Koch Brothers spending vs the Unions

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by whell

Not so different. Dems also got a nice bump this fall during the shut down. It goes in cycles.

Bumps and potholes happen, at different times for different reasons with different constituencies. These "snapshots" don't reflect long term reality.

Regarding "Americans for Responsible Solutions": This message appears right on their web site home page:

"Paid for by Americans for Responsible Solutions, a section 501(c)(4) issue advocacy organization, and Americans for Responsible Solutions PAC, a federal political committee. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee."

Of course, they're political. It's through "politics" that they hope to advance their agenda but are they partisan? I'm on their mailing list and have been since they were formed. Not once have I been solicited to asupport a candidate of any party. They are an single-issue advocacy organization. That issue, with about 90% of the country at least somewhat sympathetic to it, transcends party affiliation.

John

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by whell

I mean, I know that the left loves to bitch about Citizens United and all, but it certainly does seem like both parties love to feed at that particular trough

So, you're saying that the Democrats should be "true to their principles" and forgo the use of the Citizens United decision in their fundraising efforts, ceding that ground to their opponents in the service of higher principles?

John

[whell]

Originally Posted by Boreas

So, you're saying that the Democrats should be "true to their principles" and forgo the use of the Citizens United decision in their fundraising efforts, ceding that ground to their opponents in the service of higher principles?

John

I'm suggesting that its absolutely rich how some members of this forum speak with forked tongues on this issue. I'm suggesting that Democrats - at least the inside-the -beltway variety of Democrats - ARE being "true to their principles" in leveraging the CU decision. Yet, the Dem's participating in sucking in PAC milk money is largely ignored because it doesn't the fit narratives that some here like to subscribe to.

[JJIII]

Originally Posted by Ike Bana

Really?

Yep.

[whell]

Originally Posted by Boreas

Of course, they're political. It's through "politics" that they hope to advance their agenda but are they partisan? I'm on their mailing list and have been since they were formed. Not once have I been solicited to asupport a candidate of any party. They are an single-issue advocacy organization. That issue, with about 90% of the country at least somewhat sympathetic to it, transcends party affiliation.

John

Whether or not they're "partisan" has yet to be determined for a PAC that's just over a year old. Their major donors, however, don't exactly read like a "Who's Who" of conservative politics.

"The super PAC received five six-figure contributions in the first half of 2013. Salesforce.com CEO Mark Benioff, a major bundler for President Barack Obama's reelection campaign, gave $500,000. New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, perhaps the nation's most prominent gun control voice, gave $250,000. Texas trial lawyer and Americans for Responsible Solutions treasurer Steve Mostyn also gave $250,000, as did Facebook billionaire Sean Parker. The fifth large contribution, of $143,104, came from Americans for Responsible Solutions' nonprofit arm."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_3683118.html

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by whell

I'm suggesting that its absolutely rich how some members of this forum speak with forked tongues on this issue. I'm suggesting that Democrats - at least the inside-the -beltway variety of Democrats - ARE being "true to their principles" in leveraging the CU decision. Yet, the Dem's participating in sucking in PAC milk money is largely ignored because it doesn't the narratives that some her like to subscribe to.

So it is not OK to level the playing field yet at the same time to observe that the field is rather muddy? That is simply being honest AFAIK, to not take advantage of any CU funding available would simply be idiotic, though I am sure the Republicans would welcome such a stand on the Democrats part.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by whell

Whether or not they're "partisan" has yet to be determined for a PAC that's just over a year old. Their major donors, however, don't exactly read like a "Who's Who" of conservative politics.

"The super PAC received five six-figure contributions in the first half of 2013. Salesforce.com CEO Mark Benioff, a major bundler for President Barack Obama's reelection campaign, gave $500,000. New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, perhaps the nation's most prominent gun control voice, gave $250,000. Texas trial lawyer and Americans for Responsible Solutions treasurer Steve Mostyn also gave $250,000, as did Facebook billionaire Sean Parker. The fifth large contribution, of $143,104, came from Americans for Responsible Solutions' nonprofit arm."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_3683118.html

Well, we'll assume that Benioff is a Democrat since he's a "Obundler" but Bloomberg is a Republican. This makes my point that the gun control issue transcends party affiliation.

John

[MrPots]

Originally Posted by Bigerik

http://www.thenation.com/blog/178743...nions-combined

Amazing how one man can eliminate the voices of millions of people, entire states even come election time.

[whell]

Originally Posted by Boreas

Well, we'll assume that Benioff is a Democrat since he's a "Obundler" but Bloomberg is a Republican. This makes my point that the gun control issue transcends party affiliation.

John

Bloomberg is an independent, has been since 2007. He was a Dem before he ran as a Republican for mayor. Even when he was a Repub he was a great Democrat.

[bobabode]

Who speak with forked tongue Kem-o-sabe?