Democrats Wrestle With Court Decision
Jan 25, 2010 Political
This past week the Supreme Court ruled that corporations were allowed to spend as much as they want to support or oppose a political candidate or issue. Corporations are still limited in how much they can donate to a candidate but they are now allowed to spend what they want on things like political ads that favor or oppose a candidate. The issue revolves around free speech and the Court ruled that this was a free speech issue.
Democrats had expected this ruling and are now looking at ways to curb the process. Several ideas are floating around that would involve CEOs being required to get shareholder approval before funding political advertisements and not allowing the costs to be deducted as a business expense on taxes. There is also an idea that would require the CEO to be the voice on the ad approving the message.
Will any of these restrictions apply to the unions? SEIU spent millions of dollars in support of Obama and helped get him elected. The unions spent over half a million dollars trying to get Coakley elected in Massachusetts. The unions, and you can name them from SEIU to the teacher’s unions, spend huge sums of money on Democrats in order to get them elected. There has never been any concern among Democrats with regard to curbing the spending of their supporters. Since they view this ruling as something that will favor Republicans they now want restrictions placed on the process.
I don’t like the idea of any group spending a fortune to get a candidate elected or to push a particular agenda but they have the right to spend their money as they wish. My problem lies in the expected favors that follow. Groups spend money (in favor of or opposed to both political parties) and when all is said and done they expect payback. Democrats have their feathers ruffled now but they have been the recipients of huge sums of money from their supporters who seem to be able to spend as much as they want.
I wonder why the unions don’t have to get the permission of union members before they spend money on a candidate. Perhaps if the unions stopped spending millions and millions of dollars on candidates and issues they would have the money to fulfill the obligations they have to their members. Maybe then they would not have to come to the taxpayer with hat in hand looking for us to pay their way.
We scream about Wall Street paying huge salaries and bonuses and then taking taxpayer money to get right and yet we do not make a sound when the unions spend millions on candidates and then beg us for money to keep their members employed and plush with benefits.
I don’t like all the influence that is bought by any organization spending money on politics but it is their money and they can spend it however they wish. But if the Democrats are going to impose all kinds of rules then those rules need to apply to everyone, including their friends in the unions.
Source:
WSJ
If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.
Tags: donations, free speech, influence, law, politics, supreme court
Obama Breaks Pledge On Inauguration Donations
Jan 11, 2009 Political
The sainted one supposedly did not take PAC money during the campaigns though he took it from people associated with PACs. He also received large sums of money from questionable, and probably illegal, sources. For his inauguration he promised that the money that came in for his coronation would not come from interests.
The Wall Street Journal has reviewed the donations for the event and concluded that Obama has not kept his word.
Wall Street employees have been the largest single source of private donations, and many of the contributions have been channeled through financial-services executives who have put together bundles of donations worth hundreds of thousands of dollars.
“The preponderance of large donors and the fact that so many come from an industry receiving government handouts comes as the president-elect has sought to keep his inauguration free of special interests,” The Journal observed.
Bundlers from the financial sector include executives from Citigroup Inc. and Goldman Sachs Group Inc., two firms that have accepted billions of dollars each in bailout money from the federal government.
Where did these entities get the money to donate? If they were in such dire straits that they needed money from the government to survive, where did they come up with funds to donate for the inauguration?
Was the money donated taxpayer money? Was this a method to get around directly using taxpaer money for the event?
Regardless of where it came from it seems like an extreme conflict for them to donate when they have their hands out and when Obama has promised the most expensive use of taxpayer money in history.
I thought he promised that electing him would end the business as usual practices of DC.
Looks like the sainted one is nothing more than a politician who has his own best interests at heart.
Not to worry though, he will say Hope and Change a few times and people will swoon and forget the whole thing.
However, I am reminded of the lipstick and pig thing…
Source:
Newsmax
If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader.
Tags: coronation, donations, inauguration, Obama, special interests, taxpayer
Obama Funded with Drug Money
May 22, 2008 Opinion, Political
The Democrats love to tell stories about how they are for the little guy, the working class schmoes who only need the government to help them move along. The Democrats love to tell everyone how companies are screwing them over at every turn. According to the left the problems with oil right now are because of the oil companies and not the policies of Congress. One favorite of the left is the pharmaceutical companies. The liberals love to take shots at drug manufacturers and how Republicans favor them and let them charge whatever they want. Drug prices, the left says, are high because of the drug company’s policies that hurt the working class. Once again, the policies of the government that contribute to the mess are overlooked.
While they are out there accusing the right of taking drug company money the left is raking it in themselves. For the first time in quite some time Democrats are getting more money from the drug companies than are Republicans. Barack Obama has received $639,124 from drug and medical device companies and that is the highest amount given to any of the three.
Have we heard anything about Obama giving the money back? Have we heard anyone suggest that Obama is the reason drug prices are high? Have we heard about how he must be in bed with them and that he is responsible for the problems of the middle class and working poor who just want reasonably priced medication? No we have not and we likely never will. Political donations from big business are only evil when they go to Republicans. Democrats accept the money to do God’s work.
I want all the liberals out there to keep this information in mind when Barry Obamessiah starts talking about health care and drug companies and how evil they are. I want you to remember this when he talks about drug companies giving money to Republicans or how drug companies have too much influence in Congress.
I would say that Obama’s position of criticizing Congress for taking the money and then taking it himself amounts to nothing more than the Audacity of Dope…
Source:
WBAL (via the AP)
Tags: donations, drug money, hypocrisy, Obama, pharmaceutical companies
Why Did they Fail to Amend FISA?
Feb 18, 2008 Political
The Democratically controlled Congress recessed (more time off) last week without providing an amendment to FISA. The sticking point was language that granted immunity to telecommunications companies that had cooperated with the government in the past. The immunity was reasonable given that the companies acted in good faith and should not be sued for providing information that they believed to be (and probably was) legal to provide.
The Congress chose to grill baseball players about steroid use rather than provide a tool needed to prevent terror attacks. Why would they ignore the security of our country (besides the fact that they are Democrats)? Perhaps it is because the trial lawyers who stand to make a fortune from suing the telecommunications companies have given a huge sum of money to the Democrats. Amanda Carpenter, writing for TownHall.com, reports:
Court records and campaign contribution data reveal that 66 trial lawyers representing plaintiffs in lawsuits against these phone companies donated at least $1.5 million to Democrats, including 44 current Democratic senators.
All of the trial lawyers combined only contributed $4,250 to Republicans in comparison. Those contributions were made to: Sen. John Cornyn (Tex.), Rep. Tom Davis (Va.), Sen. Lindsay Graham (S.C.), Sen. Mel Martinez, and Sen. Arlen Specter (Pa.).
In order to find the truth in politics it is often necessary to follow the money. The money trail here leads to Democrats and shows that they took lots of cash from the people who would benefit from the exclusion of immunity. The Democrats have, once again, sold out this country. This list includes Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, two people who claim to be qualified to run this country.
While the Congress enjoys a 13 day President’s Day holiday, the rest of us are a little less safe because they put special interests first.
Others with interesting posts:
Pirate’s Cove, Leaning Straight Up, A Newt One, DragonLady’s World, Right Truth, and Shadowscope, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Project Valour IT
Oct 28, 2007 Military
Ladies and gentlemen, it is once again that time of year where we all work together to solicit donations for Project Valour IT. What is Project Valour IT, you ask? It is a program that purchases laptop computers for our wounded warriors. These laptops are fitted with special software that allows our troops to communicate and to use the computer despite their serious injuries (Voice-Activated Laptops for OUR Injured Troops).
This year I have joined the Army team and have placed the widget so that it will show next to the first post of this page until the campaign is over (11 November 2007). While we have teams and there is friendly competition, the only real winners here are our warriors who benefit from your generosity.
I know that this is the time of year where everyone asks for some of your money and I know that there are more hands out than there are dollar bills. All I ask is that when you are looking at the list of who you wish to donate to, please consider helping our wounded warriors.
Thanks and God Bless
Tags: 11 november, army team, donations, laptop computers, laptops, valour, wounded warriors
Loading ...
Loading... 
