Democrats, Liberals reap massive cash advantage from top political spenders

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 04:04 PM
link   
With the November elections coming real soon, it seems the Democrats have a big cash advantage.

Their big shot big gun collection/distribution network hit squads are raking in millions more than Republicans.

The usual big names are right at the top of the oil slick;

ActBlue
Fahr LLC/Tom Steyer
Carpenters & Joiners Union
City of New York, NY
Democratic Governors Assn


I wonder just *WHO* they are trying to reach ?

Certainly not Republicans ?

Maybe they are targeting the high-crime/poverty precincts and wards that historically always vote Democrat ?

Perhaps there are indications of "nervousness" among insiders and strategists ?

Where are the Koch Brothers?



With less than 100 days until the November midterm elections, updated federal campaign finance records show Democrats and liberals are way ahead of their Republican counterparts in receiving donations from large organizations.

That’s thanks in part to Citizens United, a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that many on the political left say undermines democracy.

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, 16 of the top 20 contributors thus far in the 2013-14 election cycle gave almost exclusively to Democratic candidates and to liberal groups that support them. The three Republican-leaning organizations landing in the top 20 amounted to less than half of the overall top ranked donor, ActBlue



Democrats, Liberals reap massive cash advantage from top political spenders


look at this !!!! .....
Top Organization Contributions: All Federal Contributions

Hooray for ....

Citizens United !!!







posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 04:09 PM
link   
I'm missing the point of this thread. Is it because more American's are supporting the left? Is it because those organizations aren't ones that typically support the right. You know..... the MIC. Which Eisenhower warned us about over 50 years ago?



posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 04:11 PM
link   
a reply to: intrepid

I think the point was while the left is making money hand over fist.

The right is still dealing with the IRS snip blocking it's fund raising.

Which is how the left stole the last election.



posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 04:12 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen
Borrowed from Deetermined's post:
2014 Election Overview


According to current FEC data, here are the real TOTALS for the 2013-2014 campaign season. The DNC may be outraising the RNC, but that's only because more people are donating directly to their candidates and not groups.

Money raised for ALL Republican candidates running for House and Senate to date: $631.9 million

Money raised for ALL Democrat candidates running for House and Senate to date: $514.1 million


Republicans have out-raised Democrats by $117.8 million. You're claim that Democrats "reap major cash advantage" is utterly false. Republicans are way ahead of Democrats in terms of political donations. Republicans are better at hiding who is donating to their candidates through dark money groups. The sort of thing they are trying to nullify at the FEC.



posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 04:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
Which is how the left stole the last election.


Oh give it up. The GOP was samcked easily in the last election. Don't blame the Dem's for the lack of cohesion in the GOP. They should get their # together and not whine so much.



posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 04:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Blackmarketeer




Republicans are better at hiding who is donating to their candidates through dark money groups


Nope that 'honor' goes to this guy:

www.newsmax.com...

He got away with it.



posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 04:17 PM
link   
a reply to: intrepid

Give it up ?

I don't think so



posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 04:18 PM
link   
ActBlue
Fahr LLC/Tom Steyer
Carpenters & Joiners Union
City of New York, NY
Democratic Governors Assn

The names remind me of fronts for mafia operations in the 20s and 30s.
I watched a little too many of those shows on TV when I was young.



posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 04:23 PM
link   
Reminds of a Venn Diagram I saw on my husband's computer. It had two overlapping circles. One the left was OWS and on the right was TEA Party. In the middle was the commonality - both groups agree that it's a problem when big business and big interests use money to lobby congress to pass laws beneficial to them. However, the non-overlapping parts show the differences in approach. OWS favors dumping more power into the system via more government power and control. The TEA Party favors taking power out of the system via weakening government power and control.

For the past 6 years, we've been living with a government system that has been amassing ever more power and control unto itself. Has that made the central issue of corrupt interests using their money to lobby and control government better or worse?

Maybe it's time to go the other way, but what we see is the funding avalanche from those same interests to keep the power vacuum where it's at to their benefit.



posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 04:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrepid
I'm missing the point of this thread. Is it because more American's are supporting the left? Is it because those organizations aren't ones that typically support the right. You know..... the MIC. Which Eisenhower warned us about over 50 years ago?


I don't think this thread has an actual point except to convene a meeting of the conservative mutual appreciation society. He's clearly not speaking out against big money influencing the American election process, he's just lamenting the fact that this time around the Democrats might amass more money.

Who the hell cheers the Citizen's United verdict?



posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 04:51 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian




Who the hell cheers the Citizen's United verdict?


The Democrats should.

After all that is why they get to sue them evil corporations all the time.

And because of that ruling is why UNIONS get to buy politicians just like them evil corporations do.



Corporate personhood is an American legal concept that a corporation may be recognized as an individual in the eyes of the law. This doctrine forms the basis for legal recognition that corporations, as groups of people, may hold and exercise certain rights under the common law and the U.S. Constitution. For example, corporations may contract with other parties and sue or be sued in court in the same way as natural persons or unincorporated associations of persons. The doctrine does not hold that corporations are flesh and blood "people" apart from their shareholders, executives, and managers, nor does it grant to corporations all of the rights of citizens.


en.wikipedia.org...



Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. ___ (2010), (Docket No. 08-205), is a US corporate law and constitutional law case. The United States Supreme Court held that the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting political independent expenditures by corporations, associations, or labor unions




n the case, the conservative lobbying group Citizens United wanted to air a film critical of Hillary Clinton and to advertise the film during television broadcasts in apparent violation of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (commonly known as the McCain–Feingold Act or "BCRA").[2] Section 203 of BCRA defined an "electioneering communication" as a broadcast, cable, or satellite communication that mentioned a candidate within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary, and prohibited such expenditures by corporations and unions


en.wikipedia.org...

The left has Citzen United to thank for alot of things.

Unions buying politicians.

'Documentaries' like and 'inconvenient truth', and 'Farhenheit 9-11'.



posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 04:54 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian




He's clearly not speaking out against big money influencing the American election process


Why the hell should anyone ?

The largest employers in this country are SMALL business owners.

Them evil 'multinationals' don't have to waste the cash since they make the bulk of their wealth offshore, and go OFFSHORE because it is cheaper.

But hey vilify the 'money' in politics.

Because the only 'people' allowed to buy congressman is the 'people'.

So what is the EFFING difference.

Only one get's to buy them?



posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 05:04 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

What are you talking about? The Citizen's United verdict was in 2010.

Fahrenheit 9/11 was released in 2004.
An Inconvenient Truth was released in 2006.

Not to mention that neither of those documentaries were funded or produced by any sort of lobbying group/PAC/ non-profit. So how are they relevant again?

Which of the Koch brothers are you?
edit on 2014-8-8 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 05:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: intrepid

I think the point was while the left is making money hand over fist.

The right is still dealing with the IRS snip blocking it's fund raising.

Which is how the left stole the last election.


Or maybe the money interests are tired of financing losers?? How much money has the tea party made and lost? Most of what the tea party spent was on defeating other republicans, so why not give blame where blame is due?
edit on 8-8-2014 by LDragonFire because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 05:13 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian




What are you talking about? The Citizen's United verdict was in 2010.


This is what I am talking about:



The United States Supreme Court held that the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting political independent expenditures by corporations, associations, or labor unions


I wonder why someone is IGNORING that last part.




Not to mention that neither of those documentaries were funded or produced by any sort of lobbying group/PAC/ non-profit. So how are they relevant again?


Is that so ?



An Inconvenient Truth is a 2006 Academy Award winning documentary film directed by Davis Guggenheim about former United States Vice President Al Gore's campaign to educate citizens about global warming via a comprehensive slide show that, by his own estimate made in the film, he has given more than a thousand times.


en.wikipedia.org...



Originally planned to be financed by Mel Gibson's Icon Productions (which planned to give Michael Moore eight figures in upfront cash and potential backend),[3] Fahrenheit 9/11 was later picked up by Miramax Films and Wild Bunch in May 2003 after Icon Productions had abruptly dropped the financing deal it made.[4] Miramax had earlier distributed another film for Moore, The Big One, in 1997.




t that time, Disney was the parent company of Miramax. According to the book DisneyWar, Disney executives did not know that Miramax agreed to finance the film until they saw a posting on the Drudge Report. Afterward, Michael Eisner (who was the CEO of Disney at that time) called Harvey Weinstein (who was the co-chairman of Miramax at that time) and ordered him to drop the film. In addition, Disney sent two letters to Weinstein demanding Miramax drop the film. Weinstein felt Disney had no right to block them from releasing Fahrenheit 9/11 since the film's $6 million budget was well below the level that Miramax needed to seek Disney's approval, and it would not be rated NC-17.[5] But Weinstein was in contract negotiations with Disney, so he offered compromises and said that he would drop the film if Disney did not like it.[5] Disney responded by having Peter Murphy send Weinstein a letter stating that the film's $6 million budget was only a bridge financing and Miramax would sell off their interest in the movie to get those $6 million back; according to the same letter, Miramax was also expected to publicly state that they would not release the film.[5]


en.wikipedia.org...

Oh damn look at all those evil corporations spending cash on it!

en.wikipedia.org...




Which of the Koch brothers are you?


Nice pot shot that clearly added nothing here.

When all else fails eh?



posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 05:16 PM
link   
a reply to: LDragonFire




How much money has the tea party made and lost? Mos


Less than liberals have.

www.usdebtclock.org...

17 trillion plus in debt.

Over 120 trillion in promises made to pay for social engineering CORPORATE WELFARE.



n 2010 alone, government at all levels oversaw a transfer of over $2.2 trillion in money, goods and services.


online.wsj.com...

Over 2.2 trillion dollars lining them evil corporate pockets thanks to the democrats.



posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 05:24 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Are you gonna talk about the current topic or keep dancing around it? Your championing a crappy brand, with no vision for the future, that can't show any type of unity and cohesiveness.



posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 05:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: LDragonFire
a reply to: neo96

Are you gonna talk about the current topic or keep dancing around it? Your championing a crappy brand, with no vision for the future, that can't show any type of unity and cohesiveness.


Is that right ?

Then feel free to quote where it was talking about the 'teaparty' there eh?

Anytime.



posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 05:30 PM
link   
I wonder if corporate money will now abandon the GOP?

THE Republicans are splintered & dysfunctional and eating their young with no direction or strategy and looking like losers once again.
Corps hate losers

Times running out to mount a comprehensive campaign
edit on 8-8-2014 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 05:40 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Again. What are you trying to prove? Nothing you pasted in that post does anything but support my statement:


Not to mention that neither of those documentaries were funded or produced by any sort of lobbying group/PAC/non-profit. So how are they relevant again?


So because there were two documentaries unpopular with right-wingers years prior to Citizen's United..... ?? Is Disney a liberal lobbying group? Did Disney take donations to fund the production of Fahrenheit 9/11?

The only thing I see in your excerpt about An Inconvenient Truth is that the description used the word "campaign" (campaign to educate), but it was produced by Lawrence Bender Productions, the production company behind Good Will Hunting and Knockaround Guys, not a political lobbying group.

You're really reaching.


I wonder why someone is IGNORING that last part.


I'm not ignoring anything. I don't want any of it. I'm completely cool with restrictions on labor union money too. Can you say the same about the rest?
edit on 2014-8-8 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join