Activist groups, the FCC, George Soros, and Neomarxists

[Ransom]

Money in politics? Big donors and special interest groups. Corporations. Where are all of our supposed activists on this forum, why does Ransom have to provide such info?

http://dailycaller.com/2015/03/12/fcc-cites-soros-funded-neo-marxist-founded-group-46-times-in-new-regs/


New internet regulations finally released by the Federal Communications Commission make 46 references to a group funded by billionaire George Soros and co-founded by a neo-Marxist.

46 references? Is that a lot?


The activist group has big money behinds its effort. It has received $2.2 million in donations from progressive billionaire George Soros’ Open Society Foundations and $3.9 million from the Ford Foundation.
2.2 mil from Soros.....and 3.2 mil in corporate $? Why wouldn't this fall into the outrage column...on forums such as these. IS it only (R) money that draws attention?


And one of Free Press’ co-founders, Robert McChesney, a communications professor at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, has not been shy about his desire to see the internet regulated heavily

This McChesney Cat not shy about his open Communism and desire to see Capitalism undercut policies either. Ought to read some of Robert's nonsense, he's a Marxist.

[del]

people who refer to themselves in the third person often have mental health issues

[SouthernBelle82]

people who refer to themselves in the third person often have mental health issues

Lmao I can't stand that shit either no matter who it is. It sounds weird.

And it seems to me right wingers think anyone who isn't right wing is a Marxist.

[Ransom]

Lmao I can't stand that $#@! either no matter who it is. It sounds weird.

And it seems to me right wingers think anyone who isn't right wing is a Marxist.

One of del's sheep, whaaaat up SB?

[Ransom]

people who refer to themselves in the third person often have mental health issues

People and causes regarding your Democrat Party often awash with cash. But we'll wait for the next update on the Koch Brothers or GOP fund raisers to make a stink.

[Cigar]

:rollseyes:

[del]

People and causes regarding your Democrat Party often awash with cash. But we'll wait for the next update on the Koch Brothers or GOP fund raisers to make a stink.

how's the weather in aleppo, herr leutnantgeneral?

[Bo-4]

Daily Caller?

http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/ot540c8eae.gif

[Common]

People and causes regarding your Democrat Party often awash with cash. But we'll wait for the next update on the Koch Brothers or GOP fund raisers to make a stink.

Soros has always been a big donor for democrats, that is not a secret and cant be denied.
Theres big money on both sides, out politics is bought and paid for. It all breaks down to whos donating to the things youre for as opposed to against.

It makes no sense to deny when its your side doing the skullduggery if you deny it then it makes cattwalling about the other side moot.

My point of view, I prefer soros over the koch bros any day of the week. But I do wish we could be rid of all of the buying out politicians our votes and the direction of our lives.

[Bob]

people who refer to themselves in the third person often have mental health issues

People who represent themselves using a huge bird have problems of similar type.

[Bob]

Soros has always been a big donor for democrats, that is not a secret and cant be denied.
Theres big money on both sides, out politics is bought and paid for. It all breaks down to whos donating to the things youre for as opposed to against.

It makes no sense to deny when its your side doing the skullduggery if you deny it then it makes cattwalling about the other side moot.

My point of view, I prefer soros over the koch bros any day of the week. But I do wish we could be rid of all of the buying out politicians our votes and the direction of our lives.

Koch is run down all the time. But never, not one time, has any facts been produced as to why they hate the guys.

Soros is a well known hack for the Democrats. He was a round when the Democrats were trashing this other guy, the publisher ... I will get back with the name but all i read during Clinton's problems is it was Scaife's doing. I never knew a publisher could give Clinton a blow job.

[IMPress Polly]

Though there are a few wealthy Democrats out there, to focus on that point is to characterize the exception as the rule. The rule is that billionaire and corporate donations go to Republicans, and the scale of investment the Kochs have already pledged to invest in the 2016 elections -- $900 million -- is totally unprecedented and in fact amounts to nearly the same amount of money that the Obama and Romney campaigns respectively spent in total ($1 billion each) in the last election cycle. Can you seriously imagine that $900 million going to the Democrats?

