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.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
Now that is the biggest laugh of the year!Soros's money in campaigns and lobbying is a joke in comparison to the Kochs and Adelson. Media Matters is purely non-partisan in comparison to their pure propaganda and covert sabotage operations- fighting for pollution and screwing the workers, not for fact checking, democracy, and charity. The character assassination that the dupes believe about Soros is an atrocity...Another liberal who pretends he/she has never heard of George Soros.
What a pack of liars!
Who attacked the law and succeeded in unleashing this Kraken upon our electoral system? Who fought against it? When you are talking culpability one should start at the beginning. Just because democrats are using the gutted law for their own side is nothing but a side effect of what the republicans wanted and still defend as a good thing.I remember, we made all those laws to make that stuff harder to do and to criminalize trying to buy influence through electioneering but the billionaires just couldn't stand it. If you do not like dark money then why are you giving me shit for condemning it?Explain why I am wrong or STFU.Neither party has the moral high ground on this issue but the party that made destroying election law their mission and now enjoys the support of most of the "dark money" will have a day of reckoning for taking the brakes off the big money machine.
Love how you threw in the "but," you were on target until then.
You dumb fuck, why is it that you sons of a bitches can't discuss anything without demeaning others, I am here for fun, you are here because you claim some higher fucking ground.
Dark money goes back decades, remember the Mafia and the Unions and the election law issues involving these groups. Both share equally if you honestly think either party is less involved or less culpable, then you are a bigger idiot than anyone really knew.
You claimed one party was more culpable then the other, I claim neither is better. You asked me to prove it or "STFU".
It does bother me. This is the reason why most 3rd party candidates don't stand a chance. They don't have the funding that is provided to the major parties with their PAC organizations. Why don't we have caps on the amount of money candidates are allowed to spend on their campaigns?
Soros's money in campaigns and lobbying is a joke in comparison to the Kochs and Adelson. Media Matters is purely non-partisan in comparison to their pure propaganda and covert sabotage operations- fighting for pollution and screwing the workers, not for fact checking, democracy, and charity. The character assassination that the dupes believe about Soros is an atrocity...Another liberal who pretends he/she has never heard of George Soros.
What a pack of liars!
I do not speak for the democratic party but there is not a one of them that would vote against closing the dark money loophole, how do you think republicans would vote on such a thing? What's the matter? Upset that some of the republican dirty tactics are gettting used against republicans? Upset that democrats do not always bring library books to your political knife fights?
Who attacked the law and succeeded in unleashing this Kraken upon our electoral system? Who fought against it? When you are talking culpability one should start at the beginning. Just because democrats are using the gutted law for their own side is nothing but a side effect of what the republicans wanted and still defend as a good thing.I remember, we made all those laws to make that stuff harder to do and to criminalize trying to buy influence through electioneering but the billionaires just couldn't stand it. If you do not like dark money then why are you giving me shit for condemning it?Explain why I am wrong or STFU.Love how you threw in the "but," you were on target until then.
You dumb fuck, why is it that you sons of a bitches can't discuss anything without demeaning others, I am here for fun, you are here because you claim some higher fucking ground.
Dark money goes back decades, remember the Mafia and the Unions and the election law issues involving these groups. Both share equally if you honestly think either party is less involved or less culpable, then you are a bigger idiot than anyone really knew.
You claimed one party was more culpable then the other, I claim neither is better. You asked me to prove it or "STFU".
You only like it because you think it works in your favor and that these dark money people share you interests. On some level you must know that this shit is not good for us but your party victory makes it good. What low standards you have in the integrity or government. I know both parties are tools of the wealthy why do you not?I do not speak for the democratic party but there is not a one of them that would vote against closing the dark money loophole, how do you think republicans would vote on such a thing? What's the matter? Upset that some of the republican dirty tactics are gettting used against republicans? Upset that democrats do not always bring library books to your political knife fights?
