really have no problem with "ghosts" sending money to front-companies for the sole purpose of funneling money to a particular political party or candidate? You don't find anything unethical about this practise?

You really don't see how the voices of average Americans are being drowned out by corporate elites? As I said previously to illustrate the point, I alone at my current income level can't contribute $1,000,000 to a political campaign nor candidate of my choice, but 1,000,000 Americans working together could giving $1/ea. However, a corporation like W Spann, LLC can make a $1,000,000 donation and never have to be accountable for that contribution because as this example in questionable ethics proves said corporation could simply vanish by going out of business and no one will have the opportunity to question their records and ask, "Who made the contribution?"

Don't you see how problematic this is? Or is it okay with you that the "power of the vote" by the people can be usurpted by the corporate elites?

IF YOU DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THIS, YOU MAY AS WELL NOT SHOW UP AT THE BALLOT BOX COME NOVEMBER 4, 2011 BECAUSE YOUR VOTE HAS ALREADY BEEN BOUGHT AND PAID FOR BY CORPORATE AMERICA COUTESY OF THE SUPREME COURT COURT (Re: Citizen's United).

Re: Super PAC's try end around

1Perry said:

So moveon.com was nothing but a bribe to Obama? Of course it wasn't. Sure they expect things but you expect things by voting.

I might put a sign out front stating "Vote for Candidate A" is that a bribe? If I have enough money I might buy 10,000 signs because I really like candidate A and want others to show their support for him. Is this a bribe?

Click to expand...

A corporation providing financial support (i.e., campaign donations) to a particular candidate or a PAC in and of itself isn't a problem. It's when they mask who the figure-heads of the corporation actually are then close their doors and run and hide that makes it a problem. Such actions tells me there's something very underhanded taking place here. We should all be questioning it, not excusing it by hiding behind "freedom of speech" or "liberty" to do as one pleases. If it's unethical, it's wrong and should not be allowed. PERIOD!

You want to know why this is important to me? It's very simple...

Congress is already deeply aligned with corporate lobbyist. And many politicians are bought and paid for by wealthy individuals or heavily sponsored by corporations and/or hedge fund managers, etc. The power - or voice - of the People is constantly being eroded and folks like you don't seem to care. We speak, but seldom does Congress act on our behalf. I mean, here we have a national economic crisis with one side trying to do things to correct things (and for all practical purposes, the economy was tracking upward as far as the markets were concerned until mid-July when the GOP just had to have things their way), and now look at where we are? We're going backwards, not forward. And the very people who helped set things in reverse are themselves backed by corporate interest - the very same interest who just hide the identity of those who donated $1,000,000 to a GOP PAC that supports the very side of the political dividide that has our economy once again headed DOWNWARD!

If you're not upset about this you're a damned fool!!!

Re: Super PAC's try end around

1Perry said:

So moveon.com was nothing but a bribe to Obama? Of course it wasn't. Sure they expect things but you expect things by voting.

I might put a sign out front stating "Vote for Candidate A" is that a bribe? If I have enough money I might buy 10,000 signs because I really like candidate A and want others to show their support for him. Is this a bribe?

Click to expand...

Again, the lefties here have expressed support for limiting donations (and sometimes eliminating donations) no matter what the source. It seems all you have is partisan straw man arguments like "but, but, they do it too!"

Re: Super PAC's try end around

AdamT said:

Well, there is no agreed upon quid pro quo, so it isn't a bribe per se. The problem with it, and the reason it's different from buying a car, is that it creates an appearance of impropriety, and an obvious risk that the beneficiary of the donation may feel obligated to perform some service for the donee in the future. It isn't just like buying a Bugatti; it's like buying a Bugatti and giving it to a politician.

Click to expand...

Indeed it could create an appearance of impropriety. That would show bad upon the candidate. Not a reason to curtail ones rights though. Allowing the KKK have a rally in the local city park makes the city look bad but there is nothing one can do about it.

It boils down to this. Rights are not always pretty but it beats the alternative.

