REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Now Democrats' corporations are people too

POSTED BY: GEEZER
UPDATED: Monday, February 13, 2012 15:51
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 2088
PAGE 1 of 2

Wednesday, February 8, 2012 3:55 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Obama gives blessing to a super PAC

Fearing a tide of spending by outside conservative groups, President Obama is giving his blessing to a pro-Democratic Party “super PAC” that will work to help his reelection, his campaign said late Monday.

Obama campaign manager Jim Messina said in a message to supporters that “our campaign has to face the reality of the law as it stands,” which he said gives a large financial advantage to Republicans and their allied groups. Messina said Obama will throw his support to Priorities USA Action, a super PAC founded by two former White House aides that until now has been unable to match its conservative competitors in fundraising.

“We can’t allow for two sets of rules in this election whereby the Republican nominee is the beneficiary of unlimited spending and Democrats unilaterally disarm,” Messina wrote.

The move marks a clear political risk for Obama, who has staked much of his political career on opposition to the outsized role of “secret billionaires” and other monied interests while also attempting to win reelection in a struggling economy.

The decision underscores the dramatic changes that have rocked the U.S. political system in the wake of a series of rulings, including Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, that have made it easier for corporations, unions and wealthy individuals to bankroll political advertising and other efforts. The clearest example of the changes have been super PACs, which can raise and spend unlimited funds as long as they do not directly coordinate with candidates, who nonetheless can help raise limited amounts of money for them.

Priorities USA raised just $6.7 million in 2011 between its super PAC and related nonprofits, officials have said. That sluggish pace put it far behind its Republican rivals, in part because many major Democratic donors said they did not feel the Obama campaign was supportive of the effort.

Obama has regularly slammed the Citizens United decision as misguided, and complained about super PACs in an interview aired earlier Monday on NBC News. “Unfortunately right now, partly because of Supreme Court rulings and a bunch of decisions out there, it is very hard to get your message out without having some resources,” he said.

Jonathan Collegio, spokesman for American Crossroads, one of the largest Republican-leaning groups, called the shift a “brazenly cynical move by Barack Obama and his political handlers, who just a year ago had the chutzpah to call outside groups a threat to democracy.”

Messina said senior Obama campaign officials as well as some White House and Cabinet officials will attend and speak at Priorities USA fundraising events, but will not solicit donations during the appearances. Obama, first lady Michelle Obama and Vice President Joe Biden will not appear at any Priorities USA events, he said.

Super PACs have outpaced regular campaigns in the GOP primary race, including one group supporting Newt Gingrich fueled by $11 million from casino magnate Shel Adelson and his family. Many other outside nonprofit groups are also able to spend unlimited funds on elections without having to reveal their donors.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-in-a-switch-endorses-pro-
democratic-super-pac/2012/02/06/gIQAVqnWvQ_story.html


Let's see. Pres. Obama has already raised almost as much money as all the Republican candidates combined, he doesn't have to spend any of it in primaries, and he still needs so much more that he now has to swallow his principles and go to the "monied interests" he previously called "a threat to democracy".

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 9, 2012 5:13 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Crickets?

Corporate personhood was such an evil to be ranted against when it was just the Republicans benefitting from it, but now that the Democrats are doing the same thing it's suddenly not worth commenting on?

SignyM?
Niki?





"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 9, 2012 5:35 AM

BLUEHANDEDMENACE


How exactly do you relate using Super PACs to supporting Corporate Personhood? That makes no sense.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 9, 2012 6:57 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by BlueHandedMenace:
How exactly do you relate using Super PACs to supporting Corporate Personhood? That makes no sense.




Maybe if you read the article...

Quote:

The decision underscores the dramatic changes that have rocked the U.S. political system in the wake of a series of rulings, including Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, that have made it easier for corporations, unions and wealthy individuals to bankroll political advertising and other efforts. The clearest example of the changes have been super PACs, which can raise and spend unlimited funds as long as they do not directly coordinate with candidates, who nonetheless can help raise limited amounts of money for them.


"Citizens United" is the case that validated "Corporate Personhood", allowing corporations the same free sppech rights - including the right to spend money on political speech - as individuals.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 9, 2012 7:08 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


How asinine! Because SuperPACs are pouring millions and millions of dollars into the most expensive election in US history, Obama is supposed to get by on whatever meager funds he can raise without them! This is PRECISELY what is intended by SuperPACs in the first place; that those who don't have them or can't get enough donated to them will lose elections because of that.

How stupid can you get; and how many times have Republicans "accepted" money from the government which they voted against because, as they say, it's already done so they might as well make use of it?

Geeez....talk about pathetic! And what a waste of everyone's time. So is this now going to become a two- or three-page argument? Whoopee...



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 9, 2012 7:53 AM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


Geezer

I don't see many democrats here with a hard-on for Obama like you all had for Bush. Like you all had for Bush even when he engaged in illegal wiretapping, started an illegal war, broke the budget, and created the situation that led to a global economic crisis. In the posts you all posted, Bush could do no wrong, no matter how disastrous his actions.

That btw is how I tell a person who really is an RWA at heart - it's that idolization of anyone in authority who tells you you're on the side that's righteous. Also, you all assume we feel the same way about 'our' side. That somehow, we're starry-eyed in love.

I can assure you, personally, I'm not.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 9, 2012 8:08 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by Niki2:
Because SuperPACs are pouring millions and millions of dollars into the most expensive election in US history, Obama is supposed to get by on whatever meager funds he can raise without them! This is PRECISELY what is intended by SuperPACs in the first place; that those who don't have them or can't get enough donated to them will lose elections because of that.



So are SuperPACs suddenly all right, now that Obama is being forced to use them to increase his "meager" $125 million or so in current campaign contributions?

That's all I'm asking.

They're either right or not. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.


"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 9, 2012 8:09 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:
Geezer

I don't see many democrats here with a hard-on for Obama like you all had for Bush. Like you all had for Bush even when he engaged in illegal wiretapping, started an illegal war, broke the budget, and created the situation that led to a global economic crisis. In the posts you all posted, Bush could do no wrong, no matter how disastrous his actions.

That btw is how I tell a person who really is an RWA at heart - it's that idolization of anyone in authority who tells you you're on the side that's righteous. Also, you all assume we feel the same way about 'our' side. That somehow, we're starry-eyed in love.

I can assure you, personally, I'm not.



Huh?

This has what to do with corporate personhood or SuperPACs?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 9, 2012 8:57 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Hello,

If your point is that the president is a hypocritical fellow, I endorse your point. This president is the worst candidate in the upcoming election, except for all the other ones.

--Anthony


_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 9, 2012 9:55 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

If your point is that the president is a hypocritical fellow, I endorse your point. This president is the worst candidate in the upcoming election, except for all the other ones.

--Anthony



More "understands political expediency" than "hypocritical".

I'd just like some of the folks here to recognize it for that, rather than either avoiding it alltogether or saying it's different when Democrats do it.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 9, 2012 10:03 AM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


"Crickets?"

My reply has to do with this.

It's not that I find corporate personhood and its consequent superPACs acceptable. And in fact you'll find a lot of democrats, liberals, and others, myself included, who made extremely negative comments about the whole travesty.

So, what's your point?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 9, 2012 10:17 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:
It's not that I find corporate personhood and its consequent superPACs acceptable. And in fact you'll find a lot of democrats, liberals, and others, myself included, who made extremely negative comments about the whole travesty.

So, what's your point?



That the Democrats, liberals, and others, including yourself, who made extremely negative comments about the whole travesty, seem hesitant to make extremely negative comments about Pres. Obama's entry into the whole travesty.

Or even comments on the propriety of his use of SuperPACs at all.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 9, 2012 10:33 AM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


>MY< negative comments about republicans specifically were directed against Scott Walker, Rick Scott, Rick Snyder, and John Kasich whose policies were very obviously bought and paid for by the Koch brothers. >MY< problem with corporate personhood is that it could result in the very problem exemplified by those republicans.

Whether Obama does the corporate's bidding remains to be seen.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 9, 2012 10:53 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Of course superPACs are bad, anyone who hasn't figured that out is ignorant at best. Colbert/Stewart have done a GREAT job of illustrating how and why, and it's brought attention to the idiocy of them nicely. But to say the President shouldn't use them because he's against them is pretty transparent: If he refuses to use them, the most likely he'd be defeated by the tons of money the Republican superPACs will use against him. You'd love that, which is why you make your argument..

Again I ask: What about all the Republican governors, etc., who took the stimulus money, and by the way took the CREDIT for it, handing out giant checks and never ever mentioning that the money came from something they had not only voted against, but fought like hell to defeat and continue even now to blame Obama for? If they were truly against the stimulus, then they should have refused the funding given to their states, right?

It's a non-argument. Obama didn't vote against superPACs, tho' I'm sure if he were in a position to, he would have. SuperPACs are now the "law of the land", thank you fucking Supremes, and give those who have them a major avantage over those who don't. Why give away that advantage just to stand on principle, and lose as a result? The day I see someone from the right do that, AND WIN, we'll have something to discuss.

Your argument is facetious at best, transparently partisan for sure, and wrong any way you look at it. To borrow a phrase from Raptor, it's downright childish.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 9, 2012 12:12 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


"Why give away that advantage just to stand on principle, and lose as a result?"

Hello,

There's no point in having principles if you're not going to stand on them. Principles aren't principles if they disappear when they become inconvenient. That's not childish thinking. That's morality, ethics, and honor.

It's okay to call B.S. on your own guy when he goes astray. It's even preferred.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 9, 2012 1:18 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht


I think so many of these problems would be fixed if there was a rule made taking the money out of politics. Limits on what corporations can give, things like that.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 9, 2012 1:23 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


He was against them, before he was for them ?

Seriously, is that part of the Democratic motto or something ?

Wow.


" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 9, 2012 1:35 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
He was against them, before he was for them ?

Seriously, is that part of the Democratic motto or something ?

Wow.


" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "




Hello,

I think any honest appraisal finds this behavior typical of politicians in general. I think we should all find this behavior shameful, but to point at the Democrats and pretend they are a unique snoflake in this regard is just as hypocritical.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 9, 2012 1:48 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


And yet, when the Dems are guilty of it, the first thing we hear is " but EVERYONE does it ".


" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 9, 2012 1:53 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
And yet, when the Dems are guilty of it, the first thing we hear is " but EVERYONE does it ".


" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "




Hello,

I look forward to you setting a better example when one of your own does something wrong. I look forward to you standing on your principles, and not just pointing at the other guys.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 9, 2012 5:39 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by Niki2:
Of course superPACs are bad, anyone who hasn't figured that out is ignorant at best. Colbert/Stewart have done a GREAT job of illustrating how and why, and it's brought attention to the idiocy of them nicely. But to say the President shouldn't use them because he's against them is pretty transparent



Did I say the President shouldn't use them?

No.

I just said that the folks who were against SuperPACs when only Republicans used them should recognize that there's an ethical dilemma presented by the man they support using the methods they decry, and that they should admit this dilemma exists.

I understand that a lot of politics is money, and that it's difficult for a politician to turn down funds, even if the method of collecting then is not in line with their views.

It'd be nice if we could get the money out altogether, but since we can't, folks running for office have to make decisions about what level of corporate support they'll take. And the folks supporting them have to recognise that they sometimes have to hold their noses and admit that their candidate has taken the less-than-high road for the sake of political expediency.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 9, 2012 6:04 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


"I just said that the folks who were against SuperPACs when only Republicans used them ..."


You don't seem to have either read my posts or understood them.

