I take it all those upset about Citizens United will be just as (if not more) upset with this...

"It's all legal under a recent Federal Election Committee ruling that draws a distinction between speaking at a super PAC event and soliciting money. Under the ruling â€" that was requested by a Democratic super PAC â€" candidates for office and their representatives can appear at events for outside groups as long as they either abstain from soliciting money directly or only ask for contributions up to the legal contribution limit for campaigns. In practice, this means that as long as candidates, government officials or surrogates don't say the words "give," "donate" or any other variation on soliciting funds, they can raise unlimited money for the outside groups â€" even from corporations and unions."

this sucks. someone needs to fix it.

#3 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2012-02-13 03:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

Obama is the one that initiated this... I doubt he will fix it... but I doubt that will stop you from giving money to him and voting for him either.

I take it all those upset about Citizens United will be just as (if not more) upset with this...

#1 | Posted by ExpsRedemption at 2012-02-13 03:30 PM

Are you upset that CU has made money in politics a more severe problem? Or just that Obama can raise funds?

I long for the days when the most we had to complain about was some donor sleeping in the Lincoln bed room.

#5 | Posted by DARTHCHENEY at 2012-02-13 04:09 PM | Reply | Flag:

I am upset with both.

And if Obama really believe what he said regarding Citizens United... he wouldn't have used super PACs to begin with and he sure as hell would not have used this method of using the super PACs.

#5 | Posted by DARTHCHENEY at 2012-02-13 04:09 PM | Reply | Flag:

Your turn. Were you upset with the CU decision? Are you just as upset about this?

Are you upset about Obama's hypocrisy in this issue as much as you are upset about Bush's hypocrisy on issues?

If you answer no to any of these you have earned your Derpcheney name.

#6 | Posted by paneocon

See what Rwing activist SC justices will get you?

#9 | Posted by Corky at 2012-02-13 04:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

What? Obama using things he doesn't agree with in more egregious ways than the original uses he didn't agree with?

What? Morons want the other side to disarm unilaterally when the rules are changed in mid-stream?

And really thought they would?

hahahaha!!

#9 | Posted by Corky See what Rwing activist SC justices will get you?

Yes adherence to the constitution.

Yeah, I love the part in the Constitution where corporate entities are declared American citizens.

Get 7 year old to read this for you...

#11 | Posted by Corky at 2012-02-13 04:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

No, I don't expect people who make foolish statements before they realize the ramifications of their statements to "disarm unilaterally" when they realize their statements were foolish.

However, when they claim that they still have issues with the process they will be taking full advantage of(while still trying to villainize the opposition for using the same process)and then use that process in a more egregious way... you don't expect them to do that, if they really had a problem in the first place.

You see, when they do that, you end up with someone to appears to be either :

a. a hypocrite
b. a liar spouting empty rhetoric

#13 | Posted by Corky

Maybe you should read the case law rather than having someone else tell you what to think.

"I long for the days when the most we had to complain about was some donor sleeping in the Lincoln bed room."
#6 | Posted by paneocon

this sucks. someone needs to fix it.

#3 | POSTED BY BRUCEBANNER AT 2012-02-13 03:42 PM

YES

Make it simple, only individuals can donate to a candidate. Obviously there would need to be some stipulations, checks and balances.

That's not how free speech works, asshat.

It's really simple.

1) Let corporations and individuals give as much as they want to candidates.

2) Make that donation non-tax-deductible.

3) Let any donor that donates have their books publicly opened to make sure no illegally obtained money is given to candidates.

3) Let any donor that donates have their books publicly opened to make sure no illegally obtained money is given to candidates.
#19 | Posted by Lipzoidial

When you get the unions to open up their books we can talk.

Surprised this didn't go to the front page. You would think something worse than Citizens United would be a big deal for RCADE.

1) Let corporations and individuals give as much as they want to candidates.
2) Make that donation non-tax-deductible.

Political donations are not tax deductible now.

"When you get the unions to open up their books we can talk."

What a maroon. Unions' books are open. They file LMs every year. And any political contributions must be noted as non-chargeable expenses, so fi-core folks don't pay for anything they don't want.

"Unions' books are open."

So, are you now for the donors opening up their books, or were you just barfing a bullshit talking point because you thought you were trading for something impossible?

Hmmmm....telling how Lokisfur ran for cover when someone accepted his offer of a deal.

#25 | Posted by Danforth at 2012-02-14 05:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

Danforth, is everyone Lokisfur? (I just used a question mark! I must be Lokisfur too!)

I take it all those upset about Citizens United will be just as (if not more) upset with this...

#1 | Posted by ExpsRedemption at 2012-02-13 03:30 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag:

I take it all those gleefully cheering about Citizens United will be just as (if not more) fine with this...

#27 | Posted by COMMONSENSE at 2012-02-15 01:09 PM | Reply | Flag:

I'm not fine with either. How about you?

Unions' books are open."
#24 | Posted by Danforth

"Link"

We will start with SEIU books for say 2008?

#25 | Posted by Danforth

If you mean me I'm here and still waiting? Tic toc.

"We will start with SEIU books for say 2008?"

Do your own damned homework. LM-2s are public documents.

"If you mean me I'm here and still waiting?"

Hold your breath.

"Danforth, is everyone Lokisfur?"

No, just Paneocon/Rastaninja/Bowa/
Derfla

I confused you with him because you're just as dumb.

#31 | Posted by Danforth at 2012-02-15 04:35 PM | Reply | Flag: I'm just making stuff up now... because I look like a paranoid goof.

"Flag: I'm just making stuff up now."

No, it's true: you're just as dumb, and just as intellectually dishonest.