Foreign money influencing US elections

So we have a consensus on this forum......foreign money is bad, and both sides are doing it. Can we get a consensus for campaign finance reform and a constitutional amendment to declare that corporations do not have the status of a citizen? I wonder who could possibly object if the problems are really uniform and not partisan? I await enlightenment.

2seaoat wrote:So we have a consensus on this forum......foreign money is bad, and both sides are doing it. Can we get a consensus for campaign finance reform and a constitutional amendment to declare that corporations do not have the status of a citizen? I wonder who could possibly object if the problems are really uniform and not partisan? I await enlightenment.

It's very simple to start limiting the politicians.

It's very simple to start limiting the politicians.




I guess we will have to use the Vulcan mind meld to get a straight answer from you.......please show us the simplicity

2seaoat wrote:It's very simple to start limiting the politicians.




I guess we will have to use the Vulcan mind meld to get a straight answer from you.......please show us the simplicity

I can't help you see the obvious. It's perfectly constitutional to limit govt... and those that wish to serve the public.

othershoe1030 wrote:Sadly, the desire to believe the exact opposite of reality is strong among these new anti-science, anti-reality based kidnappers of the GOP Party. You know when Pat Roberts pleads with them to stop claiming the Earth is 6,000 years old because it makes them look stupid you know something has gone wrong.

I can understand the average person not being interested enough in politics to ferret out some obscure detail of campaign financing but it really disappoints me when people who should know better fail to grasp even the most basic tenants of science such as the difference between climate and weather.  

Yes it is sad that there are so many who wish to believe they can dictate how science operates without examining the data or simply ignoring the data because it conflicts with their pet theory. You know when Al Gore pleads with them to stop polluting the earth with carbon dioxide, as he is chauffeured in his gas guzzling limousine or takes his private jet, because that CO2 will cause the earth to be a hot desert wasteland if everyone doesn't stop burning coal and oil they cheer and follow like mindless zombies. It makes the global warming followers look like the Sunday morning revivalist they despise.

I can understand some average person being lead by the dogmatic science preached by the governmentally funded politically directed agenda buts it really disappoints me when people who should know better forsake the basic principles of science of questioning and skepticism of theories which ignores conflicting data and other data which should be considered but is ignored for the sake of proving their pet theory.

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=diOuUYcenW0

 

I can't help you see the obvious. It's perfectly constitutional to limit govt... and those that wish to serve the public.

Nothing new....you did not understand Citizens and how the Supreme Court contradicts your misconception of the obvious.

Markle wrote:

Floridatexan wrote:
Where did you get that drivel you posted, "."?

You're on a roll today!  Anything you don't like is drivel.  Even though you can never post a thing to refute the FACTS posted here by Conservatives.  Little wonder you get so testy!

There's no link, Einstein. And, needless to say, I don't accept as FACT anything posted by a paid RNC ho.

Floridatexan wrote:

Markle wrote:

Floridatexan wrote:
Where did you get that drivel you posted, "."?

You're on a roll today!  Anything you don't like is drivel.  Even though you can never post a thing to refute the FACTS posted here by Conservatives.  Little wonder you get so testy!

There's no link, Einstein.  And, needless to say, I don't accept as FACT anything posted by a paid RNC ho.

link or n link ft, you just plain don't accept facts.

I you were ever interested in debating facts, you would address content, not links. its all accurate what I posted.

FT needs
Pilla

Dot wrote:

Floridatexan wrote:

Markle wrote:

Floridatexan wrote:
Where did you get that drivel you posted, "."?

You're on a roll today!  Anything you don't like is drivel.  Even though you can never post a thing to refute the FACTS posted here by Conservatives.  Little wonder you get so testy!

There's no link, Einstein.  And, needless to say, I don't accept as FACT anything posted by a paid RNC ho.

link or n link ft, you just plain don't accept facts.

I you were ever interested in debating facts, you would address content, not links. its all accurate what I posted.

Then where the hell did you get it?

PACEDOG#1 wrote:FT needs
Pilla

You need...therapy.

ft, it was and is no secret. its every where.

A conservative political watchdog group is raising the prospect of an “illegal-donor loophole” in the nation’s campaign finance system, and suggesting the grassroots-donor-heavy Obama Campaign may stand to benefit.
In a 109-page report published at a new website CampaignFundingRisks.com, the Government Accountability Institute alleges the current online campaign contribution system lacks accountability and transparency, making it highly susceptible to foreign and fraudulent gifts.
The report’s focus is President Obama’s re-election campaign, which has collected historic sums from online fundraising, relying predominantly on donors who give in small-dollar increments.
Obama and Democrats announced last week that they raised $181 million in September – more than any incumbent president has raised for his re-election in a single month.  The funds poured in through more than 1.8 million transactions, 98 percent of which were in increments of $250 or less, officials said

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/10/group-warns-of-foreign-fraudulent-donors-to-obama-campaign/

Obama had raised so much money from this loop hole in these small increments, you know, the amount that doesn't have to have a person attached to it.

so really, knowing his actions and what he promised, I really do not want to hear it about campaign finance shit. he takes the cake.

but sure, go ahead. close the loop hole. I want it closed QUICKLY.

The GAI report found the Obama campaign Web sites do not ask donors to provide their three-digit card-verification value, or CVV, numbers to ensure they are the legitimate holders of the card

http://nypost.com/2012/10/21/obama-campaign-accepted-foreign-web-donation-and-may-be-hiding-more/

really its all over ft, you could have googled. however, youre not interested in the truth.

you still really believe 181 million $ in less than a month came in via mostly $25 donations which would not require a persons name to be listed.

Dot wrote:The GAI report found the Obama campaign Web sites do not ask donors to provide their three-digit card-verification value, or CVV, numbers to ensure they are the legitimate holders of the card

http://nypost.com/2012/10/21/obama-campaign-accepted-foreign-web-donation-and-may-be-hiding-more/

really its all over ft, you could have googled. however, youre not interested in the truth.

you still really believe 181 million $ in less than a month came in via mostly $25 donations which would not require a persons name to be listed.

Floridatexan doesn't want the truth or a discussion. He hates the FACT that everything said about Senator Barack Hussein Obama prior to his election by his opponents has come to fruition. Obviously this has put Floridatexan, and the other far left Progressives here in permanent hate mode.

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:...Obviously this has put Floridatexan, and the other far left Progressives here in permanent hate mode....

The only poster on this forum who is in "permanent hate mode" is poster PaceDog. He hates President Obama so much that it seethes through every post he makes. The next 35 months are going to be rough on wingnuts as Obama finishes out his term.

Considering the state of ObamaCare, the economy, unemployment and our foreign policy the next 35 months are going to be  rough ride for EVERYONE and getting worse by the day.  Why continue your denial of the facts?

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Government_Accountability_Institute

The Government Accountability Institute (GAI) is a "a new conservative investigative research organization."[1] The GAI states as its mission "to investigate and expose crony capitalism, misuse of taxpayer monies, and other governmental corruption or malfeasance."[2]
The GAI has several ties to right-wing groups such as Citizens United, the American Conservative Union, Young America's Foundation, and the Hoover Institution, through its key staff and board members:
Peter Schweizer, president of the GAI, is a researcher for the Hoover Institution in Stanford, California.[3] Mr. Schweizer is also on the Research Advisory Council of the James Madison Institute,[4] a member of the State Policy Network, which itself is a member of the American Legislative Exchange Council.
Executive Chairman and co-founder of the GAI, Stephen Bannon, is the Executive Chairman of Breitbart News LLC, the parent company of Breitbart.com, a conservative news and opinion website, founded by conservative blogger Andrew Breitbart[5][6].
Board member, Ron Robinson, is a director of both Citizens United[7] and the American Conservative Union.[8][6] Mr. Robinson has also acted as the president of the Young America's Foundation for over thirty years.[9]

-----------------

It's immediately apparent without even looking for the background of this organization that they're trying to give themselves credibility by making their name similar to the GAO...Government Accountability Office. This is nothing more than another right-wing group trying to smear the President. They're aligned with ALEC (Koch brothers), Breitbart, and Citizens United. I see they were formed to coincide with the last election, and I'm sure they're claiming that Obama's win was fraudulent. The New York Post is another right-wing tabloid owned by Rupert Murdoch, with a sordid reputation, and we've discussed the history of the Washington Times (Moonies) many times. It's a great source if you're into North Korean "businessmen" marrying groups of strangers en masse and calling that "religion".

So, yes, I take exception to this "information", because it's nothing but lies. And it wasn't enough to swing the election to cardboard candidate Romney.

It's a cult.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/inside-the-sinister-moonie-cult-how-1301689

Moon claimed to have met Jesus on a hillside and received instructions to carry on his work. He was jailed in N. Korea for having sex with young members of his "church". He was prosecuted in the US for tax evasion. While his members gave up their personal wealth and lived like paupers, he lived like royalty. He was a favorite of the Bushes.

Markle wrote:Top All-Time Donors, 1989-2014

Keep chuckling while you digest this tidbit.

Contributions to Progressives from...the fading Unions.

2.) American Fedn of State, County & Municipal Employees $60,667,379
4.) National Education Assn $53,594,488
7.) Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers $44,478,789
8.) United Auto Workers $41,667,858
9.) Carpenters & Joiners Union $39,260,371
10.) Service Employees International Union $38,395,690
11.) Laborers Union $37,494,010
12.) American Federation of Teachers $36,713,325
13.) Communications Workers of America $36,188,135
14.) Teamsters Union $36,123,209
16.) United Food & Commercial Workers Union $33,756,550
20.) Machinists & Aerospace Workers Union $31,313,097
23.) AFL-CIO $30,938,977
32.) National Assn of Letter Carriers $26,106,359
39.) Plumbers & Pipefitters Union $23,886,248
42.) Operating Engineers Union $23,036,848
43.) International Assn of Fire Fighters $22,963,260
46.) Sheet Metal Workers Union $22,372,978
59.) Koch Industries $18,083,948

Read more:  http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php

You are a terrific foil, I do appreciate your help!

Here again, I'm left baffled as to why you even follow politics.  You're profile says you're 69, so I'm guessing you're already set up for retirement and have secured medicare and social security.  Continuing to show an interest in politics only results in you presenting yourself publicly as a abject moron.  I'm going to try and explain this to you, though I know I'm wasting my time because you can barely read.

Markle, this thread is about foreign money and it's influence in US politics.  We know this because if you look at the title of the thread, it reads "Foreign money influencing US elections".  Go ahead and re-read this several times before progressing through the rest of this.

I posted numbers that show us that, by far (it isn't even close), it is republicans who are to benefit from this foreign money.  I even showed you that, of the top 20 super PACS from the 2012 election - republicans benefited from over 80% of that money.   Case closed.

For whatever reason, you felt a good way to counter this would be to show us contributions from...domestic labor unions...over the course of 25 years.  One more time.  1) Discussion about foreign money and its influence on US politics. 2) I post numbers that quantify that. 3)  You post 25 year totals of domestic contributions from labor unions.

We should really be done here, but while looking at your numbers I noticed something.  If you add them up, you will see that they total to $657,041,519;  that is, over the last 25 years, US labor unions have contributed $657,041,519 to democrats.  

If you contrast this with my numbers (those that are actually relevant to this thread), you will see that if we take just the top 20 super PACs that donated to republicans in the last election....that total is $424,526,232.  Again, this isn't even the grand total but, rather, it is just the total of the top 20 super PACS that happened to support republicans....in the last election only.

So to summarize all this...

1985-2014 - US labor union contributions to democrats - $657,041,519

2012 - super PAC money (Only from to 20 PACs) to republicans - $ 424,526,232

I suspect that if I we were to tally all super PAC money from 2012, we would find that republicans received more money from super PACs in one year (much of this is foreign money) than democrats have received from the top labor unions over the course of two and a half decades.  

Was that the point you were wanting to make, Markle?  Was it your intent to bolster my argument?  Do you even realize that that is what you have done?  Will you even realize this after reading this post?

By a show of hands, who here thinks Markle will understand any of what I just said.

boards of FL wrote:

Markle wrote:Top All-Time Donors, 1989-2014

Keep chuckling while you digest this tidbit.

Contributions to Progressives from...the fading Unions.

2.) American Fedn of State, County & Municipal Employees $60,667,379
4.) National Education Assn $53,594,488
7.) Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers $44,478,789
8.) United Auto Workers $41,667,858
9.) Carpenters & Joiners Union $39,260,371
10.) Service Employees International Union $38,395,690
11.) Laborers Union $37,494,010
12.) American Federation of Teachers $36,713,325
13.) Communications Workers of America $36,188,135
14.) Teamsters Union $36,123,209
16.) United Food & Commercial Workers Union $33,756,550
20.) Machinists & Aerospace Workers Union $31,313,097
23.) AFL-CIO $30,938,977
32.) National Assn of Letter Carriers $26,106,359
39.) Plumbers & Pipefitters Union $23,886,248
42.) Operating Engineers Union $23,036,848
43.) International Assn of Fire Fighters $22,963,260
46.) Sheet Metal Workers Union $22,372,978
59.) Koch Industries $18,083,948

Read more:  http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php

You are a terrific foil, I do appreciate your help!

Here again, I'm left baffled as to why you even follow politics.  You're profile says you're 69, so I'm guessing you're already set up for retirement and have secured medicare and social security.  Continuing to show an interest in politics only results in you presenting yourself publicly as a abject moron.  I'm going to try and explain this to you, though I know I'm wasting my time because you can barely read.

Markle, this thread is about foreign money and it's influence in US politics.  We know this because if you look at the title of the thread, it reads "Foreign money influencing US elections".  Go ahead and re-read this several times before progressing through the rest of this.

I posted numbers that show us that, by far (it isn't even close), it is republicans who are to benefit from this foreign money.  I even showed you that, of the top 20 super PACS from the 2012 election - republicans benefited from over 80% of that money.   Case closed.

For whatever reason, you felt a good way to counter this would be to show us contributions from...domestic labor unions...over the course of 25 years.  One more time.  1) Discussion about foreign money and its influence on US politics. 2) I post numbers that quantify that. 3)  You post 25 year totals of domestic contributions from labor unions.

We should really be done here, but while looking at your numbers I noticed something.  If you add them up, you will see that they total to $657,041,519;  that is, over the last 25 years, US labor unions have contributed $657,041,519 to democrats.  

If you contrast this with my numbers (those that are actually relevant to this thread), you will see that if we take just the top 20 super PACs that donated to republicans in the last election....that total is $424,526,232.  Again, this isn't even the grand total but, rather, it is just the total of the top 20 super PACS that happened to support republicans....in the last election only.

So to summarize all this...

1985-2014 - US labor union contributions to democrats - $657,041,519

2012 - super PAC money (Only from to 20 PACs) to republicans - $ 424,526,232

I suspect that if I we were to tally all super PAC money from 2012, we would find that republicans received more money from super PACs in one year (much of this is foreign money) than democrats have received from the top labor unions over the course of two and a half decades.  

Was that the point you were wanting to make, Markle?  Was it your intent to bolster my argument?  Do you even realize that that is what you have done?  Will you even realize this after reading this post?

By a show of hands, who here thinks Markle will understand any of what I just said.

I approve of this message . . . .   

He will simply ignore this thread.

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:By a show of hands, who here thinks Markle will understand any of what I just said.

His job is to obfuscate the truth to make Republicans look good and Democrats look bad. Enough said!

No one has to MAKE Republicans look good and Democrats "look" bad. I post the FACTS and they do it all by themselves.

Democrats spend, by far, the most money and yet they point to Republicans. Why can't they tell the truth?

And there we have it.

boards of FL wrote:

Markle wrote:Top All-Time Donors, 1989-2014

Keep chuckling while you digest this tidbit.

Contributions to Progressives from...the fading Unions.

2.) American Fedn of State, County & Municipal Employees $60,667,379
4.) National Education Assn $53,594,488
7.) Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers $44,478,789
8.) United Auto Workers $41,667,858
9.) Carpenters & Joiners Union $39,260,371
10.) Service Employees International Union $38,395,690
11.) Laborers Union $37,494,010
12.) American Federation of Teachers $36,713,325
13.) Communications Workers of America $36,188,135
14.) Teamsters Union $36,123,209
16.) United Food & Commercial Workers Union $33,756,550
20.) Machinists & Aerospace Workers Union $31,313,097
23.) AFL-CIO $30,938,977
32.) National Assn of Letter Carriers $26,106,359
39.) Plumbers & Pipefitters Union $23,886,248
42.) Operating Engineers Union $23,036,848
43.) International Assn of Fire Fighters $22,963,260
46.) Sheet Metal Workers Union $22,372,978
59.) Koch Industries $18,083,948

Read more:  http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php

You are a terrific foil, I do appreciate your help!

Here again, I'm left baffled as to why you even follow politics.  You're profile says you're 69, so I'm guessing you're already set up for retirement and have secured medicare and social security.  Continuing to show an interest in politics only results in you presenting yourself publicly as a abject moron.  I'm going to try and explain this to you, though I know I'm wasting my time because you can barely read.

Markle, this thread is about foreign money and it's influence in US politics.  We know this because if you look at the title of the thread, it reads "Foreign money influencing US elections".  Go ahead and re-read this several times before progressing through the rest of this.

I posted numbers that show us that, by far (it isn't even close), it is republicans who are to benefit from this foreign money.  I even showed you that, of the top 20 super PACS from the 2012 election - republicans benefited from over 80% of that money.   Case closed.

For whatever reason, you felt a good way to counter this would be to show us contributions from...domestic labor unions...over the course of 25 years.  One more time.  1) Discussion about foreign money and its influence on US politics. 2) I post numbers that quantify that. 3)  You post 25 year totals of domestic contributions from labor unions.

We should really be done here, but while looking at your numbers I noticed something.  If you add them up, you will see that they total to $657,041,519;  that is, over the last 25 years, US labor unions have contributed $657,041,519 to democrats.  

If you contrast this with my numbers (those that are actually relevant to this thread), you will see that if we take just the top 20 super PACs that donated to republicans in the last election....that total is $424,526,232.  Again, this isn't even the grand total but, rather, it is just the total of the top 20 super PACS that happened to support republicans....in the last election only.

So to summarize all this...

1985-2014 - US labor union contributions to democrats - $657,041,519

2012 - super PAC money (Only from to 20 PACs) to republicans - $ 424,526,232

I suspect that if I we were to tally all super PAC money from 2012, we would find that republicans received more money from super PACs in one year (much of this is foreign money) than democrats have received from the top labor unions over the course of two and a half decades.  

Was that the point you were wanting to make, Markle?  Was it your intent to bolster my argument?  Do you even realize that that is what you have done?  Will you even realize this after reading this post?

By a show of hands, who here thinks Markle will understand any of what I just said.

What candidate for president broke the bank on spending after claiming to support government financed campaigns and by how much? This would be during the past two presidential elections.