PDA

View Full Version : Elections Someone just gave Mitt Romney $1 million dollars. And we have no idea who it was.


Direckshun
08-04-2011, 12:45 PM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44011308/ns/politics-decision_2012/?GT1=43001

Firm gives $1 million to pro-Romney group, then dissolves
Records offer no clues who was behind mystery company that donated to 'super PAC'

By Michael Isikoff
updated 8/4/2011 6:01:38 AM ET

A mystery company that pumped $1 million into a political committee backing Mitt Romney has been dissolved just months after it was formed, leaving few clues as to who was behind one of the biggest contributions yet of the 2012 presidential campaign.

The existence of the million-dollar donation — as gleaned from campaign and corporate records obtained by NBC News — provides a vivid example of how secret campaign cash is being funneled in ever more circuitous ways into the political system.

The company, W Spann LLC, was formed in March by a Boston lawyer who specializes in estate tax planning for “high net worth individuals,” according to corporate records and the lawyer’s bio on her firm’s website.

The corporate records provide no information about the owner of the firm, its address or its type of business.

Six weeks later, W Spann LLC made its million-dollar donation to Restore Our Future — a new so-called “super PAC” started by a group of former Romney political aides to boost the former Massachusetts governor’s presidential bid. It listed its address as being in a midtown Manhattan office building that has no record of such a tenant.

The Boston lawyer, Cameron Casey, dissolved the company on July 12 — two weeks before Restore Our Future made its first campaign filing of the year reporting the donation from the now-nonexistent company, the corporate records show.

“I don’t see how you can do this,” said Lawrence Noble, the former general counsel of the Federal Election Commission, when asked about the contribution from the now defunct company.

If the only purpose of W Spann’s formation was to contribute to the pro-Romney group, “There is a real issue of it being just a subterfuge” and that could raise a "serious" legal issue, Noble said. Even if that is not the case, he added, “What you have here is a roadmap for how people can hide their identities” when making political contributions.

Casey, the Boston lawyer, did not respond to requests for comment. Tim Larimer, a spokesman for her law firm, Ropes & Gray, said he couldn’t discuss who was behind W Spann LLC or any other matters relating to the campaign contribution. “The firm won’t be making any comment on this matter at this time,” he said in an email.

'Not something we normally ask'

Restore Our Future also declined to answer any questions about the W Spann LLC donation, one of only a handful of seven-figure donations the group has received this year.

"That’s not something that we normally ask a contributor for (and nor does any other political organization that I'm aware of),” Charles Spies, the committee’s campaign treasurer, said in an email response to a query about the owners of the firm and the limited information on its corporate registration. … “Restore Our Future has fully complied with, and will continue to comply with, all FEC disclosure requirements.”

The hefty size of the W Spann contribution, and its murky origins, highlights the growing prominence of groups like Restore Our Future, one of a wave of super PACs that are amassing hefty campaign war chests this year — unrestricted by any limits on how much they can collect from corporations and other wealthy donors. (A similar group, Priorities USA, was recently created by two former White House aides, including former Deputy Press Secretary Bill Burton, to aid President Barack Obama’s re-election bid.)

While it says it is independent of the Romney presidential campaign, Restore Our Future was created by three former top Romney political aides who have made little secret of their interest in boosting his presidential candidacy. “This is an independent effort focused on getting Romney elected president,” Spies, the former counsel to Romney’s 2008 presidential campaign, recently told the Washington Post.

The relationship between Romney and Restore Our Future was further underscored when, according to the Center for Public Integrity, Romney spoke at a private dinner in New York for Restore Our Future donors last month, shortly after attending a fundraiser for his presidential campaign at the posh Mandarin Oriental hotel.

(A Romney campaign official said by email that Restore Our Future is an “independent entity” and therefore the campaign could not comment on its contributions. “Mitt Romney follows both the letter of the law and the spirit of the law in all circumstances,” the official said.)

Last week, Restore Our Future filed its first report of 2012, disclosing that it had received $12.2 million during the first six months of the year. Among the contributors: four donors who contributed $1 million apiece, including John Paulson, the Wall Street hedge fund kingpin who made billions betting against the housing market, and two corporate partnerships listed at the Provo, Utah, address of Steven J. Lund, a former chief executive of Nu Skin Enterprises and a longtime Romney backer who has been a leader in the Mormon Church.

But the most intriguing of the million-dollar donations was from W Spann LLC. Its address was listed on the Restore Our Future campaign report as 590 Madison Ave., a 43-story, ultra-modern office building in the heart of midtown Manhattan.

But there is no public listing for any company called W Spann LLC at 590 Madison. A top executive of Minskoff Equities, the firm that manages the building, told NBC News that he had “never heard of” W Spann and that his management firm has no record of any such tenant.

A short paper trail
According to records obtained by NBC, W Spann LLC filed a “certificate of formation” with the Delaware Secretary of State’s Office on March 15, but provided no further information about its owners or type of business. The only address listed was that of a Wilmington registered agent service, Corporation Service Co., which provides such services for many companies. The company declines as a matter of policy to answer any questions about its clients, according to one of its agents.

W Spann then made its million-dollar contribution on April 28 and filed a “certificate of cancellation” on July 11, effectively dissolving as a corporate entity, the records show.

