Fred is out!
- Thread starter grymster2007
- Start date
Unregistered
Moderator
I think you need to reconsider your opinion. I believe McCain knew full well the ramifications of the bill, and there were only intended consequences. The main thing he was trying to do was make sure it was easy for incumbents to stay in power. McCain-Feingold hurts challengers much more than incumbents.
I could've voted for Fred.
Although many issues concern me, I had to drop all the candidates through my 2nd Amendment sieve first. Richardson, Thompson, Paul and Huckabee were the only ones snagged.
Richardson and Thompson are now gone, and I doubt if Huckabee will be able to hang on. Looks like my primary vote will go to the only one left - Ron Paul.
Although many issues concern me, I had to drop all the candidates through my 2nd Amendment sieve first. Richardson, Thompson, Paul and Huckabee were the only ones snagged.
Richardson and Thompson are now gone, and I doubt if Huckabee will be able to hang on. Looks like my primary vote will go to the only one left - Ron Paul.
Perhaps. But, I question how much he understood the ramifications since his inability to compete with Romney moneywise is largely because of McCain Feingold both in being unable to get support from zillionaires who might want to donate and much of the Republican base being pissed off about it. Meanwhile there is no limit of how much Romney can spend of his own money. Ironic.
Personally, I don't want to see people like George Soros control elections. Free speech for the rich?
Unregistered
Moderator
The rich will be able to afford to set up whatever is necessary to compy with or circumvent the law. Campaign Finance Reform hurts people who don't have that luxury.
I think Florida will tell us alot about our (non) choices.Playboypenguin
Moderator
Large companies that make the maximum donation via each of their employees...willing or unwilling.
Playboypenguin
Moderator
A friend of mine works for a division of a major company in the NE and they received, as part of their bonus staments, a letter stating that all employees had a donation of xxx made in their name to a local legal fund. They were given a statement to sign and give back stating they approved but where not given a real choice about it.
As for your asking for examples though...do some work and look something up. Do not just think "I do not agree so I will sit back and challenge them to prove their point." That is one of my biggest pet peeves with people on the internet. Instead of trying to challenge points with nothing but a demand for proof do some active learning.
Unregistered
Moderator
Look into the funding of MoveOn.org by George Soros. Basically they can set up as a "media outlet" and circumvent the CFR laws. If you go to the moveon.org website you will see an area designated as "press room".
Unregistered. No doubt 527 groups are getting around the intent. If not for Swift Boat Veterans John Kerry would have been president. But, they have received some stiff fines also because the loophole is having an issue advocacy vs. a candidate advocacy and some have crossed the line.
PBP, you made a statement.
PBP, you made a statement.
I asked for an example knowing there is not one. Sorry if that annoys you.
Playboypenguin
Moderator
First off, the maximum is $4600 per quarter and not $2300...and yes, it does happen. Divisions of Diebold have done it, Divisions of Exxon have done it, a small logging company here in Oregon has done it, etc.
They send out memos to employees asking them to participate in a contribution/bonus plan and then they get to keep a small part of the bonus and receive the tax right off which more than offsets the extra they pay on the increased income.
I used to get similar things from my employer all the time at bonus time. The only difference was we had the option of giving parts of our bonus to specific charities such as the Humane Society, cancer research, AIDS research, etc.
The only reason the company here in Oregon got in trouble for it was because they did not do the math well enough and the tax credit received by employees did not cancel out the tax they had to pay on the bonus (something about them being hourly and not salary made the difference) and some of them raised a stink to the local papers.
+1. Anyone who makes a claim should be able to back it up, so you can double-check the source of that claim. That's why you don't see the following situations in this country:
Prosecutor: "The defendant killed A and should be convicted of murder. If you don't believe me, go do some research."
Vitamin Company: "Our new formulation cures cancer. If you don't believe me, go do some research."
Car Company: "Our newest model car gets 300 mpg. If you don't believe me, go do some research."
To make a claim and then refuse to back it up is an indicator that the claim is bogus.
Quit sucking McCain...
It didn't hurt the corporations, it hurt organizations like NRA, Right to Life, NARAL and other pacs that represent millions of ordinary people who have their views heard through such groups. McCain muzzled them because they pointed out his record in 2000. McCainFeingold was the biggest assault of free speech in the history of the US and he was successful.
http://users.mikrotec.com/~dcgay/mccain.htm
Playboypenguin
Moderator
I do not know if you are being naive or just arrogant (I will assume naive since that would not imply malice of any type) but you obviously have little experience in the corprate or political world.
The companies are not directly donating money. They are giving a said amount to their employees as a "bonus" and said employees sign it directly over as cash contributions to said campaign fund. There is no law against this practice and it is not really any different than most fundraisers.
The loophole is the money is coming from the "employees" as individuals even though it is really coming from the corporation with the employees as a way to launder the money.