Campaign Contributions

[MathiasOfAthens]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-1...rt-ruling.html

Colorado may be the No. 1 election battleground in the U.S. for Republicans, if the money pouring into the state is any measure.

Independent groups reported spending $9.4 million on federal campaigns there between Sept. 1 and Oct. 12, more than in any other state, with $7.5 million -- 80 percent -- going to help Republican candidates, records show. Leading the way were two groups advised by strategist Karl Rove, American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS, which said yesterday they have raised $56 million for races nationwide, exceeding their $50 million goal.

The state may provide the best measure of the power of outside money in American elections this year. Critics say a Supreme Court decision that freed corporations to spend funds from their treasuries on elections has spurred a flood of special interest money that’s mainly helping Republicans.

“You can’t have your television on for 10 or 15 minutes without seeing at least two or three ads saying that someone shouldn’t have been born,” said Kenneth Bickers, chairman of the political science department at the University of Colorado in Boulder. “It’s the stakes that drive campaign ads. This is a state where Democrats might be able to hold a seat or Republicans could pick it up.”

While Colorado supported Obama in 2008, it lined up for Republicans in nine of the 10 previous presidential elections. It also went from having two Republican senators and only two Democratic members of the House to the opposite.

Bennet’s Race

Now, Democratic Senator Michael Bennet is facing a “tossup” race against Republican Ken Buck, according to the Cook Political Report. And Colorado features three House Democrats, Ed Perlmutter, John Salazar and Betsy Markey, whose close contests also make them vulnerable to Republican attacks.

With an 8.2 percent unemployment rate, Colorado is beating the national average, yet isn’t faring as well as neighbors such as Kansas, Nebraska and Utah. Buck, like the pro-Republican outside groups, has focused on the issue of government spending, trying to appeal to voters’ concern over the deficit.

Colorado is “very much a swing state, and Republicans think they can drive it back” into the party’s control, said Timothy Wirth, a Democrat and former Colorado senator.

Republicans need to gain 39 House seats and 10 Senate seats to win control of Congress.

‘Hijacking’ of Democracy

So much money has flowed into Colorado that the state has become a focal point of complaints by Democrats about tax-exempt organizations not naming their donors. David Plouffe, an adviser to President Barack Obama, last week singled out Colorado, saying it’s part of a “hijacking of our democracy” nationwide.

The money -- most of which is directed at Bennet’s race against Buck, a favorite of Tea Party activists critical of federal government power -- can have an outsized effect in Colorado. By comparison, outside groups reported spending about $600,000 less in Pennsylvania through Oct. 12, even though the state has almost three times as many voting-age residents, U.S. Census data shows.

Colorado “has emerged as an important barometer of national trends,” said Michael Franz, co-director of the Wesleyan Media Project, which tracks political ads. Because Bennet was appointed to replace Ken Salazar, Obama’s choice for Interior secretary, it’s easier to make the race “about Obama and the Democrats than in other places,” he said.

American Crossroads discloses its donors; Crossroads GPS is set up as an issue-advocacy group and doesn’t. In its last report, American Crossroads disclosed two $1 million donations from Texas businessmen Trevor Rees-Jones and Robert Rowling. Neither responded to requests for comment.

Should people be allowed to donate so much money to one group. They are in effect buying the election. Dictating their terms sometimes, maybe. Shouldnt so much outside money be kept out of our political races.
This all comes after the historic court ruling that freed funds from corporations to spend on races as they choose.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

‘Critical Race’

American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS spent $3.6 million through Oct. 12 to oppose Bennet. “His mistakes: costing us money,” says one American Crossroads ad that focuses on Bennet’s support for Obama’s health-care legislation. A Crossroads GPS spot says Bennet is on a “spending spree.”

Virtually all that money went toward television ads. American Crossroads is also undertaking a get-out-the-vote effort to bring more Republicans to the polls on Nov. 2.

“All of the political calculus tells us that this is a critical race for control of the U.S. Senate and one that’s very winnable,” said Jonathan Collegio, a spokesman for the groups. In recent polls, Buck has led Bennet by an average of 3 percentage points, according to the Real Clear Politics website.