The “authorized person” that filed the W Spann LLC incorporation papers and then canceled them was Casey, the Boston estate tax planner lawyer, who specializes in “wealth transfer strategies” as an associate in Ropes & Gray’s Private Client Group’s trust and estate practice for high end clients, according to her biography on the Ropes & Gray’s website.

One of the Rope & Gray’s longtime clients is Bain Capital, the investment firm formerly headed by Romney. It is also one of a number of major companies — including UBS, IBM and Cemex — that have offices at 590 Madison, the address listed for W Spann.

Asked about W Spann, Alex Stanton, a spokesman for Bain Capital said, in an email: “Bain Capital has many employees who actively participate in civic affairs, and they individually support candidates from both parties. The firm takes no position on any candidate, and the entity in question is not affiliated with Bain Capital or any of our employees.”

Campaign finance experts say the use of an opaque company like W Spann to donate large sums of money into a political campaign shows how post-Watergate disclosure laws are now being increasingly circumvented.

Much of this, the experts say, is because of last year’s Supreme Court ruling in the Citizens United case that allowed corporations to spend unlimited amounts on political advocacy, including giving to supposedly “independent” super PACs like Restore Our Future. That ruling also opened the door for newly created nonprofit groups — such as Crossroads GPS, started by Karl Rove — that spent tens of millions of dollars on attack ads during last year’s campaign without disclosing any donors.

“This is sham disclosure. It’s a barrier to disclosure,” said Michael Malbin, executive director of the Campaign Finance Institute, a Washington think-tank that specializes in campaign funding issues, when asked about the W Spann LLC donation to Restore Our Future.

It’s one more example, he said, of how American political campaigns have gone “back to the future” and to the “pre-Watergate days (of 1972) when Richard Nixon was raising unlimited amounts of money without disclosure.”

Direckshun
08-04-2011, 12:46 PM
I'm sure there's absolutely ZERO reason to be concerned over campaign finance law as it currently stands.

May the better ideas win, right?

orange
08-04-2011, 12:57 PM
I'm sure there's absolutely ZERO reason to be concerned over campaign finance law as it currently stands.

May the better ideas win, right?

I have reasonable expectation that current finance law is capable of kicking this particular contribution back. Though reforming the law remains a good idea.

Chief Henry
08-04-2011, 01:15 PM
I'm guessing it wasn't any one related to (mr.short the dollar) George Soros.

ROYC75
08-04-2011, 01:41 PM
Wasn't me........

If I had a million, Obama would want most of it.

Taco John
08-04-2011, 02:52 PM
This is silly to me. By all accounts, Barack Obama is geared to receive over a billion dollars in campaign donations this year. Practically none of us will pay any attention to any of the donors.

Direckshun
08-04-2011, 02:56 PM
This is silly to me. By all accounts, Barack Obama is geared to receive over a billion dollars in campaign donations this year. Practically none of us will pay any attention to any of the donors.

Justify intentionally untraceable million dollar donations, please.

Chocolate Hog
08-04-2011, 02:59 PM
Sleazy tricks going on with Mitt Romney and rich people? No way!

Saul Good
08-04-2011, 03:05 PM
How is this a sleazy trick by Romney? Let's see how he handles it.

Chocolate Hog
08-04-2011, 03:12 PM
How is this a sleazy trick by Romney? Let's see how he handles it.

I'm sure he'll give multiple positions on it.

evenfall
08-04-2011, 03:15 PM
As if Obama didn't have more foreign money behind him than any candidate in history

Saul Good
08-04-2011, 03:21 PM
I'm sure he'll give multiple positions on it.

As long as billay is sure, that's all the evidence I need to castigate Romney for this.

fan4ever
08-04-2011, 03:23 PM
It could have been Obama...he may have thought Mitt was a union that made baseball gloves.

Chocolate Hog
08-04-2011, 03:25 PM
As long as billay is sure, that's all the evidence I need to castigate Romney for this.

Right. Because Mitt Romney is an honest man ROFL

Mojo Jojo
08-04-2011, 03:28 PM
And Carl Rove is running a Super PAC and won't disclose who gives donations...It's a two way street boys.

ROYC75
08-04-2011, 03:34 PM
Obo's last campaign wasn't sleazy enough, now he has to stoop to a new low level to inject tainted money to Romney because he fears a threat?



(* sarcastic remark to the liberals *)


BTA, it would surprise me one bit if it was true.

|Zach|
08-04-2011, 03:35 PM
Obo's last campaign wasn't sleazy enough, now he has to stoop to a new low level to inject tainted money to Romney because he fears a threat?



(* sarcastic remark to the liberals *)


BTA, it would surprise me one bit if it was true.

Ok Kotter.

Ace Gunner
08-04-2011, 03:39 PM
And Carl Rove is running a Super PAC and won't disclose who gives donations...It's a two way street boys.

ha. more like a huge packed freeway
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-n2fMcUao9zs/Tb7xtWgqMHI/AAAAAAAAABY/R0suCsd-TQk/s1600/traffic-jam.jpg

ROYC75
08-04-2011, 04:30 PM
Ok Kotter.

And here he is, Right on cue!

Your point is ?

|Zach|
08-04-2011, 04:37 PM
And here he is, Right on cue!

Your point is ?

That was a hilarious passive aggressive Kotter move.


"I am not saying....but I am saying"


Roy is a spineless coward.

THAT IS SARCASM FOR YOU PEOPLE OUT THERE

But it would not surprise me a bit if he was.

ROYC75
08-04-2011, 05:02 PM
That was a hilarious passive aggressive Kotter move.


"I am not saying....but I am saying"


Roy is a spineless coward.

THAT IS SARCASM FOR YOU PEOPLE OUT THERE

But it would not surprise me a bit if he was.

Nothing surprises me about Obama. BTA, nothing surprises me about you wanting to bash anything I say.

I've said this once before, If I said Zach was smart, the most intelligent person on the planet, you would contradict it.

Why don't you do yourself a favor, just put me on ignore if my post bother you so much.

Direckshun
08-04-2011, 05:09 PM
It's a two way street boys.

more like a huge packed freeway

More like a shit sandwich.

On what planet do we think our country actually BENEFITS by allowing anonymous, untraceable donors to throw millions of dollars into their preferred candidates?

Is anybody willing here to claim that we benefit as a nation because of this?

blaise
08-04-2011, 05:43 PM
Doesn't bother me.

PunkinDrublic
08-04-2011, 05:51 PM
Stop giving money to mormons.

KCWolfman
08-04-2011, 05:53 PM
This is silly to me. By all accounts, Barack Obama is geared to receive over a billion dollars in campaign donations this year. Practically none of us will pay any attention to any of the donors.

It didn't help that we tracked Ol Charlie Rangel's money received, did it?

I agree, this story would carry much more substance if the POTUS actually followed through with his promise of eliminating lobbyists and their funds instead of hiring them to his own personal usage.

Besides, Direcksun, I really expected you to have a thread about Joe Biden calling the Republicans terrorists. After your unmitigated defense of Wasserman- Schultz I was sure it was not merely bait and that you would apply your disgust for name calling equally. Unless you somehow believe being "unladylike" is worse than being a "terrorist"?

Ace Gunner
08-04-2011, 06:18 PM
More like a shit sandwich.

On what planet do we think our country actually BENEFITS by allowing anonymous, untraceable donors to throw millions of dollars into their preferred candidates?

Is anybody willing here to claim that we benefit as a nation because of this?

Not I. It's corporatist rule.

Taco John
08-04-2011, 07:07 PM
Justify intentionally untraceable million dollar donations, please.

I don't feel any need to. It's an issue that I have no care or concern over. I'd be ok with all donations being completely anonymous with absolutely no caps.

Direckshun
08-04-2011, 07:14 PM
Doesn't bother me.

Do you believe our country actually BENEFITS by allowing anonymous, untraceable donors to throw millions of dollars into their preferred candidates?

Direckshun
08-04-2011, 07:16 PM
I agree, this story would carry much more substance if the POTUS actually followed through with his promise of eliminating lobbyists and their funds instead of hiring them to his own personal usage.

Nonsequitor.

This thread isn't about political party, it's about the political system.

But the partisan attack is the only conversation you're willing to have, so have at.

Besides, Direcksun, I really expected you to have a thread about Joe Biden calling the Republicans terrorists. After your unmitigated defense of Wasserman- Schultz I was sure it was not merely bait and that you would apply your disgust for name calling equally. Unless you somehow believe being "unladylike" is worse than being a "terrorist"?

This is all completely irrelevent to the thread.

Start a new thread about... whatever it is you're trying to say here, and I'll visit it.

KCWolfman
08-04-2011, 07:31 PM
Nonsequitor.

This thread isn't about political party, it's about the political system.

But the partisan attack is the only conversation you're willing to have, so have at.



This is all completely irrelevent to the thread.

Start a new thread about... whatever it is you're trying to say here, and I'll visit it.

No need, your silence speaks volumes.

And no, my point in the first quote above is that we don't care where the money comes from - It didn't stop Rangel, he is still in office. It didn't stop the POTUS as he broke every vow he made against poli money tied to favors. The constituents RE-ELECTED Rangel after he committed crimes that would have got him fired from ANY private sector job, that is how much we don't care.

We (the American People) just don't care where the money comes from. If we did, no incumbent would be elected more than 2 or 3 times to office.

Direckshun
08-04-2011, 07:35 PM
And no, my point in the first quote above is that we don't care where the money comes from - It didn't stop Rangel, he is still in office. It didn't stop the POTUS as he broke every vow he made against poli money tied to favors. The constituents RE-ELECTED Rangel after he committed crimes that would have got him fired from ANY private sector job, that is how much we don't care.

We (the American People) just don't care where the money comes from. If we did, no incumbent would be elected more than 2 or 3 times to office.

Do you know what a nonsequitor is?

A nonsequitor is an argument/statement made against a claim/question/proposition that has nothing to do with it.

I am arguing that this is unethical. Your response is that not enough people care.

Which... refutes somebody, somewhere, in a different thread perhaps. But doesn't really involve my argument here.

KCWolfman
08-04-2011, 07:36 PM
No need, your silence speaks volumes.

