Ask Experts Questions for FREE Help !
Ask
    excon's Avatar
    excon Posts: 21,482, Reputation: 2992
    Uber Member
     
    #1

    Jul 20, 2011, 09:25 AM
    Citizens United - whoda thunk?
    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.
    Hello righty's:

    So, you LIKE keeping campaign contributions anonymous, huh? Couldn't you see this coming?

    Excon
    tomder55's Avatar
    tomder55 Posts: 1,742, Reputation: 346
    Ultra Member
     
    #2

    Jul 20, 2011, 09:56 AM

    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 .
    paraclete's Avatar
    paraclete Posts: 2,706, Reputation: 173
    Ultra Member
     
    #3

    Jul 20, 2011, 05:58 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by excon View Post
    Hello righty's:

    So, you LIKE keeping campaign contributions anonymous, huh? Couldn't you see this coming?

    excon
    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 bought

    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
    tomder55's Avatar
    tomder55 Posts: 1,742, Reputation: 346
    Ultra Member
     
    #4

    Jul 21, 2011, 03:35 AM

    As opposed to the transparent Aussie system
    Major political donors get anonymity. The Age reports on the donations register | Accountability Round Table
    paraclete's Avatar
    paraclete Posts: 2,706, Reputation: 173
    Ultra Member
     
    #5

    Jul 21, 2011, 06:01 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post
    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 reform

    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
    tomder55's Avatar
    tomder55 Posts: 1,742, Reputation: 346
    Ultra Member
     
    #6

    Jul 21, 2011, 06:50 AM

    Incumbent protection program ?
    paraclete's Avatar
    paraclete Posts: 2,706, Reputation: 173
    Ultra Member
     
    #7

    Jul 21, 2011, 04:01 PM
    Not sure where you are referring to, but nothing will protect the incumbent here, she is the most unpopular Prime Minister ever.
    tomder55's Avatar
    tomder55 Posts: 1,742, Reputation: 346
    Ultra Member
     
    #8

    Jul 21, 2011, 05:05 PM

    This is what I was referring to :

    There is a move in Australia to ban donations to political parties and instead have the commonwealth fully fund the campaigns
    When the government can decide on the dispersing of campaign funding then it will surely favor the incumbent.
    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.
    paraclete's Avatar
    paraclete Posts: 2,706, Reputation: 173
    Ultra Member
     
    #9

    Jul 21, 2011, 06:42 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post


    When the goverment can decide on the dispersing of campaign funding then it will surely favor the incumbent.
    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 approach
    speechlesstx's Avatar
    speechlesstx Posts: 1,111, Reputation: 284
    Ultra Member
     
    #10

    Jul 22, 2011, 06:43 AM

    Speaking of Citizens United...

    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,
    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.
    paraclete's Avatar
    paraclete Posts: 2,706, Reputation: 173
    Ultra Member
     
    #11

    Jul 22, 2011, 05:21 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by speechlesstx View Post
    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.
    Yes but it may have a great deal to do with how much you charge and whether you get the job
    speechlesstx's Avatar
    speechlesstx Posts: 1,111, Reputation: 284
    Ultra Member
     
    #12

    Jul 23, 2011, 04:01 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by paraclete View Post
    yes but it may have a great deal to do with how much you charge and whether you get the job
    Precisely.
    paraclete's Avatar
    paraclete Posts: 2,706, Reputation: 173
    Ultra Member
     
    #13

    Jul 23, 2011, 05:05 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by speechlesstx View Post
    Precisely.
    So you are in favour of corruption then?
    speechlesstx's Avatar
    speechlesstx Posts: 1,111, Reputation: 284
    Ultra Member
     
    #14

    Jul 24, 2011, 06:16 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by paraclete View Post
    so you are in favour of corruption then?
    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.
    paraclete's Avatar
    paraclete Posts: 2,706, Reputation: 173
    Ultra Member
     
    #15

    Jul 24, 2011, 06:50 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by speechlesstx View Post
    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.
    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 man
    speechlesstx's Avatar
    speechlesstx Posts: 1,111, Reputation: 284
    Ultra Member
     
    #16

    Jul 25, 2011, 06:24 AM

    Ten million? Chicken scratch. Obama is the billion dollar man.
    tomder55's Avatar
    tomder55 Posts: 1,742, Reputation: 346
    Ultra Member
     
    #17

    Jul 25, 2011, 09:33 AM

    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 .
    paraclete's Avatar
    paraclete Posts: 2,706, Reputation: 173
    Ultra Member
     
    #18

    Jul 25, 2011, 04:29 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by speechlesstx View Post
    Ten million? Chicken scratch. Obama is the billion dollar man.
    I wasn't referring to that, speech, but to his fee for influencing an outcome or prividing a favourable piece of legislation

Not your question? Ask your question View similar questions

 

Question Tools Search this Question
Search this Question:

Advanced Search

Add your answer here.


Check out some similar questions!

Who'da thunk it, I have a green job [ 28 Answers ]

For the past 17 years I have apparently had a "green job" and didn't know it. I was working "green" before "green" was cool. For the past 17 years I have worked as a wholesale and retail buyer, which is classified by the Obama regime as a "green job" along with financial advisers, reporters and...

Thunk noise when backing up [ 5 Answers ]

I have 2001 jeep cheerokee with 4wd and 114000 miles. Yesterday morning drove in heavy rain to work. After 8 hours of sitting in lot went to back up and heard a thunk noise. Thought I hit something pulled up and stopped to look nothing . Backed up again slower wheels seemed to stop. Pulled forward...

Running hot water alone leads to "thunk" and pressure loss [ 1 Answers ]

For several months now, when we run the hot water in our bathroom faucet for about 30 seconds, we hear a "thunk," which is followed by about 50% pressure loss. If we turn the water off for a moment and back on, the thunk happens a few seconds in, and pressure loss occurs again. Recently, it began...

*THUNK* Water is hot! [ 4 Answers ]

I recently bought my first home, a 60 year old place with one bathroom. We have a gas water heater in the cellar, and it goes up to the first floor to the kitchen, washing machine, and bathroom. Now the problem. Not all the surprising, we have to wait for hot water to get to any of the faucets. ...


View more questions Search