Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
So no crime? Got it. And what you miss is the fact that the DNC candidate is stealing from old people and the poor to finance her run for President. THAT is 'poison for democracy' as well as a CRIME!What you missed is the result of making something that is poison for democracy legal.
No they get plenty, the actual left would be very pleased to make it illegal again and make all electioneering activities public. Instead of pointing fingers at the democrats for using the tools republicans made maybe you should wonder why you don't care that your party made this happen and gets a lot more of it.The greatest example of "dark money" is the tremendous amount of donations to her scam money laundering foundation that Crooked Hillary received from foreign countries and corporations for selling government influence.
Republicans have benefited tremendously from this ruling, they wanted it, fought for it and cheered when it went through. Your party built this corruption all by itself over the objections of practically every democrat/liberal out there.
And dems get zero corporate money, right?
hillary received ZERO money donated to the foundation....ZERO ZERO ZERO....stop lying please.The greatest example of "dark money" is the tremendous amount of donations to her scam money laundering foundation that Crooked Hillary received from foreign countries and corporations for selling government influence.
The greatest example of "dark money" is the tremendous amount of donations to her scam money laundering foundation that Crooked Hillary received from foreign countries and corporations for selling government influence.
Except that wasnt illegal...What was illegal was the fine Trump paid for bribing Bondi in Florida to drop his case.
I am not voting for Trump so your silly immature school yard tactic of saying that Crooked Hillary isn't guilty because somebody is also guilty doesn't work.
It is amazing that you Moon Bats don't understand that using a government position to get filthy rich by selling government influence and setting up a scam charity foundation to launder the money is wrong. Very wrong.
Of course you Moon Bats didn't see anything wrong with her lying about Benghazi or compromising national security
No wonder you Moon Bats are going to be idiots and vote for this Crooked Hillary scumbag. You are confused about a great many things.
You mean poison for leftists. Democracy means freedom, leftists hate it.What you missed is the result of making something that is poison for democracy legal.From Salon 16 September 2016:
----------------------------------------------------------
The Guardian this week published 1,500 previously unreleased emails and financial documents leaked from a now-halted investigation into alleged campaign finance violations by Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and his allies. ...The leaked documents confirm campaign finance reformers’ worst suspicions about political “dark money” and the legal rulings that unleashed it into our elections. And they prove the assumptions underlying the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision were incredibly naïve.
That 2010 decision allowed corporate entities to spend unlimited amounts on elections, helping to unleash a tide of “dark money” — election spending by groups that don’t publicly disclose their donors.
In Citizens United, the justices predicted that unlimited corporate spending wouldn’t “corrupt” politicians because it would be totally independent of candidates. But the Wisconsin documents show how many “independent” expenditures are actually controlled behind-the-scenes by candidates’ campaigns.
And, although the court in Citizens United said campaign finance disclosure laws would provide citizens with all the information necessary to “see whether elected officials are ‘in the pocket’ of so-called moneyed interests,” these documents demonstrate that citizens are routinely left in the dark about who is bankrolling their representatives, thanks to corporations and wealthy donors secretly funneling their contributions through phony “social welfare” groups which disguise the identities of their funders.
Most importantly these documents show “dark money” is really only “dark” when it comes to the public’s knowledge. The politicians who benefit from undisclosed election spending know exactly where their financial support is coming from.
----------------------------------------------------------
article
Did I miss where it says anything illegal happened? Unlike with Hillary:
Exclusive: Hillary Clinton Campaign Systematically Overcharging Poorest Donors
You pointed out that no law was broken...but are ignoring that right this minute Hillary Clinton is BREAKING THE LAW by stealing from old people and the poor, that complaints have been filed with State Attorney Generals and the SEC, and you claim to 'get it' by trying to blame the GOP for her crimes?!No they get plenty, the actual left would be very pleased to make it illegal again and make all electioneering activities public. Instead of pointing fingers at the democrats for using the tools republicans made maybe you should wonder why you don't care that your party made this happen and gets a lot more of it.
I don't know if any went into her bank account but her and Bill used it for travel expenses. Must be nice.hillary received ZERO money donated to the foundation....ZERO ZERO ZERO....stop lying please.The greatest example of "dark money" is the tremendous amount of donations to her scam money laundering foundation that Crooked Hillary received from foreign countries and corporations for selling government influence.
Were we talking about Hillary in this topic? She's corrupt, so what? I would like just once to encounter a hard core conservative who thought unlimited dark money in politics was a very bad idea. The actions of one candidate is small potatoes next to the monster the republicans made to take away our voice in government.So no crime? Got it. And what you miss is the fact that the DNC candidate is stealing from old people and the poor to finance her run for President. THAT is 'poison for democracy' as well as a CRIME!What you missed is the result of making something that is poison for democracy legal.
