we SHOULD know who's donating money and how it's being used. look - if you want unlimited donations with no restrictions then at least man up and be honest about who's giving all that cash and what they're doing with it. we can't stop it, but it'd be nice to see who's buying out our government for their own personal use.

The pessimist in me says someone will take this to court, bump it up to SCOTUS and they'll find that restrictions on unlimited anonymous donations to specific candidates as well as advertising in favor of a specific candidate are unconstitutional.

Wish they'd crack down on these scam "charities" that he is running.

Not holding my breath if SCOTUS gets involved. Those guys are assholes.

No bias in that report.

Nope. None what-so-ever.

Satanic_Hamster: Wish they'd crack down on these scam "charities" that he is running.

They aren't charities they are social welfare organizations.

Overfiend: No bias in that report.

Nope. None what-so-ever.

attacking the article? hmm. interesting opening move.

Weaver95: we SHOULD know who's donating money and how it's being used. look - if you want unlimited donations with no restrictions then at least man up and be honest about who's giving all that cash and what they're doing with it. we can't stop it, but it'd be nice to see who's buying out our government for their own personal use.

If there's online databases to see who signed a petition, there's no reason why donors should be able to remain anonymous.

There is no right to privacy in the Constitution - Justice Scalia

Dana Perino looking like Gollum, yikes.

You'd think Republicans would be for this. After all, they're convinced that Obama is being funded by Soros, the Taliban, Al-Qaeda, Saul Alinsky, Kenya, Bill Ayers, Satan, Hitler, Stalin, and Martha Stewart.

This would at least finally get those facts out in the open.

domino324: You'd think Republicans would be for this. After all, they're convinced that Obama is being funded by Soros, the Taliban, Al-Qaeda, Saul Alinsky, Kenya, Bill Ayers, Satan, Hitler, Stalin, and Martha Stewart.

This would at least finally get those facts out in the open.

That's ridiculous everyone knows Martha Stewart supports the Republicans.

qorkfiend: Weaver95: we SHOULD know who's donating money and how it's being used. look - if you want unlimited donations with no restrictions then at least man up and be honest about who's giving all that cash and what they're doing with it. we can't stop it, but it'd be nice to see who's buying out our government for their own personal use.

If there's online databases to see who signed a petition, there's no reason why donors should be able to remain anonymous.

SCOTUS might be able to find a reason, and it would be a 5-4 split in favor of that reason.

Then again, Roberts seems a bit worried about the kind of legacy he'll have, and if he doesn't want to be forever remembered as a GOP toady he might rule against that reason.

bmongar: Satanic_Hamster: Wish they'd crack down on these scam "charities" that he is running.

They aren't charities they are social welfare organizations.

I thought Republicans hated welfare.

And they operate under the same rules as charities in terms of disclosures.

bmongar: domino324: You'd think Republicans would be for this. After all, they're convinced that Obama is being funded by Soros, the Taliban, Al-Qaeda, Saul Alinsky, Kenya, Bill Ayers, Satan, Hitler, Stalin, and Martha Stewart.

This would at least finally get those facts out in the open.

That's ridiculous everyone knows Martha Stewart supports the Republicans.

So does Al-Qaeda. They see what happens to their leaders when a Democratic president is running the country.

Apparently they're shiatting themselves a bit about this. But we wouldn't learn anything until after the election anyhow.

Crossroads GPS, unlike the Super PACs that have become such a bitterly disputed element of this campaign season, is in legal terms a nonprofit "social welfare organization."

In legal terms, I'm Batman.

Damn, I thought that said "dark monkey reactors".

Waiting for my Super Karate Monkey Death Car™.

As long as the PACs keep paying "consulting fees" to a Supreme Court Justice's wife not much chance this goes anywhere.

//Best political system money can buy

Satanic_Hamster: bmongar: Satanic_Hamster: Wish they'd crack down on these scam "charities" that he is running.

They aren't charities they are social welfare organizations.

I thought Republicans hated welfare.

And they operate under the same rules as charities in terms of disclosures.


They only hate welfare for the poors.

monoski: As long as the PACs keep paying "consulting fees" to a Supreme Court Justice's wife not much chance this goes anywhere.

//Best political system money can buy

I'm honestly not that worried about Virginia Thomas's lobbying. It's not like it was a question as to which way Clarence Thomas would vote.

bmongar: That's ridiculous everyone knows Martha Stewart supports the Republicans.

But the truly well informed know that Martha swings both ways. Prison changes you.

qorkfiend: monoski: As long as the PACs keep paying "consulting fees" to a Supreme Court Justice's wife not much chance this goes anywhere.

//Best political system money can buy

I'm honestly not that worried about Virginia Thomas's lobbying. It's not like it was a question as to which way Clarence Thomas would vote.

That is just hilariously and depressingly all too true. You would think they would attempt to bribe a different justice's husband and/or wife. Might as well be Halliburton bribing Cheney's wife.

Satanic_Hamster: Wish they'd crack down on these scam "charities" that he is running.

This iis the first step. This was a fairly brillaint move because it says that unless these PACs specifically endorse a candidate they can't keep their donors anonymous. However if They DO do that then they they violate the IRS 501 (c) rules and lose their non-profit status

Overfiend: No bias in that report.

Nope. None what-so-ever.

I find your dissection of the author's points to be both relevant and insightful. Wait, no, you have nothing of substance and so resort to logical fallacies... congratulations, you are just another data point on the "how stupid can modern 'conservatives' be" graph.

As for the actual article, there's a very important reason that campaign money shouldn't be anonymous, regardless of which side it goes to. If some multibillionaire wants to put up money to run ads that helps a politician, fine, go ahead. But let us know who it is, so that when his company gets a juicy government contract, we'll all know why. Or, depending on the content of the ad, like in the case of the Prop 8 supporters, we know who to not do business with.

You have to remember that money is a system created and maintained by humans and is not a true system of value. It is a representation of value that also changes in value its self. The promise of a promise. it is easily manipulated. When we make things like human life, or our unalienable rights equivalent to money then those lives and access to those rights become influenced by and even limited because of money and how much of it you do or do not have. That's not in anyone's best interest. Unless you have a shiat ton of money.

Link campaign contribution limits to median income from the previous years taxes. This injects a sense of fairness and gives politicians a reason to make median income a priority. Keep in mind the cost of campaigning will be lower once they won't have to compete with unlimited anonymous spending like they do now.

Weaver95: we SHOULD know who's donating money and how it's being used. look - if you want unlimited donations with no restrictions then at least man up and be honest about who's giving all that cash and what they're doing with it. we can't stop it, but it'd be nice to see who's buying out our government for their own personal use.

WHY are they afraid of putting their name on their money? WHY are they so concerned about privacy?
Are they worried that we will find out that it is all coming from the Koch brothers???

LOL

If campaign contributions are free speech, let us see who is talking

Weaver95: we SHOULD know who's donating money and how it's being used. look - if you want unlimited donations with no restrictions then at least man up and be honest about who's giving all that cash and what they're doing with it. we can't stop it, but it'd be nice to see who's buying out our government for their own personal use.

if you have to ask "how much does it cost to buy our government?", then you obviously cannot afford it nor do you know anyone who could.

Please leave the store before we have you beaten and forcibly removed from participating in your own our gov't.

Brontes: If campaign contributions are free speech, let us see who is talking


What would you do with this information?

jigger: Brontes: If campaign contributions are free speech, let us see who is talking

What would you do with this information?

An overt act on the part of one party (donating to a political cause) should not be free of consequence any more than speaking in public would be. There's no "chilling effect" on speech, unless all donations would be chilled. If the only thing being "chilled" is larger donations, boo farkity hoo.

For example, we "chill" hate speech not by law, but because no part of modern society will countenance it; so if we "chill" quarterly $5,000,000 transfers from a single casino magnate over the undue influence/access it seems to provide to a presidential candidate as far as I'm concerned, it's legally the same thing. Dealing with the consequences of your actions.

I know powerful people often have a problem with that, but it's time personal responsibility meant something again.

jigger: Brontes: If campaign contributions are free speech, let us see who is talking


What would you do with this information?

A person can say (for the most part) what they want. Rush and Hannity can spew their crap, but I don't purchase what their advertisers sell. If I don't like how a CEO "speaks" through his contributions, I will similarly avoid sending my money his way as a consumer.

Seriously though, if they are going to label campaign contributions as free speech, it needs to be as visible as if that person stood up in front of an audience and talked. They should be held as accountable.

Overfiend: No bias in that report. bending of the facts to fit my unrealistic, uninformed narrative

Nope. None what-so-ever.

FTFY

UseLessHuman: Link campaign contribution limits to median income from the previous years taxes.

Take it further. Every elected official from POTUS to village dogcatcher should have their salary pinned to the median income of their constituency, with changes taking effect on a two year lag. Aggregate median income goes up--two years later so does yours. If it goes down, same effect.


/THERE'S your "representative democracy"
//You share directly in the good and bad of your people