• 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!

Donating for dollars? Many bailed-out banks still contributing to campaign funds

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,256
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
This is reprehensible. Many banks who received bailout money are using some of those funds to give to political campaigns, both Democratic and Republican. This started with the Bush bailout, and continues with the Obama bailout. No matter which side of the aisle you are on, you should be really, really pissed that OUR money (yes, that's right, it's OUR goddamn money) is being given away to corporate welfare programs, and those receive the corporate welfare are kicking back money to those who sponsored this giveaway.

Article is here.
 
Last edited:
Corporations shouldn't be allowed to contribute to political campaigns in the first place. Using taxpayer monies to corrupt our political system is just icing on the cake.
 
Any politician who accepts any of this deserves what's coming to them.
 
I don't like the idea of this, not one bit. Banks should have had the foresight to curtail that spending and politicians to screen the donations out.

But it's not really an outrage unless you think $1500 is enough to buy a congressperson. If you think it's ok for a corporation to donate to political campaigns then it's a relatively normal business expense.

Really, this is more redirected rage about the whole idea of the bailout to begin with, imo.
 
This is reprehensible. Many banks who received bailout money are using some of those funds to give to political campaigns, both Democratic and Republican. This started with the Bush bailout, and continues with the Obama bailout. No matter which side of the aisle you are on, you should be really, really pissed that OUR money (yes, that's right, it's OUR goddamn money) is being given away to corporate welfare programs, and those receive the corporate welfare are kicking back money to those who sponsored this giveaway.

Article is here.

They already do this with applying regulations.

Deregulate one portion of the economy without doing it to the rest and the deregulated part gets a boost at the expense of the still heavier regulated side.

This is just more direct.
 
Aren't these donations from PACs which are funded by individuals? Corporation cannot contribute directly to candidates or through PACs.
 
Corporations shouldn't be allowed to contribute to political campaigns in the first place. Using taxpayer monies to corrupt our political system is just icing on the cake.

horrible analogy. I love icing.


No, but seriously. This is highly unethical, and I want nothing more than what ever candidate is sleazy enough to accept the money to be disqualified
 
Aren't these donations from PACs which are funded by individuals? Corporation cannot contribute directly to candidates or through PACs.

For some reason the OP didn't sound right, but I assumed I was just missing something. This is it. Thank you.
 
For some reason the OP didn't sound right, but I assumed I was just missing something. This is it. Thank you.
I thought I must be missing something also. The OP and some of the other posters were going completely bonkers over it with statements like 'it's OUR goddamn money' and 'Corporations shouldn't be allowed to contribute to political campaigns in the first place'.

A corporation cannot donate to political campaigns and if they set up a PAC, the only thing they can use corporate funds for is to cover expenses. They can only contribute funds to political campaigns that have been collected from individuals and they cannot reimburse those individuals. Our legal and financial people have been absloutely anal about this.

.
 
I thought I must be missing something also. The OP and some of the other posters were going completely bonkers over it with statements like 'it's OUR goddamn money' and 'Corporations shouldn't be allowed to contribute to political campaigns in the first place'.

A corporation cannot donate to political campaigns and if they set up a PAC, the only thing they can use corporate funds for is to cover expenses. They can only contribute funds to political campaigns that have been collected from individuals and they cannot reimburse those individuals. Our legal and financial people have been absloutely anal about this.

.

I don't mind corporations contributing money to campaigns, as long as it is THEIR money, and not MY money.
 
I don't mind corporations contributing money to campaigns, as long as it is THEIR money, and not MY money.
I think TOJ's point was that it wasn't your money that was donated.

I'm not familiar with the operating procedures of corporate PAC's personally and your article doesn't explicitly say bailout money was used for the donations. Perhaps the operating expenses of running a PAC is as offensive/immoral as the actual donations to you?
 
This is reprehensible. Many banks who received bailout money are using some of those funds to give to political campaigns, both Democratic and Republican. This started with the Bush bailout, and continues with the Obama bailout. No matter which side of the aisle you are on, you should be really, really pissed that OUR money (yes, that's right, it's OUR goddamn money) is being given away to corporate welfare programs, and those receive the corporate welfare are kicking back money to those who sponsored this giveaway.

Article is here.



/facepalm



..
 
I don't mind corporations contributing money to campaigns, as long as it is THEIR money, and not MY money.
So you are claiming the money individuals donated out of their own pocket is yours. Do you think everyone that works for a corporation that received Government money should have all their money confiscated?

You sound like President Teleprompter and the dumbasses in congress.

.
 
So you are claiming the money individuals donated out of their own pocket is yours. Do you think everyone that works for a corporation that received Government money should have all their money confiscated?

You sound like President Teleprompter and the dumbasses in congress.

.

They took bailout money. That is MY money. Not THEIRS.
 
I think TOJ's point was that it wasn't your money that was donated.

I'm not familiar with the operating procedures of corporate PAC's personally and your article doesn't explicitly say bailout money was used for the donations. Perhaps the operating expenses of running a PAC is as offensive/immoral as the actual donations to you?
If that is the case, someone needs to find go find themself a blanky. Operating expenses for PACs are trivial, at least in the ones with which I am familar.
 
They took bailout money. That is MY money. Not THEIRS.
The point is, the PAC did not take your money. Its not a hard concept, at least to most people. :roll:
 
The point is, the PAC did not take your money. Its not a hard concept, at least to most people. :roll:

And where did the PAC get its money from? Hmmmmm? You are right. It's not hard to figure out.
 
And where did the PAC get its money from? Hmmmmm? You are right. It's not hard to figure out.
Not from Corporations. They get it from the donations of individual people.

Apparently it is too hard for some people. :roll:


.
 
And where did the PAC get its money from? Hmmmmm? You are right. It's not hard to figure out.

From private citizens.

Should no person working at any auto company ever be allowed to donate to a political cause because some part of their salary was paid with government money?

I'll do you one better - no person who has ever derived any of their income from a government contract can ever donate to any cause - ever.

Sound good?
 
From private citizens.

Should no person working at any auto company ever be allowed to donate to a political cause because some part of their salary was paid with government money?

I'll do you one better - no person who has ever derived any of their income from a government contract can ever donate to any cause - ever.

Sound good?
I bet that would rule out just about everyone, considering the interconnections throughout the economy. Might not be such a bad system. Then only those rich enough to self finance would be competitive. ;)
 
Back
Top Bottom