A political Campaign funding law we need to pass and soon!

independentusa said:

Did I mention anywhere in my OP about content?

Click to expand...

I wasn't referring to any comments about content in the OP re my argument. I was specifically making sure nobody could legitimately claim I was switching the topic from the OP to abortion which so often happens.

SoCal said:

Installing his man ithe WH does not strengthen America, quite the opposite...

Click to expand...

I disagree. I think President Trump has accomplished more good for America that has strengthened America in his first year and a half in office than ANY other President in my very long lifetime now, perhaps in all of history. And he has done so against the most vicious, unfair, savage, hateful, intolerant, militant opposition from the left and others afflicted with the Trump derangement syndrome that I have ever witnessed in that same very long lifetime.

independentusa said:

If you are talking about the CLinton's and Steele, Steele was not a foreign agent. He was working for an American Company and was an ex-agent. If you are going to rule out everey American company that hires non-Americans, it would be pretty hard to do business with anyone.

Click to expand...

Steele isn't an American citizen. That absolutely makes him a foreign agent.

Do you condone campaigns lying about their expenditures?

independentusa said:

I am not in favor of requiring Americans to be named, by why would you be against us knowing which countries are paying to have an influence on our elections? Makes we wonder who you are and where you are from. You do know there is a law against taking money from other governments during an election. How dp we know if campaigns are breaking the law if we don't know where foreign money comes from? And what the hell does asking which foreigners are giving money to campaigns has anything to do with secret ballots.

Click to expand...

Foreign donations are already illegal.

Captain America said:

I would think so.

But these days, depending what "is" is and what is considered "lying," (especially in circles who speak in "alt-truths,") some clarity would be helpful.

Click to expand...

We already know the system is rigged in the favor of candidates the bureaucrats agree with and comes down like a hammer on those they disagree with.

AlbqOwl said:

I disagree. I think President Trump has accomplished more good for America that has strengthened America in his first year and a half in office than ANY other President in my very long lifetime now, perhaps in all of history...

Click to expand...

I agree that he's done more in his first year than many, but bending over backwards (or should I say forwards?) so very far weakens us. Dictators like Putin don't respect suckups...

AlbqOwl said:

...And he has done so against the most vicious, unfair, savage, hateful, intolerant, militant opposition from the left and others afflicted with the Trump derangement syndrome that I have ever witnessed in that same very long lifetime.

Click to expand...

If you know anything about history you know that slavish behavior towards the supreme leader is how dictatorships begin. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I would wager that you and the 30% will not accept any proof whatsoever regarding any criminal conduct uncovered.

If proof is revealed by our FBI, it won't be believed, they know they're 'viciously' out to get him.
If proof is dug up by reporters like during Watergate, you won't believe it, it's just an 'unfair' and 'savage' attack by "the enemy of the people".
If our intelligence services working overseas, exposes secret agreements between Putin and Trump divvying up the world, ignore it. It's just another hateful, intolerant smear by the 'Deep State'.

He quite literally can do NO wrong in your eyes, am I right? Or do you know he's an immoral buffoon like so many close to him have said, but overlook that due to the judges he picks? Seems it might take a charge by the KGB for his cult to believe that Trump is even capable of committing a crime.

Mueller will be making his case soon, get ready to call it a sham...

AlbqOwl said:

I disagree. I think President Trump has accomplished more good for America that has strengthened America in his first year and a half in office than ANY other President in my very long lifetime now, perhaps in all of history. And he has done so against the most vicious, unfair, savage, hateful, intolerant, militant opposition from the left and others afflicted with the Trump derangement syndrome that I have ever witnessed in that same very long lifetime.

Click to expand...

Exactly how has he strengthened our country? He has cut us off from our military allies, which weakens us militarily. He has ripped up all of our trade deals, which makes us economically weaker. Good example is the trade deal just signed between Japan and the EU. Instead of working with out allies to take on China he has made our position weaker by cutting us off from those same allies. He has divided the country into camps so divided that we may never again have a united America. And you say he has strengthened the country? The only thing going for Trump is the good economy, which he inherited from Obama. And you want to blame all of his problems on the press and the terrible liberals. Some are so blind that they can not see. You sound just like a trump cultist.

independentusa said:

Exactly how has he strengthened our country? He has cut us off from our military allies, which weakens us militarily. He has ripped up all of our trade deals, which makes us economically weaker. Good example is the trade deal just signed between Japan and the EU. Instead of working with out allies to take on China he has made our position weaker by cutting us off from those same allies. He has divided the country into camps so divided that we may never again have a united America. And you say he has strengthened the country? The only thing going for Trump is the good economy, which he inherited from Obama. And you want to blame all of his problems on the press and the terrible liberals. Some are so blind that they can not see. You sound just like a trump cultist.

