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.
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
Unfortunately this will be business as usual for the forseeable future for any susequent POTUS (unless we get a real third party individual that isn't beholden to underhanded activities of the Rs and Ds).
This type of election fraud seems pretty easy to pull off - which leads me to believe (know) it has to be more rampant and in much larger dollars. If the administration is so hellbent on flushing it out, Why aren't more people being arrested for it?
A donor for John Edwards (DEMOCRAT) was found guilty of the same thing and slapped on the hand with a misdemeanor. But the rules never apply to liberals.
Straw-donor cases have been brought against prominnent individuals from time to time. For example, in 2011, a prominent Los Angeles attorney, Pierce O’Donnell, pleaded guilty to misdemeanor chargest of making $20,000 in donations to the presidential campaign of former Sen. John Edwards and reimbursing straw donors.
No, they're pretty much the same thing. Both Mr. O'Donnell and Mr. D'Souza were/are accused of "funneling." That is, encouraging other people to make donations to a candidate and then reimbursing them for the donations. Even though O'Donnell was indicted on fellonies, he ended up taking a plea agreement and plead guilty to a misdemeanor charge. The poster jjkenobi was saying that because O'Donnell's case involved donations to a Democrat, he somehow faced reduced charges compared to D'Souza. That's not true. In fact, the charges O'Donnell originally faced were, in fact, harsher than the charges D'Souza has been indicted for. Of course, we'll have to wait and see how D'Souza's case plays out, but I certainly suspect he'll be given the opportunity to plead guilty to reduced charges just as O'Donnell did. It'll probably be a while before that happens, though. It took three years between O'Donnell's indictment and his eventual guilty plea. But at this point in their cases, there's no evidence that the two have been treated any differently.
reply to post by nataylor
Those r two different cases. One was about accepting gifts. The other is making campaign donation of $20g. This is clearly selective enforcement because there are hundreds of people making donations in hundred thousand and millions going unregulated. Remember the laws are written for the outsiders and peons, people who the government does not like.edit on 26-1-2014 by amfirst1 because: (no reason given)
you're talking about something different than poster jjkenobi was talking about. He and I were talking about attorney Pierce O'Donnell:
reply to post by nataylor
O'Donnal received gifts he was a governor. Mr. D'Souza was a donor he sent donations to his friend running for the senate that lost.
Attorney Pierce O'Donnell was indicted by a federal grand jury in Los Angeles on Thursday on charges of funneling $26,000 in contributions to the campaign of a candidate in the 2004 presidential election through employees of his law firm and other people, according to the indictment.
O'Donnell, 61, is accused of soliciting employees and others to make the contributions and then reimbursing them.
Known as "conduit" contributions, such donations hide the identities of the true contributors and violate federal law, prosecutors said.
Though the name of the presidential candidate does not appear in the indictment, several sources familiar with the investigation said the contributions were made to the campaign of Democrat John Edwards.
O'Donnell is charged with three felonies and faces a maximum of 12 years in prison if convicted of all counts, according to prosecutors in the U.S. attorney's office in Los Angeles.
reply to post by beezzer
You mean union dues going to political donations? Nothing illegal about that. Unions fall under the same campaign donation laws that Corporations do.
If you don't mind, I'm going to quote you on that when Citizens United comes up to complain about for SCOTUS decisions.
Honestly, that's been my whole position on the dirty money flowing into politics all along. Corporations are rotten to the core in how they buy leaders like they buy anything else...but Unions represent the flip side and other end of the political spectrum for doing precisely the same thing, in the same way. Masses of people passing little dollars up to make big big big dollars which then go to buy politicians for what those original little people may or may not agree with or be totally against.
Indeed... have both or have none...and I'm more for the latter, all things being equal.
I don't believe money should equal free speech, regardless of who is throwing the cash around.
There should be an election fund (voluntary) for every elected position in the US, from sheriffs to POTUS, from which each candidate running receives an equal share of to run their campaigns on... and only those funds may be used.