E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSIn a mostly symbolic vote that split along party lines, the Senate on Monday night blocked consideration of a Democratic-sponsored bill to force disclosure of contributions to tax-exempt groups, corporations and unions which engage in political spending.
The bill fell nine votes short of the 60 it needed to move ahead to debate and final passage.
Donors to tax-exempt 501c4 and 501c6 groups aren’t required to be identified publicly; this cloak of secrecy has encouraged some contributors who might fear publicity to invest heavily in trying to influence voters through TV ads.
The bill, sponsored by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D- R.I., would require any donor who gave $10,000 or more to a 501c4 group that spent money on political advertising to be identified and disclosed.
As the President went after Romney's tax policies, Republican presumptive presidential nominee Mitt Romney fired back. NBC's Peter Alexander reports.
It would not have taken effect until after the 2012 election. Sen. Jeff Merkley, D - Ore., a co-sponsor of the bill said in an interview right before the vote, “We did that deliberately to take this campaign season out of it. We tried to take every objection we heard and strip this down to pure disclosure: any donation over $10,000, you disclose, straight and simple, no matter where it comes from.”
He said, “If it passed, even though it wouldn’t take effect until January, people would say, ‘well at least the principle is broadly supported.' If it doesn’t pass, it may mobilize folks on the issue and say, ‘well let’s make it a campaign issue, let's see where people stand.’”
But Sen. John McCain, R- Ariz., once the leading Republican on campaign disclosure and donor limits, said in a statement he opposed the bill because it was designed to give an advantage to the Democrats and their labor union allies.
“By conveniently setting high thresholds for reporting requirements, the DISCLOSE Act forces some entities to inform the public about the origins of their financial support, while allowing others – most notably those affiliated with organized labor – to fly below the Federal Election Commission’s regulatory radar,” he said in a statement.
According to an analysis by the Center for Responsive Politics and the Center for Public Integrity, 501c4s spent nearly $95 million in the 2010 campaign.
Monday night’s vote was formal confirmation that Congress won’t rein in donors to such tax-exempt groups, at least until 2013 and perhaps not even then. Democratic leaders must now hope that Democratic donors step up and try to match Republicans in their giving to Democratic tax-exempt groups.
The 501c4 and 501c6 groups were given new freedom to run ads by the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision in 2010 and by FEC rulings.
Lisa Rosenberg, a government affairs consultant with the Sunlight Foundation, a group that supports fuller disclosure of campaign spending, said, “It may take until after the election to see the real damage that was done and to see the corrupting influence of this money on the political process -- and perhaps that will reinvigorate the debate for the next time.”
Leave a Comment:
So, it wouldn't go into effect until AFTER the elections? How convenient. What a sham.
That's the only way it stood any chance of passage but the repubs couldn't even accept that. They filibustered again. not the way our democracy is supposed to work. We no longer have rule of the majority, just the tyranny of the minority.
two points of interest here...
1. Democratic-sponsored bill. Not sponsored by Republicans.
2. Who's asking for disclosure and who's fighting it?
Hint: #1 and #2 are connected.
Here's an even better idea. Do away with TV ads and pretty much all campaigning.
Rorschach-558483 - The Democrats don't put forward bills like this because they want them passed. They put them simply to have some more campaign rhetoric.
More big government intrustion in to our privacy. It's nobodies business who donates what, the information would simply be used against the donors themselves instead of focusing on the issues of the campaign itself. Democrats sure love distractions.
NoScope, if the Koch Brothers and their chronies are going to buy an election then the public has a right to know who is buying it. Citizen's United gives even more power to those with the money. It is the public's business to know who donates money to public elections. If they are so fired up about a candidate or a political party, then they should put their mouths where their money is and proclaim it!
Congress has deep pockets, too, as-well-as political scheming!! They don't want us to know what's going on. When the ads do come up on TV, just ignore them or find something to do for the brief period. The vast majority of the ads are misinformation anyways. Get smart and don't let money buy your vote next fall. Stop listening to the lies, and do your own research. Their money should not own us, or our votes!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Was it 9 republican votes, because their record on disclosure (i.e. Romney) isn't so good right now.
I was a Union member...Unions should not be allowed to spend your dues money on political contributions period...if they want to make political contributions they can request that each member voluntarily contribute to their PAC. Their attitude of...just give your money and trust us...doesn't fly with me...sorry...but I don't!
Let's see, we now hear that Sheldon Adelson is ready willing and able to spend at least 100 million dollars(actually he went on to say the amount could be unlimited) of his own money to fund the Republican candidate for president. He is under investigation by the Justice Dept over his casino dealings in Macao at the moment. I wonder if he is hoping that if Romney is elected his justice dept will drop the investigation. Actually he will probably demand it be dropped if Romney wins and you can count on Romney doing exactly what he is told.
Now why the hell would anyone want to block this with a law???? What's to hide???
ramona - what happened to all that transparency that Obama promised when he was running for office in 2008? He reneged on that promise almost as soon as he was inaugurated. People in glass houses...
Obama isn't the one who wrote or is touting this bill. Senate Democrats are. You statement is asinine.
Well of course the senate blocked this. In a 2 party system dominated by corporate lobbyists, that operates in Washington DC, the "pass the buck" system must endure.
In fact many green politicians have complained over the years about this, but single handed had no effect on a system motivated by greed and payoffs. It must have came at a great relief when Senator Paul Wellstone died accidently(was it an accident ?) in a plane crash. To quote George Bush Sr: "Who's this little s***"
It's incredible to read complaints about President Obama not magically changing the system over night. I suppose he has a magic wand too ?
Of course the Republicans don't want us to know what Nazi and Communist groups they receive their contributions from!!!
Things are so partisan that nothing can get done. Even my former hero McCain has sadly gone down this road. Guess I should have known.
But "Kenn the Dem" sure likes the benefits he receives form being in a union. Greedy little bast%#$ Kenn.
Republicans don't want Americans to know Mitt Romney and other Republicans are being bought and paid for by foreign money.
There's a word for that. It's called TREASON.
You vote Republican, you vote Anti-American.
FU GOP
Just another turn of the page in the continuing story of The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire version 2.0, with the emphasis on the fall!
All human civilizations are doomed to crumble and decay into dust. Thanks to technology and the speed of communications, the slide just happens at a faster pace nowadays when compared to ancient Rome.
Political theater at its finest. Funny how liberals here actually believe the Democrats wanted this bill to pass. Harry Reid put this bill forward because he knew it wasn't going to pass, as there are plenty of donors for Democrats that want to remain anonymous. But it makes for great fodder for a day or two providing some cover for our failing president, but in the end just another example of how totally inept Washington has become with Obama in the White House. Obama did change the way Washington works, he made it completely partisan.
Harry is VERY effective at wasting the Senates' time with useless grand standing Bull Caca Bills...Hey Harry!!! How about doing your job and bringing some of those Jobs Bills from the Republican House to the floor, you useless ignorant DimoCrap POS????
Skup et al
They wanted the bill passed. However, they probably did know they wouldn't make it. Imagine, filibustering a bill that would increase transparency, then criticizing Obama for not being transparent. What a crock! I couldn't help giggling when McConnell is chastizing the dems for trying to pass a bill that they knew wouldn't go, just days after the 33rd vote to kill Obamacare, which they knew for sure wouldn't pass. The hypocracy is astounding!
Kenn the Dem... you mean like they do now. Union dues are restricted to union operations, they can only contribute funds, that are earmarked by members, as political contributions. You are drinking too much of that Faux News kool-aid.
The GOP is full of crooks who want to hide their affiliation. What are they hiding? Sponsorship from the KKK? I mean should it matter to them IF THEY WERE BEING ETHICAL
Full disclosure=good thing. Blocking full disclosure=bad thing. We are as sick as we are secret. I do not care about the timing. I do not care about the motive. None of that matters or is of interest. Full disclosure is in We the People's best interest & once again the GOP has voted AGAINST We the People's best interest........
Obama/Biden 2012
pdaohio.org
I have news for you, pdaohio, the middle class was created by the union movement - if you enjoy benefits, vacation, a forty-hour work week and weekends off - thank the union. It gets really old to hear how 'bad' the unions are - when most of us have benefited greatly by the actions of working class people pulling together to demand safe working environments, decent wages, and on and on and on. I suggest you do a little research before you make such a clueless statement. And don't give me the 'they once had a place' line - do you honestly think that making our lives better is at the basis of a corporations quest for bigger and bigger profits?
Bill - do you or any of you liberal posters even know what "filibuster means" you guys use it in the wrong way nearly every time there's a vote? And by the way, we are not a democracy. You might want to get the definitions of the words before you blast off.
Unions gave us the benefits we have. Are you saying you're jealous because you can't bargain with YOUR employer? What a self-inflicted drag that must be! Maybe if right-wingers hadn't spent the last 30 years demonizing and destroying unions, you too would have a decent, middle-class living from your job.
Instead, spiteful conservatives have spent the last three decades deliberately throwing away all of the advantages the middle class had, and now we're barely more than serfs to our corporate-feudal lords. But hey, at least you don't have those dirty unions around anymore! Good job!
I just want to know how "political donations" especially in large scale, could be called anything other than bribery? There should be major limits and disclosure involved no matter what. There should also be disqualification measures in place for candidates that are found to be accepting bribes.. eh I mean political donations that are outside of the guidelines. There needs to be a non-partisan group, whose job is to monitor and investigate every last penny that a political candidate accepts, and if they find someone is being a bad boy, they should have the power to yank that politician from running and fine them soundly.
People should have the right to contribute to causes they believe in without everyone knowing about it. The supreme court ruled in Rowe V Wade that we have a constitutional right to privacy, didn't they? That right to privacy is the hinge pin upon which abortion is now legal. Well if we do in fact have a right to privacy guaranteed by the constitution, then shouldn't that right extend into other areas besides just the abortion debate? Of course it should. So people want to know who the contributors are? Tough. The constitution gives these people the right to contribute without people knowing who they are. Want to change it? Change the constitution.
dal says, "The GOP is full of crooks who want to hide their affiliation. What are they hiding? Sponsorship from the KKK?"
You mean like the former Exalted Cyclops Democratic Senator Robert Byrd who was far and away the all time leading pork barrel spender. Let us not forget the rich history of the Democrats beloved senator, as they continually rewrite the definition of hypocrisy.
Senator Byrd wrote "I shall never fight in the armed forces with a Negro by my side ... Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds." Robert C. Byrd, in a letter to Sen. Theodore Bilbo (D-MS), 1944
Oh well. We had a democracy for a while. It was kind of nice, but I think we can grow to love this corporate dominated oligarchy where we poor (we used to be middle class) can bask in the glory of the wealthy few. We will enjoy seeing our dirty, rag clothed bodies in the waxed finish of the limousine the wealthy corporate executive drives past or decrepit hovels.
NO! Full Disclosure! Spending limits! NO SPENDING BY CORPORATIONS AT ALL! Lets put this genie back in the bottle while we still can. IF WE STILL CAN! How about a CORPORATE DEATH PENALTY while we are at it. Get caught giving a bribe (foreign or domestic), break regulations a few times, kill a worker, and YOUR CORPORATION IS DEAD! DEAD! All the investors lose every cent, the corporate officers are banned from EVER managing ANYTHING EVER again and the corporate charter is DRAWN AND QUARTERED.
An existential crisis focuses the mind. The death penalty does not work for human beings who commit crimes of passion but in the corporate world where every choice is made with a risk/benefit analysis, it would work WONDERS!
The GOP filibustered this one to its death. You need 60 votes to override a filibuster. Since the Dems only have 51 seats, do the math (although 2 seats are independents).
The problem the democrats have right now is that businesses are contributing more than the unions are. The democrats want a world where businesses can't influence the elections with their money but the unions can.
Thisbusymonster
Yeah, tell all of those enjoying a nice middle class existence in Tennessee or any one of the new automotive producing states that unions are the way.
Here's the bottom line with unions. You want to form a private union? Do it, and have a rep get the guy who was stoned two or three times on the job his job back, negotiate (hold the business hostage) as much as you want because in the end if the business owner goes with it, it's their decision and it's a private union/business. Cool, whatever.
The problem is that if my dream is to be a cnc operator for a particular company, I can't even consider it unless I'm willing to join the union. Okay maybe I could get past that because it does have a (false) sense of security. But I am forced to pay dues and a portion (large dollar amounts) of those dues are used to fund the liberal/Tyrannical agenda. I'm conservative, so now you're forcing someone in a "free" nation with the freedom of employment opportunity to contribute to a set political party against their beliefs. This is mob mentality and the purpose for a union was justified early on. Now it's just a political power house that is just as bad and money abusive as "wall street". To top it off it forces "free" Americans to financially support a party they may not believe in. And this is just fine and dandy with ya huh?
People who honestly don't see a problem with that are quite frankly f-ed in the head. It can't be simpler than that and everything about that model of politics is WRONG. Don't even get me going on public unions.
Republicans want a world where elections can be bought by the rich....plain and simple.
I hope Americans are outraged....I know I am.
it appears thatt he republicans want to make sure their high dollar support is protected at all cost. JUst how much more corrupt can our elected get ? When will voters take back this country..and make politicans do what they were elected to do..and that was not to protect just the wealthy.
Harry Reid put forth a bill he knew would fail. He knew it would fail because it was not by any stretch of the imagination full disclosure. The Democrats were attempting to exempt labor unions from disclosure. Once again we have a congress as partisan as it has ever been, that is unwilling to do the right thing because those in control, notably the Democrats in this case were only interested in a bill that still gave them an advantage. Which makes this whole exercise nothing more then political theater. Until liberals start holding their own party accountable, why should the other side act any differently?
Full discloser of donors will lead to gestapo-like tactics against the donors. Hitler did this to eliminate opposition in Germany.
You already have the Far-Right target pro-choice and proponents of Gay Rights sponosrs. The left targets Pro-life and "Anti-Gay rights" sponsors. Targeting IS bullying.
Donating is a form of free speech and should be protected for your sake and mine.
Eric - no they don't
Ivan - no they don't
DB - Exactly, I had a phone call asking me to not support a handful of businesses because they advertised with Rush. I told the guy I was going to make sure I permanently shopped those places. Not becuase of Rush but because of what his organization had just tried to do to me. It's bull-shi% but it's fun to see the liberals cry.
John McCain wants full disclosure. Election reform and caps on political contributions. Hee,hee, the old bastard is as big a liar as Romney, and totes as big a sack of bullsh^t.
Democrats want a world where they get money from the unions and where they can buy votes based on giving people taxpayer money. It's all about how to keep power and the democrats don't care anything about fairness... They want a playing field where their money can come in but the republican money can't.
P.Obama is just ticked off because part of his legacy will be, the first
incumbent President out-fundraised by his opponent...
He doesn't like a level playing field up against the $4.4 BILLION the Unions
donated on and off the books since 2006 for the Democrats.....and the Unions are
having their own Shadow Convention in Philadelphia instead going to the DNC
Convention in North Carolina....
"From hot dogs to slick ads: Unions spent $4.4 billion on politics in past six
years"
"A Wall Street Journal analysis of political spending unveiled Tuesday found
that organized labor groups dropped a combined $4.4 billion on political
activities between 2006 and 2011, about three times more than previously
estimated."
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/hot-dogs-slick-ads-unions-spent-44-billion/story?id=16747206
Democrats also had Millions "donated" with untraceable pre-paid Debit
Cards....under $250 a pop....anyone wanting to donate more than the allowable
maximum....just bought a bunch of those cards...go to the Obama Campaign
website.....type in card number, type in $$ amount, Click
DONATE....Shhhhhh.....I will admit they are clever and innovative....
Lets see, libs get pissed off because people are saying ID should be produced to be able to vote. Libs say it's a way to corrupt the voting process. Now they say because of donations to groups that advertise the "republicans" will buy the election. But black panthers (candy azzes that they are) stand in militant garb in front of voting booths but not a word from these posters on the vine. Millions and millions of dollars spent on barack propaganda by a multitude of huge donors but the Tyrannical's are silent on any of that. So I think the bottom line is; Liberals are hypocrites. That sums it up...with examples...not just making an uniformed statement...ahem, Eric, Ivan.
Hmmm, seems to me they are setting themselves up and giving some preliminary excuses as to why barack is going to lose. When he does it will be becuase of a corrupt voting process huh? Okay, whatever, as long as he loses.
But the real issue here is that I've never seen a barack hussein obama ad have you? I've never seen an ad by, what's that groups name? Yeah, moveon.org? Yeah, I've never seen anything produced by them and I'm sure no one else has either. Should we really start listing the names of all the liberal groups that ad campaign for barack? Again, DB nailed it and libs are just hypocritically blind.
All barack hussein has to do is show and prove that the things he's done and that his Marxist philosophy is working for this country. He's had 3 1/2 years and he just needs to show the unemployment is down , the jobs reports are betting, consumer confidence is up, consumer spending is up, layoffs are down, welfare recipients are down, health care costs are down, energy prices are down and the cost of living is down.
Simple, it's what he said he would do, if he would just place a hundred ads proving those things he'd have it made. But he can't becuase he's a lying hunk of Marxist garbage. His record and his egotistical statements speak for themselves. A one term proposition is what he will get, libs better get used to the idea or their will be a whole bunch of them jumping off buildings after the election.
I cant believe what I am reading today. That there are actual people on here today trying to defend the Republican party in telling the general public that we dont need to know who is funding these tax exempt organizations. Citizens United was introduced to even the amount of money both parties are getting because the Republican party cannot compete with democrats when it comes to mobilizing and inspiring their constituents with actual policy and inspiration. Instead, they fear monger, divide us, get in to our bedrooms and bodies, and spread misinformation in the name of religion and corporate profits. What a joke of a party. If Dems didn't really want this passed then why hold a vote? This should be a common sense issue. Do we really want foreign govt and entities having a say in our elections? Do you know how easy it is to funnel money into the US? If you don't check out the article today on how easily HSBC and other are doing it!
Yes they do.
If I donate through my union I must sign my name to the form. ( you know, disclosure ! )
These billionaires don't have to sign anything (you know, nondisclosure !!!) and they could be from anywhere in the world !!
I believe it was the Obama campaign who had a huge amount of money come in from out of the country (which is all illegal, by the way)..... Wow, lets call MSNBC (oops, new name... Forgot)... They may have committed a felony! :o)
The only time in the past 12 years that the dumbocrats mobilized and inspired their constituents is when they put a con-artist younger non-experienced black guy into the candidacy. He was young and talked of marxist ideas that young people are brainwashed into thinking are good at a young age. So that had support. The fact that he is (1/2) black brought together the "we're going to be part of something huge and historical" crowd so that energized the base whether you want to believe it or not. Then to top it off he spewed lie after lie after lie about how he would change America for the better mainly by doing things that should be done. Like no earmarks, no lobbyists, transparency, putting bills on line for all to see. You know, the things EVERYONE would agree are good. Then he went the complete opposite direction once he was in...therefore, a con-man.
Your theory's are flawed at best and your surface knowledge of the subject needs improving. Foreign governments? Do you have any clue of how many fundraisers are taking place on foreign soil for barrack hussein? No I'm sure you don't. If the libs could out-fund the republicans on this matter there wouldn't be a matter.
Here's the whole issue in a nutshell. If people educated themselves on the constitution and who a candidate is, what he is, and what he stands for none of this should matter. No one is paying for votes, no one is "buying" the election but you guys love using those terms. How exactly is anyone"buying" the election? Where the Fuc% is my check? I don't give a rip what ad's are produced from now until the election, I've done my homework, I know who and what barack hussein is. I don't agree with his Marxist one world government philosophies and it doesn't matter what a commercial says. I'll vote for damn near anyone except that un-American piece of garbage. Likewise you and those like you will most certainly vote for the un-American piece of garbage you believe in and there's nothing I'm going to say or an advertisement is going to say that will change your mind. So what the hell are you guys crying about? Never mind, I know, you're crying because libs like starting a game and when they get their azzes handed to them by someone who's better at it than they are they cry.
Anyone with half a brain should be able to explain exactly who a candidate is and why they are voting for that candidate. The fact that so many people can't and are blind little sheep to the media machine is why we have the president we do. The very tactics you're crying about are what helped get the fool into office in the first place. I can't believe the number of liberals who actually defend barack hussein without being able to explain truthful reasons why. If the republican party is the joke, the liberal/Tyrannicals are the entire clown show.
In 2000 you guys cried foul in Florida even though Gore didn't even win his own state which would have won the election for him. 2004 you cried foul about "swift boating" and "flip flopping" even though it was Kerry's own servicemen that hung him out to dry. Now you're crying about "buying an election". There seems to be a pattern here. I guess if a liberal wins everythings cool and legit, but if a conservative wins there has to be foul play. Yeah, that sounds like the liberal mentality.
If you think the election can be bought that easy tell the liberal elite jack-asses to dig deeper, oh yeah, the funds aren't there like they were the first time for barack hussein, because the "hope" has faded due to his ineptness. In the recent words of Rham Emanual or Stephanie Cutter....Stop F-ing whining, okay I added one word for effect.
I have no problem when Americans contribute to campaigns, that inclues the Koch bros. I do have a problem with non-Americans contribute to campaigns like George Soros. http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2012/05/08/george_soros_hes_all_in_for_obama_in_2012
Rightwing, if the money doesn't affect elections, then why do people give it? And why are candidates so desperate to have it?
You are right that it should not be the case, but money does change votes, and you know it.
"But black panthers (candy azzes that they are) stand in militant garb in front of voting booths"
A couple of "scary black guys" hung around one voting location, four years ago, and you are still talkling about it. Yes, it was wrong, but get over it.
Conflict of interest and obstruction. Any group and or Party and or affiliation of said group or Party (Citizens United) who refuses to divulge disclosure should be immediately classified as ineligible to run for any government position at any level of official capacity period! We The People have every right to know what they even think they are doing in Our Name! Lets water-board em!
Kevin T does that includes Shedon Adelson who made billions and billions in China and will give Your GOP friends Billions and Billions to persuade America so the GOP can win the white house?
PBS and propublica.org did a joint investigate and found Adelson bribed a foreign government which is illegal in the United States See FCPA
http://www.propublica.org/article/inside-the-investigation-of-leading-republican-money-man-sheldon-adelson
How much would you pay a lawyer in a foreign land - Can you repeat fast three times $4,316.04 an hour. See invoice: http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/395655/invoice-from-leonel-alberto-alves-aug-18-2009.pdf
Vince - I don't recall your concern when Soros buys elections all over the US. Why are you only concerned with the Koch brothers? Oh right, they aren't flaming liberals.
There was only one highly publicized incident. Very uinlikely that it was the ONLY incident, though.
Every generation has to learn again. Instead of corporate towns, where laborers were paid in chit and could only use chit to purchase goods at the corporate stores. We now face corporations that are trying to take create a smaller weaker government, so they can turn all of America into a corporate nation and turn us all into wage slaves. By voting against our own interests we have created such a weak government that greed and corruption run rampant. Enough of the "smaller government" dribble. Enough of the tax break and spend republicans. America is on the wrong track - and Mitt is the perfect example of the vulture capitalism that is the wrong track.
You Liberals do realize that you control the Senate, RIGHT?
All you complaing and talking about how "The Republicans Filibustered" this one....is BOOLSH!
You had Democrats who chose to vote with the Republicans on this one.
If the VOTE would have been exactly on PARTY LINES, then it would have passed!!!!!
KEEP DRINKING YOUR KOOL AID!!!!!!
The Republicans as always filibustered this...it's not bs it's the truth.
Fool's Gold...aka....Ouch, My Balls and your other 15 identities.
This has been a progression since Reagan. The best government corporations can buy.
A country of the people for the people my ass.
Oh NO !!!!
The DEMOCRAT controlled SENATE, led by the head honcho of blocking legislation....Mr. Reid, does it again......VOTING DOWN LEGISLATION. Wait a minute.....at least THIS LEGISLATION made it to the floor for voting.
Uh.....now who is the PARTY OF NO again ?
Eyes roll at the Liberals.
pdaohio.org, you're suspended for a day for violating #1 of the Code of Honor.
...
Ouch, My Balls!!!! banned, rereg of multiple accounter Absolute.Idiocracy.
...
Eric-913730, stop doing this. If you think someone's a multiple accounter or reregistered banned user, report it here. You're suspended for a day for violating #5 of the Code of Honor.
1) You have no idea why the Roman Empire fell, its obvious
2) We Romans are still here, so is Rome, and so is our 1.1 billion strong Church from the Western Empire, and the 600 Million strong Church of the Eastern Empire.
3) The town my family is from, Matera, dates back 9000 years and was the first town to push the Nazis out despite our Empire "falling" 1500 years earlier. That 500 year Empire was just a fraction in Italys history
Apparently you missed the part about the fall of Rome being a government falling, not a people. Italy sees governments come and go all the time, 60 times since WWII, and yet here we are! Venice "fell" Sicily "fell" more times than any government in history, yet we are all still here!
Caio!
BTW, This is EXACTLY how the founders wanted it, a slow moving deliberate government that changes things SLOWLY.
Read the Federalist Papers.
Nice oversimplification. I don't agree with your rather insulting assessment given in the first half of your paragraph, but hey, it's a free country and you're entitled to your views. The latter half of your paragraph basically described just about every elected president since 1800. Historically, presidents almost always overpromise and under-deliver. It doesn't necessarily make them con-men, just hu-man.
Something tells me you weren't, but I hope you were looking in a mirror when you wrote that because it likely applies to us all, including me and you.
I'm sure you don't have a clue how much money the Saudis and other foreign powers have kicked into Republican coffers, notably the Bushes', but that's not the point either. It's got nothing to do with liberals out-funding conservatives, and everything to do with equality. Your tone suggests that if that hypothetical scenario were true and liberals really could out-fund conservatives, you'd be screaming about the injustice of it all, so spare me your hypocrisy. The last time I checked, the American ideal that "all men are created equal" didn't say squat about money, and it shouldn't have to. Karl Rove's and George Soros' megabucks should not make them better or more important men than you or me in the electoral process, but the Citizens United ruling says otherwise. If you don't see the contradiction that by favoring this new status quo you are lauding your own oppression, I don't know what to say to you other than I pity your ignorance.
Seldom have truer words been spoken. You're absolutely right about this.
And here's where your reasoning fails you. Just because the money isn't translating directly into votes a la "Hey, I'll give ya ten bucks (or a five-dollar footlong) if you support candidate X," or the fact that you're personally intelligent enough to sift through all the misinformation doesn't mean that the massive influx of dollars to the electoral process doesn't have an influence. Imagine the average American, and then consider the fact that half the nation is basically less intelligent than that. That should clarify for you at least the merest inkling of the tremendous influence all this advertising and the money behind it wields.
And here is where you demonstrate that you are, in fact, just as easily influenced and "brainwashed" as the portion of the electorate at which you're sneering down your nose. Anyone capable of forming their own reasonable opinions would have the intelligence and decency not to stoop to using the President's middle name like it's some kind of black mark. You know who does that? The bought-and-paid-for ideological hacks at Fox News. Only a political ideologue sees his opponents as "un-American" or somehow less than human. You hurl vitriol like it's going out of style, and you're accusing the liberals of crying? I got news for ya, Mr. Pot, the Kettle says you're black, too. All you've proven here is that Murdoch, Rove, and whoever else you care to name on the right have effectively used their money to put their ideological hand up your posterior and now have you parroting not only their viewpoints, but even using their terminology. Wake up, man!
The same could be said of George W. Bush a short 8 years ago. Since I work at making reasonably informed decisions, I have a pretty decent idea of who Obama is as well as the reasons I may vote for him. If Romney would give me something other than empty platitudes and "I'm not Obama!" to work with, I might prefer him as a candidate. I don't think the Republican party is a joke, even if they've done more than their fair share in putting on the congressional clown show we've "enjoyed" the past few years. It is my fervent hope that they return to their principles and soften their hearts, because like it or not, we're going nowhere without them. For all of our differences, we all want the same things: freedom, prosperity, and security. We can disagree on the methods used to reach those ends, but ultimately both sides need each other. To disparage one another to the point you stoop benefits no one. Be better than that.
Jock
Yeah, politicians want money and it does influence the ignorant. No doubt. But the biggest point is that if barack was out raising Romney this wouldn't be an issue. That's it, plain and simple. Liberal hypocrisy is off the hook especially when they are beaten at their own game.
To your next point it wasn't four "scary black guys" it was four sissy's dressed in militant garb. But you are the first I've seen say it was wrong on here and for the great uniter (divider) to not make any reference to it whatsoever is racist, elitist, divisive and downright stupid. Here's the "first black president" (partially black) who is supposed to unite this country and that would have been one hell of a great way to show that he was serious. So why, with all the press that the story got, did he not say something, anything to show his disapproval with that behavior? So from day one he has never acted like anyone that actually gives a shi$ about uniting the country. It's not that single event, it's multiples since that time but that one was the first and right there at the beginning.
I've been over it, but I do wonder what he would have said if an altercation broke out and one of those sissy's got wasted. I'm sure he would have made a knee jerk statement in favor of those playing intimidation games at the poles.
I'll quit mentioning things like that when libs shut the hell up about things being "unfair". Libs have every single advantage in this country, they've got the media in their pocket, they've got the education indoctrination locked down, they've got the universities liberal teachings with tax subsidized money that the government controls, they've had a huge mouthpiece in the entertainment industry, they've had a massive dollar advantage through the unions and now that the unions are losing strength what do libs start crying...."hey that's not fair".
It's always fair for the libs until they start getting close to the ropes and then they want to call time out so they can catch their breath and figure out what to do. Well, tides are turning and I'm getting a kick out of seeing all of these libs whine about "fairness". Like politics in this country have been fair for the past 150 years. What are you guys worrying about anyway. Every lib I see on the vine states that it's all but over and in the bag for barack so you guys are really the ones that need to get over it. baracks going to win right? So again, in the recent words of Emanual..."stop whining".
People who contribute to campaigns, PACs, tax-exempt 501c4 and 501c6 groups, or ANY, I repeat, any group that does electioneering work should be required to disclose their names. This includes individuals, corporations, unions, dogs, cats, fish, bears, the monopoly man, etc.
Fair, transparent and open elections are not and should not be a partisan issue.
Okay Tony,
Nice job. I swear to God I've forgotten what to do with logical responses even though I don't agree with a chunk of yours. I won't go word for word here BUT when it comes to using his middle name. One reason is that michelle stated it was a "funny" name. Interesting, because to Muslims it's not a "funny" name at all. Am I being petty? Absolutely! But I would have much rather heard her or anyone for that matter say "it's a Muslim based name because his Father was Muslim...so what? That would've been a nice refreshing response.
But more so than that, you said you've researched the man...well so have I and not through Fox news. If you read his own writings and then investigate his actual upbringing, not the fabrications that are portrayed. If you look at his mentors, his influences and study his political philosophy anyone with half a brain could do a very elementary level comparison between his philosophical beliefs and influences and the US Constitution. Then that same person with half a brain would have no choice but to conclude that the man is against the principals this country was founded on. I'm not talking about social issues because I could give a rip and I think it's a huge waste of time when everyone gets sidetracked on them. They all boil down to states rights because we are a republic and that's where it should end but whatever.
Then the hypocritical and blatantly obvious crap that he and his campaign come up with like the tax returns. Sure we need to see the tax returns but no matter what he's going to paint Romney as a rich man...which he is...and then barack will chastise him for being successful. So flip to the other side, shouldn't we have some proof that barack actually even attended Harvard or Columbia? But they don't think those points are significant. How about the fast and furious crap? He say's "I'm not releasing 10,000 documents that they can pick through" Like a US life with blood on his hands is no big deal, he's got better things to do than concern himself with that.
This president is a smug arrogant son of a bitch. That's not Fox talking that's my findings from my investigation that has been going on for 5 1/2 years. You could see the game being played when he ran for Senate, the writing was on the wall and it was so clear to see. Maybe I'm too arrogant for thinking that others should be as concerned with the real man as I am but that's just the way I see it.
Last point; yep every politician at that level or just below is pretty much a douche bag. Every one has made campaign promises they've broken. But come on, holy crap. This clown hasn't stuck with ANYTHING! Seriously, you could spend a whole day checking out all his lies and he's only been pres for 3 1/2 years. Every President breaks campaign promises. However there is no comparison to the number that barack has welched on. Not only that, one of the primary reasons he won was because of the whole changing Washington to a non-corrupt entity thing...he basically came in and took charge of the corruption.
barack has never produced anything in his life, except a ghost written book. At least Romney knows the process of building something. He's not a tax evader like the barack commercials say, he's not hiding anything in a closet...his sin is that he's made a tremendous amount of money in a country where it's more than possible to do so. barack looks down on independence, he wants you and I to rely on the government to wipe our asses. Anyone can say anything, we the people need to collectively vet the guy that snuck in 4 years ago.
Anyway, good rebuttal. Nice for a change. I'm used to one line nonsense and cowardly responses from people like feisty or Beverly. I'll give you full credit for having something with a little challenge and substance in it. But because you made a couple of statements that you did, might I suggest you go to Romney's site and read his policies. There's no questioning of what he wants to do and I'm a bit baffled that people keep claiming he doesn't answer questions. He's answered plenty, actually much more than barack has answered in his entire term. But I guess it figures that those people usually get all of their information from those TV commercials. Ahhh, see how I brought it back full circle?
The party of no successfully blocks another attempt at progress. How many times is that now?
Corporations 85 - people 1
G.
You mean the party of no f-ing way we're going to let that Marxist ass change this country as radically as he wants to do. That's what I think you mean. Not party of no...party of no chance in hell.
United States of America 85, barack's adgenda 1, soon to be zero
@rightwingwac
No problem. I understand the frustration as most folks on this site tend to just spout talking points and bray ideology like it's truth. At the same time, it seems like a modicum of decorum is necessary or we devolve to the lowest common denominator.
Fair enough. I'm not terribly fond of the way people throw the name "Willard" around like it's a term of ridicule, either. I have a funny middle name myself and I think it's insulting enough without anyone legitimately slinging it around like it's mud.
OK, I'm willing to take you at your word regarding your research, at the same time I'm interested in knowing what your sources were. Did you actually read an entire book of "his own writings" or did someone feed you inflammatory selections taken out of context? I'm asking specifically because it seems like, more and more, that's what we're getting out of our so-called "media" these days, both liberal and conservative alike. They manufacture controversy and engage in outright rabble-rousing because it sells better than truth. As for "who" Obama is, I get the impression that you're pigeon-holing him based on a highly selective viewpoint and barring an answer regarding your sources, I can't see why. Certainly there are "questionable" influences in Obama's past, but they do not govern him. Just because he agrees with some of the things Bill Ayers or Rev. Wright or whomever said doesn't mean that he's in lockstep with everything they ever espoused. It's possible to learn quite a lot from a bad influence as from a good one. In practice, I don't see Obama behaving in an "anti-American" way when it comes to his policies and the actions he's taken while in office. Am I missing something?
When it comes to the campaigns, you have to take everything that's slung around with a grain of salt or your head will explode. Both sides are gonna get down and dirty and hit below the belt wherever they can find a soft spot because that's campaigning for you. It used to be a bit more gentlemanly than it is today, but it's no more or less vicious. As far as Romney and his tax returns, it's an effective point of attack so, in that regard, I can't say I'm surprised the Obama campaign is hammering on that point. Romney's doing himself no favors keeping things so close to the vest, IMHO, because the conspiracy theories are inevitably worse than the reality. It's not about painting Romney as a rich man or that there's anything wrong with being a rich man -- we already know Romney's a rich man and success is lauded in this country by the majority of Americans on both sides of the political divide (contrary to what some people would have you believe) -- it's about whether Romney is demonstrably honest and can therefore be trusted to do the right thing if handed the world's most powerful political office. The counterargument seeking Obama's transcripts doesn't compare for 2 basic reasons: 1) the man's grades aren't likely to tell us anything about his ethics, and; 2) it comes off as an obvious misdirection (one gets the impression they'd be clamoring for his birth certificate if that subject still polled better with the mouth-breathers). Fast and Furious is another blatant red-herring trailed out by the right because it's got almost nothing to do with Obama, and the obvious reason Holder and Co. aren't telling congress spit at this point is because there are security concerns regarding people still working in the justice department. Mr. Issa has been digging into it looking for dirt for a couple of years now and found nothing even remotely incriminating, and bringing it up now was clearly a flimsy election-year distraction ploy. The fact that an agent was killed is being played up to ridiculous levels as if there's some grand conspiracy, and if anything I feel sorry for the agent's family since they're basically being used as a political football. Can you honestly not see that the reality of going after Holder and making insinuations about Obama over that man's death roughly equates to the same level of conspiracy-minded idiocy of, say, suing the manager of a Wal-Mart where a murderer bought his weapon and hinting heavily that one of the Waltons was behind it all?
You're not arrogant for thinking that others should share your concern; you're only arrogant if you utterly refuse to consider any other viewpoint. This is especially difficult once one's mind is already made up, but it can be done. I'm speaking mostly of my own experience there, so forgive me if I sound a little cartoonish.
Again, I don't see it the same way. Certainly there are distasteful practices that have continued, but -- and I'm really not trying to make up excuses here -- anyone expecting an instantaneous overnight change really were fooling themselves. The problems in Washington are deeper than the executive branch, for all its power and reach. Until we get some congressional term limits, I don't think any administration will be able to change it completely, and there are aspects that it will simply have to adapt to just to make things go. As for the claims regarding broken promises, I feel that subject has been debated endlessly for months on these forums already. It's been my observation that a number of items promised have been kept, some were never possible without outside cooperation that has not been forthcoming, if not actively thwarted, and a few have simply fallen by the wayside. We can go into specifics, if you want, but I'm already aware we're writing a small book here.
I don't believe Romney is a tax evader, but he's definitely not being as forthcoming as he ought to be. I'm not saying I suspect him of anything shady, but it just seems like he'd be saving himself a lot of trouble if he'd just be even a little more open. I'm really trying to keep an open mind where he's concerned, but at the same time the pundits have been correct in one thing: Obama, for better or worse, is a known quantity at this point, and Romney needs to control his narrative before the other side does it for him or else it will be anything but flattering. As for your last couple of statements, I respectfully disagree with the assessment that Obama wants us reduced to government-dependent serfs. I'm not rich but I'm far from poor -- about as "middle" of middle class as I think I can be, really -- and I've observed an uptick in both my overall standard of living and prospects for the future that have resulted from the policies and practices of the current administration.
And thank you for your expansive response. I'll take you up on your suggestion and read Romney's site. I've looked at a lot of pro/con stuff from both sides, but I haven't taken and earnest look at either candidates' site since the last election. Maybe I'll learn something. Hope you keep your mind open, too. I have a funny feeling things aren't as dour and Obama isn't really as evil as he appears to you right now.
Sigh!
T'was but a short time ago the republicans were touting full disclosure - but I suppose that was before Citizens United made a huge pot of money available.
"In a mostly symbolic vote that split along party lines...."
Sounds like virtually every attempt at campaign finance reform: Every proposal by the Democrats rejected by the Republicans.
Let's remain mindful of this come November, shall we?
Just how did Republicans have anything to do with this bill being shot down? The Dems have the majority in the Senate, and the article says nothing about a filibuster. Where do you people get your ideas from???
Political theatre at its finest. Funny how liberals here actually believe the Democrats wanted this bill to pass. Harry Reid put this bill forward because he knew it wasn't going to pass, as there are plenty of donors for Democrats that want to remain anonymous. But it makes for great fodder for a day or two providing some cover for our failing president, but in the end just another example of how totally inept Washington has become with Obama in the White House. Obama did change the way Washington works, he made it completely partisan.
D.C., GOP Congress is Broken - Anyone for a cup of Tea !!!!!!!! ( TeaBaggers destroying America )
LMAO!! I have seen time and time again when the republicans drag out Byrd to defend their own bigotry against anyone not white, male, rich, and straight
I keep hearing this line from the right wing about Robert Byrd. Why is to that they don't bother to report the truth of it? Over and over they are corrected and over and over they repeat the same lie.
Every corporation, or organization that donates $500 or more should be on a list available for view by any citizen of the US. Why shouldn't we know who and how much is being donated. Right now we don't know for sure exactly who or what bought what congressman.
Citizens United has changed the face of US politics possibly forever. States with a small population (ie. Montana) can no longer limit spending for state elections and out of state interests can buy themselves a state and have plenty of money left to spend elsewhere. They are passing anti woman legislation across the country and doing their damnest to suppress the vote and disenfranchise minorities.
jkh
Just follow the Koch Brothers money, Jim...
Funny how the libtards consider attempts to halt abortion "anti-women" when it is the unborn child who is being murdered.
NoScope, a few dozen cells is not an unborn child. Cons could care less about feeding hungry children, but they are going to make darn sure they are going to make those children born. It's funny how the Repugs are supposed to be the party of "small" government, but they want to have the government regulating what goes on in people's bedrooms and making sure every pregnancy ends the way they want it to. You are not in favor of "small" government; you are in favor of "fascist" government. They want a large government that regulates every aspect of society EXCEPT economic matters.
NoScope should vasectomies be next?
NoScope - the politics that are anti woman are things more than abortion - it is things like forcing women to pay out of pocket medical expenses for birth control, as opposed to treating it like any other prescription.
It's about opposing the equal work for equal pay initiative...
I don't agree with your anti-choice opinion...but this is about a LOT more than just the idea that the gov't can tell a woman what she has to do with her body. Bottom line - you don't like abortion - don't have one.
Pro-choice
NoScope says they are against 'More big government intrustion in to our privacy' with on breath and 'Funny how the libtards consider attempts to halt abortion' (which is a private matter) with the next breath.
So which is it NoScope? No to intrusive big government or not? What gives big government the right to intrude on a LEGAL procedure that private individuals CHOOSE to have? Is one group of people's morals/religious beliefs more important than another groups? Is freedom of religion dead in this country? If NoScope is against abortion they NoScope shouldn't have an abortion.
John McCain thinks that a donation of $10,000 is setting the bar high because Democrats get a bunch of small donations (that add up) from individuals (who have the right to vote) as oppose to the Republicans who get large donations from corporations (who do NOT have the right to vote).
And YES the Democrats didn't really want this bill to pass but to use it as a election year issue. Both sides are playing the tax payer.
Kenny, it is really quite simple. Cons want less intrusive government unless it has to do with their agenda, policies and beliefs which they want forced on everyone else. Then big government is just great in their eyes.
I remember when the Repubs howled about George Soros. Not a word about him anymore. They found a few (Koch, Adelson) that spend even more on their partisan efforts.
Citizens United was a load of crap. Just the general concept of a corporation being considered a single human entity blows my mind. There is NO good, justifiable reason to hide campaign contributions over 10k. Personally I think anything over $500 should be disclosed and there should be a cap of 10k per source.
Politics like this has destroyed this country, IMO, and I give up on the US as a whole. We will end up imploding soon enough
Noscope .. are you naturally stupid or do you take pills for it?
To quote Charles Keating Jr (remember him?) about money and buying influence...
"One question, among many raised in recent weeks, had to do with whether my financial support in any way influenced several political figures to take up my cause. I want to say in the most forceful way I can: I certainly hope so."
In 2008 the Barack Obama campaign raised millions of dollars in very questionable contributions. The Federal Elections Commission (FEC) won't say whether they're conducting an investigation, but they asked the BHO campaign to explain or to return some of it.
That includes over $17,000 given in $25 increments by someone named "Good Will" and listing his employer as "Loving" and his occupation as "You". Someone using similar obviously false information donated even more, claiming to be from a different city.
It also includes millions of dollars from overseas. While past campaigns have placed stringent safeguards to ensure that all of that money was coming from U.S. citizens, the BHO campaign hasn't done the same:
Republicans are secretly getting money from multinational conglomerates to buy this election. That is why they don't want a law like this one passed.
mk1-4292421 says, "Kenny, it is really quite simple. Cons want less intrusive government unless it has to do with their agenda, policies and beliefs which they want forced on everyone else."
So I guess when Harry Reid and the Democrats put forth a bill that exempts unions from full disclosure that is okay with you because it fits with your agenda, policies, and beliefs? Or is gaining or obstructing political advantage only reserved for Republicans in your mind? Just more liberal hypocrisy.
How is it then that P.Obama has his Hollyweird Celebrity Supporters criss-crossing Europe having Fundraisers.....I though even Citizens United didn't make Foreign Contributions legal ????
The membership of Unions or their delegates vote on who the PAC money goes to. This is by law. at the local level both the executive board of the local and the membership vote on who the money goes to in local races. The union PACs are voluntary by law. no dues money can be used by law without being voted on. I was a delegate, I witnessed and participated in the votes. Nobody is forced to donate. I saw our union give money to right minded republicans all the time. It's just that republicans most often vote against working people. Our PACs justify every dime of the money to representatives that benefit our members and contractors. So to say that unions only contribute to Dems is false. Also there is the Beck rights that we have that says a member can get any portion of their dues money used for politics refunded if they want. On the other hand, I own stocks and there is no such laws that I know of placed on corporations about political contributions and I was never asked if i wanted to support a particular party or candidate. A lot of Union pension funds are invested in stocks and they are never asked so our money is used against us. Unions also have to document who contributes to their PACS with an authorization card. Unions are very restricted in how they support political endeavors. It seems corporations are not. What Republicans want to do is pull the chair at the table out from under the working people and just shut those SOBs up. They just want to get around the "Old minimum wage". I don't mind free speech, in fact i encourage it, I just want to know who's doing the talking. It's not the speech that's the problem it's the system. Money is not speech.
Shedon Adelson give billions to the GOP to stay out of jail
http://www.propublica.org/article/inside-the-investigation-of-leading-republican-money-man-sheldon-adelson
Union dues cannot be used for political purposes.
Obama is transparent and identifies his bundlers. Republicans do not.
What are Republicans hiding..........
So much for democracy. This is now officially a government of the wealthy, for the wealthy and by the wealthy. This country is now run by international corporations. What would the founding fathers say about this twisted law? Republicans always think they would follow their line of (sic) thinking but conservatives have taken the government away from the people.
Funny how you Liberals are so scared by the Koch Bros. boogey man.... but you seem fine with George Soros doing everything he can to undermine America. And it makes sense to keep donors anonymous, since the Orassment squad (IRS) is already targeting conservative donors. Chicago politics as usual for the Illinois crook.
Well grumpy2u, corporate investors can exercise their rights too to control how corporate campaign donations are spent... via electing a like minded board of directors (very akin to electing union leadership). Any investor that doesn't like how the company is donating can simply sell their stock. For instance when GE stopped being innovative and started living off the govt tit, and allowed the biased reporting of NBC News and this site... I sold all of my GE stock. And guess what? It dropped like a rock after that... so I'm sure glad that I did. Now Immelt, Obama's Job Czar is shipping their whole Imaging Division to China... who's your Outsourcer-in-Chief?
Exactly what is the difference between these groups and Unions donating millions to the Democrats?
Here is the Union donations to political campaigns recently:
AFSCME 48 million
SEIU 38 million
IBEW 35 million
Teachers 34 million
Laborers 32 million
Teamsters 32 million
Carpenters and Joiners 31 million
Commmunications Workers 31 million
Auto Workers 28 million
Machinist and Aerospace Workers 27 million
ALL in the top 25! No dues my arse.
Garrison, I guess all of those political contributions come from Union bake sales and car washes huh?
Abortions are never at the stage of a few dozen cells. Another Democrat lie. Abortion is not about women's rights nearly so much as it is about men not having to be responsible for the consequences of their sexual promiscuity.
People are lining up to be a bundler for Obama, after all look how well they were rewarded with taxpayer dollars after the last election. Obama continually criticizes capitalism, but crony capitalism is alive and well at the White House. Too bad that all the trillions in debt Obama has run up, and none of it has trickled down to help the economy. I guess it goes to show that being a community organizer prepares you to ride the backs of taxpayers and not work for them.
Colorado-Man
If you have been on Newsvine reading liberal comments on birth control and abortion you will soon come to the conclusion tat the liberals intend to use those to control the population in regards to the poor and the disabled. That way they can reduce entitlements substantially.
Check out the history of Planned Parenthood and in particular its founder Margaret Sanger and see what she had to say about blacks and those children born with birth defects.
Rick - I agree with you 100% and am very familiar with the racist Sanger. But you find a large number of men, such as Vince, that like to have the option as birth control. But to ever suspect that abortions are performed as early as he suggested is ludicrous and shows how either ignorant or disingenuous he is.
TeaPot Baggers selling out America for personal gain, some call it "Black Mail"
Solutions539
http://www.propublica.org/article/inside-the-investigation-of-leading-republican-money-man-sheldon-adelson
#2.18
While the Sandler Foundation provided ProPublica with significant financial support, it has also received funding from the Knight Foundation, MacArthur Foundation, Pew Charitable Trusts, Ford Foundation, the Carnegie Corporation and others. ProPublica and the Knight Foundation have various connections. For example, Paul Steiger, President of ProPublica, is a trustee of the Knight Foundation.[9] In like manner, Alberto Ibarguen, the President and CEO of the Knight Foundation is on the board of ProPublica.[10] In 2010, it received a two-year contribution of $125,000 each year from George Soros' Open Society Foundations.
What is needed will not happen because the whole rotten mess, if exposed, would cause a lot of politicians their jobs and the so called non-profits to be shown as political groups in disguise. We do not have any hope of maintaining our democracy when the very roots are rotten.
Let Americans vote on this and I bet it passes.
Vote out those that filibustered this !!!!
Eric is the worst form of liberal tool. He spouts full disclosure but only as it applies to Republicans. When the Democrats put forth a bill that exempts labor unions from full disclosure, why are you pretending they are putting forth an honest bill? When Harry Reid and Democrats can sit down with Republicans and craft a bill that both sides vehemently hate, then we probably have something worth passing.
Dear God,
Please, oh please make a liberal poster on this vine look up, read, and comprehend the word "filibuster" It seems that most of them don't really have a clue of it's meaning yet they use it constantly in an attempt to make themselves appear that they know what's going on.
Please God, show them the light and help them to become more educated because they desperately need your guidance.
Thank you God for blessing us with conservative valued people who are willing to uphold the constitution and the rights that were given to us by you.
Amen.
Rightwingwac -- You are really one dumb nut!!
Yeah Woody, how so? I guess you were the type of kid that would stand back when someone was stating something you didn't agree with and say "yeah, well you're stupid" without anything else. Whatever, I'm never surprised at the lack of logic that comes from left statements.
Republicans want corruption. it favors them.
Bill: Did you read what John McCain said about the proposed bill?? The Unions would go unchecke!
No, Believe'nCorporations, they wouldn't go unchecked. Read the article and bone up a little on actual laws before you regurgitate Fox News talking points...
No dork, He said he opposed the bill because it set unfair advantages to the unions, because setting the limit at $10,000 means that not many union people or unions will actualy be able to afford that much, so the only ones who can are the disgusting WHORPORATIONS, so, in the fake patriot eyes, the legislation is flawed because it only controls the big money interests.
Hmmmm, so it does what it should do, control big money interest, and McPu$$y can't get the whorporations c0ck out of his mouth except to complain about it. What fairy Mcdoofus.
Don't make me laugh, Bill. One word: Chicago.
Anyone remember the McCain-Feingold bill that was written to do exactly what this bill was designed to do? I always knew McCain was two-faced and he just keeps on proving it.
How convenient John McCain would "succumb" to the "establishment". Say you are for something then vote against it and put in a BS reason as a response. If it was so important to him why didn't he put in his own revision OR amendment like others in order to get it passed? Just goes to show you the party of "NO" is still in effect.
@Believe'nAmerica - The ONLY way the Unions would go unchecked is IF they donated less than $10,000. If they donated more than that then, according to the bill, they would have to report it. So how is that going unchecked? The big donors (Koch, Rove, Norquist) could do the same too, just would take a lot of time and effort just to get up to the hundreds of thousands they love to give to their superpacs.
Yes, because labor unions have so much power. Union membership is at an all time low, idiots, and the Repugs, Cons, and Tea Baggers are trying to force them out of business all together. In the 1950s union membership was about 25% of the workforce. Today it is less than 10%. Do you actually think labor unions can compete with the Koch Brothers or Sheldon Adelson? Citizesn United is the worst Supreme Court decision since the Dred Scott case. Slavery - the legal fiction that people are property. Corporate Personhood - the legal fiction that property is people. Contrary to what Willard says, corporations are NOT people and money should not equal speech. History will look at these Supreme Court justices as it does those who decided Dread Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson. Let's not forget that 3 of the 5 members of the majority in Citizens United were on the court and ruled in favor of Bush v. Gore. Coincidence? I think not.
So if the dollar amount favors unions...then lower the dollar amount until it doesn't Seems pretty simple to me. So why didn't McCain or any of the other republicans offer an amendment to lower the amount?
Sheldon Adelson by himself is ready to contribute over 100 million dollars(unlimited he has said) to Romney. That is ONE man. Now what union, no matter how many members it has can contribute that much to a campaign? NONE and unions represent millions of workers. I also heard that just 196 people have provided 80% of all campaign contributions so far this cycle to candidates and super pacs and three fourths of that money is going to the GOP. If that is not buying this election, I don't know what it is. I sure hope America sees through this and is smart enough not to be bought, but alas, I fear most are simply too stupid to get it.
@Believe - You mean to tell me that when McCain says that unions would go unchecked, you believe him at face value? Did you read the bill or do you blindly follow the troll that says something? That is part of our problem. We don't analyze, we don't think, we simply follow those who spout our ideology. We believe people whose point of view we already agree with, regardless of whether that person is right or wrong. The dumb Murican.
In 2008 the Barack Obama campaign raised millions of dollars in very questionable contributions. The Federal Elections Commission (FEC) won't say whether they're conducting an investigation, but they asked the BHO campaign to explain or to return some of it.
That includes over $17,000 given in $25 increments by someone named "Good Will" and listing his employer as "Loving" and his occupation as "You". Someone using similar obviously false information donated even more, claiming to be from a different city.
It also includes millions of dollars from overseas. While past campaigns have placed stringent safeguards to ensure that all of that money was coming from U.S. citizens, the BHO campaign hasn't done the same:
The Koch brothers plan to spend as much money as McCain raised in this last election to buy this one. Those are facts.
The facts are that Obama has paid out billions in taxpayer dollars to donors and campaign workers in some of the worst crony capitalism ever by a president. Political corruption plain and simple. Obviously Democrats like corruption when it favors them.
Shedon Adelson give billions to the GOP to stay out of jail
http://www.propublica.org/article/inside-the-investigation-of-leading-republican-money-man-sheldon-adelson
Shedon Adelson give billions to the GOP to stay out of jail
http://www.propublica.org/article/inside-the-investigation-of-leading-republican-money-man-sheldon-adelson
Shedon Adelson give billions to the GOP to stay out of jail
http://www.propublica.org/article/inside-the-investigation-of-leading-republican-money-man-sheldon-adelson
Solutions - what? Are you trying to say something?
knock it off, multiple posting will get you suspended
I think the Repubs may have a decent argument on this one if what they are saying is true about the Unions.
BTW: I'm an Independent.
Hey look, Okieboy--I even bolded the article quote to make sure you saw it. Unions come under the provision of the bill. Just because your hero Grampy McCain says it doesn't, doesn't mean he isn't lying about it...
conjuring: Have you read the entire bill or are you jumping to conclusions that McCain is not telling the truth?
Same can be said of you and the article, Believe--or do you think they simply made up their information? And unions are already required to make disclosures that corporations are not...
The headline is misleading. It should say Republicans Filibuster to Block Action on Disclosure of Hidden Donors. This is not the Senate not acting. This is Republicans preventing action by once again filibustering everything to prevent even a vote on the substance of the bill. The Democrats may "control" the Senate, but they can't get anything done if the Republicans filibuster every single item (requiring a 60 vote majority). The obstructionism is totally pathetic.
Unions have membership roles. The money that comes into unions is documented. This bill was about big money donors being able to hide any links of their donations from the public. And this goes on while republicans simultaneously are targeting and throwing registered voters off the rolls by the millions.
It's about disclosure, offshore accounts, dividends and stockholder/owner distributions, etc.:)
@Okee - Maybe they have a point IF what they are saying is right. What a cheap way to avoid doing any critical thinking. I don't mind if you call others names because then I can tell that you are just emotional and angry. If, however, you make a cheap scholarly announcement without thinking at all, you just pretend to be an intellectual.
Conjuring cat -
Well, you did bold some print from the article but I can highlight where barack said people would save $2500 per year on their health care too. You are a salesman's wet dream. Just because something is in print doesn't make it factual.
This is great. Now hopefully the Koch brothers will just write bigger and bigger checks and knock Soros and Hollywood right the hell out. Liberals/Tyrannicals are just fine and dandy with their one world jack-ass Soros putting millions behind a Marxist agenda but hey it's not fair when conservatives play the game better than the one libs thought they owned.
Just remember libs...no matter how much of a bad azz you think you are, there will ALWAYS be someone who can come along and just kick the crap out of you. In this case if barack had the upper hand you'd be quite as mice. But he doesn't, cuz he's a loser and his billionaires aren't quite as big as the opposition.
Liberalism/Tyranny is anti-American Anyone but barack 2012
4 big money GOP donors were illegaly outed earlier this year and both their businesses and homes were targeted by DNC operatives. This push to disclose anonymous donors is in reality just a way to generate a target list for the DNC. In addition according to papers that Unions have to file with the Labor Department their political spending is about 4 times higher than that reported to the FCC. People paid by unions to volunteer for candidates are a form of contribution too
Funny enough for years and years we've all been told that unions have contributed (x) to liberals. Now the truth comes out that they've actually contributed four times (x). So that nullifies anyone's argument that union political contributions are out in the open.
Investigative reporting is what brought it to light, not honest disclosure. The union political machine is as corrupt as anything but as usual because they are liberal it's no big deal, they should be allowed to do it. Also peculiar that the major networks haven't exactly been making sure the public was aware of that.
Again, libs are awesome at becoming crybabies when someone smokes their asses at their own game.
Shedon Adelson give billions to the GOP to stay out of jail
http://www.propublica.org/article/inside-the-investigation-of-leading-republican-money-man-sheldon-adelson
With unlimited anonymous donations remaining legal, who knows where the money comes from? It could be from foreign nations hoping to influence our elections toward the candidate they see as most favorable to their interests, or even from drug cartels trying protect their profits by backing candidates that oppose marijuana legalization.
And that's the most telling point. When such enormous contributions are private, we can't tell who is making them. For all we know, we may be having our candidates funded by the Saudis, Chinese, or who knows else...
We can know that Sheldon Adelson, who's pledged as much as $100 million to Romney's campaign, made his money mostly from a very profitable Macau casino that he was allowed to build once he bribed a Chinese politician. If you doubt that, go to ProPublica and read all about it.
Where did Obama's 2008 campaign money come from?
In 2008 the Barack Obama campaign raised millions of dollars in very questionable contributions. The Federal Elections Commission (FEC) won't say whether they're conducting an investigation, but they asked the BHO campaign to explain or to return some of it.
That includes over $17,000 given in $25 increments by someone named "Good Will" and listing his employer as "Loving" and his occupation as "You". Someone using similar obviously false information donated even more, claiming to be from a different city.
It also includes millions of dollars from overseas. While past campaigns have placed stringent safeguards to ensure that all of that money was coming from U.S. citizens, the BHO campaign hasn't done the same:
ANY donation from a large multi-national corporation is inherently from a non-American entity. It is FOREIGN MONEY. The GOP is ADVOCATING foreign influence in our elections. TREASON!
How much more ANTI-AMERICAN and TREASONOUS does the GOP have to become before we realize they are more dangerous than the Soviet Union ever was.
Union contributions are public, they are always in their required financial disclosure documentation. Republicans are a joke....
They don't have to tell the truth to make their drooling fans happy, dismayed; they just have to tell them *coughcoughevilunionscoughcough* what they want to hear...
Unions rock
@ Conjuring - I remember the E over I argument. Emotion over Intellect. Republicans are the Emotion and Democrats are the Intellect. Republicans act on their emotions and Democrats on their intellect. That is why Democrats are accused of being elitist. Democrats have the best ideas but clearly not the emotion to sell those ideas. What s shame.
Just another SAD day for America.
Shouldn't all of us little people regardless of party affiliation want to have donations to politics disclosed?
I get why the wealthy an powerful (on both sides) want to hide in the shadows for the money they give and get.
And yes, I think that that amount for disclosure should probably be $1,000 or perhaps $5,000 but even $10,000 is a dang start.
Yes, we should all want to have the donations disclosed, if only to know who the hell is trying to buy our country. But since there is a current perception that disclosure helps Democrats and hurts the Republicans, half the country at least will reflexively be against it, even when it's in their direct best interest. Maybe we should start a rumor that George Soros is about to donate a billion dollars to Obama--that would get the Repubs on the disclosure bandwagon in a heartbeat...
Most people don't pay enough attention to even notice things like this, it is all a game and we are the pawns.
The people are NOT reflexively against it. FAUX NEWS and the GOP propaganda machine have to LIE until they are blue in the face to get enough of the population to believe their bald-faced LIES.
PLEASE! The GOP and Rupert Murdoch have spent BILLIONS getting the poorly informed on their side. DO NOT call it REFLEXIVE!
It's not so surprising to see republicans filibuster again, but what's really amazing are the republican supporters attitude on the issue. All of the wacky conspiracy theories they have about the left and liberals destroying America... but they don't have a problem with a dozen or two people force feeding the public with self serving propaganda to turn an election in their favor. And they want their identities to remain secret! If any of you drones had a mind of your own, or a memory, or Tivo, it seems like point #1 to raise with your right-wing leaders would be 'What happen to the idea that more disclosure would be better than little or none' just a few years back?
The McCain-Feingold bill attempted to do exactly what this bill sought to do. Sen. McCain, that patriotic American, should be ashamed of himself.
McCain is dying inside. He drank the kool-aid for the party and he hates himself. Condi Rice is fighting the dark side too. Colin Powell hasn't been able to hold his chin up since the UN speech. Everyone in the GOP I had ANY respect for is now pushed aside or turned into something I don't recognize.
