Does It Bother Anyone...?

[Guest]

....that millions and millions of dollars are being contributed to the super PAC's that are doing most of the advertising in this presidential campaign, are coming from foreign countries?

I'm sure both candidates are getting foreign money--they can because of the Supreme Court's Citizen United ruling. But I saw a report this morning on Politico.com that the Romney super PAC has gotten huge contributions--something more than $10 million--from interests in Macau. Macau is one of the two administrative regions of the People's Republic of China.

The super PAC's have no requirement to report their sources of contributions. In this case, the donor is thought to be Sheldon Adelson, owner of the parent company of Venetian Macao Casino, a huge casino being developed in China.

I guess our Supreme Court believes that the rights of free speech applies to anyone or any organization, private or sovereign, who chooses to "speak" in the United States. So foreign interests will likely have an awful lot of influence on who is elected as POTUS in November. Moreso than any individual or group of American voters. I can't imagine that the framers of the Constitution had this in mind.

[Guest]

I am sure the framers of the Constitution - that document always being touted as sacred by the conservatives - had no idea of any advertising money being spent on elections, much less PACS and Super PACS. Yet, here we see Republicans (yep, those pesky conservatives again) going overseas - to incude China - for their Super PACS to try and buy the election. What are they promising in return as we know the Chinese are not doing this out of the kindness of their hearts and to promote democracy in the USA?

[Guest]

It's interesting that the Mormon church forbids Mitt Romney to gamble, but it's allright for him to accept money made from gambling.

[Guest]

As I have stated previously, we need massive campaign reform IMO. Not only super pacs, but ALL influence money should be banned. Get all of the people and organizations who want a piece of a candidate or party's hide the hell out. If I were in charge, I would even ban campaign ads altogether, allowing candidates a certain number of network appearances and debates to explain thier positions. Now that will never happen, obviously, but what have we EVER really honestly learned about a candidate from an ad? I would severely limit campaign length, mandate a single countrywide presidential primary, and fund the limited campaigns publicly. Our current political process has in large measure, given us a great deal of the mess we find ourseves in.

[Guest]

doesn't bother me - i think it does a bit to level the field with the contributions made by unions. would be interesting to see if super pacs try to mobilize a 'people force' to match the get out the vote effort of unions.

[Guest]

doesn't bother me - i think it does a bit to level the field with the contributions made by unions. would be interesting to see if super pacs try to mobilize a 'people force' to match the get out the vote effort of unions.

It is totally amaxing how some are beholden to their political party !

Kudos to eweissenbach for not using his post to try and impress all readers how wonderful and clean the one party is and how corrupt and terrible the other is.

Now eweissenbach may have forgotten to do that, but for this moment I applaud him as someone who addressed the question about super pacs. I realize this is a political forum but there are some issues that all Americans should agree on.

To those who absolve and one party from this action and mention the other as the only bad guys, I suggest that you are extremely naive and ill informed

[Guest]

campaign reform and term limits might get us back our government.

[Guest]

What's bothered me is that key politicians have led people to believe that the Citizens' United decision is only about permitting unfettered campaign spending by "evil corporations" and PAC's, when in fact, it is about a whole lot more. It is not as simplistic as opponents make it sound.

Most people don't know what this case was actually about, nor what the Supreme Court's decision actually addressed.

"Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 50 (2010), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the First Amendment prohibited the government from restricting independent political expenditures by corporations and unions.

The nonprofit corporation Citizens United wanted to air a film critical of Hillary Clinton and to advertise the film during television broadcasts in apparent violation of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (commonly known as the McCain–Feingold Act or "BCRA"). In a 5–4 decision, the Court held that portions of BCRA §203 violated the First Amendment.

The decision reached the Supreme Court on appeal from a July 2008 decision by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Section 203 of BCRA defined an "electioneering communication" as a broadcast, cable, or satellite communication that mentioned a candidate within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary, and prohibited such expenditures by corporations and unions. The lower court held that §203 of BCRA applied and prohibited Citizens United from advertising the film Hillary: The Movie in broadcasts or paying to have it shown on television within 30 days of the 2008 Democratic primaries.[1][3] The Supreme Court reversed, striking down those provisions of BCRA that prohibited corporations (including nonprofit corporations) and unions from spending on "electioneering communications".[2]

..........The Court, however, upheld requirements for public disclosure by sponsors of advertisements (BCRA §201 and §311). The case did not involve the federal ban on direct contributions from corporations or unions to candidate campaigns or political parties, which remain illegal in races for federal office.


---------
Justice Kennedy's opinion for the majority also noted that since the First Amendment (and the Court) do not distinguish between media and other corporations, these restrictions would allow Congress to suppress political speech in newspapers, books, television and blogs.

The Court overruled Austin, which had held that a state law that prohibited corporations from using treasury money to support or oppose candidates in elections did not violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

The Court also overruled that portion of McConnell that upheld BCRA's restriction of corporate spending on "electioneering communications". The Court's ruling effectively freed corporations and unions to spend money both on "electioneering communications" and to directly advocate for the election or defeat of candidates (although not to contribute directly to candidates or political parties).

The majority argued that the First Amendment protects associations of individuals as well as individual speakers, and further that the First Amendment does not allow prohibitions of speech based on the identity of the speaker.

Corporations, as associations of individuals, therefore have speech rights under the First Amendment.

Because spending money is essential to disseminating speech, as established in Buckley v. Valeo, limiting a corporation's ability to spend money unconstitutionally limits the ability of its members to associate effectively and to speak on political issues.

The majority overruled Austin because that decision allowed different restrictions on speech-related spending based on corporate identity..... In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, however, the majority argued that the First Amendment purposefully keeps the government from interfering in the "marketplace of ideas" and "rationing" speech, and it is not up to the legislatures or the courts to create a sense of "fairness" by restricting speech.[21]

The majority also criticized Austin's reasoning that the "distorting effect" of large corporate expenditures constituted a risk of corruption or the appearance of corruption. Rather, the majority argued that the government had no place in determining whether large expenditures distorted an audience's perceptions, and that the type of "corruption" that might justify government controls on spending for speech had to relate to some form of "quid pro quo" transaction: "There is no such thing as too much speech."

The public has a right to have access to all information and to determine the reliability and importance of the information. Additionally, the majority did not believe that reliable evidence substantiated the risk of corruption or the appearance of corruption, and so this rationale did not satisfy strict scrutiny.

The majority opinion relied heavily on the reasoning and principles of the landmark campaign finance case of Buckley and First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, in which the Court struck down a broad prohibition against independent expenditures by corporations in ballot initiatives and referenda.[21] Specifically, the majority echoed Bellotti's rejection of categories based on a corporation's purpose. The majority argued that to grant First Amendment protections to media corporations but not others presented a host of problems, and so all corporations should be equally protected from expenditure restrictions.

The Court found that BCRA §§201 and 311, provisions requiring disclosure of the funder, were valid as applied to the movie advertisements and to the movie itself......."

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission)

[Guest]

As I have stated previously, we need massive campaign reform IMO. Not only super pacs, but ALL influence money should be banned. Get all of the people and organizations who want a piece of a candidate or party's hide the hell out. If I were in charge, I would even ban campaign ads altogether, allowing candidates a certain number of network appearances and debates to explain thier positions. Now that will never happen, obviously, but what have we EVER really honestly learned about a candidate from an ad? I would severely limit campaign length, mandate a single countrywide presidential primary, and fund the limited campaigns publicly. Our current political process has in large measure, given us a great deal of the mess we find ourseves in.I agree, Coach. But with the Supreme Court's "free speech" decision in Citizens United, the cat is out of the bag. All the rules you suggest might come from Congress or the political parties. We could even have a Constitutional amendment prohibiting or severely limiting campaigning or campaign advertising. The candidates themselves could even agree to only take government campaign financing, with no private fund-raising. But the Super PAC's would be unaffected. Their negative, nasty TV ads have been deemed to be free speech. Even those paid for by money from foreign countries, special interests, unions, any moneyed interest--arguably even those unfriendly to the U.S. could fund efforts to manipulate our government. I hate to say it, but I can't think of a way whereby we're ever again going to avoid the kind of advertising we're seeing right now.

The individual American voter, even groups of voters, will have little influence over elections. It's been proven that voters can be manipulated by advertising, particularly negative , attack ads. And the special interests all over the world can pour unlimited amounts of money into Super PACs to buy it.

[Guest]

It bothers me a lot that money can buy an election. Nothing to do with most qualified regardless of party. Yes, there can be a more qualified Republican.....maybe around 1% of the time. ;)

[Guest]

It bothers me a lot that money can buy an election. Nothing to do with most qualified regardless of party. Yes, there can be a more qualified Republican.....maybe around 1% of the time. ;)


Excellent example of DaleMN's post is the Goobernator of Florida, Rick Scott. A billionaire who spent millions of his own money to buy the office. You remember the hospital group CEO who did not know anything about the millions and millions being charged to Medicare and finally being caught and paying the highest fine in history?

[Guest]

"Citizens United" was caused by "McCain-Feingold" which restricted any organization, no matter how small, from runing ads against a candidate by name close to the election. (A RESTRICTION ON FREE SPEECH> Every new campaign funding mechanism had been developed to get around a restriction. If these small restrictions had not been made, we in all liklihood not have had 5023c's and SuperPACS. Remember, Federal money is available for the Presidential campaigns, but the candidates have to use only that money. There is a spending race, no one will abide by the restrictions unless all do. Remember, in 2008, BHO said he would except Federal Funds, then he started getting the big bucks from Wall Street and Hollywood.

Ideal would be no restrictions, but complete disclosure. Easy to do now with the INTERNET. ( Developed by DARPA for use in DOD.)

[Guest]

Originally Posted by DaleMN View Post
"...It bothers me a lot that money can buy an election. Nothing to do with most qualified regardless of party. Yes, there can be a more qualified Republican.....maybe around 1% of the time...."

And from across the aisle:

It bothers us a lot that money could buy an election. Nothing to do with most qualified regardless of party. Yes, there can be a more qualified Democrat.....maybe around 1% of the time.

btk

[Guest]

"Citizens United" was caused by "McCain-Feingold" which restricted any organization, no matter how small, from runing ads against a candidate by name close to the election. (A RESTRICTION ON FREE SPEECH> Every new campaign funding mechanism had been developed to get around a restriction. If these small restrictions had not been made, we in all liklihood not have had 5023c's and SuperPACS. Remember, Federal money is available for the Presidential campaigns, but the candidates have to use only that money. There is a spending race, no one will abide by the restrictions unless all do. Remember, in 2008, BHO said he would except Federal Funds, then he started getting the big bucks from Wall Street and Hollywood.

Ideal would be no restrictions, but complete disclosure. Easy to do now with the INTERNET. ( Developed by DARPA for use in DOD.)That may well be the case. But I still admire both John McCain and Russ Feingold for taking a stand and pushing some legislation thru on a bi-partisan basis. Bi-partisan efforts on anything have been totally missing in this Congress. We can hold out hope for future Congresses, but at this point any kind of change doesn't look too promising.

[Guest]

[

QUOTE=DaleMN;509039]It bothers me a lot that money can buy an election. Nothing to do with most qualified regardless of party. Yes, there can be a more qualified Republican.....maybe around 1% of the time. ;)[/QUOTE]

Hi DaleMN: I happen to agree with your above-mentioned post as we have had the misfortune of living that nightmare for the last 3.5 years.

I also agree with "Old Coach". However irrespective of Citizens, et al, the fact is no one is going to stop men of power from inserting their preferences for many of the politcial/public offices involved in local, state or federal election. Whether by utilizing dollars,bartering favors, etc anyone who believes such influences can be stop might be accused of being naive.

[Guest]

I find it interesting that we have a thread titled....DOES IT BOTHER ANYONE, that specifically mentions Romney as if he were the ultimate bad guy.

Yet this will get no criticism whatsoever...no poster will find any problems with this as they did, obviously, with Romney.....and the thread was NOT ABOUT just the Super Pacs but specifically aimed at FOREIGN DONORS.

"The all-consuming hunt for donors has led President Barack Obama’s campaign to England. And France. And China.

Obama is tapping the network of American citizens living outside the 50 states more than any other presidential campaign has before, with more than a dozen bundlers who have pledged to raise as much as $4.5 million."

Read more: Obama taps overseas donor pool - Anna Palmer and Darren Samuelsohn - POLITICO.com (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0612/77744.html#ixzz1ycoG5YWF\)

No problem with this guy doing it....somewhat more aggressivley

"It’s all legal - the donors are American citizens who pay U.S. taxes - and the net income to the campaigns is paltry compared to the hundreds of millions of dollars raised stateside. But while presidential campaigns have long taken in campaign donations from expats and people living in U.S. territories, Obama’s campaign is focusing on it more than ever before"

What no outrage ????

[Guest]

I find it interesting that we have a thread titled....DOES IT BOTHER ANYONE, that specifically mentions Romney as if he were the ultimate bad guy...I'm really sick and tired of your twisting or misreading anything I post here as support of Obama and criticism of Romney.

If you'll go back and read my original post, Bucco, I think you'll see that the entire point of my post was to note that huge amounts of money were flowing into the Super PAC's from foreign sources. There had been no report of any such donations to the Obama Super PAC until the one you posted today, which was dated today. Such donations don't surprise me, but they had not been reported when I wrote the original post. My original post was in response to a report on Politico.com that the Romney PAC had recieved over $10 million from sources in China. That Politico report was published about three days ago on MSNBC.

But tell me anyway, how did you somehow twist that report and question into making my intent some backhanded criticism of Mitt Romney? My criticism was of the new political process that permits elections to be manipulated with advertising purchased with foreign money. But somehow you read my posts with a pre-conceived notion of my intent.

I certainly wish that you'd somehow withhold your deep hatred and mistrust for Barack Obama in your interpretation of what I write here. I'd suggest that you read, and then maybe re-read my posts. Then, only if it is clear that I am criticizing one candidate in favor of another, feel free to be critical of my position or message. In the meantime, please stop parsing my words and twisting the message I try to convey.

[Guest]

I'm really sick and tired of your twisting or misreading anything I post here as support of Obama and criticism of Romney.

If you'll go back and read my original post, Bucco, I think you'll see that the entire point of my post was to note that huge amounts of money were flowing into the Super PAC's from foreign sources. There had been no report of any such donations to the Obama Super PAC until the one you posted today, which was dated today. Such donations don't surprise me, but they had not been reported when I wrote the original post. My original post was in response to a report on Politico.com that the Romney PAC had recieved over $10 million from sources in China. That Politico report was published about three days ago on MSNBC.

But tell me anyway, how did you somehow twist that report and question into making my intent some backhanded criticism of Mitt Romney? My criticism was of the new political process that permits elections to be manipulated with advertising purchased with foreign money. But somehow you read my posts with a pre-conceived notion of my intent.

I certainly wish that you'd somehow withhold your deep hatred and mistrust for Barack Obama in your interpretation of what I write here. I'd suggest that you read, and then maybe re-read my posts. Then, only if it is clear that I am criticizing one candidate in favor of another, feel free to be critical of my position or message. In the meantime, please stop parsing my words and twisting the message I try to convey.

OK, I reread your OP. You do single out Romney PACs.

Are you saying in this post that you had no idea Obama PACs were collecting large sums of money?

Maybe you need to explain yourself more clearly if my observations are incorrect.

[Guest]

I'm really sick and tired of your twisting or misreading anything I post here as support of Obama and criticism of Romney.

If you'll go back and read my original post, Bucco, I think you'll see that the entire point of my post was to note that huge amounts of money were flowing into the Super PAC's from foreign sources. There had been no report of any such donations to the Obama Super PAC until the one you posted today, which was dated today. Such donations don't surprise me, but they had not been reported when I wrote the original post. My original post was in response to a report on Politico.com that the Romney PAC had recieved over $10 million from sources in China. That Politico report was published about three days ago on MSNBC.

But tell me anyway, how did you somehow twist that report and question into making my intent some backhanded criticism of Mitt Romney? My criticism was of the new political process that permits elections to be manipulated with advertising purchased with foreign money. But somehow you read my posts with a pre-conceived notion of my intent.

I certainly wish that you'd somehow withhold your deep hatred and mistrust for Barack Obama in your interpretation of what I write here. I'd suggest that you read, and then maybe re-read my posts. Then, only if it is clear that I am criticizing one candidate in favor of another, feel free to be critical of my position or message. In the meantime, please stop parsing my words and twisting the message I try to convey.


Your comments are fair, HOWEVER, if you revisit your posts that crticize the system, without checking, I would say that in your thread opener you mention ONLY ONE CANDIDATE....very seldom is Obama held up as your example...PLEASE CHECK BACK.

That was the basis for this although I would have posted it anyway although I have doubts if anyone would have.

Hey, I do not like or respect this President, and the only combacks that contain sarcasm are those that use Romney as the example and never use Obama and I hope you are honest enough to recognize that.

I have posted retorts to some of your congressional posts where you ONLY use the house as an example...NEVER the senate. WE AGREE on the inept government, but I try (maybe not always successful, but I try) to include BOTH PARTIES which was the first phrase of your note, and then (and I didnt check by count) but then 3/4 of the post was a specific by name and group of a Romney donation.

I might also add that am sure you are "sick and tired" of me mentioning that....I can say that your lectures on not criticizing Obama because I will not change votes rings hollow since those on here who simply jump in and out with the condescending name calling of anything right (candidates, networks, etc) are never called to task by you. By implication to me, that is because you condone their posts that are normally without any credibility or link to even try to make the statments credible. Mine are based on what I have read and see and are linked to validate. THAT fact does not make them wrong in anyway, but my problem is they do not ever receive your condemnations, and in fact, many times get the "applause".

I agree totally our government is screwed up, and will support anyone who says it, but to be frank, I feell forced to defend Republicans because when the congress is discussed it appears they are the only bad guys, yet when I read of the actions of the Senate that seems to go by with no comment.

I am truely sorry if this made you angry, but your called me out on this forum in a very very public manner simply because you felt I was criticizing Obama too much and would never change a mind....I suggest you could say the same thing to others who adore him, but you will not.

If I misread you I am sorry...I DO apologize when necessary but ask that you check on the accuracy of what I say at the same time.

[Guest]

Your comments are fair, HOWEVER, if you revisit your posts that crticize the system, without checking, I would say that in your thread opener you mention ONLY ONE CANDIDATE....very seldom is Obama held up as your example...PLEASE CHECK BACK.

That was the basis for this although I would have posted it anyway although I have doubts if anyone would have.

Hey, I do not like or respect this President, and the only combacks that contain sarcasm are those that use Romney as the example and never use Obama and I hope you are honest enough to recognize that.

I have posted retorts to some of your congressional posts where you ONLY use the house as an example...NEVER the senate. WE AGREE on the inept government, but I try (maybe not always successful, but I try) to include BOTH PARTIES which was the first phrase of your note, and then (and I didnt check by count) but then 3/4 of the post was a specific by name and group of a Romney donation.

I might also add that am sure you are "sick and tired" of me mentioning that....I can say that your lectures on not criticizing Obama because I will not change votes rings hollow since those on here who simply jump in and out with the condescending name calling of anything right (candidates, networks, etc) are never called to task by you. By implication to me, that is because you condone their posts that are normally without any credibility or link to even try to make the statments credible. Mine are based on what I have read and see and are linked to validate. THAT fact does not make them wrong in anyway, but my problem is they do not ever receive your condemnations, and in fact, many times get the "applause".

I agree totally our government is screwed up, and will support anyone who says it, but to be frank, I feell forced to defend Republicans because when the congress is discussed it appears they are the only bad guys, yet when I read of the actions of the Senate that seems to go by with no comment.

I am truely sorry if this made you angry, but your called me out on this forum in a very very public manner simply because you felt I was criticizing Obama too much and would never change a mind....I suggest you could say the same thing to others who adore him, but you will not.

If I misread you I am sorry...I DO apologize when necessary but ask that you check on the accuracy of what I say at the same time.Apology accepted.

I seldom...maybe never...criticize the Senate because it is beyond being broken. It has set rules for itself that essentially removes it as a productive element in the legislative process and in the governance if this country. And because of the way it operates and because of it's inept leadership on both sides of the Senate aisle, it can essentially neuter any legislative efforts begun in the House.

Having said that, what the House does is a pretty pure measure of what the party in control stands for. The GOP has overwhelming control of the House. They can vote for whatever they wish. Forget the fact that the Senate is likely to block almost anything the Senate leadership deems to be politically desirable to the GOP. Just continue to focus on what the House actually does, even though it never makes it into law because of Senate obstructionism.

If you look closely at what the House spends their time on, what legislation they actually pass....and refuse to listen to the soundbites they plant on how responsible they are or trying to convince the public that what they say are important issues really are...I'm pretty sure you'll find that they are no better, no more fiscally conservative, no more willing to really do the "people's work" than the Nancy Pelosi-lead Democratic House that preceded them.

That's why my criticism is concentrated on the House. I've completely given up on the Senate!

[Guest]

The Democrat controlled Senate we're to ignore because they're so broken under the leadership of Harry Reid that bills and proposals become dead on arrival.

But the Republican Congress we're to castigate because they can actually have discussions and votes as they're not hampered by situations like the inept leadership of the Democrat controlled Senate?

yeah......OK