Click to expand...

I believe you believe this, but I just don't see it that way and I will be really surprised if anything you said here actually turns out to be true.
'

AlbqOwl said:

I don't have a problem with this IF strict rules remain in place on how not for profit groups, primarily 501(c)(4) organizations, are allowed to participate in the national discussion. So long as the organization is promoting or opposing a particular issue, say abortion or Second Amendment or border control, or any other broadly controversial subjects, who cares who contributed to it? I should be able to contribute to a private organization without worry that my name, location, and any other affiliations will be plastered all over the front pages the next day. It should be my prerogative to make public who I give contributions to.

BUT. . .the organization should not be able to take jabs at political figures with their educational materials, ads, promotions. It is one thing to say that the Democratic platform promotes unconditional abortion on demand while the Republican platform promotes restrictions on late term abortions, but it is quite another to say that Hillary Clinton supports unconditional abortion on demand or Donald Trump supports restrictions on late term abortions.

NOTE: This is intended as an illustration only and NOT intended to redirect the discussion to abortion!!!

Click to expand...

It should actually be (526(?)) The political nonprofit.

501(c)(4)s are just being used because donations are anonymous.

They get around the "less than 50% rule" by spending 49% then donating the rest to another group that does the same. Rinse and repeat until its virtually all spent on politics.

Frankly, since people incorporate largely to limit their personal liability, I find it disingenuous to cleave to the corporation when it suits them for campaign investments and say "it wasn't ME, it was the corporation" when they screw up.

apdst said:

The problem with thst will be that sooner, or later the people who shell out the money will be saying who can and can't run for office despite what The Constitution says.

Click to expand...

Would you be willing to find an equitable solution?

The other side of that coin will be every swinging dick registering to run for office and wanting their campaign money. There would be 50 people running for president. It would be a waste of time and money.

Click to expand...

So the challenge has already defeated you? I don't accept that.

Privately purchased government does not make a democracy. You want a free democracy as much as I do. Private money is not permitted in government or it is. Ain't no kinda, sorta, yeah but. Private money does not represent the People of the United States.

Giving up because the challenge ahead looks too hard isn't a solution.

What if...? said:

It should actually be (526(?)) The political nonprofit.

501(c)(4)s are just being used because donations are anonymous.

They get around the "less than 50% rule" by spending 49% then donating the rest to another group that does the same. Rinse and repeat until its virtually all spent on politics.

Frankly, since people incorporate largely to limit their personal liability, I find it disingenuous to cleave to the corporation when it suits them for campaign investments and say "it wasn't ME, it was the corporation" when they screw up.

Click to expand...

So how do you see it as a problem. Let's say TiddlyWinks production is of paramount national interest. Group A supports it. Group B opposes it. So long as they address the pros and cons of Tiddywinks production, how do you see the money contributed to 501(c)(4) or 506s???? or whatever not for profits being a problem?

AlbqOwl said:

So how do you see it as a problem. Let's say TiddlyWinks production is of paramount national interest. Group A supports it. Group B opposes it. So long as they address the pros and cons of Tiddywinks production, how do you see the money contributed to 501(c)(4) or 506s???? or whatever not for profits being a problem?

Click to expand...

Anonymity is the issue.

There's already too much astroturf.

And most of it is spent on manipulation, not airing both sides of an issue.

AlbqOwl said:

I believe you believe this, but I just don't see it that way and I will be really surprised if anything you said here actually turns out to be true.
'

Click to expand...

Is anything I said not true?And much of it has already turned out to be true. The stupidity of this man is astounding. Just placing tariffs on not only our biggest competitor, but ll of our friends at thee same time was stupid. Like I said, we could have used all of our friends to go after China from a position of strength, instead we have weakened ourselves while others are making plans together with trade deals without us, Stupdi, stupid, and very stupid.

What if...? said:

Anonymity is the issue.

There's already too much astroturf.

And most of it is spent on manipulation, not airing both sides of an issue.

Click to expand...