The GOP is SO morally bankrupt. If they take power, anybody that makes less than a million a year better run for the hills...
We need total disclosure and integrity laws that prevent any government official from accepting anything of value (gifts or contributions) that could influence outcome of current or future legislation. If they have accepted contributions from a source the legislation could directly affect they would have to recuse
themselves or face penalty.
Your suggestion concerning members of congress recusing themselves if pending legislation shows they have a conflict of interest is a great idea that should be pursued.
Greetings,
This post is not necessarily germane to the subject at hand, however, I am looking for help or advice.
Some months ago F*x “news” stopped allowing me to log on and comment on their articles. I am quite sure that my comments and logic were not appreciated. Having said that, has anyone experienced what could be censorship (if indeed that is what this is) of this order?
Is there a story here?
Thank you for your time.
Of course there is a story there...and yes it's censorship. I've had the same thing happen several times. If you post senseless liberal rants, they will usually allow it because they don't see those as threatening. They want the liberal side to seem just as brainless as their side. However, fact based reasonable arguments will get deleted because they don't want their readers to be confused by the facts.
Bob, if Fox News were a broadcast channel licensed by the Federal Communications Commission, you may have a legal gripe.
Sadly, cable channels are not 'broadcasting'; they are not using the Nation's airwaves which is what the FCC regulates. That's why you can subscribe to cable channels that carry pornography and/or Fox News. The porno channels can air whatever they think pleases their horny audience, and Fox can restrict those that do not please Fox from being on their channel.
Bruce...the sad reality is that even being a broadcast channel no longer means that they have any duty to tell the truth. That's not "my opinion"...it is the result of a legal trial.
The basic facts are that, under pressure from the beef industry, a local Fox affiliate in Florida demanded that their investigative reporters water down a story about bovine growth hormones. The reporters refused, citing their duty to report the facts. The Fox affiliate fired them and they sued for "wrongful termination". The fox affiliate argued that they have the right to bias the news in any way they see fit. With supporting arguments from virtually all of the networks and various news channels, the court agreed that, even on the public airwaves, the news has no legal duty to tell the truth. In short, the fox station was legally within their right to fire them for refusing to lie.
News organizations can still be sued for slander, libel, etc. But those types of lawsuits apply to a report that is critical of someone or something...not when they refuse to report something bad.
If you want to research the details...Google the name Jane Akre. She was one of the reporters.
I too once tried to get on a conservative blog. I was careful not to be provocative, but to ask questions. My comments were never posted, and I could no t log in next time. hmmmm
Yeh, right Renee and Bob......and the TOOTH FAIRY left a big stack of quarters under your pillow last night. Do you honestly think that ANY of the News Sites, much less FOX, give a big rats' as* about WHAT comes out of your idiotic simpleton lemming mouths??? Give us a break.
Wow. What is wrong with you?
BK
Of all the posts, which was the most simple-minded and lemming like?
Have you noticed how the mentally challenged use a lot of exclamation points and capital letters?
I heard Fox stopped allowing comments and that is surprising. I never went there because it seemed to be only the most foxified and moronic people who posted there. It seemed hopeless for anyone with a differing opinion so I am puzzled why they would take this step against comments.
Sen. McCain has a legitimate point. I say: Go back and change the bill to reduce the disclosure limit to ALL contributions. The group would only have to divulge the info on a website or electronic filing with the FEC which could be inputted into a searchable database.
Every contribution a candidate receives over a certain limit - $100? - has to be filed with the Elections Commission. Why not the same for PACs and independent groups that are not self financed? Union funds come from member dues and unions should be required to list their membership rolls. Fair is fair.
Then why didn't McCain offer an amendment to lower the limit? Are you saying that none of the 40 some republican senators thought of that?
I'd be fine with such a requirement...and I'd bet that most democratic senators would as well. But...we all know that this is nothing more than a way to avoid admitting that they have changed their mind on disclosure.
The simple fact is that unions have nowhere near the money that the billionaire club has. I saw statistics today that said that just 20 people are responsible for fully 50% of the money going to these super pacs. Under 200 people are responsible for 80% of it.
The sad reality is that republicans are no longer even ashamed that they are selling of our country to the highest bidder.
dizzy, an amendment would have been an example of compromise and Sen. Merkel (one of my Senator's by the way) would have certainly entertained any suggestion to improve his bill. The press didn't pick it up, but some time ago, the Republicans decided that any Republican who attempts to compromise with any Democrat will have a Republican opponent at the Senator's next re-election primary election.
Bruce...I assume you mean Merkley? I'm from Oregon too. Not quite Portland...but in the general vicinity.
And I agree. Merkley seems like a good guy. The point I was making is that if the republican objection was that the dollar amount was too high, they could have offered an amendment to lower it. Since they didn't do that, it's reasonable to assume that the true reason is something else. In other words...the republicans are lying. They have to because they can't just admit that they are trying to obstruct everything...nor can they admit that they like being able to take bribes...er...I mean contributions to groups that support them.
McCain's point is totally nonsensical! If unions contributions are less than $10,000, why does he fear their influence so much? And if unions contribute more than $10,000, they would be disclosed.
Hey DIZZY....Maybe they DID. Do any of you doofuses ever take the time to research ANYTHING before you start slamming your gums together and spewing diahrrea from those ignorant oral anuses???
If they did propose lower limits don't you think they would have said they proposed lower limits and the democrats rejected it? That would look better for them. We have to assume they didn't propose lower limits, and are now obstructing because they want their donors to remain undisclosed.
Well BK, did they? The fruits of your diligent research would be appreciated.
Our high schools are going to have to get new textbooks to explain how the House and Senate operate. Currently those texts say that it takes a majority of votes to pass any legislation - 218 votes. Those texts also teach our kids that it takes 51 votes for the Senate to pass anything.
The 218 House majority is still in effect. The Senate, however, has adopted a 60 vote majority and majority rule has been eliminated without a change in the rules. How so you may ask?
Well, in the House, members are given specific amounts of time to hold the floor. The Senate has no such time limits in its rules. A Senator can hold the floor - and delay Senate business - till Hell freezes over. This practice is known as a fillibuster. And by the way, the word 'fillibuster' does not appear in the Senator rules, only the no time limit provision does. The only way to shut a fillibustering Senator up is to vote for what is called cloture which requires 60 votes.
The current Senate Republicans have used the threat of fillibuster more often in the past two years than in the entire history of the U.S. Senate! (Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/01/analysis-republicans-sett_0_n_480801.html
I want my children to go to your high schools for their education.
Well said...but I would like to clarify something that you hinted at, but never explicitly stated. It is no longer even required that the senator imposing the filibuster actually stand up there and talk forever. All they have to do is say they are imposing a filibuster. The bottom line is that that makes it too easy to filibuster. Especially on something like this, if these guys had to actually get up there and defend selling elections to the highest bidder, then it would help expose the level of obstructionism that has been going on.
I believe we should keep the filibuster, but no more just imposing it... if you want to filibuster a bill then get you butt up and do it the way it was intended...both parties!
Great fact Bruce about the filibuster abuse/anti-American tactic used ruthlessly by Senate republicans.
The filth of the Republican party exposes it self on the floor of the US Senate. They and it is them that will not allow disclosure. Its a very simple and one dimensional bill. Stop hiding the coffers from where this illegal money is coming. The GOPers are attempting to buy the election once again. Their state push for disenfranchisement is working and curtailing voters who are older, in the minority class and poor from voting. Before an ID law can go into effect it is fair to provide all voters with immediate ID photo cards then enforce the ID presentation before voting. Nothing the GOPers do is in favor of true democracy. McCain, with his seven or eight homes lies regarding the Unions - they are also forced to disclose. Why is this deceit so rampantly practiced and allowed by the minority party? These are the ones who wish to govern for the benefit of the 3% in this country, outsource everything, allow the poor classes to labor at minimum wage jobs and then count that as a great form of trickle down money.
Not one will have the guts to really reform the electoral process by making all federal and state campaigns publicly financed - no outside donors allowed, no lobbysists allowed. When that occurs this country will be once again on a safe directional course - steering away from the money, the corruption that wishes to invade the White House.
Nothing in the GOP arsenal is more disgusting than their absolute chickens--- techniques of suppressing democracy for they feel that we cannot figure out appropriate and fair solutions. Well, they will be proven wrong in November.
We can and we will think for ourselves, see through their dishonesty, their immoral behaviors and move them back into the corruption of the law offices, where they belong, seeking loopholes to satisfy their greed.
Obama/Biden 2012
Once they are put out of office, they sell themselves to mega-corporations as lobbyists, to shill for the corporations. It's called "the revolving door".
Which is why lobbyists/lobbying need to be outlawed
If we can assume that now that corporations are 'people' per the Supreme Court, and people who contribute to political campaigns are disclosed by the candidate's filings, why are 'people' who contribute to PACs (501c4 & 501c6), which are not for profit corporations, exempt?
Billionaires and big corporations can spend unlimited amounts of money during campaigns while they hide behind a curtain of secrecy, more than what normal people can do. Seems there are two sets of rules, dependant on how much money they have.
Voters need to know who pays for political messages in order to evaluate their purpose and accuracy. Some ads are very misleading and names should be associated to allow voters to read between the lines or do research for validity.
Unfortunately, Republicans in the Senate have blocked this common sense measure. It’s time for them to stop protecting their influential friends by helping them hide their influence from the public.
At this moment it’s really important to get senators on the record on disclosing political spending.
Republicans have sworn to do anything possible to make this administration 1 term ... this seems to include anything that may help we the people, if it would help Obama.
Every politician that has taken this stand is not doing the job that they are sent to do ... and are being paid to do by the public that put them there.
Remember, we the people can vote this kind of mentality out of power if we vote together.
Rick, remember the short-lived hubub that hit Target not so long ago? I forget what Target management did to tick off some people, but some of their stores were picketed.
To your point, depending on the issue, I would not do business with corporations that support candidates or issues with which I disagree. I doubt that I am the only one that would react that way, which is why corporations, especially retailers, are loathe to disclose their political involvement. To which I say that is exactly the point of disclosure. If Target or any other firm wants to financially support something, fine. I, however, would like to make my purchases at stores that either stay out of the fray or support candidates and issues I also support. Free market at its finest. Too bad Republicans don't agree.
Another well said Bruce.
If you recall, for about 2 days after the Citizens United decision, the tea party was critical of that decision. Then, all of a sudden they went silent on it. In my opinion, that is what exposed the tea party as simply corporate tools.
