• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Should O'Donnell be treated like D'Souza?

boomerang

Lifer
Rosie O'Donnell has been making campaign contributions. She has exceeded the amounts prescribed by law numerous times. She is therefore a criminal. What should her punishment be?

Will Rosie O'Donnell Serve Time Like Dinesh D'Souza?

"Left-wing activist and comedian Rosie O’Donnell has been caught contributing more than the legal limit to five Democratic political candidates. She used four variations of her name and five different New York addresses to make the contributions. This may show intent to disguise them.

Federal Election Commission rules limit contributions to federal candidates to $2,700 per election. Donors can max that out in a primary race, then max it out again during a general election for the same candidate. O’Donnell contributed more than $2,700 each to five candidates during the primary race.

The offense is punishable by large fines from the FEC. The FEC can also choose to let a donor move an excess donation from a primary race into the general election or refund it. It doesn’t have to impose the full amount of the fines, and it certainly does not have to criminally prosecute the individual.

O’Donnell’s contributions are similar to what conservative author and filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza did during the 2012 election cycle. He asked two friends and their spouses to contribute $10,000 each to a congressional campaign, then he reimbursed them. Prosecutors chose to bring charges against him, and he ended up pleading guilty to the felony of making illegal contributions in the names of others. He was sentenced to eight months in a halfway house, five years probation and a $30,000 fine."
 
Equal treatment under the law. No double standards. D'souza was pretty up front and cooperative, when busted. Yes, Rosie should also be prosecuted.
 
If that’s what she did then she should be held accountable.

Now the fun part will be to see if the same conspiracy bullshit sprouts up all over the place like it did with d’Souza from conservatives. Anyone wanna bet on that?
 
If that’s what she did then she should be held accountable.

Now the fun part will be to see if the same conspiracy bullshit sprouts up all over the place like it did with d’Souza from conservatives. Anyone wanna bet on that?
Agreed. If she broke the law, punish her. It's fairly predictable how these threads go. Most of our left leaning posters (or otherwise rationale folk) don't have any issues suggesting people on the left should be appropriately punished. It's such an obvious case of projection from the minds of our far right posters.
 
If they can show intent to evade campaign finance law then they should prosecute her. D’Souza engaged in activity that was absolutely blatant evidence of that intent so prosecuting him was easy.

By the way I love how that article says D’Souza was only prosecuted because the deck was stacked against him due to an Obama appointee being the US Attorney but then says O’Donnell will likely get off because of some mythical legal system bias despite the fact that the relevant US Attorney is a Trump appointee.

We can now add the law to the list of things conspiring against conservatives. Lol.
 
Try her in a court of law and apply the appropriate punishment. The only reason I would be disappointed is if she get a pass entirely or if found guilty, it is not proportional (it should scale against the D'Souza fines/prison time for instance).

On a side note, how do we peg individuals for contribution limits and corporations seem to have much more "freedom of speech"? Also, how do billionaires dump millions into campaigns (Kochs)? Do they just throw it into super PACS to hide it or something?
 
Wait isn’t O’Donnell rich?

Do conservatives really want rich people subject to the same laws as us peons?

That doesn’t sound like a conservative position at all. /s

Seriously though, let them prosecute if there’s evidence.
 
She should be held without blame!

J/K

Let there be an investigation and consequences if found guilty as prescribed by the law. No obstruction or manipulation of government, threats and cries of immunity from consequences by virtue of wealth or position.
 
Campaign contribution laws are stupid and should be repealed, however since they are on the books they should be enforced.
 
Like, in the '50s should cops have arrested black people for drinking at the wrong fountain? I mean, 'the laws were on the books'!

JFC, people have become complete caricatures of themselves.
 
Campaign contribution laws are stupid and should be repealed, however since they are on the books they should be enforced.

If anything, they should be stricter. American elections need to take a cue from other countries and shift to public funding, preferably with a total ban on corporate contributions. Right now the US system lets fossil fuel companies, gun manufacturers and telecoms buy laws that are against the will of the people.
 
If anything, they should be stricter. American elections need to take a cue from other countries and shift to public funding, preferably with a total ban on corporate contributions. Right now the US system lets fossil fuel companies, gun manufacturers and telecoms buy laws that are against the will of the people.

But how do you protect FYGM in that environment?
 
If anything, they should be stricter. American elections need to take a cue from other countries and shift to public funding, preferably with a total ban on corporate contributions. Right now the US system lets fossil fuel companies, gun manufacturers and telecoms buy laws that are against the will of the people.
If you really want to get conservatives on board with this idea, just repeatedly use the name of their most feared boogieman, George Soros.
 
Original source-

https://nypost.com/2018/05/05/rosie-odonnells-campaign-donations-to-dems-went-over-legal-limit/

Unlike D'Souza O'Donnell did not engage in criminal conspiracy in an attempt to conceal the source of the donations from the recipients. That's an important distinction.

We have one defender. Someone we never expected to come to the rescue in a million years.

Filings show O’Donnell gave a combined $5,400 in contributions over the limit to the five candidates, and used five different New York addresses and four variations of her name.

Using different names and addresses looks like an attempt to conceal to me. Her excuse is really bad as well. She assumes the campaigns will reject if she goes over the limit. lol ok there Rosie.
 
Back
Top