I (and I suspect most) don't like superPACS b/c they could give rise to elections or policy for sale. If that wasn't an issue, I don't think anyone would care one way or the other.

The republican governors I listed above pretty evidently were bought by the Koch brothers.

>IF< Obama creates policy at the behest of superPAC money then he will be just as despicable. That hasn't happened yet.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 9, 2012 6:04 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


"I just said that the folks who were against SuperPACs when only Republicans used them ..."


You don't seem to have either read my posts or understood them.

I (and I suspect most) don't like superPACS b/c they could give rise to elections or policy for sale. If that wasn't an issue, I don't think anyone would care one way or the other.

The republican governors I listed above (Scott Walker, Rick Scott, Rick Snyder, and John Kasich) pretty evidently were bought by the Koch brothers.

>IF< Obama creates policy at the behest of superPAC money then he will be just as despicable. That hasn't happened yet.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 9, 2012 6:22 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:
I (and I suspect most) don't like superPACS b/c they could give rise to elections or policy for sale. If that wasn't an issue, I don't think anyone would care one way or the other.

The republican governors I listed above pretty evidently were bought by the Koch brothers.

>IF< Obama creates policy at the behest of superPAC money then he will be just as despicable. That hasn't happened yet.



So the fact that he's taking money from the corporations doesn't bother you at all as long as you don't think he's bought?

How do you tell?



"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 9, 2012 6:56 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


By what he'll do. Time will tell.

My personal opinion - I would LIKE to think he is a master strategist. However, the fact that he pursued 'bipartisanship' long after it was a dead and rotting makes me think not so much ... among other things.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 9, 2012 7:38 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:

Originally posted by Niki2:
Of course superPACs are bad, anyone who hasn't figured that out is ignorant at best. Colbert/Stewart have done a GREAT job of illustrating how and why, and it's brought attention to the idiocy of them nicely. But to say the President shouldn't use them because he's against them is pretty transparent



Did I say the President shouldn't use them?

No.

I just said that the folks who were against SuperPACs when only Republicans used them should recognize that there's an ethical dilemma presented by the man they support using the methods they decry, and that they should admit this dilemma exists.

I understand that a lot of politics is money, and that it's difficult for a politician to turn down funds, even if the method of collecting then is not in line with their views.

It'd be nice if we could get the money out altogether, but since we can't, folks running for office have to make decisions about what level of corporate support they'll take. And the folks supporting them have to recognise that they sometimes have to hold their noses and admit that their candidate has taken the less-than-high road for the sake of political expediency.

"Keep the Shiny side up"




Where is the dilemma? He said he didn't agree with the Citizens United decision, but it's the Court's decision, which makes it the law of the land. He's following the law as set out by the conservative Supreme Court, and now conservatives have a problem with it.

I hope Obama raises $14 billion for his election campaign, because maybe THEN the GOP would finally get off its ass and try to reign in the power of superPACs and hidden money in elections.

Wanna get the big money out of the elections? Pass an amendment to the Constitution and do away with this idiotic notion of "corporate personhood" once and for all. Until then, hate the game if you want, but don't whinge about Obama playing by the same rules everybody else gets to play by.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 10, 2012 4:35 AM

CAVETROLL


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:


I just said that the folks who were against SuperPACs when only Republicans used them should recognize that there's an ethical dilemma presented by the man they support using the methods they decry, and that they should admit this dilemma exists.



Politicians don't have ethics, ergo, no dilemma.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 10, 2012 5:04 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Where is the dilemma? He said he didn't agree with the Citizens United decision, but it's the Court's decision, which makes it the law of the land. He's following the law as set out by the conservative Supreme Court, and now conservatives have a problem with it.



Haven't seen any indication that conservatives have a problem with it. Just noting that the liberals who had a problem with SuperPacs when only Republicans were using them now seem somewhat conflicted. "Oh. It's not so bad because we have no evidence yet that millions in corporate donations will sway him." sounds like a bit of backfilling.

Quote:

Wanna get the big money out of the elections? Pass an amendment to the Constitution and do away with this idiotic notion of "corporate personhood" once and for all. Until then, hate the game if you want, but don't whinge about Obama playing by the same rules everybody else gets to play by.


As long as everyone understands he's doing the same thing that was evil when only Republicans were doing it, I'm good with it.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 10, 2012 6:47 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Anthony,
Quote:

I think we should all find this behavior shameful, but to point at the Democrats and pretend they are a unique snoflake in this regard is just as hypocritical.
I agree 100%. I don't like Obama using them, mind you, but he is against them and if given the option, I'm almost positive he wouldn't use them.

On the other hand,
Quote:

Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney on Tuesday blasted the influence of so-called super PACs in contemporary politics, calling the "new entities" a "disaster" and claiming that campaign finance laws have "made a mockery of our political campaign season."

"This is a strange thing in these campaign finance laws," Romney said in an appearance on MSNBC's "Morning Joe." "They set up these new entities, which I think is a disaster, by the way. Campaign finance law has made a mockery of our political campaign season." http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57345598-503544/mitt-romney-sup
er-pacs-are-a-disaster/
if you want to bitch about being "for" them until he's "against" them, then being "for" them because he continues using them, then yes, I do find that more egregious, given he's been using them all along and Obama has been clear that he's only utilizing them because everyone else is.

We need damned election-financing REFORM, and have for decades. Riona, that's been a cry for as long as I can remember.

Also, back in 2008
Quote:

Since the start of 2007, (Obam's) campaign relied on bigger donors and smaller donors nearly equally, pulling in successive donations mostly over the Internet. http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.php?id=n00009638 also only took $1,830 from super pacs during that campaign. McCain, on the other hand, took $1,407,959 from super pacs that election.

I hate super pacs; I'm bummed Obama is using them; I want to get rid of them, and we're working to do that. Want to help? Go to Movetoamend.org and help us out, volunteer, join the Race to Amend, give a donation. Or go on bitching and do nothing.

But I don't expect Obama to forego super pacs when he is up against the most expensive election in history (as each one subsequently IS) without them, when every other candidate is using them. I would like to think he'll do what he can to minimize their influence in future, if re-elected, and that we CAN manage to get an amendment, tough as that's going to be. Because otherwise we are a bought and sold country, period.

So I'll hold my nose. Why did none of our righties address the Republican Governors taking the stimulus money after voting against it and being vocally VERY against it, then taking CREDIT for it? Isn't that just as big a dichotomy, if not a bigger one? At least Obama's being honest by saying he doesn't like it, but HE's gonna hold his nose, too, and do it.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 10, 2012 7:27 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Looks the the Right is worried that things are turning around and going to bite them in the ass.



I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 10, 2012 7:44 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

I agree 100%. I don't like Obama using them, mind you, but he is against them and if given the option, I'm almost positive he wouldn't use them.




The problem with that statement is, it's wrong. Obama DOES have the option not to use superPACs or their money. He opted to use them in order to be more competitive with other candidates who are using them.

I don't like Obama using them, but if this is the new reality of campaign financing, he'd be a fool not to use every legal means available.

Will he be "bought" by moneyed interests? Probably as much as any other politician, and some will be bought more cheaply than others. Rick Perry famously bristled at the idea that he could be bought for a mere $5000, suggesting that he does have a price, but he "ain't gonna spread for no roses", to quote The Kids In The Hall.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 10, 2012 7:47 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

As long as everyone understands he's doing the same thing that was evil when only Republicans were doing it, I'm good with it.



Oh, I understand that, and find it just as evil no matter who does it. It's been suggested before that politicians should wear NASCAR-style driving suits with all their "sponsors" listed on them, so you know exactly who they owe fealty to, because it's for damn sure they don't feel they owe anything to US!

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 10, 2012 9:42 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Amen Mike. I would reply, however, that he'd have less chance of winning if he didn't do as everyone else is doing and have a super pac. I don't like them, but there's something about everyone playing by the same "rules", as it were. I meant that if the situation were such that he didn't have to use them to compete with the incredible amount of money they're providing his challengers, I'm sure he wouldn't use them.

THUS FAR:
Quote:

The first round of super PAC annual filings came in yesterday, and we at Sunlight have been digging through them since. Our reporting team has been blogging the reports as we digest them.

Below are five takeaway points, based on a Sunlight Foundation analysis of FEC filings for nine super PACs that raised at least $500,000 in 2011 and have spent money in the presidential election.

1. It’s a few rich donors running the show

Among nine super PACs that raised at least $500,000 and have spent on the presidential election so far, almost half of the itemized contributions (47.9%) came from just 22 donors who gave more than $500,000. And 90 donors who gave more than $100,000 accounted for 78.6% of the contributions. Overall, these super PACS had only 714 itemized contributions (631 individuals and 83 organizations).

In other words, these super PACs are turning out to be vehicles for a very limited number of wealthy individuals and corporations to spend very large sums of money and take a blaring megaphone to the concept of political speech.

2. Most of the donors are individuals, but corporations are playing a big role

In Table 2 above, we see that of the 17 contributions of $1 million or more, seven came from corporations, led by the Contran Corporation, which gave $3 million. Contran is run by the Texas billionaire Harold Simmons, who also gave $5.5 million of his own money. Both gave to the pro-Perry super PAC “Make us Great Again, Inc.”. Simmons has since moved onto the pro-Gingrich “Winning Our Future”; Contran has moved onto the anti-Obama “American Crossroads.”

Overall, of the 714 itemized contributions to the nine super PACs, organizations (mostly corporations) were responsible for only 11% (83) of the contributions, though they did give 29.7% of the total donations. Still, the giving is dominated by individuals. On average, individuals gave more ($70,024 vs $29,648), primarily because there were more really big donations from individuals.

3. Super PACs vary in their reliance on the very largest donors (details on website)

While it’s clear that all of the super PACs are getting the majority of their donations from donors giving more than $50,000, they do vary in the extent to which they rely on donations in chunks of $500,000 or more.

4. Some donors are giving to multiple Super PACs

It's also worth noting that there were 15 individuals and organizations that gave to at least two different super PACs, led by Perry Homes CEO Bob Perry, who gave to three (the pro-Perry Make us Great Again, the anti-Obama American Crossroads, and the pro-Romney Restore our Future). Bob Perry, of course, is no stranger to major political giving. In the 2010 cycle, he gave more than $7 million, making him the most generous political donor of the cycle. What this shows is that some of these rich individuals cannot limit themselves to just one super PAC, and probably will continue to spend widely.

5. Conclusion: It’s going to get worse

These revelations should not come as a surprise. But what’s impressive is just how concentrated the giving is. Among them, these nine presidential Super PACs have raised more than $62 million. Of that money, almost half (48%) has come from just 22 individuals.

We’ve already seen just how potent these super PACs can be in the first few Republican primary contests. As the electoral season moves on, super PACs will likely expand to House and Senate races as well. If what we’ve seen so far is any indication, more and more political fundraising will be dominated by the handful of super-wealthy individuals and corporations who can and will spend seven figures. These kinds of contributions can change the dynamics of a political campaign, which gives these individuals incredible potential power. It cannot be a good thing for our electoral process. Details, breakdowns and tables at http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2012/02/01/superpac-takeaways/ does one compete when the odds are so stacked against them, if one refuses to use the same tools?

And how does everyone like a few very rich donors being able to swing our elections? As Colbert said "Gee, I hope they elect someone I like!"



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 10, 2012 9:49 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
It's been suggested before that politicians should wear NASCAR-style driving suits with all their "sponsors" listed on them, so you know exactly who they owe fealty to, because it's for damn sure they don't feel they owe anything to US!



