It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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
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
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?
Who the hell cheers the Citizen's United verdict?
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.
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"). 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
He's clearly not speaking out against big money influencing the American election process
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.
What are you talking about? The Citizen's United verdict was in 2010.
The United States Supreme Court held that the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting political independent expenditures by corporations, associations, or labor unions
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?
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.
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), 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. 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. 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. 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.
Which of the Koch brothers are you?
How much money has the tea party made and lost? Mos
n 2010 alone, government at all levels oversaw a transfer of over $2.2 trillion in money, goods and services.
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.
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?
I wonder why someone is IGNORING that last part.