And no, my point in the first quote above is that we don't care where the money comes from - It didn't stop Rangel, he is still in office. It didn't stop the POTUS as he broke every vow he made against poli money tied to favors. The constituents RE-ELECTED Rangel after he committed crimes that would have got him fired from ANY private sector job, that is how much we don't care.

We (the American People) just don't care where the money comes from. If we did, no incumbent would be elected more than 2 or 3 times to office.

And didn't Bill Clinton actually receive millions illegally from China, money from many associates of his and Al Gore's? Many of whom were convicted of fraud and others who will never suffer the extent of the law because they ran and hid? Yet nothing stuck to Mr. Clinton after such egregious acts. We honestly don't care, or the People would have made changes a long long time ago.

Taco John
08-04-2011, 07:37 PM
I am arguing that this is unethical.



You can understand my position then. I think that killing babies in unethical, but you don't care about that. You think that anonymously donating money is unethical, and I don't care about that.

Strange.

KCWolfman
08-04-2011, 07:37 PM
Do you know what a nonsequitor is?

A nonsequitor is an argument/statement made against a claim/question/proposition that has nothing to do with it.

I am arguing that this is unethical. Your response is that not enough people care.

Which... refutes somebody, somewhere, in a different thread perhaps. But doesn't really involve my argument here.
It's bad to squish ants, Direckshun and unethical if no gain is made from it, but nobody cares. That act has as much to do with earthly discussions as this one does - I am sorry it doesn't raise the ire of those on this board, but it is like complaining about gerrymandered districts - cry about it all you want, it won't change.

KCWolfman
08-04-2011, 07:38 PM
You can understand my position then. I think that killing babies in unethical, but you don't care about that. You think that anonymously donating money is unethical, and I don't care about that.

Strange.

Bravo.

Direckshun
08-04-2011, 07:42 PM
It's bad to squish ants, Direckshun and unethical if no gain is made from it, but nobody cares. That act has as much to do with earthly discussions as this one does - I am sorry it doesn't raise the ire of those on this board, but it is like complaining about gerrymandered districts - cry about it all you want, it won't change.

So you'll agree that this is an unethical financial contribution? Or that dubious activity benefits the United States?

Direckshun
08-04-2011, 07:43 PM
You can understand my position then. I think that killing babies in unethical, but you don't care about that.

Nuance is escaping you.

KCWolfman
08-04-2011, 07:47 PM
So you'll agree that this is an unethical financial contribution? Or that dubious activity benefits the United States?

That isn't a loaded question, is it?

[sic]Do you agree that those living together out of wedlock are sinners, or do you support the act that their vile immoral despicable acts that will rock the nation's foundation are okay?

I don't know that it is unethical because I only have one "dubious" partisan source giving me the information on it. If it becomes mainstream, if it is factual, if it is never reported who submitted the money, and if Romney keeps the money, then you might have a real conversation regarding the supposed issue. Until then, it is merely another whacked conspiracy theory.

KCWolfman
08-04-2011, 07:51 PM
You know, this is even more hokey the more I read it. Romney didn't even receive the funds, a group supporting him did. So there is another barrier to cross (Prove that Romney directly benefited from the contribution) along with all the other caveats I listed below.

This is a non-issue. You wanted opinions, or did you just want people shaking their heads and agreeing with you?

Direckshun
08-04-2011, 07:52 PM
I don't know that it is unethical because I only have one "dubious" partisan source giving me the information on it. If it becomes mainstream, if it is factual, if it is never reported who submitted the money, and if Romney keeps the money, then you might have a real conversation regarding the supposed issue. Until then, it is merely another whacked conspiracy theory.

You have one source reporting it? Google's telling me there's 183 sources reporting the story.

Either weigh in, or punt. You're clearly in punt formation.

Direckshun
08-04-2011, 07:53 PM
You know, this is even more hokey the more I read it. Romney didn't even receive the funds, a group supporting him did. So there is another barrier to cross (Prove that Romney directly benefited from the contribution) along with all the other caveats I listed below.

This is a non-issue. You wanted opinions, or did you just want people shaking their heads and agreeing with you?

Fiiiiiiiiiiiiiiinally. You're weighing in.

You don't really seem to understand what the hell a PAC is, but you're weighing in nonetheless.

Today is a proud day.

KCWolfman
08-04-2011, 07:57 PM
You have one source reporting it? Google's telling me there's 183 sources reporting the story.

Either weigh in, or punt. You're clearly in punt formation.

I didn't google it. I got Lefty Direckshun quoting the More Socialistic News Before Communism Network.

And honestly, until it becomes part of the nightly news, I am not gonna go Indiana Jones on your fairy felt topic and do research so you feel better about one side of the aisles morality or lack thereof.

It's not important, as it stands now, it is not unethical. As I said, are you looking for opinions or are you looking for yes men to stroke you?

KCWolfman
08-04-2011, 07:59 PM
Fiiiiiiiiiiiiiiinally. You're weighing in.

You don't really seem to understand what the hell a PAC is, but you're weighing in nonetheless.

Today is a proud day.

Got it. Agree with the Socialist or be labeled Stupid.

Sorry, I don't conform to your kumbaya led charge here, maybe you should try and recruit others who agreed with you on this thread. Lemme look back and find a name for you.....

oooops, never mind.

Direckshun
08-04-2011, 08:00 PM
I didn't google it. I got Lefty Direckshun quoting the More Socialistic News Before Communism Network.

And honestly, until it becomes part of the nightly news, I am not gonna go Indiana Jones on your fairy felt topic and do research so you feel better about one side of the aisles morality or lack thereof.

It's not important, as it stands now, it is not unethical. As I said, are you looking for opinions or are you looking for yes men to stroke you?

So many words, with one actual statement that's actually relevant, and zero reasoning behind it provided.

Nicely done.

Direckshun
08-04-2011, 08:01 PM
Got it. Agree with the Socialist or be labeled Stupid.

Sorry, I don't conform to your kumbaya led charge here, maybe you should try and recruit others who agreed with you on this thread. Lemme look back and find a name for you.....

oooops, never mind.

How about you shit or get off the pot. You haven't made an argument yet.

Punt.

Taco John
08-04-2011, 08:02 PM
So many words, with one actual statement that's actually relevant, and zero reasoning behind it provided.



It's not like you've provided any reasoning for why anything unethical has happened. You just made the statement that is is with zero reasoning behind it provided.

KCWolfman
08-04-2011, 08:04 PM
How about you shit or get off the pot. You haven't made an argument yet.

Punt.

Umm lemme try this argument - It doesn't matter. Oh, wait, I already said that but you don't like the answer - yawwwwn.

There is no other argument necessary until more data comes to light - if it ever does. I am glad it is important to you and that you can draw more conclusive lines than any court of law could at this point. More power to you on bringing down the Romney campaign.

This is old, and you are obviously tired.

Calcountry
08-04-2011, 08:07 PM
This is silly to me. By all accounts, Barack Obama is geared to receive over a billion dollars in campaign donations this year. Practically none of us will pay any attention to any of the donors.People will be so sick and tired of his act by then, that his numbers will go down the more he advertises.

banyon
08-04-2011, 08:09 PM
Reading this thread and people's apathy about what's obviously a potentially system-ruining problem is pretty demoralizing.

I guess our partisan blinders in this country are just so thick that it doesn't matter what the problem the other side raises is or how it effects us, it's more important to demonize who raised it.

Calcountry
08-04-2011, 08:10 PM
Reading this thread and people's apathy about what's obviously a potentially system-ruining problem is pretty demoralizing.

I guess our partisan blinders in this country are just so thick that it doesn't matter what the problem the other side raises is or how it effects us, it's more important to demonize who raised it.Hey baby, you were the change that we have been waiting for.

KCWolfman
08-04-2011, 08:11 PM
Reading this thread and people's apathy about what's obviously a potentially system-ruining problem is pretty demoralizing.

I guess our partisan blinders in this country are just so thick that it doesn't matter what the problem the other side raises is or how it effects us, it's more important to demonize who raised it.

You too?

So you supported the impeachment of Clinton and Al Gore? Or did your ire just begin this year as Direckshun's did?

banyon
08-04-2011, 08:12 PM
You too?

So you supported the impeachment of Clinton and Al Gore? Or did your ire just begin this year as Direckshun's did?

I didn't vote for those bozos and it should have nothing to do with this thread, but once again, attack the person making the post.

banyon
08-04-2011, 08:12 PM
It's not like you've provided any reasoning for why anything unethical has happened. You just made the statement that is is with zero reasoning behind it provided.

Yeah, because plutocracy has never been problem in world or US history.

BucEyedPea
08-04-2011, 08:16 PM
Do you believe our country actually BENEFITS by allowing anonymous, untraceable donors to throw millions of dollars into their preferred candidates?

I think there should be full disclosure of all donations.

KCWolfman
08-04-2011, 08:22 PM
I didn't vote for those bozos and it should have nothing to do with this thread, but once again, attack the person making the post.

Agghhh, I give up.

I never asked if you voted for them. I asked if you supported their removal from office? If so, did you document your disgust with the system and the liberals who supported them during their proven theft and the selling of our state secrets to a communist nation?

I have never seen a single thread or post by any liberal regarding the disruption of the system by proven, criminalized acts of multiple Democrat party members including theft, spying, illegal contributions, Schwartz million dollar contribution before being found guilty of illegal contributions, Charlie Trie, etc etc etc.

Only now when a supposed story about a group supporting Romney gets supposed money from a supposed disappearing group reported by a group with proven ties to the current administration do you guys decide to report your disgust with the system.

I am sorry if we aren't on board with the conspiracy. Obviously, you want people to agree with you that Romney is horrible and needs to be drawn and quartered Braveheart style and those that show no concern need to be blinded with hot pokers.

All yours my friends. I am done with this thread. I want to read things that actually matter. If this becomes a real story then I will become more interested, until then your feigned anger comes off as silly.

jjjayb
08-04-2011, 08:26 PM
Justify intentionally untraceable million dollar donations, please.

Whats the difference between this and a bunch of untraceble little donations that come from outside this country for Obama?

BucEyedPea
08-04-2011, 08:27 PM
Whats the difference between this and a bunch of untraceble little donations that come from outside this country for Obama?

That should all be disclosed too.

banyon
08-04-2011, 08:48 PM
Agghhh, I give up.

I never asked if you voted for them. I asked if you supported their removal from office? If so, did you document your disgust with the system and the liberals who supported them during their proven theft and the selling of our state secrets to a communist nation?

I have never seen a single thread or post by any liberal regarding the disruption of the system by proven, criminalized acts of multiple Democrat party members including theft, spying, illegal contributions, Schwartz million dollar contribution before being found guilty of illegal contributions, Charlie Trie, etc etc etc.

Only now when a supposed story about a group supporting Romney gets supposed money from a supposed disappearing group reported by a group with proven ties to the current administration do you guys decide to report your disgust with the system.

I am sorry if we aren't on board with the conspiracy. Obviously, you want people to agree with you that Romney is horrible and needs to be drawn and quartered Braveheart style and those that show no concern need to be blinded with hot pokers.

All yours my friends. I am done with this thread. I want to read things that actually matter. If this becomes a real story then I will become more interested, until then your feigned anger comes off as silly.

You draw conclusions too quickly, and without giving anyone a chance to make it a discussion. I don't really care which of the two corporate parties is pulling this sh*t. If romney gets away with people not caring about it today, then it will undoubtedly be abused by people you don't like in the future. What Clinton's impeachment has to do with this and whether i "documented" my disapproval of his actions 15 years ago, I have no clue, it seems like an awkward deflection.

Taco John
08-04-2011, 09:28 PM
Yeah, because plutocracy has never been problem in world or US history.

That's not an actual argument. It's a fine editorial statement, but there's no substance in it.

And let's not forget that your idea of fighting plutocratic forces is to empower their most powerful and oppressive engine, and hope that we can vote in a few kick-backs from it along the way.

|Zach|
08-04-2011, 10:42 PM
Nothing surprises me about Obama. BTA, nothing surprises me about you wanting to bash anything I say.

I've said this once before, If I said Zach was smart, the most intelligent person on the planet, you would contradict it.

Why don't you do yourself a favor, just put me on ignore if my post bother you so much.

Then where would I get my chuckles?

Direckshun
08-04-2011, 10:49 PM
Whats the difference between this and a bunch of untraceble little donations that come from outside this country for Obama?

A handful of huge donors can control whomever's receiving their money.

For a little donation to have any controlling affect, it would have to come with a tidal wave of likeminded little donations.

And I'd rather have a candidate doing what the masses want than what a handful of oligarchs want.

But that's just me. Perhaps TJ feels differently.

Direckshun
08-04-2011, 10:52 PM
It's not like you've provided any reasoning for why anything unethical has happened. You just made the statement that is is with zero reasoning behind it provided.

Huge donors control the people to whom they're donating.

If I'm casting a vote for a person to best represent me, don't I deserve to know who's controlling them?

Chocolate Hog
08-04-2011, 11:47 PM
Hey Dick i'm actually a little surprised that you posted this. It seems like liberals have a man crush on Romney. After all isn't that how BO is trying to govern?

Taco John
08-05-2011, 01:00 AM
Huge donors control the people to whom they're donating.

If I'm casting a vote for a person to best represent me, don't I deserve to know who's controlling them?


That's between you and the candidate so far as I'm concerned. If this is an ethical issue, then lets see an ethical candidate step forward and do the ethical thing and earn your vote with their virtue.

Surely you are lucid enough to admit that your only concern here is the partisan knife you get to attack with through these disclosures. I mean, for the sake of your own devil's advocacy it's fun to say "if I'm casting a vote for a person to best represent me, don't I deserve to know who's controlling them." You actually make it sound like you're using this as a measure of your vote. But in practice, we both know you're just using it as a way to tear down the other guy while ignoring what is happening in your own back yard.

Like McCain, Obama's corporate donor list looks like a Who's Who of the Wall Street collapse - except some have given more to Obama. Lots more.

"The Obama campaign has just vacuumed up the money in this cycle, specifically from Goldman Sachs, Obama has received over $740,000, as opposed to McCain's $220,000," Krumholz said.

Not to mention that the former head of Goldman Sachs, Robert Rubin, is Obama's chief economic advisor - and two current executives are bundling for him (David Heller and Bruce Heyman). "Bundlers" are mega-fundraisers who, critics say, get special access. Another big Obama bundler is Citicorp's Michael Froman. Obama's even tapped him to help put together his new administration.

Obama has tripled McCain's haul from Lehman Brothers interests.

Citigroup, Morgan Stanley and JP Morgan Chase? More, more and lots more to Obama.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/04/will-obama-throw-a-grenade-to-blow-up-hidden-campaign-donations/237792/



What did you honestly do with any of this information? Nothing that I can remember. You were too focused on what Palin's antic of the day was.

I just can't get too worked up about this issue. It's just a tool to muckrake and create more negative press. If it was actually practiced to keep the "plutocrats" and "oligarchs" in check, that would be one thing, but it doesn't seem to stop you from voting for them, so I'm not sure what the point is. It's a good negative campaign tool, and that's about it.

jjjayb
08-05-2011, 05:40 AM
A handful of huge donors can control whomever's receiving their money.

For a little donation to have any controlling affect, it would have to come with a tidal wave of likeminded little donations.

And I'd rather have a candidate doing what the masses want than what a handful of oligarchs want.

But that's just me. Perhaps TJ feels differently.

So you don't care that an American candidate is receiving money from foreign donors?

mlyonsd
08-05-2011, 06:29 AM
Probably a group of usually outspoken prominent liberals.

patteeu
08-05-2011, 06:51 AM
I'm sure there's absolutely ZERO reason to be concerned over campaign finance law as it currently stands.

May the better ideas win, right?

These are the chickens coming home to roost for all the people who advocate campaign finance reform along the lines of McCain-Feingold.

banyon
08-05-2011, 07:03 AM
That's not an actual argument. It's a fine editorial statement, but there's no substance in it.

And let's not forget that your idea of fighting plutocratic forces is to empower their most powerful and oppressive engine, and hope that we can vote in a few kick-backs from it along the way.

It's a counterexample. As someone who purports to be familiar with logical principles, you should be able to see how that works.

And your second statement, of course could not be further from the truth. Transparency and accountability aren't usually hallmarks of oppressive regimes.

banyon
08-05-2011, 07:06 AM
That's between you and the candidate so far as I'm concerned. If this is an ethical issue, then lets see an ethical candidate step forward and do the ethical thing and earn your vote with their virtue.

Surely you are lucid enough to admit that your only concern here is the partisan knife you get to attack with through these disclosures. I mean, for the sake of your own devil's advocacy it's fun to say "if I'm casting a vote for a person to best represent me, don't I deserve to know who's controlling them." You actually make it sound like you're using this as a measure of your vote. But in practice, we both know you're just using it as a way to tear down the other guy while ignoring what is happening in your own back yard.

Like McCain, Obama's corporate donor list looks like a Who's Who of the Wall Street collapse - except some have given more to Obama. Lots more.

"The Obama campaign has just vacuumed up the money in this cycle, specifically from Goldman Sachs, Obama has received over $740,000, as opposed to McCain's $220,000," Krumholz said.

Not to mention that the former head of Goldman Sachs, Robert Rubin, is Obama's chief economic advisor - and two current executives are bundling for him (David Heller and Bruce Heyman). "Bundlers" are mega-fundraisers who, critics say, get special access. Another big Obama bundler is Citicorp's Michael Froman. Obama's even tapped him to help put together his new administration.

Obama has tripled McCain's haul from Lehman Brothers interests.

Citigroup, Morgan Stanley and JP Morgan Chase? More, more and lots more to Obama.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/04/will-obama-throw-a-grenade-to-blow-up-hidden-campaign-donations/237792/



What did you honestly do with any of this information? Nothing that I can remember. You were too focused on what Palin's antic of the day was.

I just can't get too worked up about this issue. It's just a tool to muckrake and create more negative press. If it was actually practiced to keep the "plutocrats" and "oligarchs" in check, that would be one thing, but it doesn't seem to stop you from voting for them, so I'm not sure what the point is. It's a good negative campaign tool, and that's about it.

Those facts about Obama are extremely troubling to me. And for KCWolfman's benefit, I "documented" those concerns at the time they were known.

They have apparently rendered Obama beholden to Wall Street, and that's why he's governed as a center-right jellyfish who seems most concerned with whether his hedge fund buddies are doing okay.

BucEyedPea
08-05-2011, 07:33 AM
Corporatism's on the lefty buddy.

banyon
08-05-2011, 07:43 AM
Corporatism's on the lefty buddy.

No, no one else uses your weird, bipolar (Ron Paul or Not Ron Paul) spectrum.

BucEyedPea
08-05-2011, 08:01 AM
That's false. It is NOT my spectrum. I learned it from a teacher. It is used by conservatives including the Federalist Society. It's YOU that uses an outdated model that does not illustrate the BIG govt versus NO govt gradients nor show what our Founders considered a balance between the two. This is what progressives and the left use because it hides what they want too. There is no place for anarchy on your foolish left/right scale based on where people sat during pre-Revolutionary France. lolz!

Corporatism is just another form of BIG govt to the left of that center as defined in our original Constitution (more or less).

Obama is NO centrist. Only in the old model as defined by the Jacobins and aristocracy of the French Revolution.

ROYC75
08-05-2011, 03:15 PM
Then where would I get my chuckles?

Awh, that's simple, you only have to just look in the mirror, you will always find it amusing. Matter of fact, it's a hoot just thinking about it.:thumb:

banyon
08-05-2011, 05:19 PM
That's false. It is NOT my spectrum. I learned it from a teacher. It is used by conservatives including the Federalist Society. It's YOU that uses an outdated model that does not illustrate the BIG govt versus NO govt gradients nor show what our Founders considered a balance between the two. This is what progressives and the left use because it hides what they want too. There is no place for anarchy on your foolish left/right scale based on where people sat during pre-Revolutionary France. lolz!

Corporatism is just another form of BIG govt to the left of that center as defined in our original Constitution (more or less).

Obama is NO centrist. Only in the old model as defined by the Jacobins and aristocracy of the French Revolution.

It's used by people slanted pretty far to the right so that everything bad falls on the other guy? Big surprise there.

Where does our Constitution define left of center or Big Government?

Who said I used a left/right scale with no place for anarchy?

Ahistory.

BucEyedPea
08-07-2011, 09:10 AM
Was a Romney Executive:

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/08/mystery-romney-donor-revealed-as-bain-executive.php?ref=fpa

HonestChieffan
08-07-2011, 09:36 AM
Ok then, move on to the next outrage, this one is done.

BucEyedPea
08-07-2011, 09:46 AM
Ok then, move on to the next outrage, this one is done.
Oh, right, your guy on your side gets exposed and it's time to move on—NOT.

Let more people see who this deal was pulled off. Ya' know transparency.

ThatRaceCardGuy
08-07-2011, 09:46 AM
Mormons....got damn Mormons!


( Just a joke..I lived in UT for 4 years, Mormons are nice folks)

HonestChieffan
08-07-2011, 09:47 AM
Oh, right, your guy on your side gets exposed and it's time to move on—NOT.

Let more people see who this deal was pulled off. Ya' know transparency.

what was exposed...people wanted to know who gave the million, he came forward. Did he violate any law? Much ado about nothing.

BucEyedPea
08-07-2011, 09:52 AM
what was exposed...people wanted to know who gave the million, he came forward. Did he violate any law? Much ado about nothing.
Not quite as clear-cut as that fella'. Besides, there's the other issue of your not wanting anyone else to continue seeing this after yourself as well.

Baby Lee
08-07-2011, 09:54 AM
More like a shit sandwich.

On what planet do we think our country actually BENEFITS by allowing anonymous, untraceable donors to throw millions of dollars into their preferred candidates?

Is anybody willing here to claim that we benefit as a nation because of this?

David: Where did that appear?
Nigel: That's not real, is it?
Derek: You can't print that!

HonestChieffan
08-07-2011, 09:57 AM
Not quite as clear-cut as that fella'. Besides, there's the other issue of your not wanting anyone else to continue seeing this after yourself as well.


Ask for a sticky lets all see this for months to come....good lord.

What is not clear cut did you read your own post?

patteeu
08-07-2011, 10:02 AM
Oh, right, your guy on your side gets exposed and it's time to move on—NOT.

Let more people see who this deal was pulled off. Ya' know transparency.

What was exposed? The fact that a guy who knows Romney really well thinks he'd make a good President?

BucEyedPea
08-07-2011, 10:12 AM
Ask for a sticky lets all see this for months to come....good lord.
Who is saying months? Meanwhile, you can do years of anti-Obama threads and somehow judge what others should see about someone on your side. Lolz.

What is not clear cut did you read your own post?

Yes

HonestChieffan
08-07-2011, 10:18 AM
I propose this be made a permanent sticky, for all time and all people to see.

BucEyedPea
08-07-2011, 10:29 AM
I'm not looking for that either wise-guy. Just pointing out how you were acting as a censor.

Chocolate Hog
08-07-2011, 07:58 PM
What was exposed? The fact that a guy who knows Romney really well thinks he'd make a good President?

This is the same guy who thought Bush would make a good president too right?

HonestChieffan
08-07-2011, 08:21 PM
This is the same guy who thought Bush would make a good president too right?

Bush is looking better with every passing day. Give it time.

Chocolate Hog
08-07-2011, 08:22 PM
Bush is looking better with every passing day. Give it time.

I disagree these are his policies continued. Romney will be no different.

BucEyedPea
08-07-2011, 08:23 PM
Bush is looking better with every passing day. Give it time.
This type of thinking tells me we're really in deep trouble.

NaptownChief
08-07-2011, 08:41 PM
Hopefully it was a $1 million cash payment to not run.

patteeu
08-08-2011, 09:16 AM
This is the same guy who thought Bush would make a good president too right?

I have no idea whether that guy thought Bush would be good or not.

ROYC75
08-08-2011, 09:33 AM
Was a Romney Executive:

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/08/mystery-romney-donor-revealed-as-bain-executive.php?ref=fpa

( To our Liberal left Loons) Wheeeee, got that out of the way, maybe we can get the country turned around and save our AAA rating.

Oh Snap, 2 out of 3 really is bad!:doh!:

HonestChieffan
08-08-2011, 09:34 AM
( To our Liberal left Loons) Wheeeee, got that out of the way, maybe we can get the country turned around and save our AAA rating.

Oh Snap, 2 out of 3 really is bad!:doh!:

I see that. You just want to sweep this under the rug and censor discussion.

BucEyedPea
08-08-2011, 09:42 AM
( To our Liberal left Loons) Wheeeee, got that out of the way, maybe we can get the country turned around and save our AAA rating.

Oh Snap, 2 out of 3 really is bad!:doh!:

I read that it would take 18 years to restore our rating which frankly should have been downgraded in the Autumn of 2008!

boogblaster
08-08-2011, 09:49 AM
poor stupid bastards ....

BucEyedPea
08-08-2011, 09:57 AM
I see that. You just want to sweep this under the rug and censor discussion.

Ahem! Kinda like the "debate is over " per the global warming crowd. It amazes me how much the right thinks like the left.

ROYC75
08-08-2011, 10:14 AM
I see that. You just want to sweep this under the rug and censor discussion.

Not me, but the left does. Always have, turn a blind eye, a deaf ear as long as they get their way.