Biden endorses bill to disclose Super PAC donors

You “suspect” what we’d get is some 2000 page bill? Based on what? Old talking points about the Affordable Care Act? I’m guessing very few bills reach that level of complexity. In either case, you do realize you can easily read any bill to see for yourself how many pages it actually is and what the content is?

Here. Let me help you out.

https://www.congress.gov/117/bills/s4822/BILLS-117s4822pcs.pdf

This one is 63 pages.

 

Although corruption is real most of them didn't get wealthy while in office. A lot of them were wealthy before they are elected and while I think the practice known as the "revolving door" should be prohibited many become wealthy after they have left elected office and were hired by lobbying firms, trade associations or companies which have had a direct interest in legislation. Although the numbers are probably in the hundreds perhaps the most egregious example is former Louisiana Representative Billy Tauzin. Tauzin was the Chairman of the House Committee that wrote the Medicare Part D legislation. As a reward for including the provision prohibiting Medicare from negotiating drug prices he was hired as the head of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA).[6], the trade association representing the big pharmaceutical companies at a salary of around $2 million a year, roughly ten times what was earning as a member of Congress.

 

You cut them more slack than I do.

 

You can defend them if you wish. WTF difference does it make whether the bill is 63 or 2,000 if the “stated” intention of the bill can be accomplished in two pages?

I apologize to you if you were offended by my exaggeration. The fact that you replied the way you did and defended them tells everyone here, regardless of party, that you are fine with the bullshit way these ass clowns run our government and spend OUR money.

 

Bud, you are the one stuck on nonsensical talking points… that bills are commonly 2000 pages long or that your taxes should all fit on a postcard.

You claimed to be a “do your own research” type in the past, so I was merely trying to lead an aging horse to water (the actual source document), I can’t force you to drink. Unlike the monstrosity of the ACA, 63 pages seems entirely reasonable and comprehensible (it should be noted the formatting makes it more like 20 pages of actual reading), but if you want to wallow in ignorance rather than blow through a mere 20 pages before commenting on a subject then you do you. I’d suggest the people you are railing against rely on an ignorant populous to get their way, don’t make it easy for them.

 

Dude, go on ahead and hope and believe that these cretins to produce a bill disclosing PAC money without pages and pages of exceptions and pork. Go on ahead. You need to take a good hard look at what your belief in big government has brought us over the last few decades.

 

$40 in August. Is there hope the rubes are figuring it out?

Donald Trump’s super Pac raised just $40 in August in sign of weakness | Financial Times (ft.com)

meanwhile, his superpac fund to save america from the libs, is spending all their $$ on attorneys and fashion consultants

Primary meddlers revealed as Trump hoards his millions: Takeaways from new campaign finance reports - POLITICO

The former president’s leadership committee did not make any contributions to Republican candidates or causes in the month of August outside of a $150,000 donation to a PAC opposing Cheney. But it did spend $3.8 million on legal fees and a bit shy of $800,000 on events and travel. The group still has $99 million cash on hand, according to its latest filing.

Save America PAC primarily does its fundraising through another group, the Save America Joint Fundraising Committee, which reports its finances on a different schedule. The joint committee did not shift any of its proceeds to Save America PAC in August, so the latter group’s monthly fundraising report does not include any information about the response generated by Trump’s massive fundraising operation in the wake of the Aug. 8 court-ordered search for classified documents at Mar-a-Lago. The joint committee has heavily cited the FBI search in fundraising appeals, and it reportedly saw a spike in donations.

Trump’s leadership PAC still has more resources on hand than either of the two parties’ national committees. As of the end of August, the Democratic and Republican National Committees collectively had $80 million in the bank: $55.8 million for the DNC and $24.2 million for the RNC.

 

good read on superpac and who got involved in wha tpriamries, including a dem PAC supporting a MAGA candidate

Primary meddlers revealed as Trump hoards his millions: Takeaways from new campaign finance reports - POLITICO

The filings revealed that Trump’s leadership PAC was still sitting on nearly $100 million at the end of last month. And save for a contribution to a group that helped defeat Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) in her primary, the PAC did not contribute anything to the battle for Congress, even amid fundraising struggles for some GOP candidates in notable races.
..................
House Majority PAC, Democrats’ flagship House super PAC, funded a group that jumped into the Sept. 13 GOP contest to challenge Rep. Annie Kuster (D-N.H.). The super PAC made a $125,000 contribution on Aug. 25 to Democrats Serve, another super PAC that backs Democrats with public service backgrounds. That group ran nearly $570,000 in TV ads boosting Bob Burns, a far-right Republican who opposes abortion rights, over moderate GOP Mayor George Hansel, who was backed by Republican Gov. Chris Sununu.

House Majority PAC only had to disclose contributions made during the month of August on this reporting deadline, so it’s possible the super PAC seeded Democrats Serve with even more money in early September. Another connection to the race: Abby Curran Horrell, House Majority PAC’s executive director, was previously a top aide to Kuster.

Meanwhile, a GOP group that played in New Hampshire in favor of Hansel, American Liberty Action PAC, received funding from two lesser-known groups on the right that have been active in 2022 primaries. American Liberty Action PAC got $1.6 million from the Eighteen Fifty Four Fund, a group formed by Kevin McLaughlin, a former National Republican Senatorial Committee executive director, that has tried to stymie far-right candidates in GOP primaries. American Liberty Action PAC also nabbed a $2.6 million transfer from American Prosperity Alliance, a group incorporated in May that lists Parker Poling, the 2020 National Republican Congressional Committee executive director, as a member of its board, according to OpenSecrets.

 

Are you for or against this bill?

You can’t actually answer that question. Yet you are surely voting straight line for the party that voted against it. So nice they can still rely on your vote.

 

The thing you apparently don’t understand is bills are long not because they write in “exceptions”, but in legal terms everything has to be defined and spelled out, otherwise a lawyer will argue in court that their spending was not applicable under the law… and they’d win!

While some laws are written with lobbyist influence, at worst even complete regulatory capture. Clearly that is not *always* the case, and you are in no position to argue if you refuse to even read the bill in question. That is my point here.

Don’t mistake this for me being naive in this issue. I have no doubt even if such a law is passed it is hardly the end of corrupt $$$ influence. Lawyers will still litigate, bad actors will creatively try and chip away at it, or Mr. “Corporations are people” on the Supreme Court could just overturn it based on whatever reasoning suits him on that day. The “litigating” element is our system, for better or for worse. I view a bill like this as more planting a flag in the ground and nothing else. Kind of amazing the 180 “drain the swamp” folks have done. It would be laughable if it weren’t so tragic.

 

When ill informed, be indignant and pound the table…..and be snarky while you’re at it.

 

Good post, but you’re wasting your breath

 

It’s like Trading Places these days, but the futures are ours.
Thanks SCOTUS

 

I stayed in the beginning that i was for it but I have no confidence that by the time Nancy, Chuckie, Mitchie, and Kevie get finished with it then it will be just as I described: long, full of exceptions and pork. I really don’t see where my position on this is overly complicated or would imply that I don’t support the goal.

 

The basic rationale is that corporations are able to structure themselves under the law in a way that allows them to accumulate vast amounts of wealth. States are allowed to place narrowly tailored restrictions on corporations (and people too) if there's a compelling purpose. Preventing corruption---i.e., the purchasing of legislators---is a compelling purpose. Makes complete sense to me.

Hell, we currently have federal caps on how much we can directly donate to a candidate. Do you think those are unconstitutional? If not, why are caps on indirect contributions unconstitutional?

 

Heres my thinking, but I’m not sure I understand the indirect contribution structure exactly, so please correct if I am wrong.

If government was making direct contributions, eg an NSF grant or something, then of course I think the recipient shouldn’t be able to use that for political purposes. Just as a nonpartisan government employee can’t make official endorsements.

However, you are arguing for something much less direct: that these companies are making more than they would have without government rules, so therefore government is entitled to say how these companies use their profit. This I think is a much more nuanced proposition.

First, I don’t even know if the proposition is true that corporations hold more wealth because of these laws. All companies must cover their costs and respond to competitive prices, so the amount they carry seems almost independent of the particular laws of the land. Second, this same issue can be true of you or me, if we take advantage of tax breaks or public schools. Then the government rules can be seen to allow us to have more wealth than we otherwise would have, therefore the government should have say over how we spend our money.

I think the stronger argument is about relative power, but it’s a completely arbitrary one and one that is difficult to measure. I see your problem, and I agree with it, I just have a hard time envisioning a clear and justifiable remedy.

 

What I am arguing is corruption is a major problem in politics, so capping the amount of money people AND corporations can spend getting a politician elected is constitutional. Corporations might be forced to have some special rules under the law (in terms of transparency), but that's only because they're given special advantages under the law.

I can't shield my identity when I donate as an individual person. But corporate forms might allow other people to shield their identities when donating. Why should they get that special protection?

I'll simply ask this again. In federal elections, direct contributions to candidates are capped at $2,900 (for the general). Do you think those caps are unconstitutional?

 

I think blanket laws that apply universally are more defensible. I also think capping direct contributions is sensible. The gray area I see is contributing to an independent organization.

Let’s imagine that you and I don’t like Trump, which shouldn’t be too difficult. As a result, you and I start our own website explaining why he is a danger to the nation. Should there be a cap on how much time or money we put into that endeavor? Should there be a cap on how much others can contribute? How much should those caps be? And what if we instead started websites on particular issues, like abortion or immigration. Should our resource contribution for each of these be capped or should each of us have a total cap to spend on all political speech? And what constitutes political speech? Would now the definition of a woman be political?

Maybe I’m thinking about this wrong, but it certainly seems like we run of risk of quelling free speech here.

 

Good.

I prefer no restrictions on any person, group, or business.