• 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!

California Issues $15M Campaign Reporting Fine To Koch Brothers-Connected Groups

TheDemSocialist

Gradualist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
34,951
Reaction score
16,311
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
In a case seeking to unmask the murky multimillion-dollar trail of money pouring into state and national political campaigns, California’s political watchdog agency on Thursday announced the largest fine in its history for campaign-reporting violations and ordered two political action committees to pay the state $15 million for failing to properly report the source of funds spent in the 2012 election.Teams of attorneys and researchers from two state agencies spent a year tracing the money used to oppose one California ballot initiative and support another, illustrating how difficult it has become to track the flow of money in state and national political campaigns. The groups that helped funnel the money were in numerous states, including Arizona, Iowa and Virginia.
The California Fair Political Practices Commission called the two groups that will pay the $1 million fine “part of the ‘Koch Brothers Network’ of dark money political nonprofit corporations.” The reference is to billionaire brothers Charles and David H. Koch, who have given millions to conservative causes across the country.
Donors were given the choice of directly contributing to the ballot measure campaigns or giving money to an Arizona-based nonprofit that would not disclose their names, allowing them to avoid retribution from unions, according to documents released as part of the investigation.


Read more @: California Issues $15M Campaign Reporting Fine To Koch Brothers-Connected Groups « CBS Los Angeles

Campaign finance; the deep dark ****ed up side of politics.
 
So do unions in CA disclose the names of all their members when they make a contribution to a political cause? If not, then I am either missing something or this is selective enforcement.
 
I will never understand why people find such laws just.
 
I will never understand why people find such laws just.

Influencing an election. The people have a right to know who influences such election.
 
Influencing an election. The people have a right to know who influences such election.

So if someone fails to comply with the governments desire to know who or what they are supporting you find it justified for the government to fine them? I can't say I understand your logic, let alone agree with your stance. What would be the purpose of it in the first place and why is it the governments business in knowing?
 
I will never understand why people find such laws just.

I think they are largely stupid laws myself. Knowing who bought an election doesn't make it any less bought.
 
Thank you, but providing a copy of the law does not answer the question of if unions are in compliance every time they make a donation, and if not, is this selective enforcement.

God this is pitiful. Give up on the anti-union meme. This is about campaign disclosure laws, and your fetish against unions doesn't apply.
 
So if someone fails to comply with the governments desire to know who or what they are supporting you find it justified for the government to fine them? I can't say I understand your logic, let alone agree with your stance. What would be the purpose of it in the first place and why is it the governments business in knowing?

Let's pretend that the point of the disclosure if for "government" and not voters. Let's pretend.
 

Sure. Bet you think it stops them.

http://www.capitolbasement.com/perma.php?_c=11qi650pdz8x1oy&id=11qhwkz90j8ds6u

Sep 20, 2013

Money trail


Down in LA, there's trouble brewing at the DWP: Officials there say they are having trouble tracking some $40 million in ratepayer money that was spent on public relations-related efforts.

From the LAT's Jack Dolan: "The Joint Training Institute and the Joint Safety Institute, controlled by DWP managers and union leaders, have received up to $4 million per year since their creation more than a decade ago after a contentious round of job cutbacks at one of the nation's largest municipal utilities."

"Nearly all of the nonprofits' money comes from DWP ratepayers, records show. About $1 million per year has been used to pay the salaries of a handful of administrators, according to the limited records the utility has provided to The Times under the California Public Records Act. Separate federal tax records offer only summaries of the organizations' outlays, including more than $360,000 spent on travel from 2009 to 2011."

"Officials at the nonprofits, the DWP and the employees' union, Local 18 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, declined to be interviewed about the institutes' activities and spending."

Three members of a top political strategy and consulting firm have been fined for lobbying lawmakers and the bureaucracy without registering as lobbyists.

From the Bee's Laurel Rosenhall: "The California Strategies public affairs firm and three of its partners will pay a combined $40,500 fine for breaking the state's political ethics laws under a settlement the Fair Political Practices Commission approved today."

"The commission voted 4-0 to approve the agreement made public last week that requires Jason Kinney, Rusty Areias and Winston Hickox to pay the fine, register as lobbyists and disclose their clients. In the agreement, the three well-connected Democrats admit they lobbied the Legislature and the Air Resources Board without disclosing themselves as lobbyists and filing disclosure documents, as state law requires."

"This is the first time that the commission has ever dealt with an issue like this, of shadow lobbying," said FPPC chair Ann Ravel."

Speaking of the FPPC, the panel also established new rules requiring political campaigns to make public how much they pay bloggers.

From Capitol Weekly's John Howard: "California’s political watchdog has approved a rule forcing political campaigns to disclose when they pay bloggers to post comments on such social media sites such as YouTube, Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, Tumblr, as well as others."

"The Fair Political Practice Commission’s decision, which has followed months of debate, requires the campaigns to publicly report payments of $500 or more to bloggers. The intent of the rule is to tell the public who is financing commentary, thus enabling voters to make informed decisions."

"But some were skeptical about the state’s ability to enforce the new rule."
 
Let's pretend that the point of the disclosure if for "government" and not voters. Let's pretend.

Then why do people need to know who or what I support? How does them knowing go about resolving any sort of problem?
 
This just more proof that California is even more ****ed up than we thought
 
Then why do people need to know who or what I support? How does them knowing go about resolving any sort of problem?

Kid of defeats the purpose of a secret ballot, doesn't it?
 
BWHAHAHHAHHA! That shut Fisher up quick enough. He wanted to start an anti-union meme to derail the thread and it didn't get off the ground.

God this is pitiful. Give up on the anti-union meme. This is about campaign disclosure laws, and your fetish against unions doesn't apply.

The article makes reference to people contributing this way for fear of union retaliation, at least it does for those who can read, so the OP raises the subject. It is not an "anti-union" meme, it is a selective enforcement "meme". Democrats are well known for that as of late. I do notice that neither you nor he can answer the question, so contribute to the subject of the OP or troll, whichever, but based on what has been provided, this still appears to be a selective enforcement case. I thought the left wing was all worried about disenfranchisement and intimidation-- I guess it is only worried about certain disenfranchisement and intimidation.
 
Then why do people need to know who or what I support? How does them knowing go about resolving any sort of problem?

Hmmm, so you don't think voters should know who gives money to candidates.

Thanks for doing away with the conservative pretense that it's OK to have Big Money in politics so long as it's disclosed. I mean we knew it was a bogus argument, but somebody on the right had to finally admit it I guess.
 
The article makes reference to people contributing this way for fear of union retaliation, at least it does for those who can read, so the OP raises the subject. It is not an "anti-union" meme, it is a selective enforcement "meme". Democrats are well known for that as of late. I do notice that neither you nor he can answer the question, so contribute to the subject of the OP or troll, whichever, but based on what has been provided, this still appears to be a selective enforcement case. I thought the left wing was all worried about disenfranchisement and intimidation-- I guess it is only worried about certain disenfranchisement and intimidation.

Just a few posts in and the anti-union memes begin. Perfect.

Meanwhile, beyond the pretending you're doing, the real reason these people want to be anonymous is to control candidates with money and not have the voters know.

But I love the anti-union spin you put on it. Very creative.
 
Hmmm, so you don't think voters should know who gives money to candidates.

Why should they? What purpose does it serve?

Thanks for doing away with the conservative pretense that it's OK to have Big Money in politics so long as it's disclosed. I mean we knew it was a bogus argument, but somebody on the right had to finally admit it I guess.

I'm not a conservative and I never made any such argument myself. Why must I defend the arguments of people outside of myself? If people wish to make such arguments it is there duty to defend them, not mine.
 
Yeah because giving millions of dollars to candidates is just like voting for one. We all do it!

They track all donations, genius. So when it is public knowledge that you donated to a given candidate it is public knowledge who you are voting for.
 
They track all donations, genius. So when it is public knowledge that you donated to a given candidate it is public knowledge who you are voting for.

Yeah, so? Nobody is forcing anybody to give money to a politician. With benefits (influence) comes burdens (disclosure).

Oh, I forgot, you're a "free lunch" conservative.
 
Back
Top Bottom