• 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

apdst said:
Does that mean that you don't want unions to contribute to political campaigns, either?
Click to expand...

1) We all think that every org, including unions, should be required to disclose their political contributions

2) Most agree that there should be limits on how much money that every org, including unions, can contribute.

Your attempt at making this a partisan issue are FAIL
 
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...

C-I-T-I-Z-E-N-S!!! Not corporations or PACS!!!
 
Re: Super PAC's try end around

AdamT said:
Yes, that's what it means. No unions, no corporations, no individuals. 100% public financing of elections.
Click to expand...

I said campaigns. Not elections.

But, if you meant, "campaigns", then...oh hell no! Not with my money they ain't. **** that! If they want to run for office, they can come up with the jack on their own.
 
Re: Super PAC's try end around

AdamT said:
Yes, that's what it means. No unions, no corporations, no individuals. 100% public financing of elections.
Click to expand...

The bolded part makes me squirm some. We simply can't continue to keep adding spending at the government level, also excluding individuals from contributing does indeed come pretty close to squelching freedom of speech. I am in agreement of Unions, corporations and even PAC's.
 
Re: Super PAC's try end around

apdst said:
I said campaigns. Not elections.

But, if you meant, "campaigns", then...oh hell no! Not with my money they ain't. **** that! If they want to run for office, they can come up with the jack on their own.
Click to expand...

Yes, I mean campaigns.

If you think you're saving money by allowing individuals and corporations to bribe our elected officials you are living on Mars.
 
Re: Super PAC's try end around

sangha said:
1) We all think that every org, including unions, should be required to disclose their political contributions

2) Most agree that there should be limits on how much money that every org, including unions, can contribute.

Your attempt at making this a partisan issue are FAIL
Click to expand...

How is it a partisan issue?

We constantly hear the Libbos crying about the supreme court decision that allows corporations to donate to political campaigns, but we never hear them cry about how that same decision also allows unions to do the same. That's the real partisan issue, because we all know that unions are going to funnel millions to Democrats, long before Republicans; not to mention the public employees unions, who are now able to launder billions of tax dollars and turn them into campaign donations But, not a word about that from the Libbos.
 
Re: Super PAC's try end around

AdamT said:
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?
Click to expand...

Are you going to ignore this question, 1Perry?
 
Re: Super PAC's try end around

AdamT said:
Yes, I mean campaigns.

If you think you're saving money by allowing individuals and corporations to bribe our elected officials you are living on Mars.
Click to expand...

It's their money, not mine.
 
Re: Super PAC's try end around

apdst said:
How is it a partisan issue?

We constantly hear the Libbos crying about the supreme court decision that allows corporations to donate to political campaigns, but we never hear them cry about how that same decision also allows unions to do the same. That's the real partisan issue, because we all know that unions are going to funnel millions to Democrats, long before Republicans; not to mention the public employees unions, who are now able to launder billions of tax dollars and turn them into campaign donations But, not a word about that from the Libbos.
Click to expand...

No, you don't hear that on Fox News or Rush, but in fact liberals do object to unlimited, anonymous contributions, period.
 
Re: Super PAC's try end around

apdst said:
It's their money, not mine.
Click to expand...

It's your tax dollars they're buying with their contributions. And they're buying them on the cheap.
 
Re: Super PAC's try end around

apdst said:
Or, unions...yes?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
Re: Super PAC's try end around

AdamT said:
It's your tax dollars they're buying with their contributions.
Click to expand...

march 24: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/business/economy/25tax.html?pagewanted=all

The head of GE's tax team, Mr. Samuels, met with Representative Charles B. Rangel, then chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, which would decide the fate of the tax break. As he sat with the committee’s staff members outside Mr. Rangel’s office, Mr. Samuels dropped to his knee and pretended to beg for the provision to be extended — a flourish made in jest, he said through a spokeswoman.

That day, Mr. Rangel reversed his opposition to the tax break, according to other Democrats on the committee.

The following month, Mr. Rangel and Mr. Immelt stood together at St. Nicholas Park in Harlem as G.E. announced that its foundation had awarded $30 million to New York City schools, including $11 million to benefit various schools in Mr. Rangel’s district. Joel I. Klein, then the schools chancellor, and Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, who presided, said it was the largest gift ever to the city’s schools.
Click to expand...

jan 21: Obama Picks Jeffrey Immelt, GE CEO, To Run New Jobs-Focused Panel As GE Sends Jobs Overseas, Pays Little In Taxes
 
Re: Super PAC's try end around

AdamT said:
Yes, that's what it means. No unions, no corporations, no individuals. 100% public financing of elections.
Click to expand...

