Originally posted by Teallaura
View Post
Cut it out, Jim - you're gonna get yourself in trouble with the mods for unsupported accusations of lying.
Opposing a law that maliciously gives one side an advantage is not the same thing as supporting laws that maliciously gives your side an advantage.
Democrats come and go with this one - and it does follow whether or not they are the recipients (with unions in decline it's not surprising they are back at this). Conversely, historically Democrats benefit from small actor donations (until Trump ) be they businesses or individuals. But the small actor cannot legitimately be said to not be attempting influence - influence is the purpose of donations. And they too, act collectively (PACs, interest groups, et al) - so should they be barred as well?
Better question, why should donations be allowed across state lines AT ALL? Parties are themselves political actors so why should they be given a pass to interfere with local elections or to support lobbyists (yep, really a thing).
Opposing an unfair advantage isn't the same as asking for an unfair advantage - you know it as well as the rest of us.
The weird thing? Your present position is the same as CP's usual position - you actually agree with each other on the major issue of unfair financing of special interests.
Opposing a law that maliciously gives one side an advantage is not the same thing as supporting laws that maliciously gives your side an advantage.
Democrats come and go with this one - and it does follow whether or not they are the recipients (with unions in decline it's not surprising they are back at this). Conversely, historically Democrats benefit from small actor donations (until Trump ) be they businesses or individuals. But the small actor cannot legitimately be said to not be attempting influence - influence is the purpose of donations. And they too, act collectively (PACs, interest groups, et al) - so should they be barred as well?
Better question, why should donations be allowed across state lines AT ALL? Parties are themselves political actors so why should they be given a pass to interfere with local elections or to support lobbyists (yep, really a thing).
Opposing an unfair advantage isn't the same as asking for an unfair advantage - you know it as well as the rest of us.
The weird thing? Your present position is the same as CP's usual position - you actually agree with each other on the major issue of unfair financing of special interests.
Originally posted by rogue06
View Post
Until relatively recently Republicans enjoyed an advantage in getting support from the ultra-rich but this has flipped. In the last election an examination of the data provided by OpenSecrets found that of the 22 billionaires pumping money into campaigns and causes over half (13) gave money to the left with the remaining 9 donating to conservatives or equally splitting donations between the left and right. And of those giving the most, liberal billionaires easily led the list way outspending conservatives[1]
1. The two top liberal donors in 2016 each gave more money than all the conservative donors did combined! Tom Steyer gave in excess of $11 million (and gave a whopping $74 million in 2014) and has pledged to spend at least another $50 million whereas the top conservative donor contributed a comparatively paltry $2.5 million.
Originally posted by rogue06
View Post
Not just George Soros (who made much of his money trying to wreck the British economy[1] and convicted of breaking inside trader laws) but James Simons, Peter Lewis and Warren Buffett. And then there are Tom and Jim Steyer.
Former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid used to rarely let a day go by without wringing his hands about the influence that the Koch brothers supposedly had over the Republican party while remaining silent over the influence that folks like the Steyers wield over Democrats. For instance, in 2014 Tom Steyer gave $5 million to Senate Majority PAC, the pro-Democratic Super PAC run by former Reid aides. The New York Times reported that as of April 2014 "Mr. Steyer and his wife, Kat Taylor, were the top source of super PAC money in the country this election cycle, contributing a total of more than $11 million."
Steyer offered $100 million to Democrats that promised to support his energy agenda, chiefly blocking the proposed Keystone XL pipeline (which would cost him financially if it were built) but also includes massive new energy taxes and support for various "green energy" schemes that he is invested in.
But it's only Republicans who have a problem with billionaire donors
1. Even liberal economic icon Paul Krugman has been highly critical of how Soros gets wealthy wrecking economies and financial markets writing "[N]obody who has read a business magazine in the last few years can be unaware that these days there really are investors who not only move money in anticipation of a currency crisis, but actually do their best to trigger that crisis for fun and profit. These new actors on the scene do not yet have a standard name; my proposed term is 'Soroi'."
Former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid used to rarely let a day go by without wringing his hands about the influence that the Koch brothers supposedly had over the Republican party while remaining silent over the influence that folks like the Steyers wield over Democrats. For instance, in 2014 Tom Steyer gave $5 million to Senate Majority PAC, the pro-Democratic Super PAC run by former Reid aides. The New York Times reported that as of April 2014 "Mr. Steyer and his wife, Kat Taylor, were the top source of super PAC money in the country this election cycle, contributing a total of more than $11 million."
Steyer offered $100 million to Democrats that promised to support his energy agenda, chiefly blocking the proposed Keystone XL pipeline (which would cost him financially if it were built) but also includes massive new energy taxes and support for various "green energy" schemes that he is invested in.
But it's only Republicans who have a problem with billionaire donors
1. Even liberal economic icon Paul Krugman has been highly critical of how Soros gets wealthy wrecking economies and financial markets writing "[N]obody who has read a business magazine in the last few years can be unaware that these days there really are investors who not only move money in anticipation of a currency crisis, but actually do their best to trigger that crisis for fun and profit. These new actors on the scene do not yet have a standard name; my proposed term is 'Soroi'."
1. The two top liberal donors in 2016 each gave more money than all the conservative donors did combined! Tom Steyer gave in excess of $11 million (and gave a whopping $74 million in 2014) and has pledged to spend at least another $50 million whereas the top conservative donor contributed a comparatively paltry $2.5 million.
Comment