Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Dark Money in Politics

5 posters

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

1Dark Money in Politics Empty Dark Money in Politics 12/19/2015, 5:37 pm

Floridatexan

Floridatexan


http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/34048-how-dark-money-groups-can-get-away-with-breaking-the-law

How Dark Money Groups Can Get Away With Breaking the Law

Tuesday, 15 December 2015
By Mike Ludwig, Truthout | Report



"If you've been watching TV in Iowa this primary season, chances are you've seen an ad featuring Republican presidential candidate Sen. Marco Rubio waxing poetic about the "American dream." The ad plugs a list of "new ideas" such as "throwing out the tax code" that mirror Rubio's campaign platform - but his campaign has nothing to do with the ad, at least not on paper.

The group behind the ad, Conservative Solutions Project, has been accused of violating the tax code by filing as a nonprofit charity that appears to be working for the benefit of only one person: Rubio. But that hasn't stopped the group from injecting millions of dollars into the campaign without publicly disclosing where that money came from. So far, the group raised and spent more money than both Rubio's official campaign and a super PAC dedicated to electing him, leaving voters with no idea as to who is paying top dollar for pro-Rubio ads.

Rubio's campaign is not alone. "Dark money" has exploded into the political scene since the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United decision unleashed a flood of corporate cash into the nation's elections. Groups that don't disclose their donors spent $300 million in the 2012 elections and at least $174 million in the 2014 midterms, when they were responsible for 38 percent of all political ads bought by outside groups, according to the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP).

The bulk of this spending is done by a growing number of groups that file with the IRS as 501(c)(4) nonprofits and are considered by law to primarily be social welfare organizations, not political campaigners, and therefore are not required to reveal their donors. Under vague IRS guidelines, political activity is supposed to make up less than half of what these groups do, but they routinely spend most of their money on efforts to influence elections.

For years, campaign watchdogs have called on the IRS and the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to crack down on dark money groups that brazenly circumvent the tax code and even break the law, but their efforts have repeatedly stalled in the face of partisan gridlock.

"If action isn't taken now, we will see more and more of these groups every year," said Jordan Libowitz, a spokesperson for Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), which has filed numerous civil - and recently, criminal - complaints against dark money groups and their operatives. "We are filing these complaints to stop them before this problem becomes widespread."..."

**********

I think Bernie Sanders is the only candidate that has directly addressed this problem in his campaign...over and over again.

2Dark Money in Politics Empty Re: Dark Money in Politics 12/19/2015, 7:28 pm

Guest


Guest

Another soros site... what a surprise. Do you read any mainstream media? I never see you use reuters, ap... etc.

Hell... you don't even use msnbc or cnn. Your family should organize an intervention.

3Dark Money in Politics Empty Re: Dark Money in Politics 12/19/2015, 8:36 pm

Sal

Sal

PkrBum wrote:Another soros site... what a surprise. Do you read any mainstream media? I never see you use reuters, ap... etc.

Hell... you don't even use msnbc or cnn. Your family should organize an intervention.

You just used newsmax as a source, dumbass.

4Dark Money in Politics Empty Re: Dark Money in Politics 12/20/2015, 5:36 pm

Markle

Markle

Salinsky wrote:
PkrBum wrote:Another soros site... what a surprise. Do you read any mainstream media? I never see you use reuters, ap... etc.

Hell... you don't even use msnbc or cnn. Your family should organize an intervention.

You just used newsmax as a source, dumbass.

DARK MONEY = Clinton Foundation

5Dark Money in Politics Empty Re: Dark Money in Politics 12/20/2015, 8:16 pm

2seaoat



DARK MONEY = Clinton Foundation




A charitable foundation has to account for their donors and their expenditures. All are disclosed. Please show from the foundation records where there ever was a political contribution or an ad ran for a candidate. No good deed goes unpunished by innuendo and false claims.

6Dark Money in Politics Empty Re: Dark Money in Politics 12/20/2015, 8:58 pm

Markle

Markle

2seaoat wrote:DARK MONEY = Clinton Foundation

A charitable foundation has to account for their donors and their expenditures.  All are disclosed.  Please show from the foundation records where there ever was a political contribution or an ad ran for a candidate.   No good deed goes unpunished by innuendo and false claims.

Dark Money in Politics LOL_zpsrc5py0ql

Statute of limitations for tax returns, five years. Clinton Foundation refiling FIVE YEARS of information.

Their records and association are so convoluted that reputable charity evaluating services won't even evaluate them for that very reason. Make a huge contribution to the Clinton Foundation and you get your weapons deal or whatever you wanted from the U.S..

Bill Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation
Why isn't this organization rated?

We had previously evaluated this organization, but have since determined that this charity's atypical business model can not be accurately captured in our current rating methodology. Our removal of The Clinton Foundation from our site is neither a condemnation nor an endorsement of this charity. We reserve the right to reinstate a rating for The Clinton Foundation as soon as we identify a rating methodology that appropriately captures its business model.

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.profile&ein=311580204#.VndOZnarRD8

7Dark Money in Politics Empty Re: Dark Money in Politics 12/20/2015, 9:04 pm

Guest


Guest

There were millions they didn't report from numerous foreign govts. Seagoat ignores the politically inconvenient.

8Dark Money in Politics Empty Re: Dark Money in Politics 12/20/2015, 9:08 pm

Markle

Markle

Dark Money in Politics A023acbd-3f3b-412e-89f5-c9b26b9e398d_zpsbdz4oktm

9Dark Money in Politics Empty Re: Dark Money in Politics 12/20/2015, 9:55 pm

Guest


Guest

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/03/hillarys-campaign-is-built-on-a-shaky-foundation/388324/

The thing about the controversies shaking Hillary Clinton's still-

not-yet-presidential campaign is how utterly predictable they are.

For example, communications that were supposed to be preserved

turning up missing or deleted? We've heard that before. And now

questions about sketchy foreign donations, and failures to disclose

them? Somehow, that one seems familiar too. (Yes, James Carville,

some of us do remember those long-ago controversies.)

Friday's news actually brings two, somewhat-related stories about

questionable practices at the Clinton Foundation, the charitable

organization that Bill Clinton created after leaving the White

House. Reuters notes that when she became secretary of state in

2009, Hillary Clinton pledged to President Obama that the

foundation would issue an annual report of all of its donors, to ease

worries about foreign influence on the nation's top diplomat. That

promise soon fell by the wayside, though: The Clinton Health

Access Initiative, by far the foundation's largest element, hasn't

issued a report since 2010. (CHAI was spun off that year, but

remains subject to the same rules.) An official acknowledged the

mistake.

Meanwhile, The Wall Street Journal notes that while the foundation

also forswore donations from foreign governments while Hillary

Clinton was helming the State Department, "that didn’t stop the

foundation from raising millions of dollars from foreigners with

connections to their home governments, a review of foundation

disclosures shows." Specifically:

One is a member of the Saudi royal family. Another is a

Ukrainian oligarch and former parliamentarian. Others

are individuals with close connections to foreign

governments that stem from their business activities.

Their professed policy interests range from human rights

to U.S.-Cuba relations.

All told, more than a dozen foreign individuals and their

foundations and companies were large donors to the

Clinton Foundation in the years after Mrs. Clinton

became secretary of state in 2009, collectively giving

between $34 million and $68 million, foundation

records show. Some donors also provided funding

directly to charitable projects sponsored by the

foundation, valued by the organization at $60 million.

10Dark Money in Politics Empty Re: Dark Money in Politics 12/21/2015, 12:23 pm

boards of FL

boards of FL

PkrBum wrote:Another soros site... what a surprise. Do you read any mainstream media? I never see you use reuters, ap... etc.

Hell... you don't even use msnbc or cnn. Your family should organize an intervention.



PkrBum's response to a Salon article about redacted Clinton emails::

PkrBum wrote:Does it surprise you when leftist propaganda tells you exactly what you so desperately want to hear and believe?


And then mere minutes later, PkrBum creates a new thread about the exact same subject and links to the following article:

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-new-benghazi-email-shows-dod-offered-state-department-forces-that-could-move-to-benghazi-immediately-specifics-blacked-out-in-new-document/


You see, PkrBum, it's comments like these that confirm the fact that you're an idiot.

Happy holidays, election-boy.

Dark Money in Politics Bonbon-dbfbe36b2ab7e3e46f8bdbc19fcc3ada


_________________
I approve this message.

11Dark Money in Politics Empty Re: Dark Money in Politics 12/21/2015, 4:26 pm

Markle

Markle

boards of FL wrote:
PkrBum wrote:Another soros site... what a surprise. Do you read any mainstream media? I never see you use reuters, ap... etc.

Hell... you don't even use msnbc or cnn. Your family should organize an intervention.

PkrBum's response to a Salon article about redacted Clinton emails::

PkrBum wrote:Does it surprise you when leftist propaganda tells you exactly what you so desperately want to hear and believe?

And then mere minutes later, PkrBum creates a new thread about the exact same subject and links to the following article:

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-new-benghazi-email-shows-dod-offered-state-department-forces-that-could-move-to-benghazi-immediately-specifics-blacked-out-in-new-document/

You see, PkrBum, it's comments like these that confirm the fact that you're an idiot.

Happy holidays, election-boy.

Dark Money in Politics Bonbon-dbfbe36b2ab7e3e46f8bdbc19fcc3ada

NEVER a surprise that all BoardsofFL ever has in response to constantly being crushed, is childish name calling and insults.

Little wonder we can't get more adults on this forum.

12Dark Money in Politics Empty Re: Dark Money in Politics 12/21/2015, 4:42 pm

Guest


Guest

He can't even acknowledge that judicial watch sources their positions with the actual emails released under duress via foia suits. These records belong to us all... everyone should appreciate that they FORCE govt to produce them... except bofer and sal ofcourse. They would prefer to not ever hear anything detrimental to leftist agendas... no transparency... no public records... no accountability... no nothing... unless a pub is the target. That's the definition of a useful idiot.

13Dark Money in Politics Empty Re: Dark Money in Politics 12/21/2015, 5:12 pm

boards of FL

boards of FL

PkrBum wrote:He can't even acknowledge that judicial watch sources their positions with the actual emails released under duress via foia suits. These records belong to us all... everyone should appreciate that they FORCE govt to produce them... except bofer and sal ofcourse. They would prefer to not ever hear anything detrimental to leftist agendas... no transparency... no public records... no accountability... no nothing... unless a pub is the target. That's the definition of a useful idiot.



I directly responded to your Judicial Watch article on the Clinton emails.  You then ran away.  And then here you are telling me that I'm refusing to acknowledge something in your Judicial Watch article?  

Let me help you out with this, PkrBum.  Here is the link to your Judical Watch thread.  Note my reply.  Note the absence of your response.


https://pensacoladiscussion.forumotion.com/t22980-dod-offered-dos-forces-for-benghazi#266793


I'm not refusing to acknowledge anything here.  In fact, I have tried to directly engage you on nearly every subject discussed on this forum.  Watch, I'll try this again since you brought it up.  PkrBum, you created the thread above which links us to a Judicial Watch article.  The Judicial Watch article makes the case that forces were offered to Clinton that could have provided added defense against the Benghazi attack, and they go on to say that the email that shows us that those forces were offered contradicts testimony given by Leon Panetta.

Now, PkrBum, you agree that Judicial Watch was completely full of shit in that regard, correct?  PkrBum, you agree that the Judical Watch article that you posted is factually and objectively wrong, correct?  PkrBum, the emails mentioned in your Judical Watch in fact confirm and corroborate the testimony offered by Leon Panetta, don't they?

So with that said, let's see who refuses to acknowledge what, election-boy.  Will you simply stand corrected and evolve your understanding of the Benghazi attack?  Or will you triple-down on stupid?


_________________
I approve this message.

14Dark Money in Politics Empty Re: Dark Money in Politics 12/21/2015, 5:53 pm

Guest


Guest

As before (and off topic about dark money) judicial watch was given a redacted version. Upon the concerns about the email... it was unredacted. You trust that process... I find it a political ploy. You think one gotcha email is vindication... while ignoring 1000+ others that are redacted and considered sensitive at minimum... and certainly should have never been handled on a private server that she new was improper. She even reprimanded an ambassador who was later fired for the same thing. I'm not here to tell you what you should already know but choose to ignore... damn you're dense.

15Dark Money in Politics Empty Re: Dark Money in Politics 12/21/2015, 6:25 pm

boards of FL

boards of FL

PkrBum wrote:As before (and off topic about dark money) judicial watch was given a redacted version. Upon the concerns about the email... it was unredacted.


But therein lies the problem with Judicial Watch:  They make shit up.  They don't accurately report reality.  You're indirectly confirming as much with your post though I'm sure that isn't your intent.  If Judicial Watch's email was redacted, could they really make the assertion that the email contained information that refutes Panetta's testimony?  I mean, are you not smart enough to sort that out in your own mind before waddling to your computer and creating a thread based upon that Judicial Watch article?

Let's say I found a secret email that said "Obama was really born in (redacted)" and then published an article on a blog titled "New Email Refutes Obama's Fake Birth Certificate!", wouldn't I be completely full of shit?  How could I possibly make such a claim unless I had the redacted information?  Seems like painfully obvious common sense, doesn't it, PkrBum?  But that is exactly what Judicial Watch did with their reporting on the email in question, isn't it?  And you weren't smart enough to figure that out on your own, were you?  You're such a useful idiot, that it never even occurred to you that JW couldn't possibly make the claim that they made unless they had the redacted information, did it?

And then once the unredacted email is released, thus supporting Panetta's testimony and entirely refuting the Judical Watch article, your response isn't to simply stand corrected like an educated, well-adjusted adult would.  No.  That isn't how election-boy operates.  Instead, PkrBum claims that it is really me who is ignoring....something.   It is really me - the guy pointing out the bullshit - who is dense!  Not PkrBum.  It's me!  



PkrBum wrote:You trust that process... I find it a political ploy. You think one gotcha email is vindication... while ignoring 1000+ others that are redacted and considered sensitive at minimum... and certainly should have never been handled on a private server that she new was improper. She even reprimanded an ambassador who was later fired for the same thing. I'm not here to tell you what you should already know but choose to ignore... damn you're dense.


I have said before and I'll say again: I'm not an expert on who redacts information from what government documents and why.  I'm sure it's a complex process and being it the case that I'm no expert in that regard, I'll withhold stating any opinion on the process one way or the other.  I'm sure you have a very strong, confident opinion on the subject, don't you? And I'm sure that if asked, you wouldn't be able to point to anything in the real world that would lead anyone else to subscribe to your opinion, would you?  Of course not!  About the best you could muster would be a copy-and-pasted FWD email, wouldn't it?


Sorry, PkrBum, but I don't trust that process. I prefer to let my worldview be guided by information and reality, not bullshit ideas that I pull from my ass and FWD emails. You clearly - clearly - disagree.


_________________
I approve this message.

16Dark Money in Politics Empty Re: Dark Money in Politics 12/21/2015, 6:45 pm

Guest


Guest

Judicial watch relies upon what is provided upon it's and our rightful access to govt records/information. What's gathered is published. It's only as good as the information your dear govt allows it to see... which as it turns out is calculated and subversive.

17Dark Money in Politics Empty Re: Dark Money in Politics 12/22/2015, 10:51 am

boards of FL

boards of FL

PkrBum wrote:Judicial watch relies upon what is provided upon it's and our rightful access to govt records/information. What's gathered is published. It's only as good as the information your dear govt allows it to see... which as it turns out is calculated and subversive.



And based upon what was provided to Judicial Watch, could they responsibly make the claim that the redacted email refutes the testimony of Panetta?  

I just explained this to you.  Now lets take the training wheels off and see if you can participate on your own.

If an email is given to me that reads "Obama's place of birth is (redacted)", can I responsibly go out and report "NEW EMAIL REFUTES OBAMA'S BIRTH CERTIFICATE!"? What if I create a thread on a political forum based upon such an article. Wouldn't that make me an idiot?

https://pensacoladiscussion.forumotion.com/t22980-dod-offered-dos-forces-for-benghazi#266421


_________________
I approve this message.

18Dark Money in Politics Empty Re: Dark Money in Politics 12/22/2015, 7:35 pm

Markle

Markle

Never a surprise that when BoardsofFL is confronted with facts totally refuting his position, he changes the subject.

Dark Money DOES equal the Clinton Foundation.

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum