• 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

There is pretty good evidence that political advertizing is effective, and advertizing takes money. Get out the vote efforts are also effective, and expensive. Money matters. It's the main reason incumbents are so hard to beat.
 
Re: Super PAC's try end around

SheWolf said:
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.
Click to expand...

NOBODY was paying any candidate anything here.
 
Re: Super PAC's try end around

SheWolf said:
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.
Click to expand...

Singling out one entity is not a fair question. I'm not going to pick on one. If you want to discuss all in general, as I said, it's a fair point. Nobody seemed to want to do that.
 
Re: Super PAC's try end around

1Perry said:
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
Click to expand...

Again, Obama did not accept contributions from Pacs or Corporations (which would be illegal anyway). When they say that Goldman was the top contributor they are adding up all of the individual contributions made by employees of Goldman and family members of employees of Goldman.
 
Re: Super PAC's try end around

AdamT said:
Again, Obama did not accept contributions from Pacs or Corporations (which would be illegal anyway). When they say that Goldman was the top contributor they are adding up all of the individual contributions made by employees of Goldman and family members of employees of Goldman.
Click to expand...

If you refuse to read what the link says, well we are wasting our time.

Goldman Sachs' political action committee and individual contributors.

You do understand this sentence right? The money came from individuals AND Goldman Sachs political action committee. As noted, this comes from the FEC. That sort of trumps your claims.
 
Re: Super PAC's try end around

AdamT said:
Again, Obama did not accept contributions from Pacs or Corporations (which would be illegal anyway). When they say that Goldman was the top contributor they are adding up all of the individual contributions made by employees of Goldman and family members of employees of Goldman.
Click to expand...

Prove it. You don't know who he received contributions from. Many were anonymous over the internet that Obama's campaign didn't or couldn't verify.
 
Re: Super PAC's try end around

1Perry said:
If you refuse to read what the link says, well we are wasting our time.

Goldman Sachs' political action committee and individual contributors.

You do understand this sentence right? The money came from individuals AND Goldman Sachs political action committee. As noted, this comes from the FEC. That sort of trumps your claims.
Click to expand...

Do you believe everything you read? Show me an FEC link indicating that Obama took PAC money -- not a news article.
 
Re: Super PAC's try end around

Μολὼν λαβέ;1059713502 said:
Prove it. You don't know who he received contributions from. Many were anonymous over the internet that Obama's campaign didn't or couldn't verify.
Click to expand...

You want me to prove a negative? Okay. LOL

Of course there was some questionable donations to Obama, as there are to every candidate. In Obama's case he recieved hundreds of thousands of donations averaging $200 each. Some errors are inevitable.
 
Re: Super PAC's try end around

AdamT said:
Do you believe everything you read? Show me an FEC link indicating that Obama took PAC money -- not a news article.
Click to expand...

OMG, I provide a main stream news source and you provide nothing and you want me to find even more? Really?
 
Re: Super PAC's try end around

1Perry said:
OMG, I provide a main stream news source and you provide nothing and you want me to find even more? Really?
Click to expand...

Seriously? A main stream news source? I have never seen a main stream news article that didn't have mistakes in it when I had personal knowledge of the facts in the story. You said that it's very easy to look these things up. Cool. So look up Obama's PAC donations at the FEC website and post up the link.
 
Polotick said:
Election reform, anyone? This is a dance around election contribution laws and I personally expect some pretty bad fallout over this.

A mystery company that pumped $1 million into a political committee backing Mitt Romney has been dissolved just months after it was formed, leaving few clues as to who was behind one of the biggest contributions yet of the 2012 presidential campaign.
The existence of the million-dollar donation — as gleaned from campaign and corporate records obtained by NBC News — provides a vivid example of how secret campaign cash is being funneled in ever more circuitous ways into the political system.

The company, W Spann LLC, was formed in March by a Boston lawyer who specializes in estate tax planning for “high net worth individuals,” according to corporate records and the lawyer’s bio on her firm’s website.

The corporate records provide no information about the owner of the firm, its address or its type of business.
Firm gives $1 million to pro-Romney group, dissolves - politics - Decision 2012 - msnbc.com

Laughing
Click to expand...

I just heard about this last night! It made me wonder if the new Citizen's United ruling wasn't going to encourage more of this type of corporate influence into the election of our politicians. Is their a link do you think?
 
Re: Super PAC's try end around

justabubba said:
we have the best government money can buy

this is description of a legal bribe is but another example of it
Click to expand...

I read where most of the Wall street political contributions went to the GOP in 2010. I guess they know who is looking out after their interest! :sun
 
Last edited:
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...


I think "people" is the focus. This was a company that formed solely for the purpose of making the huge contribution. That is not the equivalent of a personal donation.
 
Re: Super PAC's try end around

A perfect example why the Citizens United decision will turn out to be the Dred Scott case of this century.
 
Re: Super PAC's try end around

Catawba said:
I read where most of the Wall street political contributions went to the GOP in 2010. I guess they know who is looking out after their interest! :sun
Click to expand...

I guess they learned their lesson and decided to back politicians that actually know something about economics after 2 disastrous years under Obama:

(Reuters) - Wall Street is putting its money behind Democrat Barack Obama for president, despite worries that his administration would raise taxes and take a tougher line on trade and regulation.

The signs Wall Street reads point to Democrats prevailing in the November presidential and general election as voters punish the incumbent Republican Party for a flagging economy and lengthy Iraq war.

And the fact that Obama began raking in a bigger share of the cash as his campaign picked up steam suggests that investors simply want to back the eventual winner.
Click to expand...
Wall Street puts its money behind Obama | Reuters
 
Re: Super PAC's try end around

Catawba said:
I think "people" is the focus. This was a company that formed solely for the purpose of making the huge contribution. That is not the equivalent of a personal donation.
Click to expand...

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
 
Re: Super PAC's try end around

1Perry said:
Singling out one entity is not a fair question. I'm not going to pick on one. If you want to discuss all in general, as I said, it's a fair point. Nobody seemed to want to do that.
Click to expand...

And several people here have said that they are fine with banning big money from all campaigns, no matter the source. What's your opinion on this? How about public financing of campaigns?
 
Re: Super PAC's try end around

sangha said:
And several people here have said that they are fine with banning big money from all campaigns, no matter the source. What's your opinion on this? How about public financing of campaigns?
Click to expand...

I already noted that it's a waste of time to try and discuss things with you while you dance around.
 
Re: Super PAC's try end around

sangha said:
And several people here have said that they are fine with banning big money from all campaigns, no matter the source. What's your opinion on this? How about public financing of campaigns?
Click to expand...

Or just limits on campaign spending. This, IMO, would unclutter some of the noise to signal input.
 
Re: Super PAC's try end around

Polotick said:
Or just limits on campaign spending. This, IMO, would unclutter some of the noise to signal input.
Click to expand...

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

Two days after the end of the world.
 
Re: Super PAC's try end around

1Perry said:
OMG, I provide a main stream news source and you provide nothing and you want me to find even more? Really?
Click to expand...

1Perry is right. Obama took money from PACs including a GS PAC. But if we can leave the partisanship aside for a moment, does anyone here think that this is A Good Thing?
 
Re: Super PAC's try end around

sangha said:
1Perry is right. Obama took money from PACs including a GS PAC. But if we can leave the partisanship aside for a moment, does anyone here think that this is A Good Thing?
Click to expand...

No. Not ever.
 
Re: Super PAC's try end around

1Perry said:
I already noted that it's a waste of time to try and discuss things with you while you dance around.
Click to expand...

So you have no opinion?

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

IOKIYAR
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom