The $31 million week: big for Ted Cruz, but also for his super PAC donors

Why should people have to disclose their politics? How about we make everyone declare who they voted for?

- - - Updated - - -

You agree with what? That people should say who they gave money to? Why?

 

Agreed!

This has been an issue since the Articles of Confederation - special interests have always exerted control over the representatives and always will - and that's fine, you want NPOs to have some influence in government, but it starts to interfere with the representation of the people and all that democratic rhetoric when tit-for-tat gets going.

An amendment would be most reasonable.

 

Reasonable? What's reasonable about it? It's my frikkin $$$ and it's none of your frikkin business who I spend it on or how I use it!

 

Because it's the easiest way to see who is trying to buy favors. If a big politician, lets say Obama, was fully against Trains for oil, and supported keystone XL during his campaign, and then Soros made a multi-million dollar donation, and then after Obama is elected, he pivots and decides to be against Pipes and for Trains, then there is a trail for someone to head down to find evidence of corruption. If Soros didn't have to reveal that he made said donation, then it becomes more difficult to prove the corruption.

Careful, we start agreeing so much we may break the site

 

So if you give to a candidate, you're paying off pols for favors? Do you always accuse people of crimes without proof? You think giving a big campaign donation to anyone proves corruption? And if it did, why blame the donor? Obama had private meetings with big pharma and HC insurance companies prior to the ACA roll-out. Now???........................

http://dailycaller.com/2014/07/29/s...anies-are-raking-in-cash-thanks-to-obamacare/

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-28212223

So what shall we do about Obama's 'corruption'?

Let's see who got more money from big pharma prior to the 2012 election........

http://pharma.about.com/b/2013/09/15/hard-numbers-on-pharma-campaign-donations.htm

And from HC industry in general.................

http://www.commondreams.org/news/20...-20-million-healthcare-industry-2008-campaign

So shall we repeal the ACA because of this 'corruption'?

 

lol such a mouthful.

First, I never said that Anyone who donates is automatically buying off the politician. I did though say that it makes it easier to track. If you support your candidate so much, put your name beside your dollar sign.

As for Obama, I don't hold him to any different standard then I would any other politician. The availability of such stories proves that putting your name next to donations makes it easier for people to see the connections. Doing something about it, is another story entirely for another thread.

 

Not proposing restricting your ability to donate, just their ability to accept your donation.

To prohibit the state from setting such conditions of holding office would be an unforgivable abridgement of its freedom. Strange thing for an anarchist to say, but there you have it. The state is no different from any other organization - it should have no powers beyond others (ie: taxation power), but neither should it be denied legitimate, non-coercive power, such as the ability to set whatever conditions it desires for participating within it.

 

I'd love it if you could go to a website and actually verify that your voted counted and went to the person you voted for!

 

So now it's 'lol'. Before you wanted to weed out corruption, didn't you? So here ya go Cubed!

What is easier to track? You're not making sense. Who I or anyone gives money to is no one's business. People don't have to disclose who they give their money to no matter what your paranoid witch hunts tell you. If you don't like it, too bad.

So what do you want to do about Obama? Seems like nothing....now. He got a lot of money, the HC system was turned upside down and the industry made huge profits. Is Obama corrupt by your standards?

 

OMG, here we go again… I get so sick and tired of right wingers pulling this left-wing media bull(*)(*)(*)(*) crap every presidential election cycle. It is the most meaningless thing anyone can say as they expect every media organization to operate like Fox News. They worked out so well for you guys back in 2012 with their Romney win predictions, didn't it?

 

BS...what you're proposing is making my business your business and everyone else's. Nice try though.

 

Yep, the truth hurts doesn't it? Kinda like a stick in the ass for you lib's...ooopps was that homophobic?

 

The Koch bros. are not the only ones paying the bills. There are many different oligopolistic interests vying for the attention of Congress.

There are even a few in Congress that have not sold out their souls completely. Those few are drowned out by the oligopoly owned majority while at the same time creating the "necessary illusion" of impartiality.

 

Both sides spent that much, so it goes both ways. They are just shocked that in the first week a reported 4 superPACs have backed him at 31 million.

 

Consider - should a company be able to force you to disclose when you give donations to one of its employees? Of course not. However, they should be able to force the employee to make the information public or not accept the donation. That's a matter between the employee and the company.

The same is the case between a candidate for office and the state. You don't come into it - it's purely a restriction on the candidate's ability to accept the donation.

[hr][/hr]

SHOULD the state enact this policy with respect to its candidates for office? Well that's a separate question. But it unquestionably does not infringe on your speech or property rights for them to do so.

 

Once again, meaningless dribble.


All media is biased, that's a given, but there is a huge difference between bias and cheerleading, which is what Fox News is known for, yet that is what you consider to be "unbiased". Hilarious!

 

Where did I claim that Fox is "unbiased"? Feel free to produce the quote.

 

So you admit it! Good for you, now name what you consider to be an "unbiased" media source.

 

So you were basically making it up when you said I considered FOX to be an "unbiased" source?

 

And yet you dodge the question....

 

Like you just did? Were you making up quotes that I supposedly said?

 

You stated the following:

So it infers that you take your news from right-wing sources, Fox news being the obvious choice as they are the largest, but of course there is Clear Channel too...is that what you meant?

So explain exactly what you mean by "left wing dominated media", rather than playing these infantile tit for tat jabs.

 

Your reasoning makes no sense. Pointing out left-wing media bias doesn't equate to me saying that I believe right-wing media is "unbiased".