I have no control over "Republicans" and no way of knowing what they think as a collective group. Perhaps this is part of your problem, you want control over something you have no business controlling.
What "Republican dirty tactics" would you be referring to?? Used against the Republicans how?? Is that why we got such an ass whooping this last election cycle and sent all those Democrats to the house, Shut Harry Reids fucking mouth and changed his seating from the front to fht room to the back, Which of these do you rquery as to "upsetting me"?? I don't have a problem with dark money, who care where it comes from, the message is what the final product is.
The Democrats must have been reading those library books that you refer to pre elcetion instead of campaigning. How does one that is of sound mind and body imply that the Democrats were successful in this last election cycle and that dark money needs to be barred to save our country ??
Do they know you have left the institution?? How did you get that security bracelet off that was supposed to prevent the door from opening or are you posting this from the media center in your institution??
They have every opportunity, they just have to sign their name on the bottom of the bullshit they want to say.Who attacked the law and succeeded in unleashing this Kraken upon our electoral system? Who fought against it? When you are talking culpability one should start at the beginning. Just because democrats are using the gutted law for their own side is nothing but a side effect of what the republicans wanted and still defend as a good thing.I remember, we made all those laws to make that stuff harder to do and to criminalize trying to buy influence through electioneering but the billionaires just couldn't stand it. If you do not like dark money then why are you giving me shit for condemning it?Explain why I am wrong or STFU.
You dumb fuck, why is it that you sons of a bitches can't discuss anything without demeaning others, I am here for fun, you are here because you claim some higher fucking ground.
Dark money goes back decades, remember the Mafia and the Unions and the election law issues involving these groups. Both share equally if you honestly think either party is less involved or less culpable, then you are a bigger idiot than anyone really knew.
You claimed one party was more culpable then the other, I claim neither is better. You asked me to prove it or "STFU".
Unions have been movers and shakers within the Democratic Party for a very long time. Why shouldn't others have the same opportunity to speak with a collective voice?
Who attacked the law and succeeded in unleashing this Kraken upon our electoral system? Who fought against it? When you are talking culpability one should start at the beginning. Just because democrats are using the gutted law for their own side is nothing but a side effect of what the republicans wanted and still defend as a good thing.I remember, we made all those laws to make that stuff harder to do and to criminalize trying to buy influence through electioneering but the billionaires just couldn't stand it. If you do not like dark money then why are you giving me shit for condemning it?Explain why I am wrong or STFU.Love how you threw in the "but," you were on target until then.
You dumb fuck, why is it that you sons of a bitches can't discuss anything without demeaning others, I am here for fun, you are here because you claim some higher fucking ground.
Dark money goes back decades, remember the Mafia and the Unions and the election law issues involving these groups. Both share equally if you honestly think either party is less involved or less culpable, then you are a bigger idiot than anyone really knew.
You claimed one party was more culpable then the other, I claim neither is better. You asked me to prove it or "STFU".
They have every opportunity, they just have to sign their name on the bottom of the bullshit they want to say.Who attacked the law and succeeded in unleashing this Kraken upon our electoral system? Who fought against it? When you are talking culpability one should start at the beginning. Just because democrats are using the gutted law for their own side is nothing but a side effect of what the republicans wanted and still defend as a good thing.I remember, we made all those laws to make that stuff harder to do and to criminalize trying to buy influence through electioneering but the billionaires just couldn't stand it. If you do not like dark money then why are you giving me shit for condemning it?You dumb fuck, why is it that you sons of a bitches can't discuss anything without demeaning others, I am here for fun, you are here because you claim some higher fucking ground.
Dark money goes back decades, remember the Mafia and the Unions and the election law issues involving these groups. Both share equally if you honestly think either party is less involved or less culpable, then you are a bigger idiot than anyone really knew.
You claimed one party was more culpable then the other, I claim neither is better. You asked me to prove it or "STFU".
Unions have been movers and shakers within the Democratic Party for a very long time. Why shouldn't others have the same opportunity to speak with a collective voice?