---

‘Political Ploy’

Democratic National Committee Chairman Tim Kaine called on Rove to reveal Crossroads GPS’s backers. “If Mr. Rove has nothing to hide, this shouldn’t be a problem,” Kaine said in a statement.

Collegio called Kaine’s remarks “a political ploy” designed to distract Americans from concerns about the economy.

“I’m helping both of these groups by raising money for them as is allowed under the laws of the United States,” Rove said on “Fox News Sunday” on Oct. 10.

Rove and former Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie helped conceive of the new groups.

The spending by outside organizations is helping Republicans overcome a deficit in party fundraising. While the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee spent $4.4 million in Colorado on ads to oppose Buck, its Republican counterpart spent $1.6 million to take on Bennet through Oct. 12. Bennet himself had four times as much cash as Buck as of July 21, the last reporting date.

Other groups

Other Groups Republican-leaning groups including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint’s Senate Conservatives Fund and the American Future Fund are also spending money in Colorado, along with the Club for Growth. After Rove’s groups, the Chamber led the spending with about $1.1 million in ads. Pro-Democratic groups including the League of Conservation Voters and Working America, which is affiliated with the AFL-CIO labor federation, are spending more of their money on ground operations. The biggest outside expenditure came from Campaign Money Watch, a group that advocates stronger campaign-finance laws, which reported $730,000 for an ad opposing Buck. While Democratic-leaning groups were largely “absent,” pro-Republican groups had run about 5,500 ads through Sept. 15, said Franz, a government professor at Bowdoin College in Brunswick, Maine. The Chamber is mainly focusing on Denver and Grand Junction, and the Crossroads groups are mostly targeting the Denver and Colorado Springs markets, he said. “This is the year” for Republicans to win back seats, said E. Scott Adler, a political science professor at the University of Colorado in Boulder. “They’re going to seize on those opportunities.”

[Mr. Scott]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-1...rt-ruling.html

Should people be allowed to donate so much money to one group. They are in effect buying the election. Dictating their terms sometimes, maybe. Shouldnt so much outside money be kept out of our political races.
This all comes after the historic court ruling that freed funds from corporations to spend on races as they choose.

Unions had been allowed to donate as much as they wanted. Why not companies. Either they accept both being allowed to donate infinitely, or restrict either from donating.

[Dr. Oza]

because companies have more money and unlike unions which represent the interests of a significant part of the nation's workforce, companies are only after making money, and supporting policies that make money may not be in the public's best interest

[Big War Bird]

because companies have more money and unlike unions which represent the interests of a significant part of the nation's workforce, companies are only after making money, and supporting policies that make money may not be in the public's best interest

Wow, just, I mean, how, jesus, words, are you actually serious, I mean c,mon, man.

[MathiasOfAthens]

Unions had been allowed to donate as much as they wanted. Why not companies. Either they accept both being allowed to donate infinitely, or restrict either from donating.

Unions represent members. Their donations are then coming from the members who are people. A corporation isnt a person.

However, I would restrict unions too, at least to a certain amount of money they can donate during any given year. Corporations however do not represent anyone other then the shareholders and board members who interest is with themselves and not the country.

because companies have more money and unlike unions which represent the interests of a significant part of the nation's workforce, companies are only after making money, and supporting policies that make money may not be in the public's best interest

Wow, just, I mean, how, jesus, words, are you actually serious, I mean c,mon, man.

Of course he is right. There are very few corporations out there promoting what is best for the society. The founders never meant for Corporations to be counted as people.

[Phier]

Its kinda funny how this is now a 'talking point' when the democrats are on the receiving end.