Where's your outrage against unions using their dues to funnel into the Democrat party? And post the constitutional law CU violates, you have failed to do so. Conservatives favor the Constitution so there's no hypocrisy there.Were we talking about Hillary in this topic? She's corrupt, so what? I would like just once to encounter a hard core conservative who thought unlimited dark money in politics was a very bad idea. The actions of one candidate is small potatoes next to the monster the republicans made to take away our voice in government.So no crime? Got it. And what you miss is the fact that the DNC candidate is stealing from old people and the poor to finance her run for President. THAT is 'poison for democracy' as well as a CRIME!What you missed is the result of making something that is poison for democracy legal.
Again, investigated and found that nothing was there. What do you want people to do? Ignore facts, findings and investigations and go with what you assert to be true?
She's not just 'corrupt' - she is breaking the law. She calls others 'deplorable' while she is STEALING from the ELDERLY and the POOR!Were we talking about Hillary in this topic? She's corrupt, so what?
Unions report their donations (mostly) but you have no idea who bankrolled your favorite republicans into office, they know, the people who bought them know, but you do not know and seem to be fine with that. The constitutional interpretation that led to this mess is not the only interpretation possible. Enjoy your plutocracy, you wanted it so badly and now you have no right to complain about corruption.Where's your outrage against unions using their dues to funnel into the Democrat party? And post the constitutional law CU violates, you have failed to do so. Conservatives favor the Constitution so there's no hypocrisy there.Were we talking about Hillary in this topic? She's corrupt, so what? I would like just once to encounter a hard core conservative who thought unlimited dark money in politics was a very bad idea. The actions of one candidate is small potatoes next to the monster the republicans made to take away our voice in government.So no crime? Got it. And what you miss is the fact that the DNC candidate is stealing from old people and the poor to finance her run for President. THAT is 'poison for democracy' as well as a CRIME!What you missed is the result of making something that is poison for democracy legal.
There's nothing in the constitution to prevent it otherwise you'd be quoting it. That's why leftists need activist judges on the bench. Plus the fact that you are only capable of seeing corruption in the Republican party proves you're just a hack.Unions report their donations (mostly) but you have no idea who bankrolled your favorite republicans into office, they know, the people who bought them know, but you do not know and seem to be fine with that. The constitutional interpretation that led to this mess is not the only interpretation possible. Enjoy your plutocracy, you wanted it so badly and now you have no right to complain about corruption.Where's your outrage against unions using their dues to funnel into the Democrat party? And post the constitutional law CU violates, you have failed to do so. Conservatives favor the Constitution so there's no hypocrisy there.Were we talking about Hillary in this topic? She's corrupt, so what? I would like just once to encounter a hard core conservative who thought unlimited dark money in politics was a very bad idea. The actions of one candidate is small potatoes next to the monster the republicans made to take away our voice in government.So no crime? Got it. And what you miss is the fact that the DNC candidate is stealing from old people and the poor to finance her run for President. THAT is 'poison for democracy' as well as a CRIME!What you missed is the result of making something that is poison for democracy legal.
I see it everywhere, but I blame republicans for the greatest step backwards in fighting political corruption in our lifetimes. No one on the left wanted that shit because we should have the right to know who pulls the strings on our politicians, shouldn't we? To me this is a no-brainer. dark money should not exist in our political system but it does and I place the blame squarely where it belongs.There's nothing in the constitution to prevent it otherwise you'd be quoting it. That's why leftists need activist judges on the bench. Plus the fact that you are only capable of seeing corruption in the Republican party proves you're just a hack.Unions report their donations (mostly) but you have no idea who bankrolled your favorite republicans into office, they know, the people who bought them know, but you do not know and seem to be fine with that. The constitutional interpretation that led to this mess is not the only interpretation possible. Enjoy your plutocracy, you wanted it so badly and now you have no right to complain about corruption.Where's your outrage against unions using their dues to funnel into the Democrat party? And post the constitutional law CU violates, you have failed to do so. Conservatives favor the Constitution so there's no hypocrisy there.Were we talking about Hillary in this topic? She's corrupt, so what? I would like just once to encounter a hard core conservative who thought unlimited dark money in politics was a very bad idea. The actions of one candidate is small potatoes next to the monster the republicans made to take away our voice in government.So no crime? Got it. And what you miss is the fact that the DNC candidate is stealing from old people and the poor to finance her run for President. THAT is 'poison for democracy' as well as a CRIME!What you missed is the result of making something that is poison for democracy legal.