If you tea party folks want to demonstrate that you are something other than brainless zombies enthralled by Faux News...then here is your chance. Start calling your republican senators demanding to know why you are not entitled to know who is buying elections.
Hey Dim@!$%#s...we KNOW who is buying elections!!! George Soros, UAW, SEIU, HOLLYWOOD, General Electric (you know, Obamas' SELECTED company headed by Immelt, who was selected to head a committe to CREATE Jobs!!! And HE DID!! In other countries). Do you honestly think there are no DIMOCRAP LEANING PACs'?? HOW ABOUT WALL STREET??? Contrary to your beliefs, WALL STREET has HISTORICALLY contributed more to the Dims than to Repubs. No wonder the U.S. is in such deep abd dire straits......THE STUPID PHUCKING VOTERS !!!!
BK
You really need to turn off FOX and go take a rest.
BK-It probably wouldn't hurt if you went back on your meds, as your extreme paranoia is showing.
By the way, you won't look half as stupid if you would use SpellCheck! (Why do mentally challenged people use capital letters and exclamation points all the time?)
Hey, BK, did you ever stop to think that maybe some (a lot) of the people who would like this type of disclosure to be required also know that Democrats have PAC's, including President Obama? Because, being a liberal myself (and wanting Obama to win over Romney), I do. But I still want something like this to be implemented, because it's THE RIGHT THING TO DO.
What about disclosure of the foreign money donated to Obama's 2008 campaign? Dems do not want disclosure at all, they just obfuscate to make it appear they are for it. As for disclosure, why doesn't Obama and Michelle disclose why they were forced to give up their law licenses? There are probably criminal issues involved. The most secretive administration in our history is the Obama administration. This, after promising complete transparency.
McCain needs to look in the mirror and see how pathetic he has become. He had a decent reputation in government at one time but his defeat in 2008 totally destroyed him as a thoughtful legislator with personal integrity. Amazing sad tragic---what can one say.
Remember the McCain/Feingold bill that would limit campaign contributions and require full disclosure? McCain has lost all semblance of dignity, duty and honor which is no surprise given his class ranking at Annapolis - fifth from the bottom.
I have a lot of respect for McCain's service in Vietnam; I have no respect for the loss of his character since the presidential campaign in 2008.
Vietnam Vet 5th Special Forces, Detachment B-36.
Like a lot of you, I used to have tremendous respect for Senator McCain, and I'm a Democrat. However, he has now become the stereotypical "Old Fart", who apparently is starting to suffer the pains of Alheimers, kind of like the old man in the neighborhood, who yells at kids and takes their soccer ball when it come in his yard!
The "Old" MCCain would have easily come up with an amendment to lower the threshold, if it really was his objection, but now he just wants to keep the ball and crawl back in his hobbitt hole.
So goes McCain and very quickly the rest of the honorable men and women in Congress. I's a damm shame that I get to live through the destruction of what was once the best country in the World. Your grandchildren and my grandchildren are being left one hell of a mess. God help them.
Usually politics are pretty murky, usually deliberately so. But it is pretty clear what went down with this affront to the American voter.. The Republicans didn't want undecided voters to know who their billionaire doners were so they filibustered this bill to death.
And Obama does want us to know his donors? You are fullofit.
I wonder how many of you liberal fruitcakes actually read the Disclosure bill. I was quite complicated dues to all the legal mumbo jumbo BS, but what it all boiled down to was that it was intended to force all Republican donors to be revealed while 99% of Democrat donors was excluded. This was done so so Reid and the rest of the scum bag Democrats could terrorized and extort the Donors. It was another power grab by Reid at the behest of Obama and the unmoral Democrats who realize that they pushed the people to far and its time to pay the piper.
The only way to clean up this election mess is to:
1. have all Federal Elections controlled by the Government. All donations go into an election fund that is controlled by non partisan people who will be watched by people from all parties. Not just Republican and Democrat. All money distributed equally. No Candidate shall get more than another to run. This will allow an equal feild to all.
2. Force the Media to give equal time to all candidates at no charge. This will be a stipulation for them to get their lic. renewed.
3. Any Debates held will include all candidates. Any Candidate who refuses to debate another candidate shall be removed from the ballots. This will ensure that all parties get equal time.
4. Media will only be allowed to show debates and not control them. Questions will come from the General public with no party stacking the debate. And the Candidates will not be allowed any list of the questions. This will force honest answers from the Candidates.
5. Media will follow Federal laws . Advising listeners or readers who they support will not be allowed. They can only give out the facts. They will not be allowed to make derogatory reports made up of unsupported facts or innuendo's Any reporter who does so will spend a mandatory 6 months in jail and their employer will be fined $10 million for each violation. Its time for the Media to stop playing games and interfering with elections. It is not part of the freedom of the press.
6. Any candidate who makes untrue allegations , derogitory remarks that are not supported by the facts. Will immdeiately be taken off the Ballot and if the candidate belongs to a political party, that party will not be able to replace that candidate with another.
Anyone have something to add to this do it.
Rightwingwac as you know this is just a game. The democrats want nothing to do with the passage of these. 4 republicans didn't vote and Harry Reid said no and another liberal didn't vote. They wanted to look like they were trying to reform. It was obama that refused public funding, It was obama that took donations from know criminals in the last election, it was obamas folks that used the non traceable gift cards to fund their election, and it was Rezco (the guy he did not have any idea was closing on a crooked house deal athe same time he was) who donated with his friends $120,000 to obama's senate campaign and they want reform.
They are just playing the game and all the lemingberals are following to the lack of a promise land. Betting on America is a fitting slogan. Throw something out and hop to hit gold.
Ironically this Romney creeper is damaging the American way of life when he donates his fathers inheritance to a university. Or when he donated funds to charities in the last two years that exceeds obamas last 5 years of gross adjusted income. To put that in perspective he paid something between 30-33% of his gross income to taxes and charities. He has done more to improve lives in a couple hours than obama will in 20 years.
His Bain attacks show what kind of lowlife he is. He didn't mention Cree in NorthCarolina did he. Obama helped them with $39 million US Tax dollars so they could buy a factory in China. Now more than 50% of their workforce is in China that started in 2009. The grant amount is from a news release that Cree Published and there are many documents available to indicate the the facility was built in cCina in 2009. In addition a Japanese company was purchased by Cree. Japanese aren't known for selling or giving assets away if it may cost them jobs. Thats why folks used to buy whatever lumber they could find in Japan and nail a 3ft and a 4ft 2x4 together to have a 7ft board. It is also why US Apples and other items were not on their grocery racks. Because they keep jobs at home as much as possible.
I recently read an article they left used to attempt to discredit obama's outsourcing using US dollars. Two of the first items I research clearly indicated facilities built in other countries and in one case a considerably larger handout than the right indicated.
ABB Inc
Recieved some dough from obamas team. They built a facility in Mexico. There are now 8000 employees in Mexico making the US a more prosperous country and keeping the jobs here apparently. The thing is this comapnies CEO has no qualms about telling stories about US jobs created and forgets to mention when the Mexico Jobs were added in 2009. 8000 jobs to Mexico and the right has the nerve to say obama isn't creating jobs. Go Figure.
http://www02.abb.com/global/usabb/usabb046.nsf/0/7300e3adcafd64e3c1257612004cdd23/$file/San+Luis+Potosi_English.pdf
Sorry about using the companies own documents against them and proving a legitimate point. I know when I spout off it should just be a wreckless racist comment, lie about former execs, pretend my fearless leaders policies are not what they are and I will try to get liberated.
The etch-a-sketch Republican Party was for disclosure before it is against disclosure.
4 republicans didn't vote. 1 democrat voted against it Harry Reid. Another democrat didn't vote. This is just an election year game.It wouldn't have been active for a year or two.
Rezko added $120,000 in campaign funding to obamas senate campaign, must have invited himself for dinner in obamas home a couple times, and had absolutely no knowledge or involvement with obamas home purchase on the same day with the same property owner wherein Obama bought a home for 300,000 less than its value while Rezco paid only $625,000 for the adjacent lot.
Obama's campaign returned $200,000 last month to two men whose brother was a
Mexican fugitive wanted by federal authorities.
The New York donor, Abake Assongba, and her husband contributed more than $50,000 to Obama's re-election effort this year, federal records show. But Assongba is also fending off a civil court case in Florida, where she's accused of thieving more than $650,000 to help build a multimillion-dollar home in the state – a charge her husband denies.
Unlike the information about Bain these claims have documented facts, court charges, and disclosures from folks involved in the activities. The Huffington Post is reporting the Abake story. Hardly none for being a right wing media outlet.
I seem to remember some well known criminals adding to his election coffer in the 2008 election and the funds being returned after uhhh it was brought to their attention. Do you know how may prepaid card were used to add funds to obamas election funding in 2008? Just curious.
The 1% don't want the 99% to know that they're either buying our votes or impeding out votes. Guess which side the neocons/teabagger/evan-taliban is on?
De2
Hey is it true what they say? Is ignorance really bliss because based on that statement you must be a really, really content and happy person.
Lets see The New York donor, Abake Assongba, Rezko, Rod Blagojevich, William Cellini, and the list of obamas honest hometomn supporters and leaders goes on and on. When they aren't busy stealing, evading taxes, and attempting to take the money of of teachers retirement accounts the are rubbing elbows with obama. I don't know which administration had more people charged, convicted, and pardoned than Clintons Regime. But obamas home town has to be one of the most corrupt political systems in the world.
It is ironic that 50 years after Hitler stood in Germany stirring hatred towards wealthy or certain ethnic groups we have another standing ground in the same fashion in Germany this day. The big difference Hilter created jobs to improve the lives of his counrtymen and stirred the hate. Obama just stirs the hate.
When you give companies US tax dollars to take production plants out of the US and into Mexico it's easy to see why the hispanics like obama. They no longer have to cross the border to get US jobs. I looked into a couple companies he gave money. The companies say one thing, their documents, expansion into other countries a year after obama took office, and other documents provide a very good record of obamas outsourcing of this country. The first two I looked at were so blatant it made my stomach lurch. 6000 jobs to China, 8000 to Mexico, one company built a factory in China and bought another in Japan with your tax dollars.
The DJIA is a 12000 and unemployment hasn't changed. Why?
America........
BOUGHT AND PAID FOR BY BIG POCKET'S.
Good night all
Would that be George Soros maybe?
We hjave some yellow-dog Democrats on the loose.
I think disclosure is a lot about nothing! What we have to do is get the Money Out of politics! How about public financing?
You have my vote. And candidates must hold five debates witht he opponent(s) in their district with a question and answer period with their constituents.