Its even cuter how Obama is using the IRS as his personal brown shirts on this matter too

(WSJ) Funny how all of this outrage never surfaced when the likes of Peter Lewis of Progressive insurance and George Soros helped to make Democrats financially dominant in 2006 and 2008.
Chairman Max Baucus of the powerful Senate Finance Committee got the threats going last month when he asked Internal Revenue Service Commissioner Douglas Shulman to investigate if certain tax exempt 501(c) groups had violated the law by engaging in too much political campaign activity. Lest there be any confusion about his targets, the Montana Democrat flagged articles focused on GOP-leaning groups, including Americans for Job Security and American Crossroads.
Mr. Baucus was seconded last week by the ostensibly nonpartisan campaign reform groups Democracy 21 and the Campaign Legal Center, which asked the IRS to investigate whether Crossroads is spending too much money on campaigns. Those two outfits swallowed their referee whistle in the last two campaign cycles, but they’re all worked up now that Republicans might win more seats. Crossroads GPS, a 501(c)(4) affiliate of American Crossroads supported by Karl Rove, is a target because it has spent millions already in this election cycle.
..
Democrats claim only to favor “disclosure” of donors, but their legal intimidation attempts are the best argument against disclosure. Liberals want the names of business donors made public so they can become targets of vilification with the goal of intimidating them into silence. A CEO or corporate board is likely to think twice about contributing to a campaign fund if the IRS or prosecutors might come calling. If Democrats can reduce business donations in the next three weeks, they can limit the number of GOP challengers with a chance to win and reduce Democratic Congressional losses.
The strategy got a test drive in Minnesota earlier this year after Target Corporation donated $100,000 cash and $50,000 of in-kind contributions to an independent group that ran ads supporting the primary candidacy of Republican gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer. MoveOn.org accused the company of being anti-gay, organized a petition, and crafted a TV ad urging shoppers to boycott Target stores. Target made no further donations, and other companies that once showed an interest have since declined to contribute.

[The spartan]

Its kinda funny how this is now a 'talking point' when the democrats are on the receiving end.

Its even cuter how Obama is using the IRS as his personal brown shirts on this matter too

Is that really the best you can come up with? Anyways, contributions from smaller parties (i.e. companies, and unions to a much lesser degree) is very undemocratic.

[Big War Bird]

Of course he is right. There are very few corporations out there promoting what is best for the society.

There are very few unions promoting what is best for society. Surely we can agree that self interest is a prime motive for virtually all political activity.

[MathiasOfAthens]

Actually Im in favor of cutting this out completely. My personal wish list would be public campaign funds and absolutely no Private campaign funds. That way of course every candidate is on a level playing field and the only people we see are not democrats or republicans.


Presidents have been using the CIA as their personal muscle since 1945. Truman, the first , who tried to seize a steel mill.

Americans for Job Security and American Crossroads.

I remember seeing somewhere that these two groups are just front groups that have capitalize on this loophole. Basically money is funneled into them and they send the money onto republican groups. So in the end an unlimited amount of money can go to any candidate. I believe, If I am not mistaken, these two groups dont have an office nor a phone number. Only a PO box.


Americans for Job Security:
Sole employee and founder = Stephen DeMaura. Amazing how a group titled Americans(Plural) has only one member. Anyway, not surprisingly the sole member of Americans for Job Security is also a proud member (Executive Director) of the New Hampshire Republican party. Once created an Anti-Hilary fan page on Facebook. Demaura was also recruited by David Carney, one of the founders of this group, who was also a Political Director for George Bush. And the PO Box is located at a certain US Parcel drop off in Alexandria Virginia.

American Crossroads:
Founded in 2009. It is a 527 Organization which is tax exempt. They are created primarily to influence the nomination, election, appointment or defeat of candidates for public office(WIKI). The President of the group is a former sectary of labour for G W B. Karl Rove and Ed Gillespie are advisors. The group has $30 million dedicated to it and most of the money is believed to come from Billionaires.
American Crossroads is served by Crossroads Media which was founded by the founders of Americans for Job Security.
Funding Controversy:
According to Federal Election Commission and IRS reports and analysis by the independent Center for Responsive Politics, American Crossroads' major contributors have included:

1. Trevor Rees-Jones, President and CEO of Chief Oil and Gas, $2 million (two $1 million contributions)
2. Robert Rowling, CEO of TRT Holdings, $1 million
3. Public Storage Inc ($1.5 million)
4. Dixie Rice Agricultural Corporation ($1 million)
5. Southwest Louisiana Land ($1 million)
6. Jerry Perenchio Living Trust ($1 million)
7. American Financial Group, $400,000

Political ads launched by this group are inaccurate and distorted. Millions of dollars "raised" in a matter of 30 days support false and sometimes completely inaccurate truths broadcast to thousands on the TV set. Unfortunately, launch amounts of money can influence people.

As a 501(c)(4) nonprofit, Crossroads GPS is required to report what it spends, but it is not required to publicly disclose any donor information.

Here we have a company influencing American Elections and the American people don't need to know where the money is coming from? But for some reasons Americans need to know who is supporting the construction of a single mosque in New York city?

My information came from the Wiki pages on both groups. All the claims made on that page were backed up by sources at the bottom of the page. If you disagree with anything I said then please dont hesitate to prove those sources wrong.

[MathiasOfAthens]

Agreed.

[Phier]

When the democrats want to do something about the trial lawyers massive donations as well let me know.

Its sour grapes for a loosing year as well as an excuse for them when they fail.

The election was 'lost' on ideas but 'bought'. Complete crap.

[The spartan]

When the democrats want to do something about the trial lawyers massive donations as well let me know.

Its sour grapes for a loosing year as well as an excuse for them when they fail.

The election was 'lost' on ideas but 'bought'. Complete crap.

Does this thread really have anything to do with Democrats? Because I thought it was about campaign contributions. Your post seem to be nothing but red herrings. Back to the point, ANY contributions from small parties is undemocratic and undesirable. Contributions from companies and interest groups are probably the most guilty and troublesome. I would not be at all opposed to severe limitations on private campaign contributions.

[MathiasOfAthens]

Im in complete agreement there Phier. They shouldnt be donating either. Notice the title says Campaign Donations and Campaign Donations to Republicans. Neither party is going to do anything though cause they both benefit. They both suck from the same nipple.

[Col. Tartleton]

Public campaign funds? I'll be damned if my tax money goes towards paying for some schmuck to run for office.

Private unlimited campaign funds seems much more reasonable. That's how it should be. The rich run things anyway... boohoo they're financing the campaigns of people they like and they have more means then average Joe. You do realize how outnumbered they are at the ballot box right? Its practically the only way they can have a proportionate effect on the government with how much of the country they are. A billionaire should have somewhat more say in tax uses then someone on welfare. One guy is giving roughly half his money to the government in taxes. The other guy is receiving money. They both have one vote as it should be, but the billionaire should be able to provide as much influence as 20,000 people worth a total equaling him in net worth. Its still one vote at the end of the day, but he can provide as much money as he wants.

Likewise a corporation is actually made up by a large number of owners. They together are the corporation. Its not some private enterprise. Its basically a public enterprise. Not a government enterprise, but its a public one as in pertaining to the people.

[MathiasOfAthens]

Public campaign funds? I'll be damned if my tax money goes towards paying for some schmuck to run for office.

Private unlimited campaign funds seems much more reasonable. That's how it should be. The rich run things anyway... boohoo they're financing the campaigns of people they like and they have more means then average Joe. You do realize how outnumbered they are at the ballot box right? Its practically the only way they can have a proportionate effect on the government with how much of the country they are. A billionaire should have somewhat more say in tax uses then someone on welfare. One guy is giving roughly half his money to the government in taxes. The other guy is receiving money. They both have one vote as it should be, but the billionaire should be able to provide as much influence as 20,000 people worth a total equaling him in net worth. Its still one vote at the end of the day, but he can provide as much money as he wants.

Likewise a corporation is actually made up by a large number of owners. They together are the corporation. Its not some private enterprise. Its basically a public enterprise. Not a government enterprise, but its a public one as in pertaining to the people.

Well at least your honest despite be completely wrong on, well, everything.

And according to your own words you would be ok if liberal corporations began financing liberal candidates. So would you be ok with all of this if lets say some liberal group with its unlimited amount of cash was able to plant enough Liberal candidates in office to control the House and the Senate? Imagine we would finally be able to pay Universal Healthcare and then other liberal programs.

Your tax dollars already go to publica elections. But because of the vastly superior funds coming in from private corporations, that represent the ideas of a few instead of the needs of the many, the monetary effect from publica funds is minimized at best. Basically it has little effect if such large sums are coming in from private corps with private interests.

Eliminating Private funds or at the very least putting severe restrictions on how much a candidate can receive or a corporation can use will allow a more open and democratic election process. What we have now is not a open process, by far it is a restricted process where the rich and well off are more capable at running for and winning elections than anyone else. By changing the process we will see more groups represented. More ideas and different candidates. You want a Tea party candidate then you can get one through public funds.

The fact that corporations are maybe run by 5 -12 people does not mean they can claim to be outnumbered and thus be allowed to contribute millions to a political election. As I said there is nothing free and fair in that at all. One of the guiding principles of our republic. A free and fair election process. A corporation may be a person in the eyes of the Supreme court but they are not a person and even if they were they should not be allowed to donate millions. The CEO cannot donate millions to a candidate and a lowly middle class factory worker cannot donate anything from his paycheck either. Or at the very least it should be limited to around 1000 dollars from any person. If both are reduced to a level playing field then neither person (or corporate entity) can claim an unfair proportionate disadvantage.

You dont see what money does. Money can influence elections. Money can buy support and it can promote distorted and false claims on national airways. Would you prefer liberal groups buying elections this way or is it ok if they are Republican groups?

Forget about this taxes claim you made because no one is making a millions dollars a year and paying 500,000 back leaving him 500,000 at the end of year and omg if he is he still has 500,000 which is enough to survive.

Congress has the right to levy taxes. Until 1869? when the Supreme Court disallowed the right to levy Income taxes Congress was deprived of its right and the rich (oil, Industry Tycoons) benefited for what 50-70 years. We all receive money from the government. Even the rich who already have enough. These groups that donate money to political groups are tax exempt and are nothing more than legal money laundering businesses. Its hilarious that you can the rich the people giving their money to the government and everyone else the poor greedy welfare check taker. When it is more like the middle class that foots the tax bill. The middle class pays more taxes than the rich... and has less to spend on themselves. But you claim the rich are proportionately disadvantaged.

[Fishy]

Any kind of campaign contribution should be stopped. The government could make an x amount available for any particular political party with more then an x amount of members. That way it would be more fair.

For the rest you could count on the media to want to give attention to people running for office because it gives them viewers or readers.

This would still give an advantage to candidates with the most friends in the media and allow certain media companies to show their bias constantly by only inviting people of their preferred party to show up, but the effect would theoretically be less bought then it is now.

[MathiasOfAthens]

You have to be able to prevent other groups like the two Phier mentioned from running their own ads slamming the other party but having no affiliation (technically) with the party they are supporting. The founders could not have anticipated the television. Our laws need to be updated to meet that. It is not their fault that the constitution does not mention what did not exist.

Billionaires pay in to these 527 organizations that run ads supporting or denouncing candidates during elections. The money is not the same as what the candidates themselves pay for their ads or for their campaign. Its separate and frankly I think they should be banned. We should make the process as fair as possible and only allow candidates to run ads. We should limit how much money is up for grabs during an election. Our election process should be shorted. You might be thinking, why should the election be fair? The world is not fair? Well, true, it is not but is it really bad that we make the election process for our national leaders more fair. Dont you want smart intelligent leaders having equal access on the air instead of the current well off candidates who are able to buy air time, etc.

Instead of the current 4 year cycle we should make it 4 weeks long. In those 4 weeks candidates are to submit candidacy papers, run their campaign and ads, and the election is to be held.


Examples of LIES and Distortions. Which are all completely legal.

Lies

[Big War Bird]

So basically Mathias you want to get rid of freedom of speech.

[The spartan]

So basically Mathias you want to get rid of freedom of speech.

Wow that is quite an extrapolation. Seeing as corporations are not persons, I don't see how any rights are being infringed upon.

[Hotspur]

If it were actually possible to "buy the election", Meg Whitman would be stomping Jerry Brown into the California dirt. She has spent over $100 million dollars and is still trailing by 5 points.