top 16 donors pretty much dems. Koch brothers rank 59

[tyroneweaver]

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php


thank goodness the sc knew what they were doing

 

[theDoctorisIn]

That list only counts direct donations to candidates, leadership PACs or parties.

The vast majority of the Koch Brothers donations (estimates go up to $400 million in 2012) go to 501c4s and SuperPACs, neither of which are included in your list.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

That list only counts direct donations to candidates, leadership PACs or parties.

The vast majority of the Koch Brothers donations (estimates go up to $400 million in 2012) go to 501c4s and SuperPACs, neither of which are included in your list.

And which have nothing to do with the current ruling. The ruling simply allows a donor to donate to MORE people but does not lift the per person limit.

Further you never complain about Soros now do you?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

That list only counts direct donations to candidates, leadership PACs or parties.

The vast majority of the Koch Brothers donations (estimates go up to $400 million in 2012) go to 501c4s and SuperPACs, neither of which are included in your list.

And which have nothing to do with the current ruling. The ruling simply allows a donor to donate to MORE people but does not lift the per person limit.

Further you never complain about Soros now do you?

I don't think I've "complained" about anyone donating money, nor have I complained about this recent ruling.

You know what they say about what happens when you assume.

 

[Mr. H.]

The Koch's are Conservatives, Conservatives are evil, and we no longer have the Liberty of opinion in this country.

5-1/2 years ago, this country was turned on it's head and it will never recover.

Thank you, Mr. semi-Negro.

 

[HenryBHough]

I've come to believe in the need not just "vetting" of presidential wannabes but also of DNA testing to ensure absence of simian genes.

 

[tyroneweaver]

That list only counts direct donations to candidates, leadership PACs or parties.ou

The vast majority of the Koch Brothers donations (estimates go up to $400 million in 2012) go to 501c4s and SuperPACs, neither of which are included in your list.

and unions really don't donate 228 million it's more like 500 million so it cuts both ways .

you really can't say the kochs were using others and dems aren't....of course you dems wouldn't lie.... would you

 

[blackhawk]

The right gripes about George Soros the left the Koch brothers it's all pretty silly I suspect if any of us were billionaires we would be using our wealth to try and get people who held our views as well.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

This isn't directed at anyone on this thread. . . I won't put arguments in your mouths for you. I've seen, heard, and read a fair number of Dems lately decrying the amount of money being allowed into politics by the recent court decision, and in the same breath lamenting its effects on our "democracy". Al Sharpton on MSNBC this afternoon comes to mind.

Anyway, this entire line of thinking's had me giggling my ass off for the last 48 hours. Follow the reasoning here. . .

What does money in American politics -do-? At least in a legal sense, you can't directly buy votes. That's still against the law. Money gives a candidate the ability to speak more loudly and more frequently. Advertising funds, basically.

If you're lamenting that money in elections is ruining our democracy, then you're acknowledging that the money is swaying the vote. This means that you're acknowledging that, essentially, whichever candidate is able to speak louder than the other guy is typically going to win.

What you're acknowledging is that the majority of the voters will vote for whoever speaks more loudly and more frequently. Essentially, you're acknowledging that the voting populace is a collection comprised primarily of sheep. The easily swayed. Folk who don't do much independent thinking. The intellectually lazy.

If these are the majority of the people making our final decisions, I'm not sure why everyone is under the impression that making the campaigning process more all-inclusive is somehow going to cause voters who don't think for themselves to suddenly start making intelligent decisions. The whole argument is striking me more and more as a non-issue.

If you ask me, we need to ignore the money and start with a cultural shift. In stead of Rock the Vote, MTV should start airing, "Don't Fucking Vote!", an ad campaign designed to instill the attitude in the coming generation that, if you haven't actually read up on the candidates/issue in question, there's no reason you should feel the need to involve yourself in the decision making process. Okay, maybe "Educate Yourself, Then Vote!". I'll meet you "it's your civic duty to use your unresearched opinions to help us decide the fate of the nation" fucks halfway.

Just saying, if people weren't self-important assholes when they don't deserve to be, "low information voter" wouldn't even be a thing. It God damn well shouldn't be.

 

[Clementine]

That list only counts direct donations to candidates, leadership PACs or parties.

The vast majority of the Koch Brothers donations (estimates go up to $400 million in 2012) go to 501c4s and SuperPACs, neither of which are included in your list.

And how much does Soros invest in ruining our country by funding radicals?