Exposed: The Dark-Money ATM of the Conservative Movement

[BubberMiley]

There are several posters that debate things in a similar manner.

You mean questioning statements that people make and requesting them to back them up with facts? Yes, I believe lots of posters debate things in that manner. The honest ones will also back up their statements and not try to change the subject to "slow work days" when they are uncomfortably caught lying.

[Pliny]

You mean questioning statements that people make and requesting them to back them up with facts?

No. What is extreme has already been pointed out but for some reason it escapes you.

[Pliny]

So tell me what you would consider is politically extreme? Mitch McConnell trying to defeat the Democrats?

Do yo have a definition or concept of "extremist" in mind? Edited February 22, 2013 by Pliny

[Argus]

Since everything else that America does finds its way to Canada, I would really be concerned about catching this disease also. I'm sure that Harper is doing everything he can possibly think of to take the shackles off of campaign spending and outright bribing of politicians that is happening now in the U.S.

The Conservatives have no need to do so in Canada. In fact, it would be counter productive. They have always gotten their money in many small

donations while the liberals have always gotten theirs in a few very large corporate donations. Eliminating corporate donations and reducing

donation limits are what has caused the Liberals so many financial problems.

[Argus]

Why shouldn't anonymous donations be permitted? Isn't it better in some ways if the donor is anonymous? - Seems to me a large donation by a known donor might carry the assumption of an expectation of 'favors.'

Do you want the Chinese donating money to your candidates freely? Foreign donors are illegal, but if you don't know whose making the donations it's a little hard to police, right? I think it's also helpful to know when a politician starts making all kinds of pro oil or pro wall street speeches and voting their way, that they're getting big campaign donations from those sources.

[kimmy]

Why shouldn't anonymous donations be permitted? Isn't it better in some ways if the donor is anonymous? - Seems to me a large donation by a known donor might carry the assumption of an expectation of 'favors.'

A large donation, period, carries the assumption of an expectation of favors. It's just a question of whether the public is entitle to know who these favors are owed to.

Because you can be sure that the people receiving these large "anonymous" donations know who they came from, and what strings are attached.

-k

[bush_cheney2004]

Because you can be sure that the people receiving these large "anonymous" donations know who they came from, and what strings are attached.

Which is exactly as intended, same as donations from identified individuals and organizations. Raising campaign funding is directly proportional to political viability. Do you think every deadbeat candidate or fringe political party should be on an equal footing with deep pockets when it comes to campaign resources ?

Edited February 22, 2013 by bush_cheney2004

[kimmy]

Because you can be sure that the people receiving these large "anonymous" donations know who they came from, and what strings are attached.

Which is exactly as intended, same as donations from identified individuals and organizations. Raising campaign funding is directly proportional to political viability. Do you think every deadbeat candidate or fringe political party should be on an equal footing with deep pockets when it comes to campaign resources ?

But why is anonymity an important part of that? If a candidate receives a big donation from the coal lobby or the gun lobby or the unions or whoever is giving them money, let them wear that endorsement as a badge of honor.

-k

[bush_cheney2004]

But why is anonymity an important part of that? If a candidate receives a big donation from the coal lobby or the gun lobby or the unions or whoever is giving them money, let them wear that endorsement as a badge of honor.

Why, if they choose not to? Seems to me that anybody coughing up that kind of cash gets to decide, same as in any other "donation" scenario. Do you think that the Teamsters wanted it known that they were financing mob projects in Las Vegas ?

[kimmy]

Why, if they choose not to? Seems to me that anybody coughing up that kind of cash gets to decide, same as in any other "donation" scenario. Do you think that the Teamsters wanted it known that they were financing mob projects in Las Vegas ?

If you're comparing donating to politicians to investing in Vegas mob projects, I think that kind of speaks for itself, Mr Vice President.

-k

[bush_cheney2004]

If you're comparing donating to politicians to investing in Vegas mob projects, I think that kind of speaks for itself, Mr Vice President.

But that is the point....money is contributed to exert influence, no matter how big or small. Many people do not contribute money to political campaigns or causes, and this is directly related to how much influence they desire. Legal efforts at "finance reform" in the U.S. eventually backfired big time with Citizen's United and Super PACs.

[WIP]

>

A Republican health care plan....ha ha ha.

Yes, Republican! The first time the concept of an individual mandate to force everyone to buy private health insurance appeared was when Bob Dole proposed it back in 93 - when he was Senate Majority Leader, as the pragmatic alternative to Hillary Care....when Bill put his wife in charge of crafting a national health care plan. Clinton's plan was employer-mandated purchasing of private health insurance for employees, so the reasonable Republican alternative was to offer nationwide, comprehensive health insurance; but make the individual responsible for the requirement to buy from coverage from private health insurance companies.....and Dole may have been the last of the now extinct species known as "pragmatic" conservative Republicans.....as since that time, Republican candidates check their brains at the door and take marching orders directly from ALEC and associated think tank-sponsored lobbyists.

Conservatives Sowed Idea of Health Care Mandate, Only to Spurn It Later

>You seem to think that any move to the left is not enough to call it "left". But that is what socialism is all about.

The progressive move toward totalitarianism. It's an evolving process. Getting a health care act passed like Obamacare

is all part of the progression. Calling it a Republican plan is hilarious. Every Republican in the Senate and all but

one in the House voted against it in any form. It was Democrats that had to be convinced to vote for it. All leftists

have to do is convince liberals that progressivism is the liberal way and inch them over.

Okay, you live in Canada right? What do we have in this country? If Obama was even remotely close to being a socialist he would have started expanding Medicare with the Medicare buy-in option...which would have been that creeping socialism you are so afraid of!

But, he didn't did he? The Medicare Buy In proposals polled higher than any of the fumbling private health mandates that were offered. They did pretend to offer an optional Medicare buy in, but that was a fraud, as a handful of thinking liberals perceived at the time in Washington, since they noticed that the Obama Administration wasn't doing anything to explain or promote a Medicare Buy In option....which was feared by the health insurance companies that Obama has been collecting money from....since that evil government institution of Medicare could have offered health insurance cheaper than the corporate conglomerates on the private market.....so much for free enterprize!

Who's idea was it to change the quote feature on this board? This is bullshit!

Edited February 22, 2013 by WIP

[WIP]

The Conservatives have no need to do so in Canada. In fact, it would be counter productive. They have always gotten their money in many small

donations while the liberals have always gotten theirs in a few very large corporate donations. Eliminating corporate donations and reducing

donation limits are what has caused the Liberals so many financial problems.

The Liberal Party is option one of the banks, and option two for every other corporation, so I don't see where it is all that relevant which party received the most in corporate money. Recall that the Conservatives were the ones who wanted to end public financing of election spending. If that was allowed, The Conservatives would have the biggest advantage, since they are the party that goes the whole 9 yards prostituting themselves in the interests of the big money. Just because they aren't always rewarded for their efforts....remember that the money goes to candidates that win elections, and up till recent years the Liberals were considered the natural governing party federally. And, I haven't checked, but I'd be willing to bet that your observations about the Liberals getting more money than the Federal Conservatives is out of date and no longer the case.

[Argus]

The Liberal Party is option one of the banks, and option two for every other corporation,

You have some evidence that every other corporation preferred to give money elsewhere? Because while it was legal, the Liberals were option one for virtually every large corporate interest. That's why the change affected them so badly. The NDP and Tories have a large base of supporters who contribute small sums. The Liberals only had the rich.

so I don't see where it is all that relevant which party received the most in corporate money. Recall that the Conservatives were the ones who wanted to end public financing of election spending. If that was allowed, The Conservatives would have the biggest advantage, since they are the party that goes the whole 9 yards prostituting themselves in the interests of the big money.

Well for all that 'prostituting' they got no money from Bay Street, and it is illegal now for Bay Street to give any money Edited February 22, 2013 by Argus

[Argus]

Why, if they choose not to? Seems to me that anybody coughing up that kind of cash gets to decide, same as in any other "donation" scenario. Do you think that the Teamsters wanted it known that they were financing mob projects in Las Vegas ?

So you're okay with the Chinese Communist Party funding the Republican Party?

[bush_cheney2004]

So you're okay with the Chinese Communist Party funding the Republican Party?

Yep....same as the Communist Party USA. The Chinese already have a much more direct impact on the U.S. economy and treasury debt. We even have Canadian lobbyists and rich folk trying to get in on the action. Hell, Canadians want to vote in U.S. elections...why just pick on the Chinese ?

Edited February 22, 2013 by bush_cheney2004

[Bonam]

Yep....same as the Communist Party USA. The Chinese already have a much more direct impact on the U.S. economy and treasury debt. We even have Canadian lobbyists and rich folk trying to get in on the action. Hell, Canadians want to vote in U.S. elections...why just pick on the Chinese ?

At the rate the US is piling on debt, maybe it should start selling permits to vote in US elections to foreigners for like $10k a piece (single use). Could raise probably a trillion dollars or so every election cycle.

[bush_cheney2004]

At the rate the US is piling on debt, maybe it should start selling permits to vote in US elections to foreigners for like $10k a piece (single use). Could raise probably a trillion dollars or so every election cycle.

Fast tracking to U.S. citizenship for a price already exists, so your idea is not off the mark. This is perfectly consistent with the way the U.S. has always worked. Bill Clinton: "It's the economy, stupid".

[sharkman]

If only Obama knew what Bill knew back in the 90's.