 |
Hello righty's:Quote:
Pakistan’s military, including its powerful spy agency, has spent $4 million over two decades in a covert attempt to tilt American policy against India’s control of much of Kashmir — including funneling campaign donations to members of Congress and presidential candidates, the F.B.I. claimed in court papers unsealed Tuesday.
So, you LIKE keeping campaign contributions anonymous, huh? Couldn't you see this coming?
Excon
I saw it happening before Citizens United. Or do you think that none of the millions Obama collected off the “small” doner web campaign were foreign ?
Bottom line... the donations were illegal in 2004 when the 1st donation is alleged ;and they are illegal today . Citizens United changed nothing in this case.
As I recall ,ChinaGate was before Citizens United too.
1996 United States campaign finance controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Actually it's kind of hilarious that Burton is involved in this considering his role in the Congressional hearings over ChinaGate .
Ex that's what you get when you allow influence to be peddled and you allow a corrupt system to operate within government. I think it is poetic justice that a small nation like Pakistan should use the back door to influence US foreign policy, after all who taught them these tactics. Have you looked at the contributions made? Some have been as big as $250 to Obama and a couple of thousand sprinkled here and there, just shows how easily american policitians can be boughtQuote:
Originally Posted by excon
But it also demonstrates why all political contributions to candidates should be disclosed and scrutinised, just so you know whose pocket your leaders are in. You didn't say whether you are in favour of disclosure
As opposed to the transparent Aussie system
Major political donors get anonymity. The Age reports on the donations register | Accountability Round Table
Tom I believe in full disclosure, there are some here who have been called out just as they have in the US, but we don't have the lobbying system you do. I know the little red fox would rather the donations be hidden because if there is one thing here that is not transparent it is the Labor party. They have had remarkablly convoluted schemes to hide donations evn though they are seen to be moving towards reformQuote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
http://www.australiancollaboration.c..._Donations.pdf
There is a move in Australia to ban donations to political parties and instead have the commonwealth fully fund the campaigns. They already provide significant support
Incumbent protection program ?
Not sure where you are referring to, but nothing will protect the incumbent here, she is the most unpopular Prime Minister ever.
This is what I was referring to :
When the government can decide on the dispersing of campaign funding then it will surely favor the incumbent.Quote:
There is a move in Australia to ban donations to political parties and instead have the commonwealth fully fund the campaigns
Back to topic.A campaign donation from a foreign government or interest is considered an illegal donation .It was before Citizens United and it is now. By nature then the process will involve some skirting of disclosure rules.
This is not inherently so but depends on the level of impartiality implicit in the system. The Australian Electoral Office has long record of impartiality and independence and so we could expect the administration of any scheme to be similarly conducted. You should take into account Tom that we have a different ethos and take considerable exception to a Tammany Hall approachQuote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Speaking of Citizens United...
Obama lost this case so he's trying to do an end-around Chicago style executive order. Who I donated to has nothing to do with my ability to do the job.Quote:
43 House Conservatives Urge President Obama to Withdraw Proposed Executive Order
Washington, May 17 -
Yesterday afternoon, Rep. Todd Rokita (R-IN) and 42 other members of the Republican Study Committee sent a letter to President Obama urging him to withdraw a proposed Executive Order requiring all applicants for federal contracts to disclose their political contributions.
“This Executive Order is a cynical attempt to inject politics into federal government contracting under the guise of transparency and accountability,” said Rep. Rokita. “It will create an ‘enemies list’ that the Administration and their liberal allies will use to punish private citizens and their employers. As a former Indiana Secretary of State who oversaw elections, I find this to be an outrageous overreach by the President. I call on the President to withdraw this Executive Order and inform him that should he decide not to, members of the House are prepared to take legislative action to prevent it from taking effect.”
“Federal contracting decisions should not have anything to do with politics,” said RSC Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH). “Instead of keeping the two separate, President Obama’s proposal guarantees that both applicants and bureaucrats would make politics a primary concern. The President will be hampering the ability of countless private sector companies to compete for work if he implements this Executive Order.”
Federal law already forbids contractors from making political contributions to any political party, committee, or federal candidate for public office. This proposed Executive Order mandating federal contractors (and their officers and directors) to disclose contributions including membership dues and charitable contributions to trade associations and social welfare organizations serves no effective governmental purpose.
The letter reads as follows:
May 16, 2011
President Barack Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20500
Dear Mr. President,
We write to express our serious concerns with your proposed Executive Order requiring applicants for federal contracts to disclose their financial political contributions, and those of their directors or officers, to candidates for federal office, political parties and committees, and groups who choose to exercise their First Amendment rights to participate in federal elections. The proposed Executive Order is unnecessary and will yield results that contradict your Administration’s goal to ensure that “contracting decisions are merit-based to deliver the best value for the taxpayer.” We request that you withdraw your proposed Executive Order and instead work with the appropriate congressional committees of jurisdiction to analyze potential constructive reforms to the federal procurement process.
In an attempt to “increase transparency and accountability,” your proposed Executive Order overreaches into the personal political activities of companies’ officers and directors in an area federal law already governs. Federal law forbids federal contractors from making contributions to any political party, committee, or federal candidate for public office or to any person for any political purpose or use. Additionally, all contributions by an individual exceeding $200 per election cycle to federal political committees must be disclosed through mandatory reports regulated by the Federal Election Commission (FEC). This proposed Executive Order mandating federal contractors (and their officers and directors) to disclose their contributions—including membership dues and charitable contributions—to trade associations and social welfare organizations serves no effective governmental purpose that is not already addressed by federal law.
Instead of improving the federal procurement process to become more objective, the proposed Executive Order would increase political considerations as a determinative factor in how federal contracts are awarded. It would be more likely that applicants will be rewarded or punished by government agencies for their political views, or the political views of their directors or officers. Consequently, public distrust in the federal contracting process would increase, as losing contract bidders could then point to the differences in their disclosed contributions and those of their competitors as evidence of bias.
Lastly, the fear of being subject to penalties and prosecutions for honest mistakes by an applicant who did not disclose contributions that they “reasonably expected” or are alleged to have expected might be used in support of political activities would discourage participation in the federal contract bidding process. Therefore, the proposed Executive Order's vague standard of compliance and further avenue to criminalize the political process will reduce the number of entities competing for contracts.
As highlighted above, the proposed Executive Order would not achieve its goal to ensure the integrity of the federal contracting system by reducing the influence of politics. Instead, it will deeply imbed politics into the federal procurement process. The House Committees on Oversight and Government Reform and Small Business recently held a joint-hearing to address your proposed draft, and should you decide not to withdraw this flawed Executive Order, we would immediately introduce legislation in the House of Representatives to prevent it from taking effect.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter. We look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
Yes but it may have a great deal to do with how much you charge and whether you get the jobQuote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Precisely.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
So you are in favour of corruption then?Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Geez Clete, I know English doesn't differ in meaning that much in Australia. I acknowledged the problem of corruption, I didn't support it. This executive order will lead to more such corruption, I think my previous post made that clear.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Speech I can't help it if you can't read between the lines. Over here saying what you are saying indirectly is an art. When corruption is endemic how do you measure more? Because the payouts are bigger? Because more people want a piece of the action? Corruption comes with political activity. You should be glad they haven't hung a tag on Obama like the ten million dollar manQuote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Ten million? Chicken scratch. Obama is the billion dollar man.
He plays both sides of the fence . He simultaneously shills for Wall Street campaign bucks ;then goes to his next event villifying them as greedy fat cats .
I wasn't referring to that, speech, but to his fee for influencing an outcome or prividing a favourable piece of legislationQuote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:18 PM. |