Goodbye, democracy!!! - Page 4

Torvald Von Mansee · 10-04-10, 06:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by August

Where was your complaint when the liberal interest groups were outspending the conservatives by 7-1?

Face it Torvald. Your party had control of both houses of congress AND the WH and you blew it.

But NOT the Supreme Court. Did you actually read the article?

Castout · 10-04-10, 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skybird

In reality, it all is a Mafia.

That rings a bell here

Quote:

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

I can see it without registering.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dowly

Yup, same here. No registration required.

Not for me I'll have to register

Torvald Von Mansee · 10-04-10, 06:54 PM

One thing I don't think I've seen some of the conservatives address in this thread: WHY DO THE BACKERS OF THESE SHADOWY GROUPS WISH TO REMAIN SECRET?

Could it be their probable greedy ulterior motives would short circuit their messages?

Torvald Von Mansee · 10-04-10, 06:54 PM

Here's the article:

Interest groups are spending five times as much on the 2010 congressional elections as they did on the last midterms, and they are more secretive than ever about where that money is coming from.

THIS STORY
Win or lose, Republicans to target new health-care law after November elections
Interest-group spending for midterm up fivefold from 2006; many sources secret
Campaign Cash: Who's spending in 2010?
View All Items in This Story
The $80 million spent so far by groups outside the Democratic and Republican parties dwarfs the $16 million spent at this point for the 2006 midterms. In that election, the vast majority of money - more than 90 percent - was disclosed along with donors' identities. This year, that figure has fallen to less than half of the total, according to data analyzed by The Washington Post.

The trends amount to a spending frenzy conducted largely in the shadows.

The bulk of the money is being spent by conservatives, who have swamped their Democratic-aligned competition by 7 to 1 in recent weeks. The wave of spending is made possible in part by a series of Supreme Court rulings unleashing the ability of corporations and interest groups to spend money on politics. Conservative operatives also say they are riding the support of donors upset with Democratic policies they perceive as anti-business.

"The outside group spending is primarily being driven by the political climate," said Anthony Corrado, a professor of government at Colby College who studies campaign finance. "Organized groups are looking at great opportunity, and therefore there's great interest to spend money to influence the election. You've got the possibility of a change in the control of Congress."

The increase in conservative spending has come both from established groups and from groups only a few months old. On the left, major labor groups such as the Service Employees International Union have also ratcheted up their expenditures compared with 2006 but are unable to keep up with groups on the right.

One of the biggest spenders nationwide is a little-known Iowa group called the American Future Fund, which has spent $7 million on behalf of Republicans in more than two dozen House and Senate races. Donors for the group's ad campaign have not been disclosed in records the group has filed with the Federal Election Commission.

The group recently entered a previously sleepy race in its home state of Iowa, announcing that it would devote up to $800,000 to campaign against Democratic Rep. Bruce Braley of Waterloo. The campaign kicked off with a commercial alleging that Braley "supports building a mosque at Ground Zero." Braley denies supporting construction of the proposed Islamic cultural center near the World Trade Center site, saying it's a zoning issue for New Yorkers to decide.

The ad, part of a nationwide campaign of similar mosque-themed spots, is the brainchild of Larry McCarthy, a media strategist who gained renown for creating the racially tinged "Willie Horton" commercials against Democratic presidential candidate Michael S. Dukakis in 1988.

"Folks across America should be worried about these anonymous groups that go into an election and try to buy a favorable result," said Braley spokeswoman Caitlin Legacki. "People have no idea where the money came from. It's difficult to take recourse."

Interest groups spending large amounts on the election are prohibited by law from talking to candidates about their strategy.

Ben Lange, Braley's GOP challenger, denies any connection to the American Future Fund's attacks. "We have no interaction with this group," said Cody Brown, spokesman for Lange. "We're not so much concerned with what these outside groups are doing. We want to have an honest, focused debate on the issues."

Fund officials could not be reached to comment.

THIS STORY
Win or lose, Republicans to target new health-care law after November elections
Interest-group spending for midterm up fivefold from 2006; many sources secret
Campaign Cash: Who's spending in 2010?
View All Items in This Story
Flexibility for the GOP

Heightened spending by outside groups has given the Republican Party flexibility in choosing which races to focus on. In West Virginia, the GOP recently spent $1.2 million backing businessman John Raese for the Senate seat long held by Robert C. Byrd, who died in June. The contest had been considered safe for the Democrats, whose candidate, Joe Manchin III, is the state's governor. But Manchin's poll numbers have recently slipped.

While the interest-group money has primarily helped Republicans, Democrats have proved better at raising money for the party itself and for individual candidates. Those donations must, by law, come from individuals and are limited in size. Much of the interest-group spending, by contrast, has been based on large contributions from well-heeled donors and corporations.

The Supreme Court cleared the way for unlimited spending by corporations, unions and other interest groups on election ads in its 5 to 4 decision this year in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Many interest groups are organized as nonprofits, which are not required to disclose their financial backing, helping fuel the increase in secret donors.

The Post analyzed spending numbers that groups are required to report to the FEC, including spending on broadcast ads mentioning a candidate's name within 30 days of a primary and 60 days of the general election. Some expenditures - and donors - are not revealed. Many groups, for example, avoid reporting what they spend on attacks by making a subtle distinction, saying their message is focused on candidates' positions on issues instead of the election itself.

One reason Democrats have benefited less from interest-group spending may be the party's - and President Obama's - message against the role of moneyed interests in Washington. And in his 2008 campaign, Obama discouraged such independent interest groups on the left from forming.

Some Democratic groups have lowered their spending on election ads. The Internet-based advocacy group MoveOn.org will spend roughly the same amount it did in the 2006 midterms, said Executive Director Justin Ruben, but will concentrate on organizing supporters instead of trying to compete on the airwaves.

"We can't possibly match this spending dollar for dollar," Ruben said. "Turnout is big in a midterm, and the best way to affect turnout is person-to-person contact. These groups have a few millionaires, but they can't talk to that many people."

Organized as nonprofits

Conservative groups such as Americans for Job Security and Crossroads GPS, an arm of the American Crossroads group, co-founded by former George W. Bush administration adviser Karl Rove, are organized as nonprofits and don't have to disclose who is giving them money. Some liberal groups, such as the League of Conservation Voters, an environmental group, are also nonprofits but raise money on a much smaller scale.

One major player this year is the 60 Plus Association, an Alexandria-based group that bills itself as the conservative alternative to the AARP seniors group. In 2008, the group reported less than $2 million in revenue, most of it from direct-mail contributions.

This year the group has spent $7 million on election-related ads, according to its FEC reports. It also funded a $9 million campaign against Obama's health-care overhaul in 2009.

The group is somewhat renowned for its take-no-prisoners approach to advertising, alleging in recent spots that multiple Democrats have "betrayed seniors." The journalistic research Web site PolitiFact.com called the ads "highly misleading" in describing the funding outlook for Medicare.

But 60 Plus spokesman Tom Kise defended the ads and said the group's rapidly expanded budget was due to widespread opposition to Democratic policies on issues affecting senior citizens.

"We've never had this kind of threat to seniors before," Kise said. "We are in unprecedented times, which calls for unprecedented measures."

In earlier years, 60 Plus received significant grants from foundations connected to Pfizer and other major drugmakers, according to AARP. Kise declined to provide details about the group's donors but said it is not taking money from the pharmaceutical industry.

August · 10-04-10, 08:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Torvald Von Mansee

But NOT the Supreme Court. Did you actually read the article?

Yeah I read the article.

Dude, are you really trying to claim that although your party owns super majorities in both houses of Congress AND controls the Executive you're still loosing because you also don't control the Judicial branch?

Really, I can't think of a more damning judgment of your sides ability to govern the nation.

Put aside the party blinders for a minute if you can. What you don't realize is that those SC rulings help both sides equally. If a disparity in contributions exists it's because presently Liberals are not as motivated as the Conservatives. Don't even try to claim that they aren't just as rich.

The bottom line here is the American people want the present gang of scoundrels and thieves out of Washington and the political donations reflect that. It of course shouldn't be construed as a validation of the other gangs agenda but such are the perils of two party politics (not that more parties would be any better).

Seriously, you should see the coming congressional purge as a good thing Torvald. It's always dangerous for the nation when one party owns both houses of Congress, especially when they also control the White House too. That goes for any party, and just to be absolutely clear here the Republicans are most definitely included in that.

In the words of a good friend of mine:

"Gridlock, the best form of government for the common man".

It is a truth that transcends party politics.

Bubblehead1980 · 10-04-10, 08:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Yes, but allow him some indulgencies, after all its all new to him.
Once he finishes his schooling, gets out in the real world and lives through a few "changes" of government he may understand better.

I disagree.Believe you've lived through too much and are cynical, which can't say I blame you.However, I believe some real change is underway, I could be wrong but we shall see.

Legionary74 · 10-04-10, 08:42 PM

deleted

mookiemookie · 10-04-10, 08:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

I disagree.Believe you've lived through too much and are cynical, which can't say I blame you.However, I believe some real change is underway, I could be wrong but we shall see.

HOPE AND CHANGE! LOL!

You'll see...once you stop looking at things in terms of R vs D, and more in terms of Corporations vs you, you will see what's really happening and you won't be suckered into their charade.

antikristuseke · 10-04-10, 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

I disagree.Believe you've lived through too much and are cynical, which can't say I blame you.However, I believe some real change is underway, I could be wrong but we shall see.

I'm only 23, I wonder how cynical i'll be in my 40's...If this keeps up I am going to make an awesome cranky old man.

tater · 10-04-10, 09:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by August

Yeah I read the article.

Dude, are you really trying to claim that although your party owns super majorities in both houses of Congress AND controls the Executive you're still loosing because you also don't control the Judicial branch?

Really, I can't think of a more damning judgment of your sides ability to govern the nation.

Put aside the party blinders for a minute if you can. What you don't realize is that those SC rulings help both sides equally. If a disparity in contributions exists it's because presently Liberals are not as motivated as the Conservatives. Don't even try to claim that they aren't just as rich.

The bottom line here is the American people want the present gang of scoundrels and thieves out of Washington and the political donations reflect that. It of course shouldn't be construed as a validation of the other gangs agenda but such are the perils of two party politics (not that more parties would be any better).

Seriously, you should see the coming congressional purge as a good thing Torvald. It's always dangerous for the nation when one party owns both houses of Congress, especially when they also control the White House too. That goes for any party, and just to be absolutely clear here the Republicans are most definitely included in that.

In the words of a good friend of mine:

"Gridlock, the best form of government for the common man".

It is a truth that transcends party politics.

Hear, hear. Well said.

Bubblehead1980 · 10-05-10, 01:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

HOPE AND CHANGE! LOL!

You'll see...once you stop looking at things in terms of R vs D, and more in terms of Corporations vs you, you will see what's really happening and you won't be suckered into their charade.

I do not look at things in terms of R and D.I disagree with Republicans on many things but Dems on many, many more things.Oh god the corporation crap.Really? grow up. Not corporations vs me or you or anyone.

Skybird · 10-05-10, 03:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

America was never a Democracy anyway, we are a Constitutional Republic and as the SCOTUS goes by the Constitution, these groups are allowed to get involved and should be.MOST people are not dumb enough in todays world with all the info out there to let some commercials influence them, they can look things up and decide for themselves.

I already said that I take you guy's word for America not being democratic.

Quote:

Okay, I hearby declare that the United States's historic national design as outlined by the conmstitution and amandements, is not democratic. At least it is not more democratic than for example the German Federal Republic.

Satisfied?

Didn't I just say above that there are no democratic states left in the West?

Now tell me somebody - what is being gained by this kind of useless hairsplitting?

Of course the US by historic design was meant to be a democracy. A democratic republic. Ooops - sounds like German Democratic Republic. Representative, somebody, representing - by any chance the voting people, maybe? So we talk about a people's republic - like in People's Republic of China?

C'mon guys, let's waste your time on something more useful than this shadowboxing.

mookiemookie · 10-05-10, 05:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

Really? grow up.

Says the person with the most immature political opinions in all of GT.

Sailor Steve · 10-05-10, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

America was never a Democracy anyway, we are a Constitutional Republic...

So it has been said. But is it an explanation or just another quote? Can you tell anyone what the difference is, or why it matters?

How about what James Madison said about it?

You keep saying you dislike the Right as well as the Left, yet every time you descibe the Left you use terms right out of the Right-Wing playbook. Your claims don't match the image you project.

Takeda Shingen · 10-05-10, 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

Well some may be too lazy, but not most.Esp this cycle!

That motivation seems to be eroding, according to today's ABC News/Washington Post poll:

http://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/ab...ry?id=11798478

There's no way that I'm going to claim that Team R has packed up and gone home. However, I think that the evidence is going to begin to mount that the R's will pick up seats, but it won't be the slam dunk that talk radio and Fox News are heralding.

10-04-10, 06:54 PM	#48
Torvald Von Mansee Sea Lord Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: CA4528 Posts: 1,693 Downloads: 3 Uploads: 0	One thing I don't think I've seen some of the conservatives address in this thread: WHY DO THE BACKERS OF THESE SHADOWY GROUPS WISH TO REMAIN SECRET? Could it be their probable greedy ulterior motives would short circuit their messages? __________________ "You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you" - Leon Trotsky

10-04-10, 06:54 PM	#49
Torvald Von Mansee Sea Lord Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: CA4528 Posts: 1,693 Downloads: 3 Uploads: 0	Here's the article: Interest groups are spending five times as much on the 2010 congressional elections as they did on the last midterms, and they are more secretive than ever about where that money is coming from. THIS STORY Win or lose, Republicans to target new health-care law after November elections Interest-group spending for midterm up fivefold from 2006; many sources secret Campaign Cash: Who's spending in 2010? View All Items in This Story The $80 million spent so far by groups outside the Democratic and Republican parties dwarfs the $16 million spent at this point for the 2006 midterms. In that election, the vast majority of money - more than 90 percent - was disclosed along with donors' identities. This year, that figure has fallen to less than half of the total, according to data analyzed by The Washington Post. The trends amount to a spending frenzy conducted largely in the shadows. The bulk of the money is being spent by conservatives, who have swamped their Democratic-aligned competition by 7 to 1 in recent weeks. The wave of spending is made possible in part by a series of Supreme Court rulings unleashing the ability of corporations and interest groups to spend money on politics. Conservative operatives also say they are riding the support of donors upset with Democratic policies they perceive as anti-business. "The outside group spending is primarily being driven by the political climate," said Anthony Corrado, a professor of government at Colby College who studies campaign finance. "Organized groups are looking at great opportunity, and therefore there's great interest to spend money to influence the election. You've got the possibility of a change in the control of Congress." The increase in conservative spending has come both from established groups and from groups only a few months old. On the left, major labor groups such as the Service Employees International Union have also ratcheted up their expenditures compared with 2006 but are unable to keep up with groups on the right. One of the biggest spenders nationwide is a little-known Iowa group called the American Future Fund, which has spent $7 million on behalf of Republicans in more than two dozen House and Senate races. Donors for the group's ad campaign have not been disclosed in records the group has filed with the Federal Election Commission. The group recently entered a previously sleepy race in its home state of Iowa, announcing that it would devote up to $800,000 to campaign against Democratic Rep. Bruce Braley of Waterloo. The campaign kicked off with a commercial alleging that Braley "supports building a mosque at Ground Zero." Braley denies supporting construction of the proposed Islamic cultural center near the World Trade Center site, saying it's a zoning issue for New Yorkers to decide. The ad, part of a nationwide campaign of similar mosque-themed spots, is the brainchild of Larry McCarthy, a media strategist who gained renown for creating the racially tinged "Willie Horton" commercials against Democratic presidential candidate Michael S. Dukakis in 1988. "Folks across America should be worried about these anonymous groups that go into an election and try to buy a favorable result," said Braley spokeswoman Caitlin Legacki. "People have no idea where the money came from. It's difficult to take recourse." Interest groups spending large amounts on the election are prohibited by law from talking to candidates about their strategy. Ben Lange, Braley's GOP challenger, denies any connection to the American Future Fund's attacks. "We have no interaction with this group," said Cody Brown, spokesman for Lange. "We're not so much concerned with what these outside groups are doing. We want to have an honest, focused debate on the issues." Fund officials could not be reached to comment. THIS STORY Win or lose, Republicans to target new health-care law after November elections Interest-group spending for midterm up fivefold from 2006; many sources secret Campaign Cash: Who's spending in 2010? View All Items in This Story Flexibility for the GOP Heightened spending by outside groups has given the Republican Party flexibility in choosing which races to focus on. In West Virginia, the GOP recently spent $1.2 million backing businessman John Raese for the Senate seat long held by Robert C. Byrd, who died in June. The contest had been considered safe for the Democrats, whose candidate, Joe Manchin III, is the state's governor. But Manchin's poll numbers have recently slipped. While the interest-group money has primarily helped Republicans, Democrats have proved better at raising money for the party itself and for individual candidates. Those donations must, by law, come from individuals and are limited in size. Much of the interest-group spending, by contrast, has been based on large contributions from well-heeled donors and corporations. The Supreme Court cleared the way for unlimited spending by corporations, unions and other interest groups on election ads in its 5 to 4 decision this year in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Many interest groups are organized as nonprofits, which are not required to disclose their financial backing, helping fuel the increase in secret donors. The Post analyzed spending numbers that groups are required to report to the FEC, including spending on broadcast ads mentioning a candidate's name within 30 days of a primary and 60 days of the general election. Some expenditures - and donors - are not revealed. Many groups, for example, avoid reporting what they spend on attacks by making a subtle distinction, saying their message is focused on candidates' positions on issues instead of the election itself. One reason Democrats have benefited less from interest-group spending may be the party's - and President Obama's - message against the role of moneyed interests in Washington. And in his 2008 campaign, Obama discouraged such independent interest groups on the left from forming. Some Democratic groups have lowered their spending on election ads. The Internet-based advocacy group MoveOn.org will spend roughly the same amount it did in the 2006 midterms, said Executive Director Justin Ruben, but will concentrate on organizing supporters instead of trying to compete on the airwaves. "We can't possibly match this spending dollar for dollar," Ruben said. "Turnout is big in a midterm, and the best way to affect turnout is person-to-person contact. These groups have a few millionaires, but they can't talk to that many people." Organized as nonprofits Conservative groups such as Americans for Job Security and Crossroads GPS, an arm of the American Crossroads group, co-founded by former George W. Bush administration adviser Karl Rove, are organized as nonprofits and don't have to disclose who is giving them money. Some liberal groups, such as the League of Conservation Voters, an environmental group, are also nonprofits but raise money on a much smaller scale. One major player this year is the 60 Plus Association, an Alexandria-based group that bills itself as the conservative alternative to the AARP seniors group. In 2008, the group reported less than $2 million in revenue, most of it from direct-mail contributions. This year the group has spent $7 million on election-related ads, according to its FEC reports. It also funded a $9 million campaign against Obama's health-care overhaul in 2009. The group is somewhat renowned for its take-no-prisoners approach to advertising, alleging in recent spots that multiple Democrats have "betrayed seniors." The journalistic research Web site PolitiFact.com called the ads "highly misleading" in describing the funding outlook for Medicare. But 60 Plus spokesman Tom Kise defended the ads and said the group's rapidly expanded budget was due to widespread opposition to Democratic policies on issues affecting senior citizens. "We've never had this kind of threat to seniors before," Kise said. "We are in unprecedented times, which calls for unprecedented measures." In earlier years, 60 Plus received significant grants from foundations connected to Pfizer and other major drugmakers, according to AARP. Kise declined to provide details about the group's donors but said it is not taking money from the pharmaceutical industry. __________________ "You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you" - Leon Trotsky

10-04-10, 08:42 PM	#52
Legionary74 Ensign Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: New Jersey Posts: 220 Downloads: 5 Uploads: 0	deleted Last edited by Legionary74; 06-15-15 at 05:09 AM.