- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Whoops! Bye-Bye McCain-Feingold. Didn't see THAT coming.
Posted on 12/10/14 at 5:37 pm
Posted on 12/10/14 at 5:37 pm
quote:
Spending deal would allow wealthy donors to dramatically increase giving to national parties
By Matea Gold
December 9, 2014
The end-of-year spending bill deal crafted by congressional leaders Tuesday would dramatically expand the amount of money that wealthy political donors could inject into the national parties, drastically undercutting the 2002 landmark McCain-Feingold campaign finance overhaul.
The language – inserted on page 1,599 of the 1,603-page bill – would allow individuals to give three times the annual cap on national party donations to three additional party committees set up for the purposes of the presidential conventions, building expenses and election recounts.
That means that a donor who gave the maximum $32,400 this year to the Democratic National Committee or Republican National Committee would be able to donate another $291,600 on top of that to the party’s additional arms -- a total of $324,000, ten times the current limit.
In a two-year election cycle, a couple could give $1,296,000 to a party's various accounts.
Advocates for lessening the impact of big money on politics reacted with dismay, saying the move would effectively gut contribution limits.
"This makes the Great Train Robbery look like a petty misdemeanor," said Fred Wertheimer, president of the advocacy group Democracy 21. "These provisions have never been considered by the House or Senate, and were never even publicly mentioned before today.
"Republican and Democratic congressional leaders have entered into a Faustian bargain to return the massive corrupting contributions raised by federal officeholders for the national parties that Congress banned in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002," he added.
Adam Smith, spokesman for the group Every Voice, said in a statement, “Very few people can write checks almost twice the size of the country’s median income, but that’s what this provision will allow.
LINK
Posted on 12/10/14 at 5:43 pm to udtiger
but at least they had time to criminalize pot in D.C........
Posted on 12/10/14 at 5:46 pm to udtiger
quote:
fricking thieves.
Should I have posted it "Buy-Buy McCain-Feingold"
Posted on 12/10/14 at 5:56 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
"Buy-Buy McCain-Feingold"
Exactly.
Posted on 12/10/14 at 6:04 pm to NC_Tigah
This is for dumb arse people who think money is free speech and corporations are people!
Posted on 12/10/14 at 6:20 pm to stormy
quote:
stormy
Hey REX or SpidermanFUPA
Posted on 12/10/14 at 6:33 pm to NC_Tigah
It's not the money (ads) that is harmful; it's the fact that Gruber was right about a large % of the electorate. They are "stupid" enough to be influenced by mass ads and liars like him and his Boss, instead of recognizing truth in candidates.
Posted on 12/10/14 at 6:33 pm to udtiger
quote:
fricking thieves.
This.
Shame on anybody who's willing to keep their representative or senator in congress after this.
Posted on 12/10/14 at 6:36 pm to Sentrius
quote:Mine are very kept
Shame on anybody who's willing to keep their representative or senator
Posted on 12/10/14 at 6:41 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
It was not immediately clear who authored the provision.
Every change to a bill should have a notation of who sponsored it.
Posted on 12/10/14 at 6:53 pm to NC_Tigah
I thought this board was supportive of lessened govt regulation and increased freedom. Why not allow people to donate what they see fit?
How is it thieving if people voluntarily donate?
How is it thieving if people voluntarily donate?
Posted on 12/10/14 at 7:06 pm to Jake88
quote:Oh I'm just having fun with this.
I thought this board was supportive of lessened govt regulation and increased freedom. Why not allow people to donate what they see fit?
How is it thieving if people voluntarily donate?
I've actually given a fair amount of money to political efforts, i.e., capped out on donations to various political campaigns many times over the years. Giving to a PAC rather than directly to a candidate never excited me. So I'm actually good with this as a more direct process.
It simply came out of nowhere. Someone was pretty slick.
This post was edited on 12/10/14 at 7:08 pm
Posted on 12/10/14 at 7:18 pm to NC_Tigah
I see. But I'm still a bit surprised by the responses. As for me, I'm undecided about it.
Posted on 12/10/14 at 8:05 pm to NC_Tigah
I would much prefer a repeal of McCain-Feingold than an exception carved out specifically for the two establishment parties. This leaves the limits intact if someone wants to support the Libertarians, Greens, or an Independent candidate, but makes them especially high for Rs and Ds.
Posted on 12/10/14 at 10:46 pm to stormy
quote:
This is for dumb arse people who think money is free speech and corporations are people!
If corporations aren't people then why do they pay tax? And the their employees and stockholders pay tax again on already taxed money?
Posted on 12/11/14 at 1:30 am to NC_Tigah
Further entrenchment of American oligarchy
Posted on 12/11/14 at 1:33 am to beachreb61
How does that make them people? At all?
Moron.
Moron.
Posted on 12/11/14 at 2:45 am to NC_Tigah
DC needs to be burned to the ground. Seriously. Fricking slimeballs is what they are. Disgusting.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News