Including free airtime, as a requirement of FCC licensing. Awarded by lot to the top 3 candidates. Issue ads should be forbidden to use deceptive names, disclosing which GROUP is advocating the position. Employer groups against unions can't call themselves "Workers for a Better America" for instance.
 
Re: Super PAC's try end around

apdst said:
I said campaigns. Not elections.

But, if you meant, "campaigns", then...oh hell no! Not with my money they ain't. **** that! If they want to run for office, they can come up with the jack on their own.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Re: Super PAC's try end around

AdamT said:
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?
Click to expand...

I imagine people face off all the time in courts where one has contributed to the judges campaign. I believe that the vast majority will do the correct thing and in the rare case they don't, we have an appeal process.

You act like I like that millions upon millions go into campaigns. I do not. I don't like many things our rights allow us to do, but as I said, it's better than the alternative.
 
Re: Super PAC's try end around

Polotick said:
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.
Click to expand...

I see where you use this line of reasoning further on so I'll only address it here. A union, corporation, or any group of people is only that. A group of people aligned with similiar beliefs.
 
Re: Super PAC's try end around

1Perry said:
I imagine people face off all the time in courts where one has contributed to the judges campaign. I believe that the vast majority will do the correct thing and in the rare case they don't, we have an appeal process.

You act like I like that millions upon millions go into campaigns. I do not. I don't like many things our rights allow us to do, but as I said, it's better than the alternative.
Click to expand...

You didn't answer the question. Would it bother you if the judge hearing your case had recently received a $1 million donation from the guy suing you?
 
Re: Super PAC's try end around

Objective Voice said:
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.
Click to expand...

I've discussed both sides. Just showing that it matters none what side they are promoting. You are looking at is from the view that it's wrong, I'm not. I'm saying that Soros is doing absolutely nothing wrong.

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.
Click to expand...

I've answered this MANY times. You are discussing two different things. If Obama, Romney or any candidate recieves a donation and they refuse to disclose where it came from, that would be illegal and actions should be taken.

Just so we can start making tally's, how many more times will I have to answer this before it's not asked again?
 
Re: Super PAC's try end around

Objective Voice said:
C-I-T-I-Z-E-N-S!!! Not corporations or PACS!!!
Click to expand...

They are nothing more than a group of citizens aligned with similiar beliefs.
 
Re: Super PAC's try end around

AdamT said:
Are you going to ignore this question, 1Perry?
Click to expand...

You'll note I address it. Sorry, for stepping away for awhile.
 
Re: Super PAC's try end around

apdst said:
I said campaigns. Not elections.

But, if you meant, "campaigns", then...oh hell no! Not with my money they ain't. **** that! If they want to run for office, they can come up with the jack on their own.
Click to expand...

Elections are publically funded. The costs of the machines, the rent for the polling places, etc are funded with tax dollars.
 
Re: Super PAC's try end around

1Perry said:
They are nothing more than a group of citizens aligned with similiar beliefs.
Click to expand...

I strongly disagree here. Many people can work for a corporation for a paycheck while despising its politics or policies. We sometimes just do what we have to do.

When I worked for J-M they had a PAC, and all but told us how much to "donate" and how to vote "for the good of the company and to keep our jobs". Corporations are very different from, say, a grassroots group of like minded people voicing support for a person or an ideal.

Unions are compromised of different people with differing opinions. Yet, once their money is in a PAC their individual voice may be ignored by the PAC in favor of a differing one.

The attempt to humanize corporations, PAC's and Unions to the point of having constitutional rights is ill advised and leads to a very dangerous place and I will have no part in it.
 
Re: Super PAC's try end around

AdamT said:
You didn't answer the question. Would it bother you if the judge hearing your case had recently received a $1 million donation from the guy suing you?
Click to expand...

No because there are laws and regulations in place to address this. If I feel he erred in judgement there is an appeal process. A campaign donation really is no different than a political appointment. I may be suing for something that is political in nature and I know that the sitting judge was appointed by someone against my arguement, I have to trust he will rule based upon the law.

Again though, your arguement seems to be skewed to the idea what I like that people can give this kind of money. That's not the case. I simply dislike more the government deciding who can participate and who can't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom