- Joined
- Mar 11, 2009
- Messages
- 41,104
- Reaction score
- 12,202
- Location
- South Carolina
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Oh, I know, and thanks for the link. However, don't libs in here find it rather strange that a President that most likely received political contributions from not only this nations enemies, but from foreign entities in the '08 campaign, are now screaming to see a list of donors from the Chamber of Commerce that they do NOT have to provide, then using a communist tactic of demonizing them when they don't? Meanwhile we aren't supposed to look at them.
j-mac
Oh, I know, and thanks for the link. However, don't libs in here find it rather strange that a President that most likely received political contributions from not only this nations enemies, but from foreign entities in the '08 campaign, are now screaming to see a list of donors from the Chamber of Commerce that they do NOT have to provide, then using a communist tactic of demonizing them when they don't? Meanwhile we aren't supposed to look at them.
j-mac
Most likely? You have a list, which is much more than Rove or Gillespie are providing and yet you moan, groan and complain. Quite the hypocrite, eh?
You have never heard of nonsensical user names on the computer used for donations? The name doesn't tell the location, the IP addy does. Duh. Via computer is the only way I donated in 2008 and it wasn't under the name RosieS. The IP addy would clearly show I was never out of FL much less the US. Obama's donations were so large due to grassroot American, rather than astroturf, donations from those who had never donated before. Such small, meager $5 donations even overwhelmed all the Friends of Bill who donated to Hillary, much to her surprise.
Such a non-conspiracy and you moan, groan and complain. Geez.
Regards from Rosie
The Obama campaign committed the most egregious violations of election contribution laws, and they were dismissed with a wave of the hand. Millions came in from foreign countries — which is illegal: the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) “prohibits any foreign national from contributing, donating or spending funds in connection with any federal, state, or local election in the United States, either directly or indirectly.”
I broke the jaw-dropping story about how tens of thousands of dollars came in to the Obama campaign from a Hamas-controlled camp in Gaza. Al-Jazeera actually ran video of Obama phone banks in Gaza. One large contributor to the Obama campaign was Monir Edwan, who was listed on FEC documents as contributing to Obama from the city of Rafah in the state “GA.” If you were reading quickly, you might have thought it was just a contribution from Georgia. But there is no city of Rafah in the Peach State. Monir Edwan sent money to Obama from Rafah, Gaza.
» Call For An Audit of Obama’s Campaign Finances - Big Government
A closer examination shows that there is little evidence that what the chamber does in collecting overseas dues is improper or even unusual, according to both liberal and conservative election-law lawyers and campaign finance documents.
In fact, the controversy over the Chamber of Commerce financing may say more about the Washington spin cycle — where an Internet blog posting can be quickly picked up by like-minded groups and become political fodder for the president himself — than it does about the vagaries of campaign finance.
Organizations from both ends of the political spectrum, from liberal ones like the A.F.L.-C.I.O. and the Sierra Club to conservative groups like the National Rifle Association, have international affiliations and get money from foreign entities while at the same time pushing political causes in the United States.
In addition, more than 160 political action committees active in campaigning have been set up by corporations that are based overseas, including military contractors like B.A.E. Systems and pharmaceutical giants like GlaxoSmithKline, according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan research service.
Such groups, which collectively have spent hundreds of millions dollars on political causes to advance their agenda, are required by law to ensure that any foreign money they receive is isolated and not used to finance political activities, which would violate a longstanding federal ban. The Chamber of Commerce says it has a vigorous process for ensuring that does not happen, and no evidence has emerged to suggest that is untrue.
Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign is allowing donors to use largely untraceable prepaid credit cards that could potentially be used to evade limits on how much an individual is legally allowed to give or to mask a contributor's identity, campaign officials confirmed.
Faced with a huge influx of donations over the Internet, the campaign has also chosen not to use basic security measures to prevent potentially illegal or anonymous contributions from flowing into its accounts, aides acknowledged.
In recent weeks, questionable contributions have created headaches for Obama's accounting team as it has tried to explain why campaign finance filings have included itemized donations from individuals using fake names, such as Es Esh or Doodad Pro. Those revelations prompted conservative bloggers to further test Obama's finance vetting by giving money using the kind of prepaid cards that can be bought at a drugstore and cannot be traced to a donor.
The problem with such cards, campaign finance lawyers said, is that they make it impossible to tell whether foreign nationals, donors who have exceeded the limits, government contractors or others who are barred from giving to a federal campaign are making contributions.
The Obama campaign has shattered presidential fundraising records, in part by capitalizing on the ease of online giving. Of the $150 million the senator from Illinois raised in September, nearly $100 million came in over the Internet.
The Obama team's disclosures came in response to questions from The Washington Post about the case of Mary T. Biskup, a retired insurance manager from Manchester, Mo., who turned up on Obama's FEC reports as having donated $174,800 to the campaign. Contributors are limited to giving $2,300 for the general election.
the ny times already kicked this can last friday
it's laughable
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/09/us/politics/09donate.html
A closer examination shows that there is little evidence that what the chamber does in collecting overseas dues is improper or even unusual, according to both liberal and conservative election-law lawyers and campaign finance documents.
In fact, the controversy over the Chamber of Commerce financing may say more about the Washington spin cycle — where an Internet blog posting can be quickly picked up by like-minded groups and become political fodder for the president himself — than it does about the vagaries of campaign finance.
Organizations from both ends of the political spectrum, from liberal ones like the A.F.L.-C.I.O. and the Sierra Club to conservative groups like the National Rifle Association, have international affiliations and get money from foreign entities while at the same time pushing political causes in the United States.
In addition, more than 160 political action committees active in campaigning have been set up by corporations that are based overseas, including military contractors like B.A.E. Systems and pharmaceutical giants like GlaxoSmithKline, according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan research service.
Such groups, which collectively have spent hundreds of millions dollars on political causes to advance their agenda, are required by law to ensure that any foreign money they receive is isolated and not used to finance political activities, which would violate a longstanding federal ban. The Chamber of Commerce says it has a vigorous process for ensuring that does not happen, and no evidence has emerged to suggest that is untrue.
ah, but evidence is not required, explains axelrod on cbs sunday:
asked by bob schieffer how he justifies his ACCUSATION that the coc is using foreign money to "steal our democracy," as the glitzy DNC ad states explicitly, the axed adviser came back: "no one can, bob, i can assert anything i want"
Chamber financing attacks continue - Washington Times
So, Axlerod says when someone makes an assertion, a good journalist should ask for proof of the assertion..."No one knows, Bob. The point is ... I can assert anything I want, but you have, as a good journalist, you would ask me, 'Well, how do we know that's true? Do you have documentation to prove that?' " Mr. Axelrod said.
Mr. Schieffer noted that accepting dues money from foreign affiliates does not distinguish the chamber from any number of conservative and liberal-leaning groups and that the dues amount to $100,000 toward the general fund of a group with a $200 million budget.
"But this part about foreign money, that appears to be peanuts, Mr. Axelrod. I mean, do you have any evidence that it's anything other than peanuts?" the host asked.
Mr. Axelrod replied, "Well, do you have any evidence that it's not, Bob?"
Apparently, the New York Times and the Washington Post were just fine with trusting the Chamber.
Throughout the year, we have been treated to Obama-led attacks on George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, Rush Limbaugh, Congressman Joe Barton (for his odd apology to BP), John Boehner (for seeking the speakership — or was it something about an ant?) and Fox News (for everything). Suitable Democratic targets in some cases, perhaps, but not worth the time of a busy Commander in Chief. In the past few days, we have witnessed the spectacle of the President himself and his top advisers wading into allegations that Republicans are attempting to buy the election using foreign money laundered through the Chamber of Commerce, combining with Karl Rove and his wealthy backers to fund a flood of negative television commercials. Not only is this issue convoluted and far-fetched, but it also distracts from the issues voters care about, frustrating political insiders and alienating struggling citizens (not that many are following such an offbeat story line). Feinting and gibing can't obscure those job numbers.
Barack Obama is being politically crushed in a vise. From above, by elite opinion about his competence. From below, by mass anger and anxiety over unemployment. And it is too late for him to do anything about this predicament until after November's elections.
With the exception of core Obama Administration loyalists, most politically engaged elites have reached the same conclusions: the White House is in over its head, isolated, insular, arrogant and clueless about how to get along with or persuade members of Congress, the media, the business community or working-class voters. This view is held by Fox News pundits, executives and anchors at the major old-media outlets, reporters who cover the White House, Democratic and Republican congressional leaders and governors, many Democratic business people and lawyers who raised big money for Obama in 2008, and even some members of the Administration just beyond the inner circle.
n a case that escaped much public attention, GOP lawyers submitted briefs to the Federal Election Commission last year claiming that the federal ban on foreign contributions applied solely to donations to candidates, not the unregulated sums known as soft money that are given to the political parties.
''Foreign national donations to party committee non-federal accounts are legally permissible ...,'' the Republican National Committee's lawyers wrote in a brief in a dispute over a loan from a foreign businessman. ''It could not be more apparent that ... Congress intended the proscriptions of the Federal Election Campaign Act to apply only to 'hard money' contributions.''
Really, if we going to do the just asking rouse, I suggest we take the Glenn Beck / Eric Cartman approach:
"South Park" Takes On Glenn Beck: Cartman Leads Campaign Against "Communist" President (VIDEO)
Why is it that the White House can make apparently baseless accusations against political opponents, and those opponents have to prove the accusations are false? I'm was always taught 'innocent until proven guilty', not 'innocent unless you piss of Barack Obama'.
It’s certainly true that millions are being spent without public disclosure, and that much of the money is coming from corporations taking advantage of a Supreme Court ruling easing restrictions on political spending. But using foreign funds to finance political ads is still a legal violation. Accusing anybody of violating the law is a serious matter requiring serious evidence to back it up. So far Democrats have produced none.
Think we could have a look at the donors list for Obama's '08 campaign? So far he is keeping that a secret....Why?
j-mac
It will only be a matter of time before entities are set up to channel foreign money into democratic coffers. You republicans are going to be ok with that, I guess. I know I'm not.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?