Citizens United Update

[Crashk]

I didn't see you complain when Soros funded the Obama's campaign.

Soros has been a naturalized American citizen since 1961.

Your backers are increasingly foreign...

"...Like the Chamber’s involvement in Bahrain, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce operates in India through a group called “U.S.-India Business Council” (USIBC), which has offices around the world but is headquartered in the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Dozens of Indian businesses, including some of India’s largest corporations like the State Bank of India (state-run) and ICICI Bank, are members of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce through the USIBC. Annual membership dues range from $7,500 to $15,000 or more, and the money is given directly into the Chamber’s 501(c)(6) bank account. Like the USBBC, the USIBC generates well over $200,000 a year in dues for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce from foreign businesses. On the USIBC website, many of the groups lobbying goals advocate changing American policy to help businesses in India. Under the manufacturing policy goal, USIBC boasts that it “can play a helpful role in guiding U.S. companies to India, while supporting various policy initiatives that will enhance India’s reputation as a major manufacturing and investment hub.”

So it's ok with you that your politicians will legislate for their foreign corporations masters and not for Americans.

 

[zappasguitar]

It isn't debatable just because you say so and the FEC reports you are demanding haven't been submitted. I'll give you the numbers once the FEC quarterly reports are submitted and analyzed. Just give me a reminder after 10/15. And then we can revisit after the post-election reports are submitted.

For now, et's play tit for tat. U.S. Chamber of Commerce is plans to spend $75 million. Once you get some Democratic groups totaling that amount I'll move on.

Why is it up to you?

If it's so "debatable" then SF should surely be able to post some facts to back up his claims...he's so sure he's right, then he needs to "put up or shut up".

 

[Liberty]

Soros has been a naturalized American citizen since 1961.

Your backers are increasingly foreign...

"...Like the Chamber’s involvement in Bahrain, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce operates in India through a group called “U.S.-India Business Council” (USIBC), which has offices around the world but is headquartered in the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Dozens of Indian businesses, including some of India’s largest corporations like the State Bank of India (state-run) and ICICI Bank, are members of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce through the USIBC. Annual membership dues range from $7,500 to $15,000 or more, and the money is given directly into the Chamber’s 501(c)(6) bank account. Like the USBBC, the USIBC generates well over $200,000 a year in dues for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce from foreign businesses. On the USIBC website, many of the groups lobbying goals advocate changing American policy to help businesses in India. Under the manufacturing policy goal, USIBC boasts that it “can play a helpful role in guiding U.S. companies to India, while supporting various policy initiatives that will enhance India’s reputation as a major manufacturing and investment hub.”

So it's ok with you that your politicians will legislate for their foreign corporations masters and not for Americans.

C'mon, both parties are guilty as hell.

It's amazing that you would support one of these two parties.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

It isn't debatable just because you say so and the FEC reports you are demanding haven't been submitted. I'll give you the numbers once the FEC quarterly reports are submitted and analyzed. Just give me a reminder after 10/15. And then we can revisit after the post-election reports are submitted.

For now, et's play tit for tat. U.S. Chamber of Commerce is plans to spend $75 million. Once you get some Democratic groups totaling that amount I'll move on.

1) It IS debatable, hence the DEBATE we are having on the issue right now

2) It also isn't "Not debatable" just because YOU say so moron.

3) If the FEC reports haven't been submitted then WHAT are you basing your 'vast majorities of the money are going to Reps' comment on? Oh thats right... NOTHING... but a liberally biased article.

4) to answer your Chamber spending....

The AFL-CIO and the Service Employees International Union have a combined $88 million to spend on the midterm elections...

That took about 3.2 seconds to google and cut and paste.... moron.

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/08/25/major-unions-pool-spending-for-november-elections/

 

[Bonestorm]

1) It IS debatable, hence the DEBATE we are having on the issue right now

2) It also isn't "Not debatable" just because YOU say so moron.

3) If the FEC reports haven't been submitted then WHAT are you basing your 'vast majorities of the money are going to Reps' comment on? Oh thats right... NOTHING... but a liberally biased article.

4) to answer your Chamber spending....



That took about 3.2 seconds to google and cut and paste.... moron.

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/08/25/major-unions-pool-spending-for-november-elections/

OK. You're at $88 million.

I'll take American Crossroads at $52 million. Adding to the Chamber that's $127 million. You're up.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

OK. You're at $88 million.

I'll take American Crossroads at $52 million. Adding to the Chamber that's $127 million. You're up.

link?

and no, I am not going to go searching the net. Bottom line is BOTH sides are receiving a lot of money. It was YOUR assertion that the VAST MAJORITY was going to Reps. Right now... you are at a 60/40 split. Hardly shocking given that Dems are the ones screwing the country up right now and out of favor. People are returning to the thought that we want the two moronic parties to share power so as to the least amount of damage.

In the end... you are full of shit... you know the reports are not out, yet you made your claim anyway. You thought I couldn't find anything to match the chamber and were sitting there smug thinking you were special. Now you want to continue your farce.

You are a hack and you bought the WP bullshit. I pointed out all the bias in the article... you wish to pretend it was balanced and that it provided data to back up the bullshit. It didn't. You didn't. end of story.

 

[Bonestorm]

link?

and no, I am not going to go searching the net. Bottom line is BOTH sides are receiving a lot of money. It was YOUR assertion that the VAST MAJORITY was going to Reps. Right now... you are at a 60/40 split. Hardly shocking given that Dems are the ones screwing the country up right now and out of favor. People are returning to the thought that we want the two moronic parties to share power so as to the least amount of damage.

In the end... you are full of shit... you know the reports are not out, yet you made your claim anyway. You thought I couldn't find anything to match the chamber and were sitting there smug thinking you were special. Now you want to continue your farce.

You are a hack and you bought the WP bullshit. I pointed out all the bias in the article... you wish to pretend it was balanced and that it provided data to back up the bullshit. It didn't. You didn't. end of story.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/36841.html


American Action Network: $25 million

http://www.factcheck.org/2010/08/american-action-network/

Americans for Prosperity: $45 million

http://factcheck.org/2010/08/americans-for-prosperity/

American Future Fund: $25 million

http://iowaindependent.com/42322/american-future-fund-says-it-will-spend-25-million-this-fall

Club For Growth: Over $24 million

http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/eyeon2010/2010/08/club-for-growth-starts-playing.html


FreedomWorks: $10 million

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/26/us/politics/26freedom.html?_r=1&ref=politics


National Republican Trust PAC: $10 million

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704414504575244490920917512.html



Republican State Leadership Committee: $40 million

http://factcheck.org/2010/08/republican-state-leadership-committee/


Let's see. That's a shade over $300 million. What do you got?

 

[Minister of Truth]

Dude, there's no reasonable argument that the Republicans and Democrats benefit equally from the Citizens United decision. I know you want to pretend otherwise, but lets get real. I also find it oh so convenient that out principled apolitical conservative strict constructionist/originalist justices just so happen to reach the result that dramatically increases Republican campaign expenditures.

The bottom line is that (1) money isn't speech and (2) legal fictions are not people.

So reality has a liberal bias. Interesting.

Apparently, a Washington Post article looking at total campaign expenditures in the current campaign cycle through September is "biased" whereas an American Spectator (hah!) article published nine months ago focusing exclusively on two unions and comparing their expenditures to their own expenditures in the 2008 cycles is "balanced."

Hilarious.

Please use better talking points. Thank you.


I really shouldn't have to say this, but #1 is false, money IS speech, but I agree with you that corporations aren't people. Stockholders should have to at least hold an official vote in order to contribute a dime to a candidate.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Just like the unions.... Hooray!

that doesn't count, they vote liberal

 

[DamnYankee]

Soros has been a naturalized American citizen since 1961....

So? Does it bother you that one man, unelected, can have so much influence on US politics?

 

[Crashk]

So? Does it bother you that one man, unelected, can have so much influence on US politics?

I know you hate Soros, I hate Cheney, so what, put that aside for a minute and try to understand what your party is doing.

"Previously, it has been reported that foreign firms like BP, Shell Oil, and Siemens are active members of the Chamber. But on a larger scale, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce appears to rely heavily on fundraising from firms all over the world, including China, India, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Brazil, Russia, and many other places. Of course, because the Chamber successfully lobbied to kill campaign finance reforms aimed at establishing transparency, the Chamber does not have to reveal any of the funding for its ad campaigns. Dues-paying members of the Chamber could potentially be sending additional funds this year to help air more attack ads against Democrats."
http://thinkprogress.org/2010/10/05/foreign-chamber-commerce/

Do you want your party and this country run by foreign interests?

 

[tinfoil]

This will be known as the election that wall street bought. The congress that results in 2010 cannot be considered the congress of the United States of America, it can only be considered a Wall Street advocacy group, run by the Party of God.

poor little libtard's gonna cry

How's your keynesian dream working out, dumbass? Your team sucks at management. All they can do is fuck things up. Repubs suck. there's no doubt about that, but the democrats are proving to suck even worse. LOL

 

[RockX]

Democrats must know they are on the way out and are reaching for anything to save them. Guess they all forgot "ChinaGate", they are the experts in accepting illegal foreign money for campaigns.

The 1996 United States campaign finance controversy, also known as Chinagate, was an alleged effort by the People's Republic of China to influence domestic American politics during the 1996 federal elections.

The issue first received public attention in early 1997, with news that a Justice Department investigation had uncovered evidence that agents of China sought to direct contributions to the Democratic National Committee (DNC) in violation of U.S. laws regarding foreign political contributions.[1] The Chinese government denied all accusations. Twenty-two people were eventually convicted of fraud or for funneling Asian funds into the United States elections, and others fled U.S. jurisdiction. Several of these were associates of Bill Clinton or Al Gore.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/36841.html


American Action Network: $25 million

http://www.factcheck.org/2010/08/american-action-network/

Americans for Prosperity: $45 million

http://factcheck.org/2010/08/americans-for-prosperity/

American Future Fund: $25 million

http://iowaindependent.com/42322/american-future-fund-says-it-will-spend-25-million-this-fall

Club For Growth: Over $24 million

http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/eyeon2010/2010/08/club-for-growth-starts-playing.html


FreedomWorks: $10 million

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/26/us/politics/26freedom.html?_r=1&ref=politics


National Republican Trust PAC: $10 million

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704414504575244490920917512.html



Republican State Leadership Committee: $40 million

http://factcheck.org/2010/08/republican-state-leadership-committee/


Let's see. That's a shade over $300 million. What do you got?

http://dailycaller.com/2010/10/08/d...-million-coming-from-unions-liberal-groups/2/

The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees has promised $50 million to the election, SEIU has committed $44 million, and the AFL-CIO has been reported to be spending $50 million by the Associated Press, though they would not confirm that amount.

In addition, both MoveOn.org and Emily’s List have said they will spend roughly what they spent in the last midterm election in 2006. MoveOn.org spent $30 million in 2006 and Emily’s list spent $45 million. And the National Education Association this week said they will funnel $15 million to candidates of their choice.

Peter Stone, a campaign finance expert at the Center for Public Integrity, wrote a report this week that showed two other smaller liberal groups – American Votes and Patriot Majority – plan to spend $8.5 million and $12 million, respectively.

So again.... not a 'VAST MAJORITY'..... you are simply parroting the talking points of your Dem masters.

 

[Bonestorm]

So again.... not a 'VAST MAJORITY'..... you are simply parroting the talking points of your Dem masters.

Did you think I wasn't going to click on your link? Here's what you posted plus the next two paragraphs:

The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees has promised $50 million to the election, SEIU has committed $44 million, and the AFL-CIO has been reported to be spending $50 million by the Associated Press, though they would not confirm that amount.

In addition, both MoveOn.org and Emily’s List have said they will spend roughly what they spent in the last midterm election in 2006. MoveOn.org spent $30 million in 2006 and Emily’s list spent $45 million. And the National Education Association this week said they will funnel $15 million to candidates of their choice.

Peter Stone, a campaign finance expert at the Center for Public Integrity, wrote a report this week that showed two other smaller liberal groups – American Votes and Patriot Majority – plan to spend $8.5 million and $12 million, respectively.

But Stone said in an interview that outside Republican groups have a three-to-two edge in money that could grow even larger.

“There is a resource disparity among the outside groups,” he said.

You can quibble all you like about whether 60% is a vast majority or just a large majority or whatever, but the fact of the matter is that spending is by no means anywhere close to equivalent according to your very own source.

Jackass.


Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2010/10/08/d...g-from-unions-liberal-groups/2/#ixzz11m5INBJ4

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Did you think I wasn't going to click on your link? Here's what you posted plus the next two paragraphs:




You can quibble all you like about whether 60% is a vast majority or just a large majority or whatever, but the fact of the matter is that spending is by no means anywhere close to equivalent according to your very own source.

Jackass.


Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2010/10/08/d...g-from-unions-liberal-groups/2/#ixzz11m5INBJ4

You pathetic moron.... I read that, you were whining about the money of outside groups. THAT is what I posted in response to.

Now you show how truly ignorant you are.... the very NEXT paragraph after your quote....

He allowed that the reason there is much talk of a seismic advantage for Republicans is because the two sides have chosen to allocate resources differently, with conservatives focusing on getting up on the air early and liberals – particularly the unions – putting the bulk of their money toward the ground game.

Again, your masters talking points are a load of crap. The amount of funds is not significantly different from outside groups. Yes, the Reps have an edge... which is typical given Dems have more incumbents. But only the moronic are buying the Obama/Pelosi 'oh poor us' line of bullshit.

They are simply trying to make it look like 'those evilz corps are outspending us'.... they are not. The Dems are simply spending it in different ways. Strategy is different... not the amount of funds.

Anything else you moronic little hack?

 

[Bonestorm]

You pathetic moron.... I read that, you were whining about the money of outside groups. THAT is what I posted in response to.

Now you show how truly ignorant you are.... the very NEXT paragraph after your quote....




Again, your masters talking points are a load of crap. The amount of funds is not significantly different from outside groups. Yes, the Reps have an edge... which is typical given Dems have more incumbents. But only the moronic are buying the Obama/Pelosi 'oh poor us' line of bullshit.

They are simply trying to make it look like 'those evilz corps are outspending us'.... they are not. The Dems are simply spending it in different ways. Strategy is different... not the amount of funds.

Anything else you moronic little hack?

I used to think you were a smart person. Apparently I was wrong.

Republicans have a 3-2 money advantage. The corporations and Republicans supporters are outspending Democratic groups. For every 3 dollars spent by Republican supporting groups, only 2 are spent by Democrat supporting groups. The difference between $300 million and $200 million is quite significant. How that spending is allocated doesn't change the very basic fact that Republican groups have a 60-40 resource advantage.

This isn't difficult stuff, SF.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I used to think you were a smart person. Apparently I was wrong.

Republicans have a 3-2 money advantage. The corporations and Republicans supporters are outspending Democratic groups. For every 3 dollars spent by Republican supporting groups, only 2 are spent by Democrat supporting groups. The difference between $300 million and $200 million is quite significant. How that spending is allocated doesn't change the very basic fact that Republican groups have a 60-40 resource advantage.

This isn't difficult stuff, SF.

You are correct.... it isn't difficult.... especially for a parrot who is going to chirp his masters line over and over again.

But unions and liberal groups have said for months that they are spending what amounts to more than $200 million in this election cycle, and an updated count — including a verification with major labor groups that their commitments still stand — shows that amount to be more than $250 million now.

And in fact, Democrats
have spent more on TV ads for House races than Republicans have, according to the Campaign Media Analysis Group, which combined spending by candidates, party campaign committees, and outside groups. Over the last 60 days, Democrats have spent $47.3 million, and Republicans have spent $40.8 million.

In the Senate races, Republicans have spent $80 million to Democrats’ $61 million over the last 60 days, according to CMAG.

High-end estimates have been for months that outside conservatives groups could spend as much as $300 million in this midterm cycle

So again... you take the high estimate for what the Reps groups might be spending, you deduct from what the Dem groups are spending... yeah... amazing how the gap widens when you do that.

Again.... bottom line... BOTH parties have outside groups that are spending roughly the same amount of money. There is NO 'vast majority' going to the Reps. That is simply a line of bullshit from your masters.... and you apparently are going to continue pretending that it is da truth no matter what the facts say.

You will ignore the points that contradict your masters line of crap. Just like a good little brain dead moronic party hack. Polly wanna cracker?

 

[Bonestorm]

I'm just using your source. He said there is a 3-2 advantage and it could grow even larger over time. It's not terribly complex. You keep saying that they are spending the same amount, but it just isn't true.

Here it is again:

But Stone said in an interview that outside Republican groups have a three-to-two edge in money that could grow even larger.

“There is a resource disparity among the outside groups,” he said.

He allowed that the reason there is much talk of a seismic advantage for Republicans is because the two sides have chosen to allocate resources differently, with conservatives focusing on getting up on the air early and liberals – particularly the unions – putting the bulk of their money toward the ground game.

Republican groups have a 3-2 money advantage which appears ever larger based on how the resources are allocated. I don't know why you are having trouble grasping this, but I have my suspicions.

 

[Don Quixote]

Just like the unions.... Hooray!

anonymous not open - unions cannot do it non-publically