Firm gives $1 million to pro-Romney group, then dissolves(edited)

Re: Super PAC's try end around

justabubba said:

you avoided the question
the article's author identified him as one who had "no major history as a republican donor"
but that same author told us that the donor "... made a few donations to the Republican National Committee, and contributed to George W. Bush's and Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown's campaigns, but the overwhelming majority of his donations have been to Romney and his two PACS, Commonwealth PAC and Free and Strong America."
someone controlling two PACs does not appear to be small time player ... as evidenced by the $1 million check for romney's campaign

Click to expand...

That makes him a major contributor? Really? He's been a long time supporter of Romney. You're left picking at words because this turned out to be much ado about nothing.

Re: Super PAC's try end around

justabubba said:

you avoided the question
the article's author identified him as one who had "no major history as a republican donor"
but that same author told us that the donor "... made a few donations to the Republican National Committee, and contributed to George W. Bush's and Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown's campaigns, but the overwhelming majority of his donations have been to Romney and his two PACS, Commonwealth PAC and Free and Strong America."
someone controlling two PACs does not appear to be small time player ... as evidenced by the $1 million check for romney's campaign

Click to expand...

Why do we care. Do we know or care about the major donors that will enable Obama to have a $1 billion warchest going into the 2012 election. Much to do about nothing.

Re: Super PAC's try end around

The fact that people aren't concerned about unlimited completely anonymous donations is... disturbing.

Re: Super PAC's try end around

Deuce said:

The fact that people aren't concerned about unlimited completely anonymous donations is... disturbing.

Click to expand...

Do you know the major donors to the Obama dinner with NY execs a couple of weeks ago or his big party in Chicago, me neither. I really don't care.

Re: Super PAC's try end around

Deuce said:

The fact that people aren't concerned about unlimited completely anonymous donations is... disturbing.

Click to expand...

Obama is likely going to spend near 1 billion with the GOP candidate spending somewhere similiar. I should get upset when citizens decide to try and get a little word in edgewise?

Re: Super PAC's try end around

1Perry said:

You have to answer why it's your business to know what others want to spend their money on? The requirement is on you to make a valid arguement why we must curtail the rights of others, not up to them to defend their right to exercise them.

Click to expand...

I can't believe you'd ask such a question. We all should be concerned when a politician can accept campaign contributions from undisclosed sources and once in office use his power and influence not to serve the good of his/her constituences but instead allow him or herself to be unduly influenced and/or persueded to do the bidding of special interest groups/lobbyist. Yes, I want to know who is making such "ghost" donations if for no other reason than to pull back the vail of dishonesty, questionable ethics and corruption. I want to know who is buying political support. I want to know what influenced a politician to vote for or against a measure and if said politican was "bought" for his vote one way or another. I want to know because each and every elected official in Washington, DC in one way or another affects my life by his vote. We all should be so concerned.

Unless you are somehow a party to Blockbuster it's not really your concern is it? You are like the rest jumping to conclusions. I have no reason to believe that the millions Soros sent to moveon.com were then funneled to Obama. I'm not going to argue that we must stop this because someone *might* abuse it. People abuse the right to vote by trying to sign up the dead but that's not an arguement to remove people's right to vote.

Click to expand...

I repeat - how a Congressman/woman votes for or against legislation may greatly affects you in ways you may not immediately grasp. It may be in a good way; it may be negative. If the impact is negative, however, I'd think you'd want to know why he voted the way he did. And if it is discovered that his vote was "bought" by special interest groups, I'd think you'd be considerably pissed off about it. The questions then become: a) can the legislation be repealed or modified; or b) can the politician if still in office be held accountable, i.e. voted out of office or brought up on corruption charges or ethics violations? It's up to you as part of a well informed electorate to know as much as possible about the candidates who (are suppose to) serve you - the public - and your interest, not the special interest.

Re: Super PAC's try end around

SlackMaster said:

The problem is that tax exempt organizations like the Mormon Church, can't donate to political campaigns and maintain their tax exempt status. So they funnel it through one of these dummy companies and presto-changeo Churches can fund their favorite politician's campaign.

Not to mention, the people should know who sponsors their candidates. If big oil gives a candidate 1 billion for his campaign and then he votes in their favor all the time, it'd be a safe assumption that he was bought.

Click to expand...

Now you're going to blame Mormons. Have any proof?