The overall rule is this: the Republicans primarily rely on corporate money to finance their campaigns while the Democrats are dependent on crowd funding for most of their campaign money. You can figure out what that implies about which side corporate America takes in American politics versus which is the more genuinely populist side.

[Ransom]

Soros has always been a big donor for democrats, that is not a secret and cant be denied.
Theres big money on both sides, out politics is bought and paid for. It all breaks down to whos donating to the things youre for as opposed to against.

It makes no sense to deny when its your side doing the skullduggery if you deny it then it makes cattwalling about the other side moot.

My point of view, I prefer soros over the koch bros any day of the week. But I do wish we could be rid of all of the buying out politicians our votes and the direction of our lives.

Common, you're in other threads stomping on about Koch money, where is your example of money being bad for politics where your Dems are concerned. We know you dislike money in politics, can you show me an example on your side that you dislike? You're just who I'm speaking to here, show me Common all upset about one of his candidates raking in cash. Your floor.

[Ransom]

Though there are a few wealthy Democrats out there, to focus on that point is to characterize the exception as the rule. The rule is that billionaire and corporate donations go to Republicans, and the scale of investment the Kochs have already pledged to invest in the 2016 elections -- $900 million -- is totally unprecedented and in fact amounts to nearly the same amount of money that the Obama and Romney campaigns respectively spent in total ($1 billion each) in the last election cycle. Can you seriously imagine that $900 million going to the Democrats?

The overall rule is this: the Republicans primarily rely on corporate money to finance their campaigns while the Democrats are dependent on crowd funding for most of their campaign money. You can figure out what that implies about which side corporate America takes in American politics versus which is the more genuinely populist side.

That's not the overall rule, it's the overall impression. Democrats rake in corporate cash and we never see examples, none of the huge bundles on the Dem side mocked or scorned like the Koch Bros. Soros, Sacks, you Dems expose yourselves and deafen us with your silence.

[IMPress Polly]

It's not an opinion, it's a statistical fact. Simply look at the size of the average donation to the Obama campaign versus that of the average donation to the Romney campaign for a perfect example of my point: the latter was many, many times larger. Since both candidates spent roughly the same amount of money (about $1 billion each), as much shows that that's crowd funding (large quantity) versus corporate donations (large size) right there.

[zelmo1234]

Soros has always been a big donor for democrats, that is not a secret and cant be denied.
Theres big money on both sides, out politics is bought and paid for. It all breaks down to whos donating to the things youre for as opposed to against.

It makes no sense to deny when its your side doing the skullduggery if you deny it then it makes cattwalling about the other side moot.

My point of view, I prefer soros over the koch bros any day of the week. But I do wish we could be rid of all of the buying out politicians our votes and the direction of our lives.

Of course you prefer Soro's because it is for your side, You don't have an issue with Union money either and they dwarf Soro's and Koch money.

that is the problem with money, nobody is willing to say enough

[PolWatch]

what is the difference with union money and big corporation money?

[zelmo1234]

what is the difference with union money and big corporation money?

Nothing, but the Union money was always legal, and the Corporation was not until the Citizens United.

So the DNC lost an advantage, and you wonder why they are pissed.

[IMPress Polly]

PolWatch wrote:
what is the difference with union money and big corporation money?

There are two gigantic differences:

1) Unions represent the views of real people who work for a living (like me for example). Corporate money represents the views of business executives, who are much smaller in number, yet wealthier.

2) Unions practically no longer exist in today's America. Only about 11% of workers still have one. 100% of businesses still though have executives though. One result of this imbalance is that corporate America has a MUCH larger ability to influence politics since it controls far more money than unions do collectively. In fact, a look at the top five biggest campaign donors in the last election cycle features five corporate executives and entities and no unions. Unions remain the largest campaign donors to the Democrats, but even if you combine the union money and the corporate money that the Obama campaign received in 2012, it still doesn't add up to a majority of his campaign funds. Most of it was crowd funding. On the Republican side, by contrast, fully the majority of funding came from corporate sources alone.

[Peter1469]

Here are some stats for the 2014 election. (https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/) Pretty evenly split on donations, although it doesn't tell you the source of the donations. The website has a lot of info, so it may be in there somewhere.

[Peter1469]

The site does have a lot of info to include the corporate labor comparison (https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/blio.php). Much more as well.




All Contributions, 2013-2014




https://s3.amazonaws.com/assets.opensecrets.org/img/blue.gif TO DEMS https://s3.amazonaws.com/assets.opensecrets.org/img/red.gif TO REPUBS


Business (70.2%)
https://s3.amazonaws.com/assets.opensecrets.org/img/blue.gif (https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/blio.php#)http://assets.opensecrets.org/img/red.gif (https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/blio.php#)


Labor (5.8%)
https://s3.amazonaws.com/assets.opensecrets.org/img/blue.gif (https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/blio.php#)http://assets.opensecrets.org/img/red.gif (https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/blio.php#)


Ideological (10.7%)
https://s3.amazonaws.com/assets.opensecrets.org/img/blue.gif (https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/blio.php#)http://assets.opensecrets.org/img/red.gif (https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/blio.php#)


Other (11.1%)
https://s3.amazonaws.com/assets.opensecrets.org/img/blue.gif (https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/blio.php#)http://assets.opensecrets.org/img/red.gif (https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/blio.php#)




(Move your cursor over the chart
to see dollar amounts)






Grand Total
Democrats
Republicans
Dem %
Repub %


Business
$1,648,880,452
$544,957,036
$786,578,420
41%
59%


Labor
$137,407,124
$53,924,419
$6,596,887
89%
11%


Ideological
$251,034,027
$68,170,851
$66,177,855
51%
49%


Other
$261,645,717
$118,295,117
$105,669,374
53%
47%

[IMPress Polly]

Here, in fact, were the top five contributors for the respective 2012 presidential candidates (https://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contriball.php):

Obama:

1) University of California
2) Microsoft
3) Google
4) U.S. Government
5) Harvard University

Even among Obama's top five biggest contributors, we find only two corporate sources, both from the tech sector specifically.

Romney:

1) Goldman Sachs
2) Bank of America
3) Morgan Stanley
4) JPMorgan Chase
5) Wells Fargo

Well look at that: five banks! In fact, here were his top 20 contributors: all corporate entities (https://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contrib.php?id=N00000286).

76% of donations to the Romney campaign exceeded $200 in size, while 57% of donations to the Obama campaign were under $200 (http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/campaign-finance). This indicates that Romney had fewer, but wealthier, donors overall. With this unprecedented flood of corporate money, Romney became I believe the first candidate ever to outspend a sitting president.

[Ransom]

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php

[Ransom]

Change the 'election cycle' tab to 2008 as well. Look to who is getting the most money from the list Polly credits the GOP with. The Morgan Stanley, the Goldman Sachs......hello

[IMPress Polly]

Ransom wrote:
https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php (https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php)

Aaah, yes indeed, but duly note how far-spread-out these contributions are by comparison! Furthermore note that the top overall (as in multi-race) 2012 contributors were super-rich individuals, not organizations, and most of those donations went to Republicans. (http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/10/26/12-biggest-donors-of-the-2012-election) Sheldon Adelson, Bob Perry, etc.

No matter how you break it down, the simple fact of the matter is that corporate America spent more than twice as much on the 2012 elections as organized labor did, that corporate America is already poised to spend at least twice as much on the 2016 elections as they did in 2012, and that unions are objectively even weaker today than three years ago, having fewer members. It's really not possible to make the case that organized labor runs elections like you can that corporate America runs elections.

[Ransom]

Aaah, yes indeed, but duly note how far-spread-out these contributions are by comparison! Furthermore note that the top overall (as in multi-race) 2012 contributors were super-rich individuals, not organizations, and most of those donations went to Republicans. (http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/10/26/12-biggest-donors-of-the-2012-election) Sheldon Adelson, Bob Perry, etc.

No matter how you break it down, the simple fact of the matter is that corporate America spent more than twice as much on the 2012 elections as organized labor did, that corporate America is already poised to spend at least twice as much on the 2016 elections as they did in 2012, and that unions are objectively even weaker today than three years ago, having fewer members. It's really not possible to make the case that organized labor runs elections like you can that corporate America runs elections.

Spent at least twice as much? Then....... let's see an example of at least half the outrage from any of you concerning corporate cash, or the corporate hate towards those that fill your coffers. It doesn't exist. I asked you to return to 2008 and 2012, look to Morgan Stanley, look to Goldman Sachs. Look to Soros, look to Microsoft. You giving that back? That money 'bad' influence helping Obama get elected? No.... it's not. The only money ever whined about on these forums are dollars meant to elect Republicans.

My favorite example of this hypocrisy on display, the Occupier Movement on Wall Street. During the sit in or who can not shower for the most days in a row contest, the innovator and great capitalist making his products abroad in China, the man who made Apple one of the largest corporations on the planet Steve Jobs sadly passed. The Occupiers...... set their smart phones to video mode, clutched their iPad used to pass time during the Occupation... and held a moment of silence, respect and love for this ultra-capitalist and corporate manager showing on their faces, many wept in grief. Their hero. The Billionaire and CEO of perhaps the most successful corporations in history. You cannot make this $hit up.

[gamewell45]

Money in politics? Big donors and special interest groups. Corporations. Where are all of our supposed activists on this forum, why does Ransom have to provide such info?

Because no one cares about this so-called issue you've raised. :)

[PolWatch]

Just for grins I looked up donations for 2012 comparing union to private corp.

The first 2 are the largest contributors of any sort:

Las Vegas Sands: $52,854,975 repub $2,000 dems
Adelson Drug Clinic: $42,112,700 repub 0 dems

These are the largest union donations:

Service Workers: $25,656,534 dem $3,750 repub
NEA: $15,430,008 dem $597,573 repub

I threw these in just to compare union & non-union construction donations

Carpenters & Joiners: $11,559,414 dem $358,500 repub
Perry Homes : $24,044,700 repub $2,000 dem

anyone want to whine about how much $$$ the unions are donating to the dems? Their donations look kinda puny compared to those of private corporations to the repubs...huh?

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php?cycle=2012

[The Sage of Main Street]

how's the weather in aleppo, herr leutnantgeneral?

The Sage said:

Obama is my pup;
Hey dog, tell me who is
Your pup?

The Ransom replied:

Senator McCain is
Gonna turn Syria into
Syrup.

Assad ain't God
He's as wimpy
As a tpf Mod

[Ransom]

Because no one cares about this so-called issue you've raised. :)

No one cares about corporate donations to campaigns?

[Ransom]

Just for grins I looked up donations for 2012 comparing union to private corp.

The first 2 are the largest contributors of any sort:

Las Vegas Sands: $52,854,975 repub $2,000 dems
Adelson Drug Clinic: $42,112,700 repub 0 dems

These are the largest union donations:

Service Workers: $25,656,534 dem $3,750 repub
NEA: $15,430,008 dem $597,573 repub

I threw these in just to compare union & non-union construction donations

Carpenters & Joiners: $11,559,414 dem $358,500 repub
Perry Homes : $24,044,700 repub $2,000 dem

anyone want to whine about how much $$$ the unions are donating to the dems? Their donations look kinda puny compared to those of private corporations to the repubs...huh?

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php?cycle=2012

Yes I would like to talk about that union money going to Dems. And consistently support following the Citizens United Supreme Court decision the right of unions to insert such millions into their political interests. All of the Unions listed there and you left out many, give tens of millions to candidates and to the DNC. And like any other entity, corporation, or community organization, can support political parties. I'm not gonna block nor whine concerning union support for Dems, freedom of speech should be protected.... and respected. You seem to be making the argument that money is a bad influence on politics only when your side is being outspent.

[Ransom]

The Sage said:

Obama is my pup;
Hey dog, tell me who is
Your pup?

The Ransom replied:

Senator McCain is
Gonna turn Syria into
Syrup.

Assad ain't God
He's as wimpy
As a tpf Mod

Assad that wimpy?:wink:

[Bob]

I would love to point out that of the working public, not in government, 7 percent is the working figure of how many workers belong to corporate unions.

It is natural for those being messed over by Government to vote for republicans.

Those delighted with Government select Democrats.

That seems weird to the max to me.

It is a sign that Democrats are for huge government since their supporters pay millions to keep big government in business.

As to the import of the Citizens united law, make no mistake, it helped unions a lot.

Then you have unions over Government workers.

The very thing they support the most, big government is just who unions feel they must organize against.

Politically unions are anti government except with their money. Then the money goes to keep big government.

If this confuses you, think how confused Democrats are all the time.

[Ransom]

PolWatch. Why not for grins, post 2008 list like you did 2012.....with your comment as well of course. The year Obama was elected. Thanks.

[Bob]

Just for grins I looked up donations for 2012 comparing union to private corp.

The first 2 are the largest contributors of any sort:

Las Vegas Sands: $52,854,975 repub $2,000 dems
Adelson Drug Clinic: $42,112,700 repub 0 dems

These are the largest union donations:

Service Workers: $25,656,534 dem $3,750 repub
NEA: $15,430,008 dem $597,573 repub

I threw these in just to compare union & non-union construction donations

Carpenters & Joiners: $11,559,414 dem $358,500 repub
Perry Homes : $24,044,700 repub $2,000 dem

anyone want to whine about how much $$$ the unions are donating to the dems? Their donations look kinda puny compared to those of private corporations to the repubs...huh?

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php?cycle=2012

Well hell, I will give that 5 grins.

:grin: :grin: :grin: :grin: :grin:

[Ransom]

Still waiting as well, for anyone to show me criticism directed at a source for Dem ca$h. Union. Corporation. Community Organization. Anything close to the hysterics brought on by the name Koch or the dreaded 'pharmaceuticals.'

If not, we can move on, point made

[PolWatch]

Since you obviously have a reason for suggesting that year...you can post it. My purpose was to show that unions are not the only ones donating to political campaigns. If you will read back over the thread you might notice several remarks about unions donating to the DNC...as if they were the only ones giving to a political party. If corporations are allowed to donate, why should unions be condemned for the same behavior?

I would like to see all PAC's limited to a reasonable amount...along with unions, individual corporations & individuals. These donations should be pooled and divided evenly to candidates...not according to party. That is the only way we will stop having the best government money can buy. I would also like to see the lobbyist industry declared illegal. Elected officials should represent those who put them into office...not the highest bidder.

[Ransom]

Since you obviously have a reason for suggesting that year...you can post it. My purpose was to show that unions are not the only ones donating to political campaigns. If you will read back over the thread you might notice several remarks about unions donating to the DNC...as if they were the only ones giving to a political party. If corporations are allowed to donate, why should unions be condemned for the same behavior?

What condemnation? You can't see that is my entire point? Why not you go back and read your post, you made the point about anyone whining about union monies isn't appropriate as it seemed 'puny' when compared to corporations. The 2008 numbers aren't the same...... and no one is nor was in 08 or 12 whining about money in politics......... except for the Left.


I would like to see all PAC's limited to a reasonable amount...along with unions, individual corporations & individuals. These donations should be pooled and divided evenly to candidates...not according to party. That is the only way we will stop having the best government money can buy. I would also like to see the lobbyist industry declared illegal. Elected officials should represent those who put them into office...not the highest bidder.

Elected officials should...... but often don't represent those who elected them. For example, with polls solidly against, many Senators voted for Obamacare such as Senator Webb and many Dem Senators who then lost here in 2014. Funny huh....... voted out but do you hear of any Dem voted out for not representing those that put them in office? Or giving say, a Rand Paul credit for representing those that sent him to office if he voted against Obamacare, his Constituents in Kentucky obviously against.

[The Sage of Main Street]

Since you obviously have a reason for suggesting that year...you can post it. My purpose was to show that unions are not the only ones donating to political campaigns. If you will read back over the thread you might notice several remarks about unions donating to the DNC...as if they were the only ones giving to a political party. If corporations are allowed to donate, why should unions be condemned for the same behavior?

I would like to see all PAC's limited to a reasonable amount...along with unions, individual corporations & individuals. These donations should be pooled and divided evenly to candidates...not according to party. That is the only way we will stop having the best government money can buy. I would also like to see the lobbyist industry declared illegal. Elected officials should represent those who put them into office...not the highest bidder. It might be better for the unions to just offer their members' votes to primary candidates who see things their way. They could use the bribe money (SCROTUS lingo: "free speech") to buy stock in their corporations and take them over. If they need any money to live on during a strike, they can sell that stock.