Super pac Money

[Guest]

Is anyone else as concerned as I am about the millions of dollars of legal but unethical super pac money being funneled into this presidental election??? It is evident that the presidental election is now for sale to a few super rich donors. We average Americans should be outraged. Each party is accepting these funds, but just recently Romney's supporters were given $200,000,000 by rich corporations and individuals whose names do not have to be disclosed. I believe these donors would expect favors of some kind, wouldn't you ???.

[Guest]

Is anyone else as concerned as I am about the millions of dollars of legal but unethical super pac money being funneled into this presidental election??? It is evident that the presidental election is now for sale to a few super rich donors. We average Americans should be outraged. Each party is accepting these funds, but just recently Romney's supporters were given $200,000,000 by rich corporations and individuals whose names do not have to be disclosed. I believe these donors would expect favors of some kind, wouldn't you ???.

How about a link to your story. I cannot find one that alludes to a 200 Million Dollar donation.

[Guest]

How about a link to your story. I cannot find one that alludes to a 200 Million Dollar donation.

Not only is that little story left untold, he/she neglected to mention the money flowing into Obama hands.

You remember Obama used to be against it until he "evolved"

[Guest]

Is anyone else as concerned as I am about the millions of dollars of legal but unethical super pac money being funneled into this presidental election??? It is evident that the presidental election is now for sale to a few super rich donors. We average Americans should be outraged. Each party is accepting these funds, but just recently Romney's supporters were given $200,000,000 by rich corporations and individuals whose names do not have to be disclosed. I believe these donors would expect favors of some kind, wouldn't you ???.

Clearly Joe Ricketts made a quick about-face on his $10,000,000 ad buy tying President Obama to Jeremiah Wright. When it was revealed, he denied knowing anything about it, but not before his customers started pulling money out of his E-Trade Company. He was also looking for Chicago to pay for the renovation of Wrigley Field prior to this episode. Since Mayor Rahm Emanuel won't return his phone calls, I doubt this is going to happen anytime soon.

And the nut case behind this was the same guy that came up with the "I'm not a witch" commercial.

[Guest]

Is anyone else as concerned as I am about the millions of dollars of legal but unethical super pac money being funneled into this presidental election??? It is evident that the presidental election is now for sale to a few super rich donors. We average Americans should be outraged. Each party is accepting these funds, but just recently Romney's supporters were given $200,000,000 by rich corporations and individuals whose names do not have to be disclosed. I believeif anything about issues these donors would expect favors of some kind, wouldn't you ???.

Hi Warren: I am certain the vast majority of voters are and have been for many years, concerned about campaign money flowing from sources who undoubtedly view their donation as a quid pro quo. We all also know that these multi million dollar campaigns reveal little about a candidate's position on an issue or for that matter anything about a candidate. In fact campaign money is used to obfuscate and/or slant facts about a candidate.

So the $64,000 question. How can we stop it? Whom do we turn to? The people who should be writing legislation to stop these funds are the recepients.What group is willing to file a lawsuit to to change campaign donoations laws? Hell what attorney? attorneys are making a fortunate off this sort of funding.

Finally and in fairness to candidates many of them must have concerns about leaving their future into the hands of a few. Just look at the allegations that the liberal press is protecting siding and working in behalf of Obama. If this is true then Romney does need donations from private sources to get his message out. It is a complicated issue with little hope of a satisfactory solution for all parties

[Guest]

Take it from Paul Ryan - "PACs corrupt the system. They handle vast amounts of money and the money corrupts".

Or, maybe you'd just prefer - "Money is the root of all evil"

[Guest]

Is anyone else as concerned as I am about the millions of dollars of legal but unethical super pac money being funneled into this presidental election??? It is evident that the presidental election is now for sale to a few super rich donors. We average Americans should be outraged. Each party is accepting these funds, but just recently Romney's supporters were given $200,000,000 by rich corporations and individuals whose names do not have to be disclosed. I believe these donors would expect favors of some kind, wouldn't you ???.

is it only superpacs that support Romney but you' that you are concerned about?

[Guest]

Look at the linked comparison below, of Obama and Romney campaigns' funds raised, and cash on hand, as of the end of March.

With Obama having raised $196,900,097 and having 10 times more cash on hand than Romney at that point, how would anyone expect Romney (or anyone in that opponent position) to not try to raise an equal amount of money??????

Fundraising is usually a candidate's least favorite activity/work. They do this kind of fundraising because they have to, to compete!

The 2012 Money Race: Compare the Candidates - Campaign Finance - Election 2012 - NYTimes.com (http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/campaign-finance)

[Guest]

Is anyone else as concerned as I am about the millions of dollars of legal but unethical super pac money being funneled into this presidental election??? It is evident that the presidental election is now for sale to a few super rich donors. We average Americans should be outraged. Each party is accepting these funds, but just recently Romney's supporters were given $200,000,000 by rich corporations and individuals whose names do not have to be disclosed. I believe these donors would expect favors of some kind, wouldn't you ???.





Why should we be outraged? The Supreme Courts says it is free speech.

I really don't see why a person, or a group of persons, or a coproration, or any other entity should be limited in giving whatever they choose to the candidate of their choice.

Why should the government limit contributions. I am especially puzzled by the Cons reactions to these Super Pacs.

After all, it is always the Cons whinning about the government interferring in our lives. But now, they want the government to dictate how much a coproration or PAC can contribute to a candidate?

[Guest]

for the first time in history i agree with coralway on something...i think we should be allowed to donate as much as we want to any candidate...i was just watching a lady on C-Span on this issue and she said that all donations, even to a pac, are a matter of public record.

[Guest]

for the first time in history i agree with coralway on something...i think we should be allowed to donate as much as we want to any candidate...i was just watching a lady on C-Span on this issue and she said that all donations, even to a pac, are a matter of public record.

From what I can tell the money donated to SuperPacs goes to advertising. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_action_committee

"In 2010, a few weeks after the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United, the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled in SpeechNow.org v. Federal Election Commission that PACs that did not make contributions to candidates, parties, or other PACs could accept unlimited contributions from individuals, unions, and corporations (both for profit and not-for-profit) for the purpose of making independent expenditures." from above Wikipedia article.


Donations also do not look as transparent as you would like. If there is a loophole in the law, a lawyer will find it. http://www.opensecrets.org/

[Guest]

while we are dreaming about changing the campaign rules, I vote for 30 days before the election to be the campaign window......the problem would be getting guys like Obama, who does it on our dime, 24/7/365 to comply....I said it was dreaming!!!

btk

[Guest]

for the first time in history i agree with coralway on something...i think we should be allowed to donate as much as we want to any candidate...i was just watching a lady on C-Span on this issue and she said that all donations, even to a pac, are a matter of public record.

Hi chachaha: While the donation to a candidate is public records the details of any agreement are not in the public record. In fact a contributor doesn't even have to say anything because just by a certain glance, or by virtue of a donation savvy and experienced candidates understand their role. It is why I never accepted as much as a cup of coffee with people I was doing business with because why they make call it be sociable it comes down to offering a bribe pure and simple. People don't give away money for nothing they expect something in return even those who donate to charities

[Guest]

The statement of " People don't give away money for nothing they expect something in return even those who donate to charities." has me completely baffled and I would like to hear back from that poster.

I volunteer at the Christian Food Pantry in Lady Lake and it is heartwarming to see the amount of both food and money that comes in from donations. I offer donation receipts to the donors but most say they do not want them.

The "something in return" you are talking about for donations may just be the good feeling you give yourself when helping others. If that is it, I agree.

[Guest]

The statement of " People don't give away money for nothing they expect something in return even those who donate to charities." has me completely baffled and I would like to hear back from that poster.

I volunteer at the Christian Food Pantry in Lady Lake and it is heartwarming to see the amount of both food and money that comes in from donations. I offer donation receipts to the donors but most say they do not want them.

The "something in return" you are talking about for donations may just be the good feeling you give yourself when helping others. If that is it, I agree.




Very good post - and kudos to your volunteer work at Christian Food Pantry.

[Guest]

Why should we be outraged? The Supreme Courts says it is free speech.

I really don't see why a person, or a group of persons, or a coproration, or any other entity should be limited in giving whatever they choose to the candidate of their choice.

Why should the government limit contributions. I am especially puzzled by the Cons reactions to these Super Pacs.

After all, it is always the Cons whinning about the government interferring in our lives. But now, they want the government to dictate how much a coproration or PAC can contribute to a candidate?

isn't this an issue that pres obama flip-flopped on or 'evolved' away from? didn't he say he would not accept super pac $ once upon a time? and i think i recall that he even gave the supreme court 'what for' on several occassions.

so after obama went whining and ranting about the inappropriateness of such funding, he eventually saw the light and did an about face as soon as the $ was promised to him...and even told his peeps that it was okay to raise fund for one!

back then citizens united = bad but now priorities usa = okay...hmmmmm

[Guest]

The statement of " People don't give away money for nothing they expect something in return even those who donate to charities." has me completely baffled and I would like to hear back from that poster.

I volunteer at the Christian Food Pantry in Lady Lake and it is heartwarming to see the amount of both food and money that comes in from donations. I offer donation receipts to the donors but most say they do not want them.

The "something in return" you are talking about for donations may just be the good feeling you give yourself when helping others. If that is it, I agree.

hafta wonder if those doing the donating are simply hoping the donations help them move up a few rows closer to the front in heaven.

[Guest]

It is possible some do it for that reason. By faith you are saved and not by works. I remember that from my Lutheran catechism classes.

[Guest]

The Obama Super PAC Ad Makes a Mockery of Campaign-Finance Laws - David A. Graham - Politics - The Atlantic (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/05/the-obama-super-pac-ad-makes-a-mockery-of-campaign-finance-laws/257226/)

[Guest]

The Obama Super PAC Ad Makes a Mockery of Campaign-Finance Laws - David A. Graham - Politics - The Atlantic (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/05/the-obama-super-pac-ad-makes-a-mockery-of-campaign-finance-laws/257226/)

Super Pacs.....not a great thing but when you limit direct donations....

Like the President who was against them before he flip flopped, sorry EVOLVED it is a tough thing. But he is a brilliant politician who doesnt care much about truth, so it will work to his advantage.

As he told Rv Wright....problem is "your need to tell the truth all the time"...it can be annoying

[Guest]

...is how the campaign contributions, both to the super pacs as well as to the candidate's campaign funds themselves will be used.

It's abundantly clear that the political advisors to both presidential candidates have told them that negative advertising is where most of the money should be spent...because negative advertising works! The public is far more easily influenced by negative advertising than any intelligent discussion and debate of the issues facing the county.

The result is very likely to be that both candidates will badly injure each other during the pre-election campaigning. One will be elected, of course. But by the time the votes are counted and an inauguration held, our elected president may already be so hated and distrusted by a significant proportion of the electorate to render his ability to lead both the government and the people quite ineffective. All as the result of personal attacks in negative advertising and campaigning.

What a way to run a country.

[Guest]

...is how the campaign contributions, both to the super pacs as well as to the candidate's campaign funds themselves will be used.

It's abundantly clear that the political advisors to both presidential candidates have told them that negative advertising is where most of the money should be spent...because negative advertising works! The public is far more easily influenced by negative advertising than any intelligent discussion and debate of the issues facing the county.

The result is very likely to be that both candidates will badly injure each other during the pre-election campaigning. One will be elected, of course. But by the time the votes are counted and an inauguration held, our elected president may already be so hated and distrusted by a significant proportion of the electorate to render his ability to lead both the government and the people quite ineffective. All as the result of personal attacks in negative advertising and campaigning.

What a way to run a country.

Would make it a bit better if the negative ads were actually true !!

[Guest]

Would make it a bit better if the negative ads were actually true !!

And, of course, they will be true about Obama but patently false about Romney.....right?

[Guest]

And, of course, they will be true about Obama but patently false about Romney.....right?

If you read else where on here I said that I "HOPED" Romney would keep it honest.

Because I oppose Obama and his policies does not a Republican make me....I am anti Obama but I am aware enough to know about both parties, thus you will alway see me posting anti Obama, except when I agree and then I will post that which I have, but you will not see me do what some on here do and feel their party is perfection.

Yeah, Obama lies..very much and very often and does it naturally and well, but both parties either out and out lie or certainly exaggerate in these ads.

[Guest]

The system is broken. Our Reps are extremely well compensated. They may spend only three days a week on-the-job, leaving Monday and Friday as travel days, and are out-of-session for extended periods for holidays and summer. They put in fewer hours than your grandchild in kindergarten and it seems they accomplish nothing. Still they find plenty of time for fundraising events and cold calling.

Public Radio provided a good picture. Sen. Dick Durbin said "Most Americans would be shocked — not surprised, shocked — if they knew how much time a U.S. Senator spends raising money". They can spend hours a day fundraising at the phone banks across the street from the capital. They may need to raise $10,000/day and spend hours a day at the call center. Fascinating, give it a listen:

This American Life - Take the Money and Run for Office (http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/461/take-the-money-and-run-for-office).