HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Secrecy Shrouds ‘Super PA...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Thu Feb 2, 2012, 10:14 AM

Secrecy Shrouds ‘Super PAC’ Funds in Latest Filings

Newly disclosed details of the millions of dollars flowing into political groups are highlighting not just the scale of donations from corporation and unions but also the secrecy surrounding “super PACs” seeking to influence the presidential race.

-snip-

Some came from companies closely identified with prominent industrialists or financiers, like Contran, a mammoth holding company controlled by the Texas billionaire Harold Simmons, a patron of a number of conservative groups and candidates, and Blue Ridge Capital, a New York hedge fund founded by the wealthy investor John A. Griffin, a supporter of Mitt Romney.


But some checks came from sources obscured from public view, like a $250,000 contribution to a super PAC backing Mr. Romney from a company with a post office box for a headquarters and no known employees.


President Obama still outpaces the Republican candidates when it comes to direct fundraising filling campaign coffers. But the big money, the more secretive stuff, is coming from these groups running ads and engaging in other activities to influence the election.

-snip-

Most of the money disclosed this week went to independent groups supporting Republicans, giving them an enormous money advantage over similar Democratic groups in the first phase of the 2012 election cycle. Such donations were made possible by the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision in 2010 and subsequent court rulings, which opened the door to unlimited corporate and union contributions to political committees and made it possible to pool that money with unlimited contributions from wealthy individuals.


Much more at this must read NY Times article. The terrifying ones are the ones that allow for donors to hide their identities -- god only knows what foreign and illicit entities are buying their candidates and our elections.

5 replies, 1537 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 5 replies Author Time Post
Reply Secrecy Shrouds ‘Super PAC’ Funds in Latest Filings (Original post)
tpsbmam Feb 2012 OP
muriel_volestrangler Feb 2012 #1
cstanleytech Feb 2012 #2
glowing Feb 2012 #3
Ruby the Liberal Feb 2012 #4
Igel Feb 2012 #5

Response to tpsbmam (Original post)

Thu Feb 2, 2012, 10:26 AM

1. Untraceable money pouring in

Or at least untraceable for a few years, until the shell companies have to finally file some proper accounts. Elections, for hire or sale.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tpsbmam (Original post)

Thu Feb 2, 2012, 11:13 AM

2. Well thank goodness SCOTUS made the ruling I say.

After all where would we be if buying an election wasnt possible? Well....other than being more free of graft and corruption I mean.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tpsbmam (Original post)

Thu Feb 2, 2012, 11:31 AM

3. A company with a P.O. Box and no known employees... Sounds to me like that's

a company that may actually be a foreign rich person who is buying influence into the political process... Citizen United decision is one of the more terrifying decisions that has been made out of this corrupt group of 5 on the Supreme Court. AND just how did we get this terrifying, rigged group of Supreme Bullies? We had them decide an election in 2000. The Bush Selection allowed for 2 Supreme Court justices to fill the bench; one being the Chief Justice. So, now we have an Alito, Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Kennedy who have tipped the scale in Republican favor. Had the recount continued in FL and the investigation into hanging chad's and what not continued, we could have had 2 justices appointed by a Democrat... OR had John Kerry pushed for investigations into the shenanigans that occurred in Ohio, we would had 2 justices appointed by a Democrat.

The balance on the court desperately needs tipping back. The country has suffered for much too long because of the corrupt judges sitting on the bench today. It would be extremely beneficial to the country if congress would bring on investigations of Thomas. He literally lied on the disclosure form about his wife's employment. Thomas, Scalia, and Alito (I think possibly Roberts too?) have been seen mingling at political fundraising events for Republicans. The court needs a good cleaning. I'm not sure who gets to investigate, if its House or Senate?... No matter what a real investigation needs to take place. Like everything else Republicans do, they have made a mockery out of the traditions and intentions of how our country is supposed to work and operate.

They don't even bother to pretend or cover up their tracks anymore. They are flagrant and in everyone's face about their total corruption... And what is even done about any of it. There is so much money involved in politics.. that its just a rotation of evil rotten over-priveleged wealthy people giving kick-backs to each other and keeping themselves protected from the rabble rousing 99% by utilizing their overly militarized police protections (thank you 9/11 for allowing all these police depts to go on a buying spree of lethal weapons-- which is now being used mainly on American citizens, rather than terrorists), along with private security and gated communities far enough away from the rest of the people. And, of course, they have bought all the media, so they propagandize everything and have at least 30% to 50% of the country willing to lay down their lives to defend and protect them from the rest of the people who see through the veil, depending on what's going on in their own pockets.

I have glimmers of hope of the people getting their power back. Because they have isolated themselves so much from the masses, I don't think they realize just how far they have taken things. If, at least, the middle-class was doing ok, they would have more support, but the middle class is becoming the poor class very quickly. I'm not sure they actually understand that if those at the bottom do not have money to pay for a roof over their heads or for food on the table, then they aren't going to be able to afford to buy other things. At some point they will lose out, they can't just trade money back and forth to one another. They have to be able to have people who can buy things from them.

Just listen to Mitt when he's off the teleprompter and speaking.... The media call all his off the cuff remarks gaffs, but really its the glimmer of truth as to how the privileged in this country really think. The man makes nearly $60,000 a day being unemployed off of investments and carried interest. At the same time they try to argue that a teacher making $40,000 is making too much money and that their unions are bankrupting the country. They think they earned this money when they literally were born 10 steps ahead of everyone else. Their greed is destroying the people and the environment worldwide. It is imperative that this man does not ascend to the White House thrown... Its really imperative that we have people all the way down-ticket to even dog catcher who are not completely corrupt and bought and can stop our country from swirling down the toilet bowl.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tpsbmam (Original post)

Thu Feb 2, 2012, 11:41 AM

4. But the Senate is on it.

This didn't get much attention yesterday, but I found it amusing.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/101441511

They should have done this 2 years ago when the decision first came down.

One wonders what Alito thinks now (he of the "thats not true" during 2011 SOTU)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ruby the Liberal (Reply #4)

Thu Feb 2, 2012, 09:11 PM

5. Lots of things are amusing.

Some aren't very funny, but are still amusing.

So one contingent is convinced that money does not equal speech.

Then the problem is that large donors get more speech because they donate more money. How money doesn't equal speech in a very real, practical sense is a mystery to me.

Then we hear of large corporate donations from corporations privately owned by a very small number of people. Then are told that corporations aren't people (which is nicely ambiguous, with some people who say this arguing against corporate personhood and others arguing that corporations invariably have a kind of group-think that is distinct from any actual person's thinking).

The real question is whether groups of people have, in any sense, the rights of individuals. We actually are split on the issue: When it's a for-profit corporation we think it's clear, when it's a non-profit corporation we're less clear, and when it's a group that isn't incorporated we insist that the legal papers of incorporation are all important.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread