Undisclosed dollars dominate campaign spending

I'm pretty angry today - I just spent 1.5 hours trying to solve my verizon DSL issues again. I'm sick of verizons patented "Sorry for the inconvenience" and will be going out in a bit to decompress.... I am completely powerless regarding verizon - I have no other choice where I am. The service sucks, is slow, horrendously expensive and goes out randomly alot, and did I say it sucks. I can't use another provider or even FIos for that matter because of my location. Need the internet for work and recreation....

To the point - Dark Money Politics - or rather who funds the candidates?

Who knows??????

Like GMO ingredients in the foods we consume, shouldn't knowing who paid our elected officials way be a right?

NO - NO - NO - says the Supreme (corporate - mostly - RBG RAH RAH) - RBG Court.

Through Monday, super PACs and other big-money outside groups had spent nearly four times as much on ads in the presidential race as the candidates’ own campaigns, which had spent $42 million since the beginning of July, POLITICO’s analysis found.

www.politico.com...

Speaking of the ramifications of 'Citizen's United':

But Ann Ravel, a member of the Federal Election Commission, said it’s become increasingly clear that the justices “did not understand what the implications were going to be of what they did.”

I say, "The hell they didn't" -know how the decision would be used. They knew, they very well knew just as they very well know what an anti-union decision this week would mean..... (www.nytimes.com...)

I understand people that go 'postal', the feeling, the need to strike out when you feel helpless. Fortunately, I'm not a gun owner so any acting out can't kill innocent bystanders and witnesses to my temporary insanity.

PACs are not supposed to 'cooridinate' with candidates? Really?

But the super PAC relationships persisted after the campaign kicked off. The leading pro-Fiorina super PAC actually stages rallies for her, with the candidate appearing as a “special guest,” while her official campaign facilitates the wink-and-nod act by posting her schedule online in advance of appearances so the PAC can plan accordingly.


Among the most aggressive interpretations of the coordination rules is the work of Clinton and her big-money allies. They have pioneered a relationship in which a super PAC called Correct the Record provides research and communications assistance directly to the former secretary of state’s campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination.

"We the People" are supposed to 'shut up', hand over all our money and do as we are told.

I had a thought (run away) about taxes. Since all you good republican/libertarian types hate them so much - rather you hate paying for certain things (health care for all and education) and are all hot for others (war and prisons). How about a compromise. You pay your taxes, as determined by the various representative groups that tax us but you can have your taxes only spent on those items you deem worthy of collective support. Eventually - only those items that people support with their 'designated tax application' will have the money to continue operation.

Hell, I need a meeting.

Monopolies are difficult to have a voice against...just ask Hydro One in Canada where they decided to put a smart meter on almost everyone's home regardless of customers standing up with petitions to deter such an act...government didn't even step up to help and it just created hell for customers. Big companies can do what they want and they just shove it down your throat...take it or leave it attitude.

Well that was kind of all over the place.

I will just get some popcorn and see where this goes.

Time to mobilize !!!!

Stop whining and complaining -- do something for God's sake !!

#occupyDSLstations

a reply to: xuenchen
So it was about DSL? I thought maybe it was about campaign finance, but then I figured it was a rant about conservatives not wanting to pay taxes.

I'm so confused

a reply to: FyreByrd

Good to decompress, Fyre, good to decompress.

Sometimes what is called a conspiracy is simply people taking advantage of a situation. People with noses like bloodhounds sniff out loopholes and ambiguities to challenge. Loopholes can be like stargates. In a political campaign, superpac loopholes allow for amazing connections between candidate and money.

I found this loophole pretty ingenious....

the Clinton campaign also coordinates its media talking points and messaging with the super PAC....Correct the Record argues that this relationship is permissible because the coordination ban applies only to paid television and radio advertisements known as “public communication(s)” and not to communications with the news media or those with the public made through emails or the Internet, which since 2006 mostly have been exempt from FEC regulation.

I thought that the sleaziest use of a loophole was when Jeb Bush held out declaring his candidacy until he no longer could maintain the farce. Jeb could solicit unlimited dollars to stuff in his superpac before declaring himself a candidate, but once declared, he was limited to $2,700 per person per election. Jeb coordinated and strategized with Murphy and Right to Rise, until his bluff was called, then he turned over the reins to Murphy.

IMO the SC activist judges were blinded by their ideology. Of course, Fyre, you just might be right, that they did know the ramifications. That they were not naive about "the reality of corruption". ....Damn! Either way, we still don't have the best government money could buy! I got rooked by those crooks!

As a libertarian leaning independent, I think you may be failing to consider how Democrats use these PACs as well. They may rail against them but they use them. Only people like Sanders and Trump are on their own this go around and doing pretty well thanks to the people. It is only the very far right that supports them...maybe 25.%

Don't get me wrong, I think the decision that coorporations are people was one of the biggest blunders ever made by the supremes. As far as I can see we are stuck with it unless the people continue being fed up...and they won't.

a reply to: liveandlearn Corporations are people was not a blunder is was calculated so those with money get more control. The majority of Americans are idiots and couldn't find America on a map if they tried.

a reply to: FyreByrd

I know hey.....imagine all those people that starve to death each and every day but if some ## messes with my internet i want blood dammit

a reply to: wantsome

Of course you are right...just trying to be pc I guess. I actually think it was bought and paid for.

a reply to: liveandlearn

originally posted by: liveandlearn
As a libertarian leaning independent, I think you may be failing to consider how Democrats use these PACs as well. ....Only people like Sanders and Trump are on their own this go around and doing pretty well thanks to the people. It is only the very far right that supports them...maybe 25.%

The OP featured a Clinton example.
Sending politicians to Washington without draining the system of all the dark money and legal bribery will not do much. For ex, a politician might campaign on the influence of money in politics, or how independent they are, but once installed in Washington, these new congresspeople spend too many hours on the phone or in person soliciting donations, time spent away from effectively governing.

Yes, Trump funds his own campaign and cashes in on his personal fame, and Sanders has great small donations and is frugal, but there are Super PACs for BOTH Trump and Sanders.

Campaign spending creates more jobs than any of these politicians will if they get elected to office.

In case anyone is interested for future reference....

traditional PAC ..... limits on how much and who donates, must disclose who and how much is donated, files with FEC

super PAC ..... no limits on how much or who donates (but must follow two restrictions [campaign firewalls]), disclose donors but disclosure reporting times less stringent, files with FEC ....the problem with superPAC donations--

because they are permitted to accept money from incorporated entities that do not have to make the sources of their funding public, it's possible for them to keep the names of actual donors undisclosed.

"the Russian doll problem." source

dark money....

...money coming from 501(c) organizations, named after their identification in the tax code. These include social welfare groups, unions and trade organizations registered with the IRS. Recently, the focus has been on 501(c)(4) social welfare groups, since the Citizens United ruling empowered these nonprofits in particular to participate in politicking much more actively. Some characteristics of these groups:

No limit on the dollar amount of contributions

Do NOT have to disclose their donors

Cannot coordinate with or donate money to candidates

IRS has jurisdiction over these organizations

May participate in nonpartisan political activity providing a “majority” of their activity go to "social welfare" activities. (It’s widely accepted that this means at least 50.1 percent of their efforts must go toward social welfare activities, which are broadly defined by the IRS.)

Report their spending through 990 IRS tax forms, which are typically delayed by a year or more and often long after the elections have ended; 990s often show major vendors these nonprofit hire and what groups they give money to, but are not obligated to say what the money purchased with any specificity. (However, 501(c) groups must report independent expenditures to the FEC as well.)

Campaign donations are sometimes funneled through these organizations to super PACs to mask donors

source Good read also re candidates nuance over super PAC and/or dark money

dark money organization filing is done through the IRS.... IMO no wonder some people have wanted to harass the IRS over dark money groups, keeps the heat off this dark money scam

originally posted by: liveandlearn
As a libertarian leaning independent, I think you may be failing to consider how Democrats use these PACs as well. They may rail against them but they use them. Only people like Sanders and Trump are on their own this go around and doing pretty well thanks to the people. It is only the very far right that supports them...maybe 25.%

Don't get me wrong, I think the decision that coorporations are people was one of the biggest blunders ever made by the supremes. As far as I can see we are stuck with it unless the people continue being fed up...and they won't.

I did not - but you seemed to have missed that I included HRC's use of a superpac - but I dont' expect people to see what is actually written (or said) only what they want to believe was said or written. Thanks for confirming my confirmation bias about libertarian leaning folk (actually I know a couple good ones - but they know that a libertarian paradise would be a hell hole and just do it for effect),

haha I almost forgot the superPAC CARLY for America, which originally started out as Carly for America PAC but because a superPAC can't use a candidate's name in its title, some smart(ass) changed it to Conservative, Authentic, Responsive Leadership for You and for America... CARLY for America for short. American ingenuity and deviousness at its finest!

Another thing...

originally posted by: FyreByrd
You pay your taxes, as determined by the various representative groups that tax us but you can have your taxes only spent on those items you deem worthy of collective support. Eventually - only those items that people support with their 'designated tax application' will have the money to continue operation.

This reminded me of back in the VietNam war days, some people resisted the war by paying all their income tax except for their portion going to the military.

The appellants are taxpayers who sought deductions from their federal income taxes in the years 1974 and 1975 based on their estimated proportionate share of certain federal military expenditures during those years. They based their right to such deductions not on any congressional grant but on their alleged conscientious religious objections to war and their alleged constitutional protection of such religious objections under the First Amendment. The Tax Court in separate opinions denied the deductions and accordingly found tax deficiencies in the years in question against the appellants.

source

Note.... "alleged constitutional protection of such religious objections under the First Amendment", didn't work then and shouldn't work now

a reply to: FyreByrd

Sorry to hear about your DSL troubles... depending on how the weather is where you are, maybe a satellite based solution would work? I worked with a guy a few years ago who was in very rural eastern Oregon and was having decent luck with a satellite solution. Might not work so well where it's cloudy a lot, though. I don't have any personal experience with it, just an idea.

Re money in politics, what I find really depressing is that apparently massive amounts of money make more difference than what anybody is really saying. It's sad that the politicoes think US citizens are so stupid as to fall for the loudest most obnoxious voice (I am not specifically meaning Trump with that), and even sadder that apparently they are right in that assessment.

a reply to: Open_Minded Skeptic

Thanks - I am looking into YourKarma for a hotspot.

And the awful thing is - and ATS certainly attests to the fact that US citizens are, in fact as you say, "so stupid as to fall for the loudest most obnoxious voice" and I would add "the least tolerant, caring and charitable".

originally posted by: desert

This reminded me of back in the VietNam war days, some people resisted the war by paying all their income tax except for their portion going to the military.

The appellants are taxpayers who sought deductions from their federal income taxes in the years 1974 and 1975 based on their estimated proportionate share of certain federal military expenditures during those years. They based their right to such deductions not on any congressional grant but on their alleged conscientious religious objections to war and their alleged constitutional protection of such religious objections under the First Amendment. The Tax Court in separate opinions denied the deductions and accordingly found tax deficiencies in the years in question against the appellants.

source

Note.... "alleged constitutional protection of such religious objections under the First Amendment", didn't work then and shouldn't work now

I would think that 'under the constitution' it would be equivalent to the Hobby Lobby decision allowing 'Religious Corporate People' from having to provide birth control and abortion services in their group health plans.

Might be worth a time - with that new precedence (Hobby Lobby). Not that a corporate court would ever vote for the people over war mongering corporations in the US of today.

Back to my rant - how do you like that great Union Decision - don't have to pay for the services - but get all the benefits of the union bargaining for you - true 'conservative' thinking. I think great you don't want to pay union dues = fine. But you don't get any of the benefits or pay that the Union ever won for workers - you get minimum wage and nothing. Now that would be fair.