Some people will give large donations just because they favor a candidates positions, with no expectation of favors. But human nature being what it is, other people will clearly expect some return on their investment, and some politicians will be happy to do favors in exchange for future support.

Click to expand...

With the answer not being that we should stop those with pure motives.

The question is, should we allow this system to exist, given the rather high risk of corruption? Free speech? I thought that's why we had elections. One man one vote and all that....

Click to expand...

High risk? I'd say it's rather low. Too risky.

Re: Super PAC's try end around

1Perry said:

So moveon.com was nothing but a bribe to Obama? Of course it wasn't. Sure they expect things but you expect things by voting.

I might put a sign out front stating "Vote for Candidate A" is that a bribe? If I have enough money I might buy 10,000 signs because I really like candidate A and want others to show their support for him. Is this a bribe?

Click to expand...

Nope. But if you conceal your identity, thus eliminating all transparency into the relationship you have with the candidate, I think that would raise a few eyebrows.

Re: Super PAC's try end around

Objective Voice said:

1Perry,

So, you really have no problem with "ghosts" sending money to front-companies for the sole purpose of funneling money to a particular political party or candidate? You don't find anything unethical about this practise?

Click to expand...

Indeed I would have a problem there. That's illegal.

You really don't see how the voices of average Americans are being drowned out by corporate elites? As I said previously to illustrate the point, I alone at my current income level can't contribute $1,000,000 to a political campaign nor candidate of my choice, but 1,000,000 Americans working together could giving $1/ea. However, a corporation like W Spann, LLC can make a $1,000,000 donation and never have to be accountable for that contribution because as this example in questionable ethics proves said corporation could simply vanish by going out of business and no one will have the opportunity to question their records and ask, "Who made the contribution?"

Click to expand...

Yes, you have no idea where this money came from. Maybe it is $1 from 1 million people. I already noted why I support being able to do this. Pay backs are a bitch. Again, ask P.P.

Don't you see how problematic this is? Or is it okay with you that the "power of the vote" by the people can be usurpted by the corporate elites?

Click to expand...

I dismiss that arguement. Soros spent a ton of money in the last election but still lost. The swiftboaters were nothing but a small organization but they had a major impact in the 2004 elections. Obama didn't win in 2008 because he spent the most money.

Do you believe the record amount of money skewed the election results or did they logically play out? IMO if "big oil" had gave McCain $500 million under the table, he still loses. Are you disagreeing?

IF YOU DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THIS, YOU MAY AS WELL NOT SHOW UP AT THE BALLOT BOX COME NOVEMBER 4, 2011 BECAUSE YOUR VOTE HAS ALREADY BEEN BOUGHT AND PAID FOR BY CORPORATE AMERICA COUTESY OF THE SUPREME COURT COURT (Re: Citizen's United).

Click to expand...

You'll have to speak for yourself here.

Re: Super PAC's try end around

Objective Voice said:

A corporation providing financial support (i.e., campaign donations) to a particular candidate or a PAC in and of itself isn't a problem. It's when they mask who the figure-heads of the corporation actually are then close their doors and run and hide that makes it a problem. Such actions tells me there's something very underhanded taking place here. We should all be questioning it, not excusing it by hiding behind "freedom of speech" or "liberty" to do as one pleases. If it's unethical, it's wrong and should not be allowed. PERIOD!

Click to expand...

On the flip side the "underhanded" actions may come from the other side. Would you say that the attacks on P.P. funding would be happening right now if they were able to keep their support for one candidate or the other more secret?

Re: Super PAC's try end around

Kandahar said:

Nope. But if you conceal your identity, thus eliminating all transparency into the relationship you have with the candidate, I think that would raise a few eyebrows.

Click to expand...

Raise them. Ask questions. Demand that the government does their job in enforcing it's laws.

Re: Super PAC's try end around

1Perry said:

Raise them. Ask questions. Demand that the government does their job in enforcing it's laws.

Click to expand...

Problem.

