• 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

No, bribery isn't legal in the US despite what others believe.
It's just "playing the game" and "currying long-debted favors". The government has no right to intervene on the actions of individuals, as they are simply "taking part in democracy"
 
Re: Super PAC's try end around

AdamT said:
Here, I'll even give you the link. Hint: there were no Goldman PAC donations to Obama.

Search Campaign Finance Summary Data
Click to expand...


So CNN was Lying?

Goldman Sachs was top Obama donor - CNN


Wall Street's top investment bank was a generous contributor to Obama's presidential campaign.



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.
 
Re: Super PAC's try end around

What if...? said:
Retaliation is a legitimate concern. That's where a sticky wicket is.

I think I should be able to withhold my custom from a business that does things I don't approve of, including making donations to candidates or issues I'm against.

However, some might use this information to harass or vandalize an individual or business, which actually has happened. Addressing this facet of the issue is where the trouble lies. But I think it is something that could be dealt with appropriately.
Click to expand...

People have to reveal their names to the FEC. Corps don't deserve special rights.
 
Re: Super PAC's try end around

1Perry said:
You have no idea what was done here. Groups have provided lump sums for a long time. From Emily's list.

EMILY’s List, whose name is an acronym (Early Money is Like Yeast), is a national political action committee that works to elect pro-choice female Democrats. The group has turned the bundling of campaign contributions into an art form, enlisting thousands of members nationwide to direct their money to key races. Because much of that money comes in donations below the $200 threshold for reporting, the totals given by EMILY’s List members is considerably greater than the official totals reflected in FEC reports. Abortion rights have always been a key issue for the group, though recently, its agenda has also expanded toward economic and social issues, like education funding.

So they report contributions over $200. Anything under $200 they don't even bother reporting. Enough of them can add up to some serious money.

EMILY's List: Summary | OpenSecrets
Click to expand...

I don't see in your link where mystery companies formed for the sole purpose of making a million dollar donation and then dissolved.
 
Re: Super PAC's try end around

Catawba said:
I don't see in your link where mystery companies formed for the sole purpose of making a million dollar donation and then dissolved.
Click to expand...

Nor did I attempt to make that point. I pointed out where other groups are taking in money and not reporting where that money comes from and have been even before the USSC's ruling.
 
Re: Super PAC's try end around

1Perry said:
Nor did I attempt to make that point. I pointed out where other groups are taking in money and not reporting where that money comes from and have been even before the USSC's ruling.
Click to expand...

But no individual is giving $1m contributions to candidates through EL without disclosure. Maybe you can find something more relevant?
 
Re: Super PAC's try end around

AdamT said:
It's your tax dollars they're buying with their contributions. And they're buying them on the cheap.
Click to expand...

Do you understand the difference between public money and private money?
 
Re: Super PAC's try end around

Objective Voice said:
Unions either.

Dues should go to support the interest of the union members and his/her fellow employees on work-related matters, not so that the union can put its collective membership support behind a political candidate. A union can "suggest" who its membership should support because it is believed that that candidate supports the interest of the membership. But in the end it is the vote by the union members whether they should support that candidate as a whole, not an arbitrary decision made by the union on behalf of its members. As such, I would not support any union who uses membership dues arbitrarily to put financial support behind a candidate no matter which party.

Now, if the Union members hold a vote and the majority agrees to it, that's a different story. Same goes for corporations with either their Board of Directors or the entirety of their employee compliment. But you don't do it arbitrarily and you must have full disclosure which should include identifying the ownership and the Board membership. Same goes for unions, i.e., Union President, Board, etc.

It's about full disclosure and fairness. I see neither in this W Spann/Restore Our American matter.
Click to expand...

Ohhhhhhhhh! Now, that's different? Why am I not surprised that?

Does that mean that you believe unions should have to actually pay taxes, too?
 
Re: Super PAC's try end around

What if...? said:
You do understand that public financing would mean

A) politicians would spend more time doing their jobs instead of hustling campaign contributions.

B) they would be less prone to sell us out for said contributions.

There are states that do this now. And from what I remember, they like it that way.
Click to expand...

Spend more time raising my taxes, you mean?
 
Re: Super PAC's try end around

AdamT said:
Are tax exempt religious institutions supposed be supporting political campaigns?
Click to expand...

IIRC, issues yes, actual candidates, no....
 
Re: Super PAC's try end around

sangha said:
Yes. Do you understand the difference between public interests and private interests?
Click to expand...

'Splain it to me!
 
Re: Super PAC's try end around

So it seems the donor used his own office as the address for the LLC. Not exactly trying to hide anything there.

The LLC had been registered to a Madison Avenue address in Manhattan that was the same building occupied by Bain, sparking more of the mystery surrounding Spann. Sources familiar with the situation said Conard retired from Bain in 2007, but still maintains an office of his own at that Madison Avenue address.

So a guy wanted to support an old buddy. Something anyone should be able to do.

Based on his donation history and his past with Romney, at first glance there may be less there than meets the eye in terms of a hidden political agenda.

Read more: Mystery Mitt Romney donor comes forward - Maggie Haberman - POLITICO.com
 
Re: Super PAC's try end around

a classic excerpt from that propaganda piece:
... Conard has no major history as a Republican donor, and is not a known name within bundler circles.

He's made a few donations to the Republican National Committee, and contributed to George W. Bush's and Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown's campaigns, but the overwhelming majority of his donations have been to Romney and his two PACS, Commonwealth PAC and Free and Strong America. ...
Click to expand...
so much for "no major history as a republican donor"


Read more: Mystery Mitt Romney donor comes forward - Maggie Haberman - POLITICO.com
 
Re: Super PAC's try end around

1Perry said:
It says he has a history of being a donor for Romney. Politico isn't a partisan source. They are one of the few fairly moderate sites.
Click to expand...

ok, you insist it is not a propaganda piece
then explain the contradiction between the writer's statement that conard had "no major history as a republican donor" and the author's presentation that the donor "... made a few donations to the Republican National Committee, and contributed to George W. Bush's and Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown's campaigns, but the overwhelming majority of his donations have been to Romney and his two PACS, Commonwealth PAC and Free and Strong America."
 
Re: Super PAC's try end around

At least the donor finally stepped up. Why it was hidden in the first place and then why it took so long to come forward is still a mystery to me, though. Why go through all the motions to circumvent the law?
 
Re: Super PAC's try end around

justabubba said:
ok, you insist it is not a propaganda piece
then explain the contradiction between the writer's statement that conard had "no major history as a republican donor" and the author's presentation that the donor "... made a few donations to the Republican National Committee, and contributed to George W. Bush's and Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown's campaigns, but the overwhelming majority of his donations have been to Romney and his two PACS, Commonwealth PAC and Free and Strong America."
Click to expand...

Many people give money to similiar sources. A few donations? Do you have any idea what he donated? $1000 per election? That would be $1000 more than I would donate but it's hardly "major".

It appears outside of this donation he's been a small time guy at best. Outside of his desire to help his buddy he's gave a bit here and there. That hardly answers the question of why if he wants to blow $1 million helping out Romney, why it's any of your business.
 
Re: Super PAC's try end around

Polotick said:
At least the donor finally stepped up. Why it was hidden in the first place and then why it took so long to come forward is still a mystery to me, though. Why go through all the motions to circumvent the law?
Click to expand...

He says he sought out legal advice and this is what he was gave as advice. Once he realized it was causing problems he came forward.
 
Re: Super PAC's try end around

1Perry said:
Many people give money to similiar sources. A few donations? Do you have any idea what he donated? $1000 per election? That would be $1000 more than I would donate but it's hardly "major".

It appears outside of this donation he's been a small time guy at best. Outside of his desire to help his buddy he's gave a bit here and there. That hardly answers the question of why if he wants to blow $1 million helping out Romney, why it's any of your business.
Click to expand...
you avoided the question
the article's author identified him as one who had "no major history as a republican donor"
but that same author told us that the donor "... made a few donations to the Republican National Committee, and contributed to George W. Bush's and Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown's campaigns, but the overwhelming majority of his donations have been to Romney and his two PACS, Commonwealth PAC and Free and Strong America."
someone controlling two PACs does not appear to be small time player ... as evidenced by the $1 million check for romney's campaign
 
Re: Super PAC's try end around

Polotick said:
At least the donor finally stepped up. Why it was hidden in the first place and then why it took so long to come forward is still a mystery to me, though. Why go through all the motions to circumvent the law?
Click to expand...

Maybe some folks just don't want their name plastered all over the place by the Liberal smear machine. Just a hunch.

Look what happened to Joe the Plumber. All he did was excercise his right to ask questions, embarressed the crap out of Obama and the Liberal smear machine went into overdrive.
 
Re: Super PAC's try end around

apdst said:
Maybe some folks just don't want their name plastered all over the place by the Liberal smear machine. Just a hunch.

Look what happened to Joe the Plumber. All he did was excercise his right to ask questions, embarressed the crap out of Obama and the Liberal smear machine went into overdrive.
Click to expand...

yep
effectively descimated that reich wing gambit to make joe the plumber the republican mascot, didn't it
Joe The Plumber Quitting The GOP: Time Magazine
 
Re: Super PAC's try end around

apdst said:
An Obama supporter--along with a host of others--working for the state of Ohio did an illegal background search, in order to smear Joe the Plumber.

Why did so many investigate 'Joe the Plumber'? | cleveland.com

So much for free speech, right?
Click to expand...

and that government employee lost her job for violating joe the plumber's right to privacy
seems you want to discuss anything other than the subject - a HUGE, untraceable campaign contribution to romney
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom