Most everyone agrees that, in order for our country to correct the
problems we're experiencing in congress, we need to enact some kind of
campaign finance reform.

This selling of legislation to the highest bidder has got to go but
how can these career politicians compete in this age of electronic
media, television being the primary and very expensive tool?

Seems like the Supreme Court would have taken this into account when
they ruled on the Citizens United case earlier this year, but no, not
even our Supreme Court can be trusted to make good decisions.

Now not only is the legislative process for sale, the election process
is even more open to manipulation by money.

This is as sickening to me as China's manipulation of currency for
advantage. Just like on Wall Street, the game is rigged.


"With many outside political groups able to raise and spend unlimited
amounts of money in the wake of the Supreme Court's Citizen United
decision, a new type of independent expenditure has popped up: ones
bankrolled completely by just one donor. These funds allow wealthy
contributors to dump large amounts of money into whichever races they
choose -- often with very little transparency -- essentially rendering
the old rules limiting individual political contributions a joke.

Take the Concerned Citizens for a Working America. The Virginia-based
political action committee (PAC) has thrown $250,000 into South
Carolina's fifth congressional district on behalf of the Republican
candidate. But who are these "concerned citizens"? It turns out that
the sole citizen is a Virginia nonprofit called New Models, which is
not required to disclose its donors.

There's also Taxpayers Against Earmarks (TAE), a new nonprofit
"dedicated to educating and engaging American taxpayers about wasteful
government spending and the misguided practice of earmarks." While its
mission is educational, it has an affiliated political arm -- what's
known as a "super PAC" for its ability to raise and spend any amount
it wants -- called the Ending Spending Fund, which just put nearly
$600,000 into the Nevada Senate race against Majority Leader Harry
Reid (D). The "taxpayers" against earmarks is actually just one man
named Joe Ricketts, founder of Ameritrade and owner of the Chicago
Cubs, who is also the sole financier of the Ending Spending Fund.

Individuals are allowed to donate only $2,400 per election to a
federal candidate or the candidate's campaign committee, according to
federal law. People can donate to $5,000 to a traditional political
action committee, which essentially funnels contributions to
individual candidates, and $30,400 to a national party committee each
year.

But the Supreme Court's landmark ruling in Citizens United cleared the
way for a federal court's decision in Speechnow.org v. FEC, which
opened the floodgates for unlimited election spending by certain
outside groups, as long as they do not coordinate their activities
with any political candidates or party committees.

In the past, independent expenditures needed to collect contributions
from a large number of individuals, who were bound by federal
contribution limits, in order to be influential. Even currently, the
vast majority still do. But what's also now possible is that an
individual can start one of these groups, be the sole funder and
therefore direct in which race -- or races -- he or she wants to
intervene. Essentially, for the very wealthy, the old rules no longer
exist."


Full story he
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/1..._n_772214.html

On 22/10/2010 11:54 AM, jps wrote:

Most everyone agrees that, in order for our country to correct the
problems we're experiencing in congress, we need to enact some kind of
campaign finance reform.

This selling of legislation to the highest bidder has got to go but
how can these career politicians compete in this age of electronic
media, television being the primary and very expensive tool?

Seems like the Supreme Court would have taken this into account when
they ruled on the Citizens United case earlier this year, but no, not
even our Supreme Court can be trusted to make good decisions.

Now not only is the legislative process for sale, the election process
is even more open to manipulation by money.

This is as sickening to me as China's manipulation of currency for
advantage. Just like on Wall Street, the game is rigged.


"With many outside political groups able to raise and spend unlimited
amounts of money in the wake of the Supreme Court's Citizen United
decision, a new type of independent expenditure has popped up: ones
bankrolled completely by just one donor. These funds allow wealthy
contributors to dump large amounts of money into whichever races they
choose -- often with very little transparency -- essentially rendering
the old rules limiting individual political contributions a joke.

Take the Concerned Citizens for a Working America. The Virginia-based
political action committee (PAC) has thrown $250,000 into South
Carolina's fifth congressional district on behalf of the Republican
candidate. But who are these "concerned citizens"? It turns out that
the sole citizen is a Virginia nonprofit called New Models, which is
not required to disclose its donors.

There's also Taxpayers Against Earmarks (TAE), a new nonprofit
"dedicated to educating and engaging American taxpayers about wasteful
government spending and the misguided practice of earmarks." While its
mission is educational, it has an affiliated political arm -- what's
known as a "super PAC" for its ability to raise and spend any amount
it wants -- called the Ending Spending Fund, which just put nearly
$600,000 into the Nevada Senate race against Majority Leader Harry
Reid (D). The "taxpayers" against earmarks is actually just one man
named Joe Ricketts, founder of Ameritrade and owner of the Chicago
Cubs, who is also the sole financier of the Ending Spending Fund.

Individuals are allowed to donate only $2,400 per election to a
federal candidate or the candidate's campaign committee, according to
federal law. People can donate to $5,000 to a traditional political
action committee, which essentially funnels contributions to
individual candidates, and $30,400 to a national party committee each
year.

But the Supreme Court's landmark ruling in Citizens United cleared the
way for a federal court's decision in Speechnow.org v. FEC, which
opened the floodgates for unlimited election spending by certain
outside groups, as long as they do not coordinate their activities
with any political candidates or party committees.

In the past, independent expenditures needed to collect contributions
from a large number of individuals, who were bound by federal
contribution limits, in order to be influential. Even currently, the
vast majority still do. But what's also now possible is that an
individual can start one of these groups, be the sole funder and
therefore direct in which race -- or races -- he or she wants to
intervene. Essentially, for the very wealthy, the old rules no longer
exist."


Full story he
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/1..._n_772214.html

It isn't Chinese currency manipulation.

It is Washington DC trashing the value of a dollar to welsh on debt. DC
currency manipulation all right, print money like Monopoly and expect to
depreciate it devaling your loans in a 0% interest rate environment. I
call it government debtors fraud. As interest rates should be ahead of
currency depreciation/inflation.

You borrow in USD, then devalue it to say 1/2, then you can buy Yuan at
1/2 the price to pay back the loan.

Chinese Yaun hasn't varied that much over the years. Just
Obama/Democrat slight of hand.

US Fed and US government are running hell bent for election to
bankruptcy USA. Does not make it the Chinese fault.

--
Socialism is having nothing and wanting to share it with everyone.

On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 10:54:59 -0700, jps wrote:


Most everyone agrees that, in order for our country to correct the
problems we're experiencing in congress, we need to enact some kind of
campaign finance reform.

This selling of legislation to the highest bidder has got to go but
how can these career politicians compete in this age of electronic
media, television being the primary and very expensive tool?

Seems like the Supreme Court would have taken this into account when
they ruled on the Citizens United case earlier this year, but no, not
even our Supreme Court can be trusted to make good decisions.

the SCOTUS is far right (4 of the most conservative justices since
roosevelt are on the court now. they knew damn well what they were
doing. conservatives want the US to be a theocratic plutocracy


Take the Concerned Citizens for a Working America. The Virginia-based
political action committee (PAC) has thrown $250,000 into South
Carolina's fifth congressional district on behalf of the Republican
candidate. But who are these "concerned citizens"? It turns out that
the sole citizen is a Virginia nonprofit called New Models, which is
not required to disclose its donors.

money is flowing 7:1 to the GOP this year.

conservatives have engineered a hijacking of america in favor of the
rich

and we're about to return them to office

On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 14:07:58 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:


It isn't Chinese currency manipulation.

It is Washington DC trashing the value of a dollar to welsh on debt.

courtesy of conservative deregulation to sell the US and destroy the
middle class

You borrow in USD, then devalue it to say 1/2, then you can buy Yuan at
1/2 the price to pay back the loan.

Chinese Yaun hasn't varied that much over the years. Just
Obama/Democrat slight of hand.

bull****. the largest trasher of our economy is bush's tax cuts.


US Fed and US government are running hell bent for election to
bankruptcy USA. Does not make it the Chinese fault.

conservatives sold the US political process to the highest bidders.

On 22/10/2010 3:08 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 10:54:59 -0700, wrote:


Most everyone agrees that, in order for our country to correct the
problems we're experiencing in congress, we need to enact some kind of
campaign finance reform.

As long as the media keeps cashing in on the campaign money you will
never hear anything serious on TV or on the radio about why it is a
good idea to limit this kind of speech. If you don't hear it on TV it
must not be true.

Funny, this may be one of the last true open media areas in existence.
Everything else is moderated, fancy name for censored.

TV, given the limited amount of sources of news and media, TV is more
like a chicken factory. You line them all up and feed them the same crap.

The political system is thoroughly corrupt, and the politicians control
the TV media. The introduction to Outer Limits (SciFi) says it best,
what you see an hear is controlled.

--
Socialism is having nothing and wanting to share it with everyone.

On 22/10/2010 4:04 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 10:54:59 -0700, wrote:


Most everyone agrees that, in order for our country to correct the
problems we're experiencing in congress, we need to enact some kind of
campaign finance reform.

This selling of legislation to the highest bidder has got to go but
how can these career politicians compete in this age of electronic
media, television being the primary and very expensive tool?

Seems like the Supreme Court would have taken this into account when
they ruled on the Citizens United case earlier this year, but no, not
even our Supreme Court can be trusted to make good decisions.

the SCOTUS is far right (4 of the most conservative justices since
roosevelt are on the court now. they knew damn well what they were
doing. conservatives want the US to be a theocratic plutocracy


Take the Concerned Citizens for a Working America. The Virginia-based
political action committee (PAC) has thrown $250,000 into South
Carolina's fifth congressional district on behalf of the Republican
candidate. But who are these "concerned citizens"? It turns out that
the sole citizen is a Virginia nonprofit called New Models, which is
not required to disclose its donors.

money is flowing 7:1 to the GOP this year.

conservatives have engineered a hijacking of america in favor of the
rich

and we're about to return them to office

Amazing how the Democrats now want to control contribution moneys when
they are on the short stick. But when Obama was getting the big wad
they were rather quiet. Democrats are hypocrites that need a smack down.

And from what my US buddies tell me, it is coming. A Democrat wipe out.
Obama skid marks from NY to LA.

--
Socialism is having nothing and wanting to share it with everyone.