Kay Hagan got the most money and her ass handed to her including her pink slip....Are the ones with the most money?
91% of the time the better-financed candidate wins
The chart analyzes 467 congressional races held in 2012. Its findings:
* Candidates who out-fundraised their opponents were nine times more likely to win elections in 2012.
* Winning congressional candidates outspent their opponents by about 20 to 1.
And in these latest midterms?
Money Won on Tuesday, But the Rules of the Game Have Changed
The real story of the election’s campaign finance chapter was not which side had more resources, but that such a large chunk of the cost was paid for by a small group of ultra-wealthy donors using outside groups to bury voters with an avalanche of spending. Both sides had plenty of support from outside spenders, but Republican and conservative outside groups outpaced the spending of Democratic and liberal ones. Democratic/liberal groups channeled most of their money through organizations that disclosed donors, while their more conservative counterparts relied heavily on secret sources funneling money through political nonprofits.
Some things seem never to change, and this year’s midterms reprised many of the same old stories. But there were also a handful of surprises, some of which may portend new dynamics in how elections are financed.
Every election since 1998 has been more expensive than the one before it, and predictably the 2014 election will follow that path, CRP has projected — though the total projected cost of $3.67 billion is only a slight uptick over the price tag of the 2010 midterm. Counting all forms of spending — by candidates, parties and outside groups — Team Red is projected to have spent $1.75 billion, while Team Blue’s spending is projected to ring in at $1.64 billion.
CRP’s analysis of last night’s results finds that in House races, the candidate who spent the most prevailed 94.2 percent of the time; the Senate figure is slightly lower, 81.8 percent. Despite several key upsets of Senate Democrats who, as incumbents, had the cash advantage, this is actually an increase from 2012, when 93.8 percent of higher-spending candidates in the House won, and just 75.8 percent of those candidates in the Senate could claim victory.
If you hate having two parties then just having one would be nightmare, The election laws were passed to prevent the wealthy from simply buying both parties, the attack on that law is resulting in exactly what it was drafted to prevent, our voices being shouted down by the economically powerful who have made both parties their bitch.Who attacked the law and succeeded in unleashing this Kraken upon our electoral system? Who fought against it? When you are talking culpability one should start at the beginning. Just because democrats are using the gutted law for their own side is nothing but a side effect of what the republicans wanted and still defend as a good thing.I remember, we made all those laws to make that stuff harder to do and to criminalize trying to buy influence through electioneering but the billionaires just couldn't stand it. If you do not like dark money then why are you giving me shit for condemning it?Explain why I am wrong or STFU.
You dumb fuck, why is it that you sons of a bitches can't discuss anything without demeaning others, I am here for fun, you are here because you claim some higher fucking ground.
Dark money goes back decades, remember the Mafia and the Unions and the election law issues involving these groups. Both share equally if you honestly think either party is less involved or less culpable, then you are a bigger idiot than anyone really knew.
You claimed one party was more culpable then the other, I claim neither is better. You asked me to prove it or "STFU".
It was the unions and the mob, long before CFR that contributed dark money.
The biggest change came with the McCain-Feingold passage. I stated back then that this was a Pandora's box and when it all shook out in the legal system it would give the two parties a strangle hold on elections, it was passed with bi-partisan support and has ended with the mess we have now. I, a citizen saw what was going to happen, are you going to tell me that the Democratic Party or the Republican Party did not see it? Of course they did, they are both culpable, to think otherwise is sure ignorance.
Tightening restrictions on labor union political activity while easing restrictions on other political groups is not possible as they are the same under the law.They have every opportunity, they just have to sign their name on the bottom of the bullshit they want to say.Who attacked the law and succeeded in unleashing this Kraken upon our electoral system? Who fought against it? When you are talking culpability one should start at the beginning. Just because democrats are using the gutted law for their own side is nothing but a side effect of what the republicans wanted and still defend as a good thing.I remember, we made all those laws to make that stuff harder to do and to criminalize trying to buy influence through electioneering but the billionaires just couldn't stand it. If you do not like dark money then why are you giving me shit for condemning it?
You claimed one party was more culpable then the other, I claim neither is better. You asked me to prove it or "STFU".
Unions have been movers and shakers within the Democratic Party for a very long time. Why shouldn't others have the same opportunity to speak with a collective voice?
Unions though don't permit free votes on how to spend money, the union leadership makes the decision, not individual dues-paying members. Require all union spending to be freely donated apart from union dues.
You only like it because you think it works in your favor and that these dark money people share you interests. On some level you must know that this shit is not good for us but your party victory makes it good. What low standards you have in the integrity or government. I know both parties are tools of the wealthy why do you not?
If you hate having two parties then just having one would be nightmare, The election laws were passed to prevent the wealthy from simply buying both parties, the attack on that law is resulting in exactly what it was drafted to prevent, our voices being shouted down by the economically powerful who have made both parties their bitch.Who attacked the law and succeeded in unleashing this Kraken upon our electoral system? Who fought against it? When you are talking culpability one should start at the beginning. Just because democrats are using the gutted law for their own side is nothing but a side effect of what the republicans wanted and still defend as a good thing.I remember, we made all those laws to make that stuff harder to do and to criminalize trying to buy influence through electioneering but the billionaires just couldn't stand it. If you do not like dark money then why are you giving me shit for condemning it?You dumb fuck, why is it that you sons of a bitches can't discuss anything without demeaning others, I am here for fun, you are here because you claim some higher fucking ground.
Dark money goes back decades, remember the Mafia and the Unions and the election law issues involving these groups. Both share equally if you honestly think either party is less involved or less culpable, then you are a bigger idiot than anyone really knew.
You claimed one party was more culpable then the other, I claim neither is better. You asked me to prove it or "STFU".
It was the unions and the mob, long before CFR that contributed dark money.
The biggest change came with the McCain-Feingold passage. I stated back then that this was a Pandora's box and when it all shook out in the legal system it would give the two parties a strangle hold on elections, it was passed with bi-partisan support and has ended with the mess we have now. I, a citizen saw what was going to happen, are you going to tell me that the Democratic Party or the Republican Party did not see it? Of course they did, they are both culpable, to think otherwise is sure ignorance.
Tightening restrictions on labor union political activity while easing restrictions on other political groups is not possible as they are the same under the law.They have every opportunity, they just have to sign their name on the bottom of the bullshit they want to say.Who attacked the law and succeeded in unleashing this Kraken upon our electoral system? Who fought against it? When you are talking culpability one should start at the beginning. Just because democrats are using the gutted law for their own side is nothing but a side effect of what the republicans wanted and still defend as a good thing.You claimed one party was more culpable then the other, I claim neither is better. You asked me to prove it or "STFU".
Unions have been movers and shakers within the Democratic Party for a very long time. Why shouldn't others have the same opportunity to speak with a collective voice?
Unions though don't permit free votes on how to spend money, the union leadership makes the decision, not individual dues-paying members. Require all union spending to be freely donated apart from union dues.
My point is that a two-party system that relies on regular people to fund campaigns is better than what is shaping up now, a system where there is no substantial economic difference between the parties. We are distracted with silly social issues while the same Neo-Con economic agenda is pursued no matter who is in charge.If you hate having two parties then just having one would be nightmare, The election laws were passed to prevent the wealthy from simply buying both parties, the attack on that law is resulting in exactly what it was drafted to prevent, our voices being shouted down by the economically powerful who have made both parties their bitch.Who attacked the law and succeeded in unleashing this Kraken upon our electoral system? Who fought against it? When you are talking culpability one should start at the beginning. Just because democrats are using the gutted law for their own side is nothing but a side effect of what the republicans wanted and still defend as a good thing.I remember, we made all those laws to make that stuff harder to do and to criminalize trying to buy influence through electioneering but the billionaires just couldn't stand it. If you do not like dark money then why are you giving me shit for condemning it?
You claimed one party was more culpable then the other, I claim neither is better. You asked me to prove it or "STFU".
It was the unions and the mob, long before CFR that contributed dark money.
The biggest change came with the McCain-Feingold passage. I stated back then that this was a Pandora's box and when it all shook out in the legal system it would give the two parties a strangle hold on elections, it was passed with bi-partisan support and has ended with the mess we have now. I, a citizen saw what was going to happen, are you going to tell me that the Democratic Party or the Republican Party did not see it? Of course they did, they are both culpable, to think otherwise is sure ignorance.
No, they weren't passed to prevent the wealthy from buying both parties, it made it tougher for, incumbents to lose. It was poorly written, ill conceived and it was all challenged like I knew it would. If a regular, like myself saw what was going to happen, why didn't they, I think they knew what was going to happen.
My point is that a two-party system that relies on regular people to fund campaigns is better than what is shaping up now, a system where there is no substantial economic difference between the parties. We are distracted with silly social issues while the same Neo-Con economic agenda is pursued no matter who is in charge.If you hate having two parties then just having one would be nightmare, The election laws were passed to prevent the wealthy from simply buying both parties, the attack on that law is resulting in exactly what it was drafted to prevent, our voices being shouted down by the economically powerful who have made both parties their bitch.Who attacked the law and succeeded in unleashing this Kraken upon our electoral system? Who fought against it? When you are talking culpability one should start at the beginning. Just because democrats are using the gutted law for their own side is nothing but a side effect of what the republicans wanted and still defend as a good thing.You claimed one party was more culpable then the other, I claim neither is better. You asked me to prove it or "STFU".
It was the unions and the mob, long before CFR that contributed dark money.
The biggest change came with the McCain-Feingold passage. I stated back then that this was a Pandora's box and when it all shook out in the legal system it would give the two parties a strangle hold on elections, it was passed with bi-partisan support and has ended with the mess we have now. I, a citizen saw what was going to happen, are you going to tell me that the Democratic Party or the Republican Party did not see it? Of course they did, they are both culpable, to think otherwise is sure ignorance.
No, they weren't passed to prevent the wealthy from buying both parties, it made it tougher for, incumbents to lose. It was poorly written, ill conceived and it was all challenged like I knew it would. If a regular, like myself saw what was going to happen, why didn't they, I think they knew what was going to happen.
To be equal under the law, stockholders, for example in the coal industry, would be allowed to say where coal industry contributions went. A union or a company donates money to their PAC and then the PAC sends it wherever, there is no direct link between the stockholders or the union member and the PAC that organizes in their name. Making it so might have some very interesting implications in the corporate world. The more I think about it the more I like it.Tightening restrictions on labor union political activity while easing restrictions on other political groups is not possible as they are the same under the law.They have every opportunity, they just have to sign their name on the bottom of the bullshit they want to say.Who attacked the law and succeeded in unleashing this Kraken upon our electoral system? Who fought against it? When you are talking culpability one should start at the beginning. Just because democrats are using the gutted law for their own side is nothing but a side effect of what the republicans wanted and still defend as a good thing.
Unions have been movers and shakers within the Democratic Party for a very long time. Why shouldn't others have the same opportunity to speak with a collective voice?
Unions though don't permit free votes on how to spend money, the union leadership makes the decision, not individual dues-paying members. Require all union spending to be freely donated apart from union dues.
Sure it's possible. You want to know individual donors to issue-groups, so make the law also require unions to solicit individual donations, with no duress to members, and to stop unions spending union dues on political campaigns. You guys are arguing that PEOPLE should be the focus, so live by that rule.
We saw what happened in Wisconsin after Public Service Unions could no longer charge mandatory dues to members and could only be financed by voluntary membership. The same is likely to happen here - individual union members will likely not want to donate their own money to finance union political activities.