The lawmakers are the foxes watching the henhouse.

Re: Super PAC's try end around

Polotick said:

Problem.

The lawmakers are the foxes watching the henhouse.

Click to expand...

YES, but the answer is not in curtailing the rights of citizens. I understand the frustration but lashing out at those simply excercising their rights is not the answer.

Re: Super PAC's try end around

1Perry said:

Indeed it could create an appearance of impropriety. That would show bad upon the candidate. Not a reason to curtail ones rights though. Allowing the KKK have a rally in the local city park makes the city look bad but there is nothing one can do about it.

It boils down to this. Rights are not always pretty but it beats the alternative.



With the answer not being that we should stop those with pure motives.



High risk? I'd say it's rather low. Too risky.

Click to expand...

So can we assume that you would feel the same way about judges? It wouldn't bother you if you were being sued by someone, and that someone happened to have made a recent, one million dollar donation to the judge hearing your case?

Re: Super PAC's try end around

1Perry said:

YES, but the answer is not in curtailing the rights of citizens. I understand the frustration but lashing out at those simply excercising their rights is not the answer.

Click to expand...

An invisible and out of business entity needs evidence of being a citizen holding those rights, or your argument fails. Currently there is far from any evidence of this.

Re: Super PAC's try end around

1Perry said:

Indeed it could create an appearance of impropriety. That would show bad upon the candidate. Not a reason to curtail ones rights though. Allowing the KKK have a rally in the local city park makes the city look bad but there is nothing one can do about it.

It boils down to this. Rights are not always pretty but it beats the alternative.

Click to expand...

Rights are not unlimited. Rights can be limited if there is a compelling interest in doing so. That's why it is illegal to falsely yell "Fire!" in a crowded theatre

Re: Super PAC's try end around

1Perry said:

On the flip side the "underhanded" actions may come from the other side. Would you say that the attacks on P.P. funding would be happening right now if they were able to keep their support for one candidate or the other more secret?

Click to expand...

And again with the partisan arguments.

Re: Super PAC's try end around

AdamT said:

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

Click to expand...

Does that mean that you don't want unions to contribute to political campaigns, either?

Re: Super PAC's try end around

1Perry said:

Raise them. Ask questions. Demand that the government does their job in enforcing it's laws.

Click to expand...

Do you support any laws that would require corps like the one named in the OP to reveal their owners and the source of their campaign contributions?

Re: Super PAC's try end around

apdst said:

Does that mean that you don't want unions to contribute to political campaigns, either?

Click to expand...

Yes, that's what it means. No unions, no corporations, no individuals. 100% public financing of elections.

Re: Super PAC's try end around

1Perry said:

YES, but the answer is not in curtailing the rights of citizens. I understand the frustration but lashing out at those simply excercising their rights is not the answer.

Click to expand...

We are talking about corporations, not people. Do you think that corporations that donate to campaigns should be required to reveal their owners and the source of the money they contribute?

Re: Super PAC's try end around

1Perry said:

On the flip side the "underhanded" actions may come from the other side. Would you say that the attacks on P.P. funding would be happening right now if they were able to keep their support for one candidate or the other more secret?

Click to expand...

P.P.? What's that? Sounds like what people do to relief themselves.

More to the point, it sounds to me like you're being partisan, not practical, by constantly bringing up George Soros and his contributions to Democrats/Obama. As I've said a few times now, I have no problem with an individual or a corporation making a campaign contribution to anyone or any party as long as there is full disclosure. That's NOT what we're getting with this W Spann/Restore Our America/Mitt Romney issue. Still, to answer the unasked question yet again, if President Obama's campaign committee either in 2008 or for 2012 accepts donations from questionable sources and they either refuse to reveal who the true source was or provide refunds, then I'd press the issue just as hard. But neither yourself or anyone else has been able to provide concrete evidence that such has ever happened. All you've provided were links to articles where such was questioned but his campaign responded appropriately, i.e., full disclosure or refunds. I don't see that ahppening here.