Letting Corps. Make Anonymous Unfettered Political Donations Quadrupled Contributions

[Jhhnn]

Like all of the foreign contributions that Obama received?

*Citation needed*

 

[Craig234]

*Citation needed*

He's right, Obama got a ton of donations from un-American foreigners.

Gays, blacks, liberals, feminists, peace lovers, all donated.

 

[Zebo]

He's right, Obama got a ton of donations from un-American foreigners.

Gays, blacks, liberals, feminists, peace lovers, all donated.

lol

Chump change compared to what his real constituents; banks, pharma, insurance companies, etc donated tho.

 

[FuzzyBee]

*Citation needed*

Where did these come from?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/28/AR2008102803413.html

 

[FuzzyBee]

lol

Chump change compared to what his real constituents; banks, pharma, insurance companies, etc donated tho.

Interesting. How many of *those* have profited during his administration? <CraigLogic> He must be a Republican! </CraigLogic>

 

[sandorski]

Where did these come from?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/28/AR2008102803413.html

Did you read the article?

 

[Craig234]

Interesting. How many of *those* have profited during his administration? <CraigLogic> He must be a Republican! </CraigLogic>

No surprise, you're lying about what I've said.

 

[manimal]

The myth of corporate personhood may well go down as mankind's most influential invention.

Nice!~!


What will we say about it in 20 years?



I personally hope what happens is the public eventually becomes outraged and its repeal in some form and allows even greater regulation of what we had previously...hope its a mini inverse prohibition....

 

[Craig234]

Nice!~!


What will we say about it in 20 years?



I personally hope what happens is the public eventually becomes outraged and its repeal in some form and allows even greater regulation of what we had previously...hope its a mini inverse prohibition....

The only solution I see is a constitutional amendment, against the will of a majority of Congress, making it a hell of a battle.

 

[manimal]

The only solution I see is a constitutional amendment, against the will of a majority of Congress, making it a hell of a battle.

It would take a real tragedy or some sort of or a sea change event that tilts public opinion in so far a direction that voting against it would be considered an abomination....


Like when the patriot act passed......

 

[Craig234]

It would take a real tragedy or some sort of or a sea change event that tilts public opinion in so far a direction that voting against it would be considered an abomination....


Like when the patriot act passed......

Except what sort of tragedy would get votes for this? For the Patriot Act, easy answer.

 

[FuzzyBee]

No surprise, you're lying about what I've said.

95% of what you say is absolute BS. I've forgotten about the other 5%

 

[FuzzyBee]

Did you read the article?

Yeah, I did. Nobody seems to know where a lot of these donations came from.

 

[Craig234]

diarreah of the mouth

Except you can't back up the crap you spew. You lie.

 

[sandorski]

Yeah, I did. Nobody seems to know where a lot of these donations came from.

If you read it, then you'd see that it was the Democrats themselves wondering where the donations were coming from and it was them trying to discover the answer as well.

Your innuendo is ridiculous.

 

[FuzzyBee]

Except you can't back up the crap you spew. You lie.

I guess I should take that as a compliment coming from you, the King of Crap-Spewing. Thanks, sir(?)

 

[FuzzyBee]

If you read it, then you'd see that it was the Democrats themselves wondering where the donations were coming from and it was them trying to discover the answer as well.

Your innuendo is ridiculous.

I can see it now:

Campaigner finance person #1: "Oh, gosh! We have all this extra money, and we can't seem to figure out where it came from!"

CFP #2: "Geez, this can't be good. Should we start required people to identify themselves unambiguously when they pay with a credit card?"

CFP #1: "Why? WE HAVE ALL OF THIS EXTRA MONEY!"

Your innocence (ignorance?) is cute.

 

[sandorski]

I can see it now:

Campaigner finance person #1: "Oh, gosh! We have all this extra money, and we can't seem to figure out where it came from!"

CFP #2: "Geez, this can't be good. Should we start required people to identify themselves unambiguously when they pay with a credit card?"

CFP #1: "Why? WE HAVE ALL OF THIS EXTRA MONEY!"

Your innocence (ignorance?) is cute.

lol, so you just substitute whatever Strawman you want and go with it?

 

[FuzzyBee]

lol, so you just substitute whatever Strawman you want and go with it?

They key is that they knowingly accepted funds that they admit they have no idea from whom they originated. They had the ability to cease this, and didn't.

No matter what excuses you make, you can't work around that fact. It doesn't matter who "tried to find out" where the money came from - they knew there was an issue and did not rectify it.

What would you have said had this article been about McCain's campaign?

 

[sandorski]

They key is that they knowingly accepted funds that they admit they have no idea from whom they originated. They had the ability to cease this, and didn't.

No matter what excuses you make, you can't work around that fact. It doesn't matter who "tried to find out" where the money came from - they knew there was an issue and did not rectify it.

What would you have said had this article been about McCain's campaign?

They were trying to rectify it, what more could they do. It's not like they meet face to face with every single donator.

So you built your Strawman of their intent and even who those donators were. Fail.

 

[FuzzyBee]

They were trying to rectify it, what more could they do. It's not like they meet face to face with every single donator.

So you built your Strawman of their intent and even who those donators were. Fail.

Uh - require identification of the credit card users? Not take "gift cards"?

Your reading comprehension is seriously lacking. Good luck improving that.

 

[Jhhnn]

They key is that they knowingly accepted funds that they admit they have no idea from whom they originated. They had the ability to cease this, and didn't.

No matter what excuses you make, you can't work around that fact. It doesn't matter who "tried to find out" where the money came from - they knew there was an issue and did not rectify it.

What would you have said had this article been about McCain's campaign?

Remarkable how you took a leap of faith in all that. The WaPo article clearly states that the system is designed for them to take the money first, scrutinize it later, and return it if the contribution was inappropriate. You haven't shown that such isn't what happened, nor have you shown that any of the money was from foreign sources, which was your original contention.

You've jumped to conclusions, although I'm sure it's impossible for you to see that.

All of which has little to do with the OP's original point and article, that spending by groups whose money is completely untraceable has been blessed by the recent SCOTUS ruling. It doesn't go into official campaign spending by candidates- it doesn't have to do so. There's no reason for campaigns to undergo any scrutiny at all, when their friends will spend anonymously on their behalf with no scrutiny whatsoever. Almost half of the spending in the 2010 election came from such sources, and there's no reason to think that will do anything other than increase.

 

[sandorski]

Uh - require identification of the credit card users? Not take "gift cards"?

Your reading comprehension is seriously lacking. Good luck improving that.

Wouldn't be surprised if that's where they go with this situation. You're still criticizing them in a ridiculous manner though. Gift Credit Cards are a recent development and they can't know they've received a donation from one until(key point) someone uses one to donate to them. Seems you think this constitutes shens on their part. :\

 

[FuzzyBee]

Wouldn't be surprised if that's where they go with this situation. You're still criticizing them in a ridiculous manner though. Gift Credit Cards are a recent development and they can't know they've received a donation from one until(key point) someone uses one to donate to them. Seems you think this constitutes shens on their part. :\

Ridiculous manner? They could have required name/address verification, but they chose not to.

From the story I linked:

When asked whether the campaign takes steps to verify whether a donor's name matches the name on the credit card used to make a payment, Obama's campaign replied in an e-mail: "Name-matching is not a standard check conducted or made available in the credit card processing industry. We believe Visa and MasterCard do not even have the ability to do this.

But wait - there's more!

Juan Proaño, whose technology firm handled online contributions for John Edwards's presidential primary campaign, and for John F. Kerry's presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee in 2004, said it is possible to require donors' names and addresses to match those on their credit card accounts. But, he said, some campaigns are reluctant to impose that extra layer of security.

"Honestly, you want to have the least amount of hurdles in processing contributions quickly," Proaño said.

Change, indeed.