The Real Party Of The Rich

[mudwhistle]

This is dark money:
The Dark Money Man: How Sean Noble Moved the Kochs? Cash into Politics and Made Millions - ProPublica

Dark money is a liberal invention.

Seems like anyone who gives to the GOP is giving dark money.

Yet the Dems get half a billion from ActBlue and nothing is said. Give to Democrats and we won't attack you!!!!

Most of the big donors give to both parties, but unions, which make up most of the left's donations are setting policy. The Koch Brothers don't hold a candle to the corrupting influence unions have over the Democrats.

The corrupting influence of Unions.......that is laughable. You are still looking at straight donations. If you look at corporations or industries that donate they are going to donate, usually, to both parties. Unions will donate to the group that is least likely to screw them. Why would you donate to a group that is hell bent on destroying you? That makes no sense. You will also see them donate straight across for specific legislation.

Check this out---

Union-dense Lorain County, Ohio, is now home to an independent labor slate of two dozen newly elected city councilors—recruited and run by the central labor council there. All labor’s candidates had strong showings last month, and all but two were elected.

“This was a step we took reluctantly,” said Lorain County AFL-CIO President Harry Williamson. “When the leaders of the [Democratic] Party just took us for granted and tried to roll over the rights of working people here, we had to stand up.”

A series of disputes between organized labor and the Democratic leadership led the labor council and its allies to recruit and run their own slate in this Democratic stronghold, home of Ohio’s largest steel and auto facilities.
‘The Final Straw’

The unions had worked for years to build a labor-community partnership that resulted in a Lorain city Project Labor Agreement (PLA), which required that city contracts be staffed by at least 75 percent local and 9 percent minority workers, and unionized during the period of the project.
- See more at: Ohioans Elect Two Dozen City Councilors on Independent Labor Ticket | Labor Notes

The Dems giving lip service to the Unions is leading to them running their own. So, this pretense of the Dems giving a crap about unions is finely coming to an end.

This http://www.alec.org/model-legislation/ is not laughable.


This ActBlue?
https://secure.actblue.com/

Unions give to Democrats.

This is beyond dispute.

 

[Disir]

Dark money is a liberal invention.

Seems like anyone who gives to the GOP is giving dark money.

Yet the Dems get half a billion from ActBlue and nothing is said. Give to Democrats and we won't attack you!!!!

Most of the big donors give to both parties, but unions, which make up most of the left's donations are setting policy. The Koch Brothers don't hold a candle to the corrupting influence unions have over the Democrats.

The corrupting influence of Unions.......that is laughable. You are still looking at straight donations. If you look at corporations or industries that donate they are going to donate, usually, to both parties. Unions will donate to the group that is least likely to screw them. Why would you donate to a group that is hell bent on destroying you? That makes no sense. You will also see them donate straight across for specific legislation.

Check this out---

Union-dense Lorain County, Ohio, is now home to an independent labor slate of two dozen newly elected city councilors—recruited and run by the central labor council there. All labor’s candidates had strong showings last month, and all but two were elected.

“This was a step we took reluctantly,” said Lorain County AFL-CIO President Harry Williamson. “When the leaders of the [Democratic] Party just took us for granted and tried to roll over the rights of working people here, we had to stand up.”

A series of disputes between organized labor and the Democratic leadership led the labor council and its allies to recruit and run their own slate in this Democratic stronghold, home of Ohio’s largest steel and auto facilities.
‘The Final Straw’

The unions had worked for years to build a labor-community partnership that resulted in a Lorain city Project Labor Agreement (PLA), which required that city contracts be staffed by at least 75 percent local and 9 percent minority workers, and unionized during the period of the project.
- See more at: Ohioans Elect Two Dozen City Councilors on Independent Labor Ticket | Labor Notes

The Dems giving lip service to the Unions is leading to them running their own. So, this pretense of the Dems giving a crap about unions is finely coming to an end.

This http://www.alec.org/model-legislation/ is not laughable.


This ActBlue?
https://secure.actblue.com/

Unions give to Democrats.

This is beyond dispute.

In his column, Edsall cites a spokesman for the Koch brothers and their company on why anonymous political giving is constitutionally protected. According to the spokesman:

The rationale behind donor anonymity, which is a form of First Amendment speech, is to protect against the threat of retaliation when someone or some group takes a stand, espouses their point of view or articulates a position on issues that may (or may not) be popular with the general public or the political party in majority power. There are many precedents to this: the Federalist Papers were published under pseudonyms and financed anonymously, out of fear of retribution.

The spokesman for the Koch brothers cites two Supreme Court decisions, NAACP v. Alabama (1958), and McIntyre v. Ohio (1995), to support their claim for anonymous political giving.

The only problem is that the cases don't support the Koch brothers claim.

In reality, the Koch brothers have no constitutional basis and no policy basis to justify secretly injecting untold millions of dollars into federal elections. The Supreme Court and Congress have long recognized that voters have a basic right to know information about political money being given and spent to influence their votes.

Both of the Supreme Court cases cited by the Koch brothers' spokesman are irrelevant to the constitutional issue involved here -- whether it is constitutionally permissible to require disclosure of money given and spent to influence candidate elections. And the Koch brothers' spokesman ignores the directly relevant, and recent, Supreme Court cases which have upheld such disclosure laws.

The Edsall column says that disclosure "remains the losing position" in the courts.

In fact, this is backwards. Just the opposite is true.

For nearly 40 years, campaign finance disclosure requirements have been consistently upheld as constitutional by the Supreme Court -- starting with the Court's landmark Buckley decision in 1976 and continuing as recently as the Court's Citizens United decision in 2010.

In Buckley, the Supreme Court held that the federal campaign finance disclosure laws were constitutional because they provide "the electorate with information 'as to where political campaign money comes from and how it is spent by the candidate' in order to aid the voters in evaluating those who seek federal office."

The Court in Buckley also upheld the disclosure laws on the grounds that "disclosure requirements deter actual corruption and avoid the appearance of corruption by exposing large contributions and expenditures to the light of publicity."

In Citizens United, the Supreme Court, in an eight to 1one decision, upheld political giving and spending disclosure requirements for corporations, including nonprofit corporations, making independent expenditures. The Court said:

With the advent of the Internet, prompt disclosure of expenditures can provide shareholders and citizens with the information needed to hold corporations and elected officials accountable for their positions and supporters.

The Supreme Court noted in Citizens United that it had upheld disclosure laws in earlier cases to address the problem that "independent groups were running election-related advertisements while hiding behind dubious and misleading names."

Even though the Court upheld the disclosure law in Citizens United, however, citizens have not ended up with effective disclosure. Instead they have ended up with hundreds of millions of dollars in secret contributions being laundered into federal elections.

The disclosure problems we now have do not stem from constitutional issues but rather from flawed FEC and IRS regulations that were used by outside groups to spend more than $300 million in secret contributions in the 2012 federal elections.

The two Supreme Court cases cited by the Koch brothers' spokesman to justify anonymous political giving do not support his claim.
A Response to the Koch Brothers Claim of Entitlement to Anonymous Political Giving*|*Fred Wertheimer

Then you should have zero problems with disclosure, ya?

 

[KNB]

Soros, Gates, the Koch brothers, Adelson, Trump, Zuckerberg, Stewart, the Waltons, Oprah, Exxon, Pfizer, JPMorganChase, etc. It's just money.

They will give money to whoever is likely to win and provide them with more protections and loopholes. Money doesn't have loyalty to a nation or a flag. The system is designed by the wealthy for the wealthy.

 

[mudwhistle]

The corrupting influence of Unions.......that is laughable. You are still looking at straight donations. If you look at corporations or industries that donate they are going to donate, usually, to both parties. Unions will donate to the group that is least likely to screw them. Why would you donate to a group that is hell bent on destroying you? That makes no sense. You will also see them donate straight across for specific legislation.

Check this out---

The Dems giving lip service to the Unions is leading to them running their own. So, this pretense of the Dems giving a crap about unions is finely coming to an end.

This http://www.alec.org/model-legislation/ is not laughable.


This ActBlue?
https://secure.actblue.com/

Unions give to Democrats.

This is beyond dispute.

In his column, Edsall cites a spokesman for the Koch brothers and their company on why anonymous political giving is constitutionally protected. According to the spokesman:

The rationale behind donor anonymity, which is a form of First Amendment speech, is to protect against the threat of retaliation when someone or some group takes a stand, espouses their point of view or articulates a position on issues that may (or may not) be popular with the general public or the political party in majority power. There are many precedents to this: the Federalist Papers were published under pseudonyms and financed anonymously, out of fear of retribution.

The spokesman for the Koch brothers cites two Supreme Court decisions, NAACP v. Alabama (1958), and McIntyre v. Ohio (1995), to support their claim for anonymous political giving.

The only problem is that the cases don't support the Koch brothers claim.

In reality, the Koch brothers have no constitutional basis and no policy basis to justify secretly injecting untold millions of dollars into federal elections. The Supreme Court and Congress have long recognized that voters have a basic right to know information about political money being given and spent to influence their votes.

Both of the Supreme Court cases cited by the Koch brothers' spokesman are irrelevant to the constitutional issue involved here -- whether it is constitutionally permissible to require disclosure of money given and spent to influence candidate elections. And the Koch brothers' spokesman ignores the directly relevant, and recent, Supreme Court cases which have upheld such disclosure laws.

The Edsall column says that disclosure "remains the losing position" in the courts.

In fact, this is backwards. Just the opposite is true.

For nearly 40 years, campaign finance disclosure requirements have been consistently upheld as constitutional by the Supreme Court -- starting with the Court's landmark Buckley decision in 1976 and continuing as recently as the Court's Citizens United decision in 2010.

In Buckley, the Supreme Court held that the federal campaign finance disclosure laws were constitutional because they provide "the electorate with information 'as to where political campaign money comes from and how it is spent by the candidate' in order to aid the voters in evaluating those who seek federal office."

The Court in Buckley also upheld the disclosure laws on the grounds that "disclosure requirements deter actual corruption and avoid the appearance of corruption by exposing large contributions and expenditures to the light of publicity."

In Citizens United, the Supreme Court, in an eight to 1one decision, upheld political giving and spending disclosure requirements for corporations, including nonprofit corporations, making independent expenditures. The Court said:

With the advent of the Internet, prompt disclosure of expenditures can provide shareholders and citizens with the information needed to hold corporations and elected officials accountable for their positions and supporters.

The Supreme Court noted in Citizens United that it had upheld disclosure laws in earlier cases to address the problem that "independent groups were running election-related advertisements while hiding behind dubious and misleading names."

Even though the Court upheld the disclosure law in Citizens United, however, citizens have not ended up with effective disclosure. Instead they have ended up with hundreds of millions of dollars in secret contributions being laundered into federal elections.

The disclosure problems we now have do not stem from constitutional issues but rather from flawed FEC and IRS regulations that were used by outside groups to spend more than $300 million in secret contributions in the 2012 federal elections.

The two Supreme Court cases cited by the Koch brothers' spokesman to justify anonymous political giving do not support his claim.
A Response to the Koch Brothers Claim of Entitlement to Anonymous Political Giving*|*Fred Wertheimer

Then you should have zero problems with disclosure, ya?

Union donations are essentially anonymous donations. Nobody has a choice in the matter. It's legal, but unethical.

 

[mudwhistle]

Basically, you're concerned about the sliver in my eye and ignoring the lumber yard in your own.

 

[Disir]

Unions give to Democrats.

This is beyond dispute.

In his column, Edsall cites a spokesman for the Koch brothers and their company on why anonymous political giving is constitutionally protected. According to the spokesman:

The rationale behind donor anonymity, which is a form of First Amendment speech, is to protect against the threat of retaliation when someone or some group takes a stand, espouses their point of view or articulates a position on issues that may (or may not) be popular with the general public or the political party in majority power. There are many precedents to this: the Federalist Papers were published under pseudonyms and financed anonymously, out of fear of retribution.

The spokesman for the Koch brothers cites two Supreme Court decisions, NAACP v. Alabama (1958), and McIntyre v. Ohio (1995), to support their claim for anonymous political giving.

The only problem is that the cases don't support the Koch brothers claim.

In reality, the Koch brothers have no constitutional basis and no policy basis to justify secretly injecting untold millions of dollars into federal elections. The Supreme Court and Congress have long recognized that voters have a basic right to know information about political money being given and spent to influence their votes.

Both of the Supreme Court cases cited by the Koch brothers' spokesman are irrelevant to the constitutional issue involved here -- whether it is constitutionally permissible to require disclosure of money given and spent to influence candidate elections. And the Koch brothers' spokesman ignores the directly relevant, and recent, Supreme Court cases which have upheld such disclosure laws.

The Edsall column says that disclosure "remains the losing position" in the courts.

In fact, this is backwards. Just the opposite is true.

For nearly 40 years, campaign finance disclosure requirements have been consistently upheld as constitutional by the Supreme Court -- starting with the Court's landmark Buckley decision in 1976 and continuing as recently as the Court's Citizens United decision in 2010.

In Buckley, the Supreme Court held that the federal campaign finance disclosure laws were constitutional because they provide "the electorate with information 'as to where political campaign money comes from and how it is spent by the candidate' in order to aid the voters in evaluating those who seek federal office."

The Court in Buckley also upheld the disclosure laws on the grounds that "disclosure requirements deter actual corruption and avoid the appearance of corruption by exposing large contributions and expenditures to the light of publicity."

In Citizens United, the Supreme Court, in an eight to 1one decision, upheld political giving and spending disclosure requirements for corporations, including nonprofit corporations, making independent expenditures. The Court said:

With the advent of the Internet, prompt disclosure of expenditures can provide shareholders and citizens with the information needed to hold corporations and elected officials accountable for their positions and supporters.

The Supreme Court noted in Citizens United that it had upheld disclosure laws in earlier cases to address the problem that "independent groups were running election-related advertisements while hiding behind dubious and misleading names."

Even though the Court upheld the disclosure law in Citizens United, however, citizens have not ended up with effective disclosure. Instead they have ended up with hundreds of millions of dollars in secret contributions being laundered into federal elections.

The disclosure problems we now have do not stem from constitutional issues but rather from flawed FEC and IRS regulations that were used by outside groups to spend more than $300 million in secret contributions in the 2012 federal elections.

The two Supreme Court cases cited by the Koch brothers' spokesman to justify anonymous political giving do not support his claim.
A Response to the Koch Brothers Claim of Entitlement to Anonymous Political Giving*|*Fred Wertheimer

Then you should have zero problems with disclosure, ya?

Union donations are essentially anonymous donations. Nobody has a choice in the matter. It's legal, but unethical.

Push for disclosure and everybody is happy. Unions are upfront about where the money goes. Transparency isn't an issue.

 

[mudwhistle]

Unions that give to Democrats got their investment back in spades.

What do you think TARP and the Stimulus was for? The GM Bailout?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

 

[mudwhistle]

Well, at least they've moved on from blaming Bush.....

 

[Disir]

Bush=TARP. You wouldn't be deflecting from the disclosure issue, would you?

 

[mudwhistle]

Bush=TARP. You wouldn't be deflecting from the disclosure issue, would you?

Nope, Bush signed it, but Obama used it to bailout his friends.

 

[Disir]

Bush=TARP. You wouldn't be deflecting from the disclosure issue, would you?

Nope, Bush signed it, but Obama used it to bailout his friends.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzz


Yep, you are afraid of disclosure until you hear word about how to address it? Will it effect your bread and butter?

 

[mudwhistle]

Bush=TARP. You wouldn't be deflecting from the disclosure issue, would you?

Nope, Bush signed it, but Obama used it to bailout his friends.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzz


Yep, you are afraid of disclosure until you hear word about how to address it? Will it effect your bread and butter?

Garbage in, garbage out.

We know about TARP and the Stimulus.

This crap you dredged up is nothing but half-truths and fantasies.

Unions are just money laundering for the Democrats. They take their membership's dues and send a percentage to the Democraps, irregardless what their member's politics are.

Then they get a bailout for their union pensions. It's all legal so far. This nonsense made any other bailout look like chump change.

 

[ClosedCaption]

LMAO Who are you trying to convince with that lie?

You can't be this dumb, can you? (Well you are a right winger, so that comes with being incredibly ignorant)

The Koch's alone have been bankrolling the shit out the GOP. Hell they have been spending more than twice alone on the 2014 senate race ads, and 4 times as much on the house races than all the democrats combined.

Koch Brothers, Americans for Prosperity Outspending Democrats - Businessweek

The Koch Brothers don't hold a candle to many of the Democrats donors.

They're 59th on the list.

They gave just over $18 million in comparison to over $100 million from ActBlue, a Democrat clearing house, Emily's List $31 million, and Unions gave hundreds of millions of dollars to Democrats. If you wonder why Obama supports unions so much just look at the donations. Heavy Hitters: Top All-Time Donors, 1989-2014 | OpenSecrets

No matter what new information is presented the bubble must remain unbroken

 

[Disir]

Nope, Bush signed it, but Obama used it to bailout his friends.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzz


Yep, you are afraid of disclosure until you hear word about how to address it? Will it effect your bread and butter?

Garbage in, garbage out.

We know about TARP and the Stimulus.

This crap you dredged up is nothing but half-truths and fantasies.

Unions are just money laundering for the Democrats. They take their membership's dues and send a percentage to the Democraps, irregardless what their member's politics are.

Then they get a bailout for their union pensions. It's all legal so far. This nonsense made any other bailout look like chump change.

Unions are not money laundering for Democrats that's a lie. In fact, you have provided nothing to counter anything that I have posted. But you have in fact w/o your knowing affirmed that it's your bread and butter. Thanks for that.

 

[Decus]

Democrats seem to be popular with the more affluent:

"Of the 10 richest House districts, only two have Republican congressmen. Democrats claim the top six, sprinkled along the East and West coasts. Most are in overwhelmingly Democratic states like New York and California."

Party of the rich: In Congress, it's the Democrats - SFGate

Makes you wonder.

.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Democrats do things by the books and keep their donations open. The radical right like the Koch's and Rove hide their funds in secret superpacs or launder funds through organizations like the US chamber of commerce. The GOP bankrolls the piss out their puppets up and beyond the democrats by a long shot.

...

 

[mudwhistle]

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzz


Yep, you are afraid of disclosure until you hear word about how to address it? Will it effect your bread and butter?

Garbage in, garbage out.

We know about TARP and the Stimulus.

This crap you dredged up is nothing but half-truths and fantasies.

Unions are just money laundering for the Democrats. They take their membership's dues and send a percentage to the Democraps, irregardless what their member's politics are.

Then they get a bailout for their union pensions. It's all legal so far. This nonsense made any other bailout look like chump change.

Unions are not money laundering for Democrats that's a lie. In fact, you have provided nothing to counter anything that I have posted. But you have in fact w/o your knowing affirmed that it's your bread and butter. Thanks for that.

I don't have to counter lies because you haven't presented any proof.

However, I just explained what unions do with their membership dues. It's beyond dispute. You want to whine about $18 million when I just pointed out the hundreds of millions the Democraps get from unions and how they get it.

If you compare the two $18 million doesn't buy you much influence.

But hundreds of millions buys you TARP, The Stimulus, and Obamacare.

That's close to $4 TRILLION from the US Treasury.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Mud doesnt do proof. He believes it and therefore it is the truth. Like a child imaginary friend or the tooth fairy

 

[Uncensored2008]

Democrats do things by the books and keep their donations open. The radical right like the Koch's and Rove hide their funds in secret superpacs or launder funds through organizations like the US chamber of commerce. The GOP bankrolls the piss out their puppets up and beyond the democrats by a long shot.

LMAO Who are you trying to convince with that lie?

Leland Yee.....