I can see the acceptance speeches now.

"Well, Bob, the Microsoft, GM, Citibank presidential campaign got off to a strong start and with the help of our Verizon partners our wonderful pit crew communicated our message and got us across the finish line first."

"Here, Mr. President. Put on the Nike hat and hold up the Coke can."

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 10, 2012 10:04 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


"You've just won the presidency of the United States - what are you going to do now?"

"I'M GOING TO DISNEYWORLD!"

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 10, 2012 5:51 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:

Originally posted by m52nickerson:
Looks the the Right is worried that things THEY ENABLED are turning around and going to bite them in the ass.


Minor clarity edit, hope ya don't mind...

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 11, 2012 7:23 AM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


"Looks the the Right is worried that things THEY ENABLED are turning around and going to bite them in the ass."

It already is. It's made a mess of the nomination process where individuals with one or two rich sugar daddies are staying in due to funding they wouldn't otherwise have had.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 12, 2012 8:40 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


The money is going for what?

Advertising.

1.) One of the fixes is really simple: Just have the FCC require that all of its licensees provide a meaningful amount of free prime airtime to all state or national candidates on the ballot. That way, candidates like Ron Paul will manage to get their word out. And to those who would whine about lost advertising revenues I have two responses: "Everyone is on the same playing field" here, and "What is more important, your revenues or our democracy?"

2.) Being that this is advertising and not free speech (the minute you have to pay for a venue it is no longer "free" speech IMHO) shouldn't they follow truth in advertising laws?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 12, 2012 8:03 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht


I think those are good ideas Signe.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 13, 2012 5:35 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Amen Sig. Don't I WISH!!!



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 13, 2012 6:30 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


"the minute you have to pay for a venue it is no longer "free" speech IMHO"

Hello,

I think that would be a very dangerous stance in the long run.

--Anthony


_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 13, 2012 8:31 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
The money is going for what?

Advertising.

1.) One of the fixes is really simple: Just have the FCC require that all of its licensees provide a meaningful amount of free prime airtime to all state or national candidates on the ballot. That way, candidates like Ron Paul will manage to get their word out. And to those who would whine about lost advertising revenues I have two responses: "Everyone is on the same playing field" here, and "What is more important, your revenues or our democracy?"



Considering the number of folks who'd declare as candidates if they could get free prime time air, I'd think most folks would be whining about to loss of any broadcasting but political ads.

As to "Everyone is on the same playing field," I'm not sure I'd care to winnow through all the "Aliens probed me" and "Let's go back to the poll tax" candidates who'd pop up, just in hope of getting to someone with a reasonable platform.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 13, 2012 8:34 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
The money is going for what?

Advertising.

1.) One of the fixes is really simple: Just have the FCC require that all of its licensees provide a meaningful amount of free prime airtime to all state or national candidates on the ballot. That way, candidates like Ron Paul will manage to get their word out. And to those who would whine about lost advertising revenues I have two responses: "Everyone is on the same playing field" here, and "What is more important, your revenues or our democracy?"



Considering the number of folks who'd declare as candidates if they could get free prime time air, I'd think most folks would be whining about to loss of any broadcasting but political ads.

As to "Everyone is on the same playing field," I'm not sure I'd care to winnow through all the "Aliens probed me" and "Let's go back to the poll tax" candidates who'd pop up, just in hope of getting to someone with a reasonable platform.

"Keep the Shiny side up"



Hello,

Better than most reality TV.

--Anthony


_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 13, 2012 9:48 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

Better than most reality TV.

--Anthony



What isn't?

But to paraphrase SignyM, "What is more important, your entertainment or our democracy?"

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 13, 2012 11:23 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Geezer, it's not an easy thing to get on a ballot. It's not like you can just say "I'm running for office"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 13, 2012 11:51 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

Better than most reality TV.

--Anthony



What isn't?

But to paraphrase SignyM, "What is more important, your entertainment or our democracy?"

