Foreign money influencing US elections

Markle wrote: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.

Markle wrote:

boards of FL wrote:http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/campaign-finance/independent-expenditures/totals

Top All-Time Donors, 1989-2014

Foreign money enters our election process through super PACs.

The link above shows us that, during the last presidential election, only 10 of the 45 major super PACs that accounted for most of the outside spending are democratic leaning.  All of the rest are pro-GOP.  

I actually tallied up the top 20 super PACs from the link above:

Pro-republican: $ 424,526,232 - 83.9%
Pro-democrat: $ 81,419,130 - 16.1%

Oddly enough, however, GOP supporters believe that the exact opposite is the case.  GOP supports, living in a world completely divorced from reality, believe that it is actually Obama who reaped the most from these outside, independent spending channels.  

Point and laugh at the GOP supporters, everyone!  Point and laugh at the GOP supporters!

HAHAHAHAHA!

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!

PkrBum wrote:I would consider the workers dues better spent on sustaining their industry and increasing ways to produce.

Hell... building a plant or factory would be money better spent.

PkrBum wrote:There you go... if you want a collectivist enterprise... build it. Divide the profits... grow it. Produce... radical I know.

knothead wrote:

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 . . . .   

Floridatexan wrote:
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”  ---  Joseph Goebbels

Floridatexan wrote:

PkrBum wrote:There you go... if you want a collectivist enterprise... build it. Divide the profits... grow it. Produce... radical I know.

Get an effing grip. People are what's important. If you can't grasp that basic tenet, you're lost in lala land. I don't care how it comes; people need to be empowered, or our democratic republic is doomed, while you sit around and discuss "commie" concepts you don't even understand. I'm so sick and tired of your obtuseness. I don't understand how you can come here day after day and spout the same nonsense. Look at the actual facts; look at the reality...not some abstract idea about "socialism" or "communism". I don't think you understand either. I don't really understand how you continue to support a party that has completely sold out the American people.

Markle wrote:You have yet to answer the simple question I posed as to which presidential candidate trashed the idea of government financing political campaigns and which candidate first supported limits on campaign spending and then, at the last minute switched and outspent his opponent by a 2 to 1 margin?

Damaged Eagle wrote:

Floridatexan wrote:
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”  ---  Joseph Goebbels

So now you're admitting that Markle is telling the truth and that the current government and it's puppet mouthpieces (that's you) are scared of what he has to say.

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Ljy6PTbX9I

  

Floridatexan wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:

Floridatexan wrote:
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”  ---  Joseph Goebbels

So now you're admitting that Markle is telling the truth and that the current government and it's puppet mouthpieces (that's you) are scared of what he has to say.

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Ljy6PTbX9I

  

No, you smarmy little hayseed, I'm COMPARING MARKLE TO GOEBBELS...a valid comparison...two paid right-wing fascist hacks.  

boards of FL wrote:

Markle wrote:You have yet to answer the simple question I posed as to which presidential candidate trashed the idea of government financing political campaigns and which candidate first supported limits on campaign spending and then, at the last minute switched and outspent his opponent by a 2 to 1 margin?

I don't know the answer to your question.  You're so bad at rhetorical questions that you're not even making an effective point.  Rather than stumble your way through this, why not simply state your point?  Now that we have established, irrefutably, that it was Romney and the Republican party that primarily benefited from super PAC money - which is the channel through which foreign influence enters our election process - by receiving over 80% of the proceeds from the top 20 super PACs...what is it that you are trying to communicate now in response to that?  Now that we know - thanks to you posting the labor union numbers - that super PACs spent in one year almost as much as US labor unions spent over the course of 25  years combined....what is it that you are trying to say?   Why not stop asking vague rhetorical questions and simply respond, directly, to my post?  See if you can coherently communicate your idea, whatever it is, in the form of a statement.  

I feel like I'm explaining an assignment to a 1st grade class.  


While the rest of the forum waits for your response, they can read this.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/#out


Total spending

Obama - $1,107,114,464
Romney - $1,238,090,807


Source of funds

Obama small indiv contributions: $233,215,440
Romney small indiv contributions: $79,806,091

Obama large indiv contributions: $489,660,089
Romney large indiv contributions: $366,336,696

Obama PAC contributions: $0
Romney PAC contributions: $1,076,496


Obama top contributors

1. University of California
2. Microsoft Corp
3. Google
4. US Government
5. Harvard University

Romney top contributors

1. Goldman Sachs
2. Bank of America
3. Morgan Stanley
4. JPMorgan Chase & Co.
5. Wells Fargo


Spending breakdown

Obama candidate spending: $683,546,548
Romney candidate spending: $433,281,516

Obama party spending: $292,264,802
Romney party spending: $386,180,565

Obama outside spending: $131,303,114
Romney outside spending: $418,628,726

Floridatexan wrote:
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”  ---  Joseph Goebbels

Markle wrote:Curiously you ignored the other part of my query.  Which candidate supported public financing for presidential campaigns until the last minute when he switched his opinion.  Guess you could say that was another of his LIES.  

I don't know the answer to your question.  You're so bad at rhetorical questions that you're not even making an effective point.  Rather than stumble your way through this, why not simply state your point?  Now that we have established, irrefutably, that it was Romney and the Republican party that primarily benefited from super PAC money - which is the channel through which foreign influence enters our election process - by receiving over 80% of the proceeds from the top 20 super PACs...what is it that you are trying to communicate now in response to that?  Now that we know - thanks to you posting the labor union numbers - that super PACs spent in one year almost as much as US labor unions spent over the course of 25  years combined....what is it that you are trying to say?   Why not stop asking vague rhetorical questions and simply respond, directly, to my post?  See if you can coherently communicate your idea, whatever it is, in the form of a statement.