But why? WHY is anonymity a problem if the organization is going to do what it does regardless of who contributes to it? Should not the organization be judged on what it DOES instead of who made contributions to it?

independentusa said:

Is anything I said not true?And much of it has already turned out to be true. The stupidity of this man is astounding. Just placing tariffs on not only our biggest competitor, but ll of our friends at thee same time was stupid. Like I said, we could have used all of our friends to go after China from a position of strength, instead we have weakened ourselves while others are making plans together with trade deals without us, Stupdi, stupid, and very stupid.

Click to expand...

I prefer not to argue on the bases of personal prejudices, biases, and hate, but rather on what a person does. I'll vote for the sinner who gets it right in the end every time over the virtuous saint who hasn't a clue on how to get it right.

As for the tariffs, it is too early to tell. We currently are receiving almost 1/4 of all our imports from China who is not at all fair in what products it will allow from the USA. But more importantly, we actually reward companies who move their production divisions to China where those benefit China greatly. Yes, it results in cheaper merchandise for the American consumer but it also contributes to loss of jobs in lost manufacturing/production industries as well as in all the industries who support those manufacturing/production industries. The President is not operating in a vacuum as our booming economy illustrates. The status quo was gradually draining us while building China's (and other's) economy. If this turns that around, then it will be a good thing. If not, then it will be back to the drawing board.

But don't condemn the action until we know what the results will be.

All of which has little or nothing to do with campaign funding which is the topic of this thread. And I honestly can't come p with a way to tie the topic to a discussion of how stupid you think the President is or how you think fairer trade with China is a bad idea. Except we might expect China to work harder to effect election of somebody friendlier to the status quo favorable to China in the next election.

AlbqOwl said:

But why? WHY is anonymity a problem if the organization is going to do what it does regardless of who contributes to it? Should not the organization be judged on what it DOES instead of who made contributions to it?

Click to expand...

Persuasion is the science of manipulation.

So I think it behooves us to know WHO is manipulating us.

If it turns out that its corporation "A" pretending to be something else to garner support for a position, knowing who corporation "A" IS would reveal this.

What if...? said:

Persuasion is the science of manipulation.

So I think it behooves us to know WHO is manipulating us.

If it turns out that its corporation "A" pretending to be something else to garner support for a position, knowing who corporation "A" IS would reveal this.

Click to expand...

It is up to us to choose who manipulates us, if anybody. So long as we require no participation or contribution from anybody else and do not violate their rights, liberty is the right to be, believe, choose, support, behave as we choose even if our choices are unacceptable or even offensive to somebody else. Gerorge Soros, for instance, supports many organizations and institutions that I do not agree with and/or appreciate at all. But that does not presume that I automatically oppose ALL organizations and institutions that Soros supports because I don't. Ditto the Koch Brothers. I approve of many organizations/institutions they support but not all.

Any organization can take sides on any issue. But not-for-profits are not allowed to take sides re political candidates or parties. Those who violate that rule should immediately lose their not-for-profit status.

Again, so long as the organization or institution is transparent in what it DOES, who contributes to it is pretty much a nothingburger.

AlbqOwl said:

It is up to us to choose who manipulates us, if anybody. So long as we require no participation or contribution from anybody else and do not violate their rights, liberty is the right to be, believe, choose, support, behave as we choose even if our choices are unacceptable or even offensive to somebody else. Gerorge Soros, for instance, supports many organizations and institutions that I do not agree with and/or appreciate at all. But that does not presume that I automatically oppose ALL organizations and institutions that Soros supports because I don't. Ditto the Koch Brothers. I approve of many organizations/institutions they support but not all.

Any organization can take sides on any issue. But not-for-profits are not allowed to take sides re political candidates or parties. Those who violate that rule should immediately lose their not-for-profit status.

Again, so long as the organization or institution is transparent in what it DOES, who contributes to it is pretty much a nothingburger.

Click to expand...

Even if it is a hostile foreign government?

Anonymity makes that possible.

What if...? said:

Even if it is a hostile foreign government?

Anonymity makes that possible.

Click to expand...

Hostile governments contributing is a risk, yes. But again, if the organization is going to do what it does regardless of who contributes to it, what difference does it make so long as what it does is within the letter, spirit and intent of the law? The idea is to make easily understood, clear, and precise laws about what not-for-profit groups are allowed to do when it comes to political campaigns. If we watch and judge the legality of what they do, we remove the incentive for political money laundering that is surely going to occur if we require contributors to private groups to be on the record.

I have no problem with making it a requirement that ANY group that places ANY kind of ad or promotion has to clearly identify itself as the producer of the ad or promotion and to make public who the officers, CEO's, and board members of those groups are.