"Keep the Shiny side up"



Hello,

Why choose? You can have both.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 13, 2012 12:06 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Geezer, it's not an easy thing to get on a ballot. It's not like you can just say "I'm running for office"



Hello,

Quite right. Giving air time to candidates equally is hardly the same as giving air time to a million people who woke up one day and decided to run for office between their first sip of coffee and their first bite of doughnut.

Although I still have hope that the Internet will someday render moot much of the money spent on politics.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 13, 2012 12:22 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


I would wish so.

But I've read the reason why people are so polarized now is b/c they are geographically polarized - like lives with like. And people tend to select their information sources based on what they believe. So while there are a million TV channels, internet news sources and blogs, radio stations, newspapers etc people restrict themselves to a few sources (and for FOX 'news' watchers, 80% restrict themselves to that one source). People tend to learn the same thing a million times over and dig their mental rut ever deeper, rather than break out and learn anything new.

The internet is not so much a learning resource and information venue as it is a self-selected droning propaganda.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 13, 2012 3:19 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Geezer, it's not an easy thing to get on a ballot. It's not like you can just say "I'm running for office"


I'd say that depends on the ballot - hell at one point I was running FROM office!

Also, regarding the stupidities and abstracts, think about how many people you could feed, house and clothe for the same amount of money, AND get massive free advertisement and public support ?
Dumbasses, the lot of them.

I ran a specifically designed to fail joke "campaign" around here to provoke other candidates into offering food with their pitch (we gave out cookies with the flyers, eeeevil cookies...) and so far we've rooked a couple of em into it simply by enforcing the expectations of the local "public" upon them - and frankly I'd rather them dance a little on my strings than actually try to DO that job cause when I do what they tell me, they wind up hating me for it, well, at the TIME, at least...

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 13, 2012 3:22 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:
I would wish so.

But I've read the reason why people are so polarized now is b/c they are geographically polarized - like lives with like. And people tend to select their information sources based on what they believe. So while there are a million TV channels, internet news sources and blogs, radio stations, newspapers etc people restrict themselves to a few sources (and for FOX 'news' watchers, 80% restrict themselves to that one source). People tend to learn the same thing a million times over and dig their mental rut ever deeper, rather than break out and learn anything new.

The internet is not so much a learning resource and information venue as it is a self-selected droning propaganda.


Exactly!

But the problem with that kind of self-reinforced mental programming is, as I have pointed out with occasional examples - is that anyone who knows the right buttons to push can dance them to whatever tune they like, or make their mental trains crash into each other on purpose and really screw them up psychologically.

Fixing it though, that ain't easy, you have to deliver enough of a mental shock to drive their little mental train out of the rut, off the rails, before you can even BEGIN to communicate with them, which is why I usually short-circuit their trained aggression by not reacting in the expected way.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Elections; 2024
Thu, March 28, 2024 11:18 - 2071 posts
BUILD BACK BETTER!
Thu, March 28, 2024 11:16 - 6 posts
Salon: NBC's Ronna blunder: A failed attempt to appeal to MAGA voters — except they hate her too
Thu, March 28, 2024 07:04 - 1 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, March 28, 2024 05:27 - 6154 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, March 28, 2024 02:07 - 3408 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Wed, March 27, 2024 23:21 - 987 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Wed, March 27, 2024 15:03 - 824 posts
NBC News: Behind the scenes, Biden has grown angry and anxious about re-election effort
Wed, March 27, 2024 14:58 - 2 posts
RFK Jr. Destroys His Candidacy With VP Pick?
Wed, March 27, 2024 11:59 - 16 posts
Russia says 60 dead, 145 injured in concert hall raid; Islamic State group claims responsibility
Wed, March 27, 2024 10:57 - 49 posts
Ha. Haha! HAHA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHA!!!!!!
Tue, March 26, 2024 21:26 - 1 posts
You can't take the sky from me, a tribute to Firefly
Tue, March 26, 2024 16:26 - 293 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL