Is Warren running out of funding?

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by Chung Tran

.... support public funding of elections....

You are absolutely correct! Otherwise people like you might run.

Let the rich support you!

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by Chung Tran

I don't place you in the group I labeled, who do not want public funding. you are not rich or far-right enough

I will start a thread if one of the REAL right-wing nut jobs posts that he is FOR public funding. I don't expect to have to exercise my fingers

First and IMHO, the only needed question to shut down the whole idea IMHO.


Who qualifies for funding and assuming everybody "qualified" gets the same amount?


Like most bat shit crazy people, the more you hear of Warren, the more convinced you are that she is indeed bat shit crazy so her funding drying up is just a natural progression that many of us could see coming. There was only ever going to be room for Bernie or Warren and Bernie is the real deal if you are looking for a Communist dressed up as a Democratic Socialist. Go Bernie!

[oeb11]

Bernie spent his honeymoon in Moscow, USSR hob-nobbing with the nomenklatura elite.
Made a career of selling Communism to foolish liberals, and is a multi-millionaire with three houses - none of which will be prey to his proposed wealth taxes, of course.

[dilbert firestorm]

if you want a solution to the corrupt funding cycle.

banning political parties is the way to do it.

Washington was right about them being a problem.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by Unique_Carpenter

Warren's fundraising noticeably down.
So how can she convince capitalists that they should support socialism?
Good luck with that.
The Dims chewing each other up is highly entertaining.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/eli...ly-fundraising

Warren's new campaign theme ..

[Levianon17]

Originally Posted by Unique_Carpenter

Warren's fundraising noticeably down.
So how can she convince capitalists that they should support socialism?
Good luck with that.
The Dims chewing each other up is highly entertaining.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/eli...ly-fundraising

The Democrats haven't a snowball chance in hell of beating Trump that's why they need to find a way to impeach him. Fortunately for the real Americans their efforts won't remove him from office. Warren is a joke if her funds are depleted she'll drop out by spring time.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by Chung Tran

of course, none of you that sport a broad smile at Warren's fundraising difficulty, would support public funding of elections. you are not about to give up that huge built-in advantage you have, slashing Corporate tax rates in return for major funding in your (Republican) campaigns.

Be careful what you wish for:

Combined, dark money groups spent approximately $150 million during the 2018 election cycle, with liberal dark money groups accounting for about 54 percent of that sum. At the same time, conservative dark money groups accounted for about 31 percent of all dark money spending, and groups classified as bipartisan or nonpartisan accounted for about 15 percent. One liberal dark money group — Majority Forward — alone accounted for about $1 of every $3 in dark money spending in 2018.

https://www.issueone.org/wp-content/...ini-Report.pdf

David Koch, a true American Hero, is dead. Democrats like Michael Bloomberg, Tom Steyer, Donald Sussman, and George Soros have stepped up their spending.

Linking corporate tax cuts to Republican campaign donations doesn't make a lot of sense. For one thing, the huge donations are mostly coming from non profit PAC's and the like. And the "For Profit" corporations, which benefited from the tax cuts, probably contribute more to Democrats than Republicans - see

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php?id=

[eccieuser9500]

Originally Posted by Tiny

Be careful what you wish for:

Combined, dark money groups spent approximately $150 million during the 2018 election cycle, with liberal dark money groups accounting for about 54 percent of that sum. At the same time, conservative dark money groups accounted for about 31 percent of all dark money spending, and groups classified as bipartisan or nonpartisan accounted for about 15 percent. One liberal dark money group — Majority Forward — alone accounted for about $1 of every $3 in dark money spending in 2018.

https://www.issueone.org/wp-content/...ini-Report.pdf

David Koch, a true American Hero, is dead. Democrats like Michael Bloomberg, Tom Steyer, Donald Sussman, and George Soros have stepped up their spending.

Linking corporate tax cuts to Republican campaign donations doesn't make a lot of sense. For one thing, the huge donations are mostly coming from non profit PAC's and the like. And the "For Profit" corporations, which benefited from the tax cuts, probably contribute more to Democrats than Republicans - see

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php?id=

The Kocks weren't the first to buy politicians. They won't be the last. We just stand on opposite sides of "progress". David Koch was not a hero. I'm being nice out of respect to you Tiny.

Citizens United v. FEC, 08-205

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/summary/...21/167759.html

Specifically, in an action brought by a nonprofit corporation, the makers of a documentary critical of Hillary Clinton's presidential candidacy, challenging the constitutionality of a federal law prohibiting corporations and unions from using their general treasury funds to make independent expenditures for speech that was an "electioneering communication" or for speech that expressly advocated the election or defeat of a candidate, a denial of a preliminary injunction for plaintiff is reversed in part where Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, 494 U.S. 652 (1990), is overruled, and thus provides no basis for allowing the government to limit corporate independent expenditures. Hence, the part of McConnell v. Federal Election Comm'n, 540 U.S. 93 (2007), that upheld the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act section 203's extension of section 441b's restrictions on independent corporate expenditures is also overruled. However, the order is affirmed in part where BCRA sections 201 and 311 were valid as applied to the ads for the documentary and to the movie itself because disclaimer and disclosure requirements may burden the ability to speak, but they imposed no ceiling on campaign-related activities, or prevented anyone from speaking.

Money talks. Bullshit walks. More disclosure is needed.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

Citizens United v. FEC, 08-205

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/summary/...21/167759.html




Money talks. Bullshit walks. More disclosure is needed.

Citizens United was a nonprofit 501(c)(4) corporation. Planned Parenthood, AARP, America Votes, the ACLU, and a lot of other left leaning organizations have 501(c)(4)'s. Citizens United's "Crime" was airing a movie about Hillary Clinton too close to an election. It doesn't seem any different to me than Michael Moore's company airing Fahrenheit 11/9 about Trump or Fahrenheit 9/11 about George W. Bush. This does appear to me to be a legitimate freedom of speech issue. If people want to pool their funds to produce movies badmouthing politicians, more power to them.

As to disclosure, I believe all 501(c)(4) organizations had to publish lists of major donors up until recently. I think I disagree with this required disclosure. There was an organization, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, who were spouting untruths about John Kerry when he was running for president. Anyway, the IRS went through their list of donors and started auditing them. So while I strongly disagreed with the methods of the organization, the potential for government retribution, like what the IRS did, outweighs this.

[eccieuser9500]

Originally Posted by Tiny

Citizens United was a nonprofit 501(c)(4) corporation. Planned Parenthood, AARP, America Votes, the ACLU, and a lot of other left leaning organizations have 501(c)(4)'s. Citizens United's "Crime" was airing a movie about Hillary Clinton too close to an election. It doesn't seem any different to me than Michael Moore's company airing Fahrenheit 11/9 about Trump or Fahrenheit 9/11 about George W. Bush. This does appear to me to be a legitimate freedom of speech issue. If people want to pool their funds to produce movies badmouthing politicians, more power to them.

As to disclosure, I believe all 501(c)(4) organizations had to publish lists of major donors up until recently. I think I disagree with this required disclosure. There was an organization, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, who were spouting untruths about John Kerry when he was running for president. Anyway, the IRS went through their list of donors and started auditing them. So while I strongly disagreed with the methods of the organization, the potential for government retribution, like what the IRS did, outweighs this.

Very well said, sir. The dark money comes from private organizations with their own, hidden, agenda. The donors, in my opinion, should not be held responsible for any libel the receiving party may engage in. But it would be nice if those acts were subject to accountability. Including it's funding.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

Very well said, sir. The dark money comes from private organizations with their own, hidden, agenda. The donors, in my opinion, should not be held responsible for any libel the receiving party may engage in. But it would be nice if those acts were subject to accountability. Including it's funding.

I understand your point of view, it makes sense, although mine's a bit different.

[eccieuser9500]

Originally Posted by Tiny

I understand your point of view, it makes sense, although mine's a bit different.

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by Tiny

Citizens United was a nonprofit 501(c)(4) corporation. Planned Parenthood, AARP, America Votes, the ACLU, and a lot of other left leaning organizations have 501(c)(4)'s. Citizens United's "Crime" was airing a movie about Hillary Clinton too close to an election. It doesn't seem any different to me than Michael Moore's company airing Fahrenheit 11/9 about Trump or Fahrenheit 9/11 about George W. Bush. This does appear to me to be a legitimate freedom of speech issue. If people want to pool their funds to produce movies badmouthing politicians, more power to them.

As to disclosure, I believe all 501(c)(4) organizations had to publish lists of major donors up until recently. I think I disagree with this required disclosure. There was an organization, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, who were spouting untruths about John Kerry when he was running for president. Anyway, the IRS went through their list of donors and started auditing them. So while I strongly disagreed with the methods of the organization, the potential for government retribution, like what the IRS did, outweighs this.

something similar happened in California with the anti-gay marriage proposition. the opponents of the anti-gay marriage proposition got hold of the donation list and started outing and bad mouthing the people who donated to that cause.

[LexusLover]

Perhaps Warren should put her Native skills to work and start making moccasins and beads to sell .... the shopping season is about gone though. The recipes went flat since they weren't hers.