Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 82

Thread: How Do You Feel About Lobbying?

  1. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    However I think I'm most uncomfortable with the idea of a government clearing house for "truth". That really gets away from the fact that lots of discussion (even if it's lousy with bullshit sometimes) is what the democratic system is about. Democracy is not just being able to vote, it's about being able to advocate something with your vote, time and money.
    Now lets be fair here. I said nothing about a government clearing house for truth and nothing about opinions in political discussions. Any campaign organization making commercials or mass mailings or writing candidate speeches ought to be careful and responsible enough to fact check their material. Reputable news organizations do this all the time - it isn't rocket science. And if they don't, either intentionally or from irresponsibility, there needs to be accountability because such things can and do sway elections. There's a number of highly respected, politically independent, private fact checking organizations that review what political figures say and rate the 'truthiness' of their statements. Often there's lots of wiggle room - context and selected data etc - but sometimes its an outright falsehood. I see no reason why such a system of fact checking campaign adds can't be given teeth.
    The Rules
    Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
    Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
    Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)

  2. #32
    I was responding to GGT

    But an official fact checker can't not be biased if you take an expansive view of facts. The Congressional Budget Office is an example of this not working without even having a fact checker. The CBO is supposed to just do estimates, but when given the right assumptions they can estimate just about any result a politician pleases. Having a government agency meddle in a campaign and call one candidate a liar is not a healthy use of state power.

  3. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    I was responding to GGT

    But an official fact checker can't not be biased if you take an expansive view of facts. The Congressional Budget Office is an example of this not working without even having a fact checker. The CBO is supposed to just do estimates, but when given the right assumptions they can estimate just about any result a politician pleases. Having a government agency meddle in a campaign and call one candidate a liar is not a healthy use of state power.
    It would have to be a pretty cut and dry case. And it might be sufficient to just publicize the fact that Candidate X told a flat out lie, versus fining them. The one gap in the current proliferation of fact checking sites is that people who don't look for lies don't hear about them. So they hear the ad because they're watching Matlock re-runs on AMC, but they don't hear that the ad was in fact a lie because they don't go to Factcheck.com or even know it exists.
    The Rules
    Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
    Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
    Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)

  4. #34
    I don't think public finance would change the dynamics much. Lobbying would then be also about getting public campaign support for the guys you like. Once again: when we create these sprawling systems to do unusual things like fund candidates, they will get manipulated by incumbents and their supporters.
    We are already operating on a sprawling system that rewards those with more money giving the most money to their favored pets. Incumbents already have the bully pulpit. Uber wealthy billionaires who can create PACs already have a leg up. There's got to be a way to level the playing field.


    But I think we have to remember that direct contributions to candidates are effectively limited. The reason we're having this fight is because it's not illegal for a group to spend its own money on its own message in support of someone. It's not filling a war chest that gives the SEIU massive influence, it's their ability to send food soldiers into campaign battles and pay for ads supporting/disagreeing with candidates.
    Don't forget how indirect contributions are effectively unlimited. The Koch Brothers have enough money to start hundreds of PACs that look and sound like small grass-root home-spun American patriotic people, savvy enough to know how to write for Gettysburg or Hattiesburg audiences. Those sub-groups can be a LLC creating ads for certain areas, and no one would have a clue the parent company is the Koch Brothers. That's why we are having this argument.

  5. #35
    Senior Member Flixy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    6,435
    Quote Originally Posted by EyeKhan View Post
    Now lets be fair here. I said nothing about a government clearing house for truth and nothing about opinions in political discussions. Any campaign organization making commercials or mass mailings or writing candidate speeches ought to be careful and responsible enough to fact check their material. Reputable news organizations do this all the time - it isn't rocket science. And if they don't, either intentionally or from irresponsibility, there needs to be accountability because such things can and do sway elections. There's a number of highly respected, politically independent, private fact checking organizations that review what political figures say and rate the 'truthiness' of their statements. Often there's lots of wiggle room - context and selected data etc - but sometimes its an outright falsehood. I see no reason why such a system of fact checking campaign adds can't be given teeth.
    The way it looks from here, you guys have a serious problem with fact checking in news, or non-news on news channels. And outright lies made by campaigns, ads, or even the politicians themselves are too often ignored.
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    I was responding to GGT

    But an official fact checker can't not be biased if you take an expansive view of facts. The Congressional Budget Office is an example of this not working without even having a fact checker. The CBO is supposed to just do estimates, but when given the right assumptions they can estimate just about any result a politician pleases. Having a government agency meddle in a campaign and call one candidate a liar is not a healthy use of state power.
    There is of course a difference between establishing what the truth is, and what is a lie. Something that might be true but most likely isn't, is still not an outright lie. E.g. the CBO estimates can estimate almost anything, but not things that are completely impossible. But I agree that's not the government's responsibility, and it would be pretty much impossible to be completely unbiased.
    Keep on keepin' the beat alive!

  6. #36
    You mean it's like garbage in, garbage out? Can add some deodorants but the rotten core still stinks?

  7. #37
    Senior Member Flixy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    6,435
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    You mean it's like garbage in, garbage out? Can add some deodorants but the rotten core still stinks?
    If that is a reply to what I just posted, I don't understand it, sorry.
    Keep on keepin' the beat alive!

  8. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by Flixy View Post
    If that is a reply to what I just posted, I don't understand it, sorry.
    Nah, you're fine. Sorry, I was being cheeky about what the CBO does....with the "facts" they get. Numbers in Numbers out.....

  9. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    Well, enjoy playing your games. It doesn't look like you expect an actual response.
    I'm just not interested in your game. There's a difference.
    In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
    The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.

  10. #40
    Then why are you responding to me with your typical one-liners?
    Hope is the denial of reality

  11. #41
    I wouldn't want yours to feel lonely?
    In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
    The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.

  12. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by EyeKhan View Post
    It would have to be a pretty cut and dry case. And it might be sufficient to just publicize the fact that Candidate X told a flat out lie, versus fining them. The one gap in the current proliferation of fact checking sites is that people who don't look for lies don't hear about them. So they hear the ad because they're watching Matlock re-runs on AMC, but they don't hear that the ad was in fact a lie because they don't go to Factcheck.com or even know it exists.
    If a candidate lies, it's incumbent on their opponent to point it out, not the government. And the definition of a "lie" is enormously debatable. I think it's a lie to say that the healthcare bill saves taxpayers money. Should a branch of the government be contradicting that statement with a press release? I don't see any way we can reasonably expect our government to wade into election controversies claiming impartiality without being a manipulator.

    A state factchecker is really very little different than state-run news services.

    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    We are already operating on a sprawling system that rewards those with more money giving the most money to their favored pets. Incumbents already have the bully pulpit. Uber wealthy billionaires who can create PACs already have a leg up. There's got to be a way to level the playing field.

    Don't forget how indirect contributions are effectively unlimited. The Koch Brothers have enough money to start hundreds of PACs that look and sound like small grass-root home-spun American patriotic people, savvy enough to know how to write for Gettysburg or Hattiesburg audiences. Those sub-groups can be a LLC creating ads for certain areas, and no one would have a clue the parent company is the Koch Brothers. That's why we are having this argument.
    And the left has Soros, MoveOn and dozens of other similar groups. I don't see a problem with that. Who cares who is funding a message, it all depends on whether the message actually resonates with people.

    Ultimately your position seems to be that the body politic can be massively swayed by advertisements that contain massive distortions of the truth. I have a higher opinion of voters as a group. Just because I see a 30 second ad claiming the governor of New Jersey is destroying education doesn't mean I actually believe it.

    Advertising is not some kind of blunt tool that allows you to push people into making dramatically different choices if you pour a few million dollars into it during an election cycle. There are a lot of levers behind the politics of persuasion, and ultimately ideas do matter.

    Quote Originally Posted by Flixy View Post
    The way it looks from here, you guys have a serious problem with fact checking in news, or non-news on news channels. And outright lies made by campaigns, ads, or even the politicians themselves are too often ignored.
    I have to call shenanigans on this and ask for at least a few specific examples.

  13. #43
    Interesting development.....

    Big donors like David H. Koch and George Soros could owe taxes on their millions of dollars in contributions to nonprofit advocacy groups that are playing an increasing role in American politics.
    Invoking a provision that had rarely, if ever, been enforced, the Internal Revenue Service said it had sent letters to five donors, who were not identified, informing them that their contributions may be subject to gift taxes depending on whether the donations exceeded limits under the tax laws.

    These advocacy groups have been drawing more scrutiny, from President Obama as well as others, as they have proliferated and funneled vast sums of money in support of campaigns and causes, without having to publicly disclose their donors. During the midterm cycle, for example, groups like Crossroads GPS, which has ties to the Republican strategist Karl Rove, and Americans for Prosperity, backed by Mr. Koch and his brother Charles, were heavily involved in politicking, spurring campaign finance watchdogs to complain that they were flouting election and nonprofit laws. Spokesmen for the Koch brothers and for Mr. Soros would not comment as to whether they had paid gift taxes on these types of donations, or whether they had received letters from the I.R.S.

    These organizations were established as nonprofit corporations under a section of the tax law, 501(c)(4), and the rules governing them say their primary purpose cannot be political. The timing of the agency’s moves, as the 2012 election cycle gets under way, is prompting some tax law and campaign finance experts to question whether the I.R.S. could be sending a signal in an effort to curtail big donations.

    “There are a whole heck of a lot of people misusing (c)(4) groups as a means of getting around campaign finance regulations, and we lack a coherent system of laws to deal with that,” said Donald B. Tobin, a legal expert on campaign finance and tax laws at the Moritz College of Law at Ohio State University. “Now here’s a stick, frankly, that says there are consequences for doing that.”

    In a statement released Thursday, Michelle L. Eldridge, a spokeswoman for the I.R.S., said that the inquiries were initiated by agency employees, not White House or other Obama administration officials, “as part of their increased efforts in the area of nonfiling of gift and estate tax returns.”
    The letters informed donors that investigations had been opened to determine why a gift tax form had not been filed, and requested that donors submit records of all donations in the year 2008, according to a redacted copy obtained by

    While tax lawyers who learned of the investigations have been issuing warnings to clients of potential trouble on a broader scale, the I.R.S. statement denied casting a wider net, “These examinations are not part of a broader effort looking at donations to 501(c)(4)’s.”

    The White House would not comment. Some members of Congress have been asking the I.R.S. to investigate the tax-exempt status of these groups, too, although lawmakers have also cautioned that since the Nixon years, the agency has been strictly prohibited from what could be considered politically motivated inquiries.
    Still, experts are sensing that the message being sent may deter large donations to these groups, at a time when big corporate, union and like-minded political contributions are expected to flood the election cycle through the barriers lifted by last year’s Supreme Court ruling in the Citizens United case.

    Both major political parties and candidates have benefited from these types of organizations, but the Republican groups grew in force and size after the 2008 election, partly in recognition of Mr. Obama’s proficiency at fund-raising. For example, Mr. Rove’s group, one of the best known from the 2010 midterm cycle, raised $70 million. Americans for Prosperity, a libertarian group that is opposed to many of President Obama’s policies, has been generously financed by David Koch.

    Democrats have embraced the model, too. Bill Burton, Mr. Obama’s former deputy press secretary, was skewered by critics of these groups for creating Priorities USA Action to help Democrats. In 2009 and 2010, Mr. Soros, the billionaire investor, donated more than $12 million to advocacy groups.
    In general, individuals incur gift taxes of 35 percent on any amount exceeding $13,000 in a year, with a limit for couples of $26,000. A lifetime exemption covers $5 million in gifts — to be reduced to $1 million in 2013 — but experts say many wealthy donors are likely to have used that in their estate plans.
    The I.R.S. definitively declared these gifts taxable in 1982. “That was their last word on it, so these letters just look like a sort of trap for the unwary, which is not fair,” said Ofer Lion, a lawyer who has written about the issue.
    In December, after the 2010 midterm elections, officials with the I.R.S. division that oversees tax-exempt organizations indicated it would pay closer attention.

    But at a meeting of an American Bar Association subcommittee last Friday, they were surprised to learn that their colleagues in the estate and gift tax unit also had an increased interest, according to lawyers who were there.
    “I don’t know how extensive this effort is, but I have one such client and I’ve spoken with others with clients who have received similar letters,” said Gregory L. Colvin, a lawyer specializing in nonprofit law.
    Other groups rarely receive donations big enough to incur the gift tax, which is why many of them have established affiliated charities. Charities, unlike almost all other tax-exempt organizations, offer their donors a tax deduction and so attract the largest gifts.

    Big donations to the largely unregulated 527 groups that were influential in the 2004 election cycle, are not subject to the gift tax. “Congress specifically exempted donors to 527 organizations from the gift tax in 2000, but it didn’t exempt contributions to (c)(4) groups because there wasn’t an issue at the time,” said Alan P. Dye, a lawyer who represents a number of conservative advocacy groups. Now that the Citizens United case permits big donors like corporations and unions to spend money in elections, Mr. Dye added, “I think it’s going to be really interesting to see how this plays out in Congress or the courts.”

    In the meantime, Marcus S. Owens, a lawyer who represents nonprofits and who formerly headed the I.R.S. division that oversees tax-exempt organizations, predicted that the tax agency’s moves would be watched warily by contributors. “The lack of clarity and the potential for not-insignificant taxation on these gifts will cause many of the biggest donors to think twice,” he warned.

    This article, "I.R.S. Moves to Tax Gifts to Groups Active in Politics," first appeared in The New York Times.
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43016229...ew_york_times/

  14. #44
    Not sure I know the tax difference between 501c(4)s and 527s...won't people just start more 527s? I suspect one could make the case that this is taxing speech (and someone probably will), but I guess this isn't objectively different than charging someone sales tax for poster board.

    What I think the overall fairness problem may be is putting the burden on donors to report lots of small donations to different groups.

  15. #45
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

  16. #46
    As an issue becomes more obscure and arcane, the less likely there is to be as many special interest groups and voters in the mix who care about this. That is, until the media catches onto something and it becomes a controversy and the politician backs down.

    Which may happen here: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/n...california.ars

  17. #47
    Secret Donors Multiply in U.S. Election Spending

    [...]

    Lobbying, Not Politics

    FEC rules mandate the reporting of ads that mention candidates within 60 days of an election, and that target “the relevant electorate.” The unreported NFIB ads were aimed at “constituents,” who may or may not vote, and not the “relevant electorate” specified in the law, Maloney said. “They were not political ads. They were lobbying efforts.”
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-0...watergate.html



  18. #48
    The issue I think is funding, when you allow a group to contribute money toward an ambition of a person in a position of power there is a danger. I think people in a public office needs to come with restrictions and regulations regarding those measures.

  19. #49
    Bump to discuss the latest news about Koch Brothers' invitation-only and highly secretive semi-annual meeting, attended by Republican Governors from important states.

    It was called "Understanding and Addressing Threats to American Enterprise and Prosperity." how ironic

    Rick Scott (FL), John Kasich (OH), Bob McDonnell (VA), Rick Perry (TX) were present, with Perry giving a speech.

    After the Citizens United decision (which was supported by SCOTUS Clarence Thomas...who has also attended Koch Brothers meetings...and raised some ethical questions about conflict of interest in the judiciary) lobbying has taken on a new face. Transparent and publicly disclosed contributions to (R) or (D) parties can be averted, indirectly and anonymously given by "corporations"...with no limits.

    All they have to do is wave some money around, give money to those focused on "state's rights" (while extolling the evils of the federal government), systematically help to install Governors or state legislators committed to their cause....less regulation on industry, lower taxes for large corporations etc....plus conservative focus on social things like anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage.

    Then they have the nerve to say they support smaller/less intrusive/pro-liberty/constitutional governance.

    I don't like this; it's a propaganda scam under the name of "Free Market Capitalism", and it's bad for our country.

  20. #50
    Who is waiving around money? It's a conference. A conference with an ideological bent of course, but it's a fracking conference. It's also not the first conference. But they aren't handing out cash envelopes there.

    Though stupid move for them to not see how this looks.

    Though I really love how AFSCME and Rachel Maddow rant about how Koch has spent a full $1.2 million dollars. Oh my, a whole $1.2 million! That's about as much as it costs to organize a conference.

  21. #51
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    Bump to discuss the latest news about Koch Brothers' invitation-only and highly secretive semi-annual meeting, attended by Republican Governors from important states.

    It was called "Understanding and Addressing Threats to American Enterprise and Prosperity." how ironic

    Rick Scott (FL), John Kasich (OH), Bob McDonnell (VA), Rick Perry (TX) were present, with Perry giving a speech.

    After the Citizens United decision (which was supported by SCOTUS Clarence Thomas...who has also attended Koch Brothers meetings...and raised some ethical questions about conflict of interest in the judiciary) lobbying has taken on a new face. Transparent and publicly disclosed contributions to (R) or (D) parties can be averted, indirectly and anonymously given by "corporations"...with no limits.

    All they have to do is wave some money around, give money to those focused on "state's rights" (while extolling the evils of the federal government), systematically help to install Governors or state legislators committed to their cause....less regulation on industry, lower taxes for large corporations etc....plus conservative focus on social things like anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage.

    Then they have the nerve to say they support smaller/less intrusive/pro-liberty/constitutional governance.

    I don't like this; it's a propaganda scam under the name of "Free Market Capitalism", and it's bad for our country.
    I'm sorry, what's the problem here?

    I also can't help but notice your complete silence about Obama looking to raise 1 billion dollars for his reelection campaign. He's already raised 60 million this quarter. You think that's all coming in tiny envelopes stuffed with five and ten dollar bills from grandma and grandpa?

    Or what about Obama's secretive meeting with Wall Street Fatcats/potential donors at the White House?

    And he has the nerve to say he's pro-transparency!

  22. #52
    Quote Originally Posted by Enoch the Red View Post
    I'm sorry, what's the problem here?

    I also can't help but notice your complete silence about Obama looking to raise 1 billion dollars for his reelection campaign. He's already raised 60 million this quarter. You think that's all coming in tiny envelopes stuffed with five and ten dollar bills from grandma and grandpa?

    Or what about Obama's secretive meeting with Wall Street Fatcats/potential donors at the White House?

    And he has the nerve to say he's pro-transparency!
    I've not been silent about Obama raising $1 Billion for re-election. I've complained about closed-door meetings with bankers, too. It's a bi-partisan problem.

    The problem here is our campaign financing, the Citizens United decision, a Supreme Court judge with questionable conflict of interest (and a wife heavily involved in Tea Party politics), small groups of incredibly wealthy people aiming to control industry sectors by getting 'their guy' in office, elected officials governing from their donor pocket books and for special interest groups....instead of the general population and what's best for everyone.

    The same type of skewed influence that used to belong to public or labor unions (which lots of people here *cough* are known to criticize) is now shifting to the billionaires who own huge chunks of an industry. But they don't have to publicly report things like Exxon or BP or even register as a PAC.

  23. #53
    You realize that the ruling in question didn't eliminate campaign donation limits, right?
    Hope is the denial of reality

  24. #54
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    I've not been silent about Obama raising $1 Billion for re-election. I've complained about closed-door meetings with bankers, too. It's a bi-partisan problem.

    The problem here is our campaign financing, the Citizens United decision, a Supreme Court judge with questionable conflict of interest (and a wife heavily involved in Tea Party politics), small groups of incredibly wealthy people aiming to control industry sectors by getting 'their guy' in office, elected officials governing from their donor pocket books and for special interest groups....instead of the general population and what's best for everyone.

    The same type of skewed influence that used to belong to public or labor unions (which lots of people here *cough* are known to criticize) is now shifting to the billionaires who own huge chunks of an industry. But they don't have to publicly report things like Exxon or BP or even register as a PAC.
    I'm sorry, I must have missed your posts railing about Obama's fundraising and Soros' bankrolling. Was it before or after the five posts about the secretive, uber-wealthy, mustache twirling Koch brothers?

    I'm not sure what you think should happen. Are people free to spend/use their money as they see fit? At what point does it cease to be free speech and start being an evil machination of partisan political propaganda? If the Koch brothers wrote a book and self-published it before an election, would that be okay?

  25. #55
    Quote Originally Posted by Enoch the Red View Post
    I'm sorry, I must have missed your posts railing about Obama's fundraising and Soros' bankrolling. Was it before or after the five posts about the secretive, uber-wealthy, mustache twirling Koch brothers?
    Earlier posts, other threads, when his $1 Billion target initially hit the news. You had a long absence for a while, a sporadic presence, nothing I can do about what you've missed. In general I object to the bankrolling of our elections and buying into office. Massive money plus power is easily (and often) corrupting.

    I'm not sure what you think should happen. Are people free to spend/use their money as they see fit? At what point does it cease to be free speech and start being an evil machination of partisan political propaganda? If the Koch brothers wrote a book and self-published it before an election, would that be okay?
    Public financing with limits would be nice, but I know that's pie-in-the-sky at this point of our political climate. FEC will change rules and people will find new ways to bend them. We'll be left with "transparency" by a couple of watchdog groups and hope it makes its way to journalists and media. And no, nothing wrong with writing books or sponsoring commercials. But even free speech has legal limits.

    BTW, Stephen Colbert got approval from FEC for a Super PAC and can use Comedy Central as his platform.

  26. #56
    Who do you give the public financing to? Do you give it to Stephen Colbert? Who makes the determination?
    Hope is the denial of reality

  27. #57
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    Earlier posts, other threads, when his $1 Billion target initially hit the news. You had a long absence for a while, a sporadic presence, nothing I can do about what you've missed.
    I vaguely recall a thread on the target, but I don't remember you expressing noticable objections to it. What I recall is people ragging on Loki for his unremitting hostility toward Obama. And I haven't had any sort of absence.

    And no, nothing wrong with writing books or sponsoring commercials. But even free speech has legal limits.
    Wait, what? So there ISN'T anything wrong with advertising and airtime now?
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  28. #58
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    I vaguely recall a thread on the target, but I don't remember you expressing noticable objections to it. What I recall is people ragging on Loki for his unremitting hostility toward Obama. And I haven't had any sort of absence.
    I don't post here and then put post-it notes by my computer, but I do know when Obama's ONE BILLION DOLLAR goal hit the news I was angry enough to post here. Somewhere, some thread that fit at the time. That's an outrageous dollar amount for anyone, any party, but especially for an incumbent president.

    Wait, what? So there ISN'T anything wrong with advertising and airtime now?
    Not when there's enough transparency to figure out the funding. It just shouldn't take a damn investigative report to figure it out.

    <"Funded by Americans for Prosperity". Just one example but not the only one. Hunt around for their largest donors, then originators and seed funds. It's often impossible without looking at IRS filings, which individuals either can't access or don't have the time to investigate. I'm sure many Tea Party activists have no idea their local chapter has connections to Karl Rove or the Koch Brothers. I wouldn't call that transparent.>

  29. #59
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    <"Funded by Americans for Prosperity". Just one example but not the only one. Hunt around for their largest donors, then originators and seed funds. It's often impossible without looking at IRS filings, which individuals either can't access or don't have the time to investigate. I'm sure many Tea Party activists have no idea their local chapter has connections to Karl Rove or the Koch Brothers. I wouldn't call that transparent.>
    Why does it matter? It's the message that should have the power, (as well as any reasonable limitation on free speech) not the messenger.

  30. #60
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    Not when there's enough transparency to figure out the funding. It just shouldn't take a damn investigative report to figure it out.
    I know we've been through this before, but do you think it's ok for a person to lose their livelihood because they provide funding to an unpopular political ideology?
    Hope is the denial of reality

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •