House Spending Bill - goodbye contribution limits

[CLite]

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/camp...-knell-hidden-spending-bill/story?id=27500237

A proposal tucked deep inside the massive spending bill to keep the government running is a boon for political parties. It’s squirreled away on page 1,599 of the 1,603 page bill released late Tuesday night.

Under current regulations, a donor can give $32,400 to the Democratic or Republican National Committee. Soon, they will be able to give a total of $324,000 – 10 times the current limit.

In a two-year election cycle, a married couple could contribute $1.3 million to the various party committees. This financing will help parties raise money for their political conventions.

House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, defended the proposal as “bipartisan.” He said it would allow political conventions to be financed privately, rather than through taxpayer funding.

Also they decided to negate the 2:1 referendum by DC to legalize marijuana, because taxation without representation is fun.

All inside a 1,600 page spending bill, more of the same.

 

[HomerJS]

Along with that Republicans want to allow risky derivatives trading to be backed by the taxpayer again. Dodd/Frank took that away after the financial meltdown of '07.

The little guy loses again.

 

[rstove02]

Some other gems:

• $479 MILLION FOR WARPLANES THAT THE PENTAGON DIDN’T ASK FOR
• 93 MILLION CUT FROM THE WOMEN, INFANTS AND CHILDREN (WIC) NUTRITION PROGRAM
• THE BILL THAT CITIGROUP WROTE

http://bulletin.represent.us/5-awful-things-congress-snuck-omnibus-budget-deal

The portions written by Citigroup include making high risk derivatives backed by the taxpayers again instead of the risk being placed on the banks themselves. You know, one of the major reasons for the economic crash of '08? Privatize profits, socialize losses.

 

[alzan]

Congress discovered long ago that the way to pass a POS legislative bill that wouldn't pass on it's own merit was to bury it inside another bill, usually a spending bill that has to pass.

This practice needs to be reigned in, unfortunately the people who benefit from the practice the most are the lobbyists and the entities they "represent"; they're not likely to cede any power and Congress, being the main benefactors of lobbyist "gifts" are even less inclined to change.

 

[tweaker2]

I'd sure like to know the names of the legislators that sneaked these little gems into the Bill.

Last I heard Pelosi is complaining about it, but it seems to me the only way to get those riders out is to expose the crooks who inserted those riders and shame them into removing them OR risk shutting down the gov't again.

Apparently, those F'ing Repubs(?) up there in the House who added those last minute riders are so totally corrupted they'd risk shutting the gov't down to please their big business overlords.

Over despicable acts like these that stab the taxpayers in the back, I'd back a gov't shutdown to stop this kind of shenanigans.

 

[Brainonska511]

I'd sure like to know the names of the legislators that sneaked these little gems into the Bill.

Last I heard Pelosi is complaining about it, but it seems to me the only way to get those riders out is to expose the crooks who inserted those riders and shame them into removing them OR risk shutting down the gov't again.

Apparently, those F'ing Repubs(?) up there in the House who added those last minute riders are so totally corrupted they'd risk shutting the gov't down to please their big business overlords.

Over despicable acts like these that stab the taxpayers in the back, I'd back a gov't shutdown to stop this kind of shenanigans.

Where are the screams of "we need time to read it"?

Riders to let banks gamble more money, after only 6 years ago when they helped to drive the economy into the ground and some mild regulation passing to prevent that (with none of the too-big-to-fail broken into more manageable pieces, setting us up for another too-big-to-fail scenario of tax-payer bailouts).

Trying to block the 'will of the people' in DC with regards to marijuana.

Allowing greater monetary donations to political parties - as if money isn't a big enough problem already.

And on top of it, it seems strange to try and pick these battles now, since Republicans will have total legislative control in under a month.

 

[glenn1]

I'd sure like to know the names of the legislators that sneaked these little gems into the Bill.

Last I heard Pelosi is complaining about it, but it seems to me the only way to get those riders out is to expose the crooks who inserted those riders and shame them into removing them OR risk shutting down the gov't again.

Apparently, those F'ing Repubs(?) up there in the House who added those last minute riders are so totally corrupted they'd risk shutting the gov't down to please their big business overlords.

Over despicable acts like these that stab the taxpayers in the back, I'd back a gov't shutdown to stop this kind of shenanigans.

Fuck Pelosi, she was the one who came up with "we have to pass the bill to know what's in it" so she has absolutely no standing whatsoever to criticize. She and her crook husband can take the bill and shove it up their corrupt asses.

 

[HomerJS]

Where are the screams of "we need time to read it"?

Riders to let banks gamble more money, after only 6 years ago when they helped to drive the economy into the ground and some mild regulation passing to prevent that (with none of the too-big-to-fail broken into more manageable pieces, setting us up for another too-big-to-fail scenario of tax-payer bailouts).

Trying to block the 'will of the people' in DC with regards to marijuana.

Allowing greater monetary donations to political parties - as if money isn't a big enough problem already.

And on top of it, it seems strange to try and pick these battles now, since Republicans will have total legislative control in under a month.

Because they will have to govern soon. They know people are against most of their policies. Sneak their shit in and avoid responsibility.

 

[fskimospy]

Fuck Pelosi, she was the one who came up with "we have to pass the bill to know what's in it" so she has absolutely no standing whatsoever to criticize. She and her crook husband can take the bill and shove it up their corrupt asses.

It never ceases to amaze me how often people get that quote wrong.

 

[glenn1]

It never ceases to amaze me how often people get that quote wrong.

Yeah, wow, I got two words wrong. Good catch genius, that makes her conduct so much better and I now see why you support her. She's the political hack your side deserves but doesn't need right now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NvSkeJbQy74

 

[dank69]

Fuck Pelosi, she was the one who came up with "we have to pass the bill to know what's in it" so she has absolutely no standing whatsoever to criticize. She and her crook husband can take the bill and shove it up their corrupt asses.

Yeah, fuck that bitch. Passing a bill that tries to make insurance a little more affordable for the common Joe is the same as all the things people are complaining about in this thread. The nerve!

 

[fskimospy]

Yeah, wow, I got two words wrong. Good catch genius, that makes her conduct so much better and I now see why you support her. She's the political hack your side deserves but doesn't need right now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NvSkeJbQy74

They seem like pretty important words.

Regardless, the last thing we need is even more influence on politics by a handful of mega donors. Gross.

 

[glenn1]

They seem like pretty important words.

Regardless, the last thing we need is even more influence on politics by a handful of mega donors. Gross.

I don't see why. Even by your ridiculous standards, more is known at this point about the current bill than was known about Obamacare. And it was your side prattling on about how the backwards-ass republicans were blocking the ability of my temporary majority to do anything, now you have the balls to complain when your side isn't being given the level of minority rights they now want? Again, both you are her are transparent political hacks.

As far as influence on politics by mega donors, since your side has declared them the enemy whose wealth needs to be reined in did you expect the rich would just sit there and take it? Oh that's right, yours is the side who thinks the 1st Amendment doesn't apply fully after a certain income bracket.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I don't see why. Even by your ridiculous standards, more is known at this point about the current bill than was known about Obamacare. And it was your side prattling on about how the backwards-ass republicans were blocking the ability of my temporary majority to do anything, now you have the balls to complain when your side isn't being given the level of minority rights they now want? Again, both you are her are transparent political hacks.

As far as influence on politics by mega donors, since your side has declared them the enemy whose wealth needs to be reined in did you expect the rich would just sit there and take it? Oh that's right, yours is the side who thinks the 1st Amendment doesn't apply fully after a certain income bracket.

Obamacare was handled wrong. Of course buying congressmen to favor your interests over that of the citizens at large is perfectly acceptable since anyone who isn't wealthy seems to be really looking for welfare. Damn leeches, eh?

True story. When I was a very young lad in Philly my dad went to the local city rep for our area who then got the ticket dismissed. Heavens yes, he contacted a politician to get it fixed. Years later you and yours come along and decry such things. Only the wealthy can now do the underhanded and that ticket would take a good proportion of someone's salary to have buried. Oh but they're both wrong. Never said otherwise. It's just the less than your worthy have access to being more equal than others. That's the 1st amendment for ya.

 

[fskimospy]

I don't see why. Even by your ridiculous standards, more is known at this point about the current bill than was known about Obamacare. And it was your side prattling on about how the backwards-ass republicans were blocking the ability of my temporary majority to do anything, now you have the balls to complain when your side isn't being given the level of minority rights they now want? Again, both you are her are transparent political hacks.

That's an obvious lie and you know it. There was more information about the ACA out there and it was debated for a longer period than literally almost any piece of legislation in the entire history of the United States.

You just enjoy being enraged too much. Spite based policymaking rears its ugly head again, haha.

As far as influence on politics by mega donors, since your side has declared them the enemy whose wealth needs to be reined in did you expect the rich would just sit there and take it? Oh that's right, yours is the side who thinks the 1st Amendment doesn't apply fully after a certain income bracket.

No, I just don't consider campaign spending to be speech in the same way that actual speech is. It's not complicated.

It's not like the rich are suddenly deciding to fight back after being unfairly targeted, these people would be working to expand their influence no matter what other people did. If you're smart, you'll realize why having such outsized influence by a few people is a bad idea.

 

[Slew Foot]

same old shit

 

[etrigan420]

As far as influence on politics by mega donors, since your side has declared them the enemy whose wealth needs to be reined in did you expect the rich would just sit there and take it? Oh that's right, yours is the side who thinks the 1st Amendment doesn't apply fully after a certain income bracket.

So not only do you step up to the gallows willingly, but you'll tie the knot and slip the noose for them as well?

You and your ilk cannot pass from this earth quickly enough...

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

If you're smart, you'll realize why having such outsized influence by a few people is a bad idea.

Kind of like employers who don't like the private lives of others firing them as a first amendment right just because they can.

I'm powerful. I'll take that to ruin you because I don't like you, Oh, pass a helping of legislative influence while I'm destroying your life. Thanks.

 

[Brainonska511]

As far as influence on politics by mega donors, since your side has declared them the enemy whose wealth needs to be reined in did you expect the rich would just sit there and take it? Oh that's right, yours is the side who thinks the 1st Amendment doesn't apply fully after a certain income bracket.

Everyone has the right to contribute the same amount of money.

 

[Genx87]

I like how the party of small govt has decided that a referendum passed by the people to legalize recreational MJ use will not be funded. I'm sure somewhere buried in this bill they happily funded big govts war on drugs for DC.

 

[fskimospy]

Kind of like employers who don't like the private lives of others firing them as a first amendment right just because they can.

Agreed, people should have very broad protections for engaging in economic activity with whomever they choose.

I'm powerful. I'll take that to ruin you because I don't like you, Oh, pass a helping of legislative influence while I'm destroying your life. Thanks.

Yes, I'm sure powerful people could try to ruin me because they don't like me. That's life. As for their legislative influence, well that's something we have far more control over. We should limit that.

 

[fskimospy]

I like how the party of small govt has decided that a referendum passed by the people to legalize recreational MJ use will not be funded. I'm sure somewhere buried in this bill they happily funded big govts war on drugs for DC.

I get why the federal government needs to have some say over how the District is run, but that should be limited to matters that directly impact their ability to conduct federal business.

Republicans are all for big, intrusive government, so long as the government is being used against groups and activities they don't like.

 

[Moonbeam]

Yeah, wow, I got two words wrong. Good catch genius, that makes her conduct so much better and I now see why you support her. She's the political hack your side deserves but doesn't need right now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NvSkeJbQy74

You didn't get two words wrong, Glenn1, you completely changed the meaning of what she said. What I heard her say is that the American people will understand what congress was passing when they actually start to experience the benefits and for that to happen the bill must be passed. You made it sound like she was saying we have no idea what's in the bill but the disaster of our ignorance will be visited on you when we pass it.

You are either profoundly linguistically crippled or blinded by some agenda, I think.

Furthermore, when did you decide it's a good idea to cut off your nose to spite your face. Perhaps also you're going to eat some worms. We should ignore the further criminal destruction of our democratic process by money because Pelosi wipes her ass like everybody else. Some of your other cognitive functions also seem to be crippled.

 

[Moonbeam]

Agreed, people should have very broad protections for engaging in economic activity with whomever they choose.



Yes, I'm sure powerful people could try to ruin me because they don't like me. That's life. As for their legislative influence, well that's something we have far more control over. We should limit that.

How did that get to be life? I reject that as life. I utterly reject the indifference that calls that life. It is what is, but it is not life.

 

[fskimospy]

How did that get to be life? I reject that as life. I utterly reject the indifference that calls that life. It is what is, but it is not life.

It's more that any way we would structure society in which we could make sure that someone more powerful than me couldn't hurt me is a world in which that cure is worse than the disease in my opinion.