No they get plenty, the actual left would be very pleased to make it illegal again and make all electioneering activities public. Instead of pointing fingers at the democrats for using the tools republicans made maybe you should wonder why you don't care that your party made this happen and gets a lot more of it.The greatest example of "dark money" is the tremendous amount of donations to her scam money laundering foundation that Crooked Hillary received from foreign countries and corporations for selling government influence.
Republicans have benefited tremendously from this ruling, they wanted it, fought for it and cheered when it went through. Your party built this corruption all by itself over the objections of practically every democrat/liberal out there.
And dems get zero corporate money, right?
How is requiring public disclosure of spending on electioneering activities censorship?No they get plenty, the actual left would be very pleased to make it illegal again and make all electioneering activities public. Instead of pointing fingers at the democrats for using the tools republicans made maybe you should wonder why you don't care that your party made this happen and gets a lot more of it.The greatest example of "dark money" is the tremendous amount of donations to her scam money laundering foundation that Crooked Hillary received from foreign countries and corporations for selling government influence.
Republicans have benefited tremendously from this ruling, they wanted it, fought for it and cheered when it went through. Your party built this corruption all by itself over the objections of practically every democrat/liberal out there.
And dems get zero corporate money, right?
my concern is that once you allow the government to censor anything political, it would be used in a partisan manner based on who is in charge. So only CERTAIN corporations would be gone after, while others given a pass.
The left has proven itself untrustworthy when it comes to allowing free speech when given even the tiniest methods of control.
How is requiring public disclosure of spending on electioneering activities censorship?No they get plenty, the actual left would be very pleased to make it illegal again and make all electioneering activities public. Instead of pointing fingers at the democrats for using the tools republicans made maybe you should wonder why you don't care that your party made this happen and gets a lot more of it.The greatest example of "dark money" is the tremendous amount of donations to her scam money laundering foundation that Crooked Hillary received from foreign countries and corporations for selling government influence.
Republicans have benefited tremendously from this ruling, they wanted it, fought for it and cheered when it went through. Your party built this corruption all by itself over the objections of practically every democrat/liberal out there.
And dems get zero corporate money, right?
my concern is that once you allow the government to censor anything political, it would be used in a partisan manner based on who is in charge. So only CERTAIN corporations would be gone after, while others given a pass.
The left has proven itself untrustworthy when it comes to allowing free speech when given even the tiniest methods of control.
Your argument is that deep pockets should be protected from the backlash that could occur if the public found out who is funding various politicians, bills and ballot initiatives that affect us all? Sounds exactly like what it is, plutocracy.How is requiring public disclosure of spending on electioneering activities censorship?No they get plenty, the actual left would be very pleased to make it illegal again and make all electioneering activities public. Instead of pointing fingers at the democrats for using the tools republicans made maybe you should wonder why you don't care that your party made this happen and gets a lot more of it.Republicans have benefited tremendously from this ruling, they wanted it, fought for it and cheered when it went through. Your party built this corruption all by itself over the objections of practically every democrat/liberal out there.
And dems get zero corporate money, right?
my concern is that once you allow the government to censor anything political, it would be used in a partisan manner based on who is in charge. So only CERTAIN corporations would be gone after, while others given a pass.
The left has proven itself untrustworthy when it comes to allowing free speech when given even the tiniest methods of control.
Why is corporate speech not public discourse?
and your goal isn't disclosure, its shutting people up you don't like. So you can find who is supporting said speech, and try to nullify them, not with speech but with censure.
Your argument is that deep pockets should be protected from the backlash that could occur if the public found out who is funding various politicians, bills and ballot initiatives that affect us all? Sounds exactly like what it is, plutocracy.How is requiring public disclosure of spending on electioneering activities censorship?No they get plenty, the actual left would be very pleased to make it illegal again and make all electioneering activities public. Instead of pointing fingers at the democrats for using the tools republicans made maybe you should wonder why you don't care that your party made this happen and gets a lot more of it.And dems get zero corporate money, right?
my concern is that once you allow the government to censor anything political, it would be used in a partisan manner based on who is in charge. So only CERTAIN corporations would be gone after, while others given a pass.
The left has proven itself untrustworthy when it comes to allowing free speech when given even the tiniest methods of control.
Why is corporate speech not public discourse?
and your goal isn't disclosure, its shutting people up you don't like. So you can find who is supporting said speech, and try to nullify them, not with speech but with censure.
