Democrats Make New Bid To Require Donor Transparency

Right, the mainstream media is freely exchanging ideas. It's just a coincidence they are all left-wing.

 

Making up nonsense and posting it as fact doesn't make you look smart.

If you can document anything in any of the various versions of the Disclose Act that allow labor unions or anyone else to hide their contributions, do so.

Or, just admit that you made up another partisan lie!

 

I'd argue even many US Politicians are ignorant. In terms of removing ignorance from our Republic, it couldn't be a bigger or more crucial task.

 

Neither does making up cutesy names for bills that refute the bill itself. We've seen all we need to of Democrat and liberal transparency. Rep. Rangel gave us a good look. The Congress just recently passed rules to make it easier to scam with financial disclosure statements. Does the name Ms. Lerner ring a transparency bell?

I haven't read the bill but with the Democrat's track record it cannot possibly do what it the title implies. And, with your track record, you will believe them and Chris Matthews and Ed Schultz and Al Sharpton.

 

I'm going to interject into the (*)(*)(*)(*) slinging and say that I have a major issue with these kind of laws, generally the way it goes down is the big two hem and haw over it trying to make you think it is to curtail the other sides power or corruption. When in reality all it generally does is hurt real grassroot third party efforts who can't afford to pay all the consultants a campaign requires to be in complete compliance with the law. In doing so the D's & R's effectively remove any competition and ensure their stranglehold.

 

The Republican Congress.

The same GOP that gave us Citizen's United.

I guess you like being fed pablum by well heeled donors who hide their names behind glossy front groups.

Mrs Lerner is protected by the Constitution, just as you are.

Your last paragraph is made up, entirely.

 

That's really ridiculous.

It's the consultants, lobbyists and political activists who are busy vacuuming up the money from anonymous sources.

Nice try at rationalization, though!

If you really want a third party in this country, the last thing in the world you should want is unlimited secret campaign cash.

That only insures that the two major parties will remain the gatekeepers.

 

Your reply may be funny if I was actually trying to play devils advocate, but unfortunately I'm not and campaign finance laws have already been used to quash and intimidate political opposition.

 

I rest my case on your response!

First of all, Reason is a right wing publication, and, as we know, the right has a vested interest in making sure that campaign finance reform of any sort does not occur.

No Republican other than John McCain has favored any sort of campaign finance reform in over 100 years.

The arguments offered in this article are very weak at best, the core on being that running a presidential campaign can be prohibitively expensive because this little grass roots campaign had to spend $5000 a month on a piece of software. (if you think $60K is big money for a Presidential campaign, consider that real ones cost a billion).

This was the year after George W Bush ran the most expensive campaign in US history to that date, and openly bragged about how Wall Street and big oil filled the GOP's coffers.

All the GOP candidates on the 2012 clown car had deep pocketed backers.

If you honestly believe that its regulations that drive up the cost of running, try doing it some time.

You'll learn very quickly that campaign finance reporting is the least of your problems. Try running a grass roots campaign and watch yourself get big footed by an opponent with more financial resources than you do.

The cost of a Presidental campaign has roughly doubled in the last dozen years, and the cost of nearly every other campaign in politics has done the same thing or worse.

A dozen years ago, someone who wanted to run for city council in my little town of 13,000 need only make a few hand made signs and go around shaking hands. Today, there isn't an elected official on the dias that didn't spend at least $5000 on his campaign.

It was the Republican king maker Mark Hanna, the man who used JP Morgan's money to install William McKinley in the White House, who said.

Money drives politics in the United States.

But, if you think you or anyone else can go out there with a little home made sign can beat an opponant who only need call a real estate developer or a banker and pick up $10,000 or a million with a phone call, enjoy your fantasy.

I am probably the only serving public official in this board, and I can tell you that the influence of money on politics is pervasive.

Next to it, campaign finance disclosure requirements are minor irritants.

 

That's not true at all, elections in this country used to be for those who had a stake in the game...

 

Wrong, and you know it.

You are the one plainly rationalizing here, and likely just as interested as most of the modern left in stifling third parties. Rest of post is simply more rationalizing ala "if you think -that's- bad, then you haven't seen -this-." Doesn't address the article's point in the least. Any campaign finance reform should be narrowly tailored towards affecting only the large national parties, not small upstarts. Why is that unreasonable? Your TP/libertarian fear and hate is showing here in spades.

 

Of course it's true. Who do you think "undecided voters" and "independents" are? They generally aren't sophisticated, educated people who just haven't made up their minds, but the politically ignorant who haven't been convinced by negative ads yet.

 

Just to clear this up, you want to keep donors secret as a counterbalance to the so-called liberal media?

 

What's the goal in exposing political donors? What's the benefit, aside from having the left-wing lap dog press go after anyone they see as a threat?

 

How about knowing who's trying to influence your vote, for starters? If candidate X is receiving a ton of money from an industry known for buying politicians, I'd certainly want to know before voting.