It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Democrats rush into arms of Super PACs

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 16 2012 @ 10:44 AM
link   
Democrats rush into arms of Super PACs
Politico Story -- 5/16/12

The big Democrat guns are on the move.

Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer and Dick Durbin to name three U.S. Senate giants.

They are "fund raising" for Majority PAC, who blames the Citizens United decision as the excuse "reason" to partake in Super PAC fund raising.

And, they're going after big money donors ...


Congressional Democrats who publicly proclaimed that super PACs are the scourge of modern politics are now going all out to chase the big money that’s fueling the 2012 campaign.

With little fanfare, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and his top lieutenants are crisscrossing the country from the Southwest to the Big Apple, meeting with billionaires, high-level business executives and union leaders in a mad scramble to raise money for Majority PAC — and perhaps save their slim Senate majority.




Their efforts are already paying dividends. Earlier this spring, Reid and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) made a quick trip to New York, where they made a pitch to billionaire hedge fund manager James Simons, who quickly turned around and cut a check on March 29 to Majority PAC for $1 million, according to campaign finance reports. That’s on top of the $500,000 Simons donated to Majority PAC last year, making him the biggest donor to the group so far.

Reid, Schumer and Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) have recently attended Majority PAC fundraisers in New York, Chicago, Phoenix, Los Angeles, Washington and Dallas, according to Democratic sources. But the efforts have been made quietly, and their offices have been generally mum on the details given the sensitivity of the issue.




Democratic sources note that Reid, Schumer and Durbin adhere closely to FEC rules and make a point of seeking contributions of $5,000 so there is no confusion of what they are doing. If the lawmaker does not solicit the money, and the donor turns around and gives $1 million to the super PAC, that’s fine under the rules.





For Democrats, the battle for super PAC cash is particularly sensitive. For the better part of the past two years, Democrats have demonized super PACs and the Citizens United decision, which gave rise to them. The mixed message — publicly calling for super PACs to be reined in while quietly helping the Democratic groups — has only made it harder to raise money, Democrats privately acknowledge.





What would happen if the Democrats didn't do the "Super PAC" thing ?

Would they ALL fall from power ?



Are the Democrats really THAT Scared ?





Majority PAC "Mission Statement"

Majority PAC was founded by experienced, aggressive Democratic strategists with one mission: Protect the Democratic majority in the U.S. Senate.

That majority–the firewall against the radical Tea Party agenda–is under attack in 2012. Democrats must defend 23 seats, compared to only 10 Republican seats. And only four seats separate Republicans from control of the Senate.

In 2010, the Citizens United decision allowed Karl Rove and a network of Republican-aligned third-party groups to outspend Democrats on television alone by $50 million–swamping the Democratic message in virtually every top Senate race and nearly handing the Senate to the GOP along with the House. Rove has already pledged to spend even more–$240 million-plus–in 2012.

But this time, Majority PAC will level the playing field. Running a transparent, low-overhead, take-no-prisoners Independent Expenditure campaign, we will aggressively contest critical open seats, exploit opportunities to take over Republican seats and expand our firewall, and respond to attacks from Rove and his allies on Democratic Senate candidates.

With your support, Majority PAC will change the game. We will not let Karl Rove buy the Senate. We will hold Republicans accountable. We will protect the Democratic firewall in 2012.

Can Karl Rove Really buy the Senate ?














edit on May-16-2012 by xuenchen because: (no reason given)

edit on May-16-2012 by xuenchen because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 16 2012 @ 10:47 AM
link   
The point is they actually think that by raising and spending all that money, they can still convince the 24 Million unemployed and under employed that they have a way to fix this. That is if they can stop blaming it all on other entities! They are scared poopless!
Zindo



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 10:53 AM
link   
Do as I say, not as I do....Or the more oft line of thinking I believe they follow right now, The ends justify the means.

Why couldn't they just admit they do all the same crap the republicans do for fund raising and no side has anything over the other on that score. One just gets better than the other for covering their own tricks and which is which varies. Naww... It's far more beneficial to them personally to keep running issues as division points.



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 10:59 AM
link   
Why shouldn't they? If this is the playing field, why should Democrats (or anyone) give themselves a disadvantage? The Supreme Court (Conservative majority) ruled this for ALL candidates in an election. Why shouldn't the Dems play on an even playing field?



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 11:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Well they surely impose their views on ethical use of funds on others and have no problem jumping right in! They have spent years gnashing teeth and rending their clothing about financing. Maybe if they followed their own ideas on ethics they might have a leg to stand on with other issues!

Zindo



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Why shouldn't they? If this is the playing field, why should Democrats (or anyone) give themselves a disadvantage? The Supreme Court (Conservative majority) ruled this for ALL candidates in an election. Why shouldn't the Dems play on an even playing field?


You're right man. There is ALWAYS a reason for why it's ok when Democrats do it. Especially on ATS.



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 12:03 PM
link   
reply to post by ZindoDoone
 



Originally posted by ZindoDoone
Well they surely impose their views on ethical use of funds on others...


How? You mean they express their opinions? I'm not talking about opinions. I'm talking about LAW. The conservatives in the Supreme Court ruled that corporations are people. That's more than an expression of an opinion.

And now that they've done it, they're crying like babies because the Democrats are actually doing it, too?
Be careful what you ask for...



edit on 5/16/2012 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 12:46 PM
link   
Something I don't quite understand here.

(from the Majority PAC "Mission Statement")

In 2010, the Citizens United decision allowed Karl Rove and a network of Republican-aligned third-party groups to outspend Democrats on television alone by $50 million–swamping the Democratic message in virtually every top Senate race and nearly handing the Senate to the GOP along with the House. Rove has already pledged to spend even more–$240 million-plus–in 2012.


How exactly did Citizens United "allow" Republicans to "out spend" Democrats ??

Were the Repubs somehow "pre-funded" ?

Were the Dems caught "off guard" ?

Or did they just lose That much support from donors in 2010 ?

And I still don't know why the Dems are So Scared of Karl Rove


Is Karl Rove really THAT powerful and influential ??

Maybe the Dems "sacrificed" a few seats in the Senate knowing they would still retain a majority.
Hence, "allowing" themselves to really pour it on this year with the big Super PAC $$.
Obama was not in "danger" in 2010, but he is in 2012 !!

Perhaps That was the plan all along !!

Now they can put the blame on somebody else as always and say they are Forced and have no choice but to succumb to these dastardly ways of Super Money.
(they always feel "safer" that way don't they ?)

Didn't the Dems have at least a little bit of a clue at the time that "Citizens United" would turn out the way it did


Very clever indeed



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 12:53 PM
link   
They kinda had to when
Your man Karl Rove shredded
the constitution with Citizens United.



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 12:57 PM
link   
reply to post by sealing
 


Obviously you are wrong. It was unconstitutional to employ the law that outlawed Citizens United to enjoy the right to give to the party or candidate of their choice! The law was flawed to begin with in it's language and it's intent!

Zindo



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by sealing
They kinda had to when
Your man Karl Rove shredded
the constitution with Citizens United.


But the smart Democrats HAD to have known that ahead of time right ?

How could they have missed it ?


Are they really that dumb ?



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 06:24 PM
link   
This whole super pac citizens united thing sucks big time -- really big time. With that you can not at all criticize democrats to do the same thing - if you bring a knife to a gun fight you deserve what you get.

Money now counts more than we do. Thank you supreme court.



posted on May, 17 2012 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by spyder550
 


Just because they spend the money to put adds and information out there in Cyber/Media space doesn't mean that you have to believe whats said. Why should it be illegal to spend as much as you can through donations if you have the right to ignore whats being reported or shown? Why should any limit be put on anyone that donates to their cause? It's limitations on the First Amendment. If you can't see that then you don't really understand the freedom of speech!

Zindo



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join