Bundling

[trumptman]

Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119025305222133413.html)

BRISTOW, Va. -- When Hillary Rodham Clinton held an intimate fund-raising event at her Washington home in late March, Pamela Layton donated $4,600, the maximum allowed by law, to Mrs. Clinton's presidential campaign.

But the 37-year-old Ms. Layton says she and her husband were reimbursed by her husband's boss for the donations. "It wasn't personal money. It was all corporate money," Mrs. Layton said outside her home here. "I don't even like Hillary. I'm a Republican."

The boss is William Danielczyk, founder of a Washington-area private-equity firm and a major fund-raising "bundler" for Mrs. Clinton. Mrs. Layton's gift was one of more than a dozen donations that night from people with Republican ties or no history of political giving. Mr. Danielczyk and his family, employees and friends donated a total of $120,000 to Mrs. Clinton in the days around the fund-raiser.

Anyone want to take some bets that someone is pissed at someone right now?

The episode adds to growing questions about the practice of "bundling" donations, in which ambitious fund-raisers collect money from friends, colleagues and sometimes employees to send to a campaign. Every major presidential campaign now relies on the practice to raise large sums. It is an especially important strategy for Mrs. Clinton. She has formed a group of "HillRaisers" who get special recognition for sweeping in more than $100,000 for her campaign.

The question isn't are Democrats or Republicans respectively more than one another at this practice. The question is, since everyone in every party seems to work to circumvent any and all campaign contribution limits as soon as they are set, why not just have no limits and full disclosure?

Isn't it better to know that Mr. Danielczyk really wants to influence Clinton by noting the size of his large donation rather than trying to divine it from the size and people involved in his bundle?

Other Republican voters who contributed the maximum amount to Mrs. Clinton at this event included Mr. Danielczyk's mother, sister, personal assistant and a half-dozen employees or their spouses. Most of the donors had never made a political donation before contributing $4,600 to Mrs. Clinton, according to fund-raising records.

Mr. Danielczyk said some of the attendees were Republicans, but "they may vote for her [Mrs. Clinton] now." He added, "It's odd ... You try to get involved in the political process and you come under scrutiny."

Scrutiny wouldn't have to occur to find the truth of regarding donations if people were just allowed to truly donate what they wanted. Instead they are turned into criminals in order to participate and influence the process.

Thoughts?

Nick

[trumptman]

I don't see the rationale behind that.

Because candidates test the reach of campaign finance laws, we shouldn't have those laws?

They do a little more than "test" them Shawn. You create PACS, they create 529's. You create campaign limits, they create bundling.

I don't use drugs. I've never used drugs and don't even like drugs, but I can the futility of drug laws for example.

Nick

[franksargent]

They do a little more than "test" them Shawn. You create PACS, they create 529's. You create campaign limits, they create bundling.

I don't use drugs. I've never used drugs and don't even like drugs, but I can the futility of drug laws for example.

Nick

So since people break the laws, we all just should eliminate the laws? :no:

WTF?

Let's seen now, WSJ, aka right wing rag (RWR). Check.

Article in RWR about Democrats cheating the system. Check.

So let's conjecture that they all do it, just too "look" non partisan in opposing campaign finance reform laws, because you know, they all do it. Check.

Heck why have any laws, because we all know all laws are broken, we all know the legal system isn't foolproof, so why have ANY laws, because we all know that it just doesn't work. Check.

This would of course make Rupert Murdoch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Murdoch) and his ilk at Faux Noise, et. al. very happy, I'll conjecture. Check.

Now, with no campaign finance laws, corporate AmeriKKKa and rich individual AmeriKKKans could just directly dump TRILLIONS of dollars in direct attempts to buy the "democratic" political process, no need to funnel moneys through intermediaries. Check.


Of course the real answer is tougher campaign finance reform and LOWER contribution limits from individuals, et. al., so that "we the people" might truly participate in the so called "democratic" process.


Of all the insipid threads you've started, this one is by far the most insipidity one of all time. CHECK! :p

[trumptman]

So since people break the laws, we all just should eliminate the laws? :no:

WTF?

If the law makes everyone a criminal, shouldn't we question the law?

Should William Danielczyk go to jail just because he wanted to give Hillary Clinton more money?

Let's seen now, WSJ, aka right wing rag (RWR). Check.

Article in RWR about Democrats cheating the system. Check.

So let's conjecture that they all do it, just too "look" non partisan in opposing campaign finance reform laws, because you know, they all do it. Check.

This would of course make Rupert Murdoch and his ilk at Faux Noise, et. al. very happy, I'll conjecture. Check.


Killing the messenger instead of considering the message. Check.

Now, with no campaign finance laws, corporate AmeriKKKa and rich individual AmeriKKKans could just directly dump TRILLIONS of dollars in direct attempts to buy the "democratic" political process, no need to funnel moneys through intermediaries. Check.

Well considering Hillary KKKlinton is leading all fund raisers from all parties, I'm going to presume your racist attack is on her.

Of course the real answer is tougher campaign finance reform and LOWER contribution limits from individuals, et. al., so that "we the people" might truly participate in the so called "democratic" process.

Yes, because the last thing we would want is for some rich people to write some big checks so then the elected officials could get down to talking with "we the people" instead we want them to waste all their time circumventing the law, finding side deals to benefit themselves since no direct contributions can occur (say a nice large book advance while you were in the senate for example) and then you can claim not to do the will of the people since you have to spend all your time "fundraising."

Nick

[Jubelum]

Damn it, Nick... :no:

The Clintons have shown time and again (Charlie Trie) that they do not care where money comes from (the PLA) and that the ends justify the means (Loral Space). We, the people, DESERVE their brand of socialism- it's for our own good, right? Who cares what you have to do... the Rule of Law is meaningless to these people. From Kathleen Willy forward.

As far as Shrillary, my postman is worth MILLIONS, just ask him. :lol:
She's gonna be a fundraising mess. Hide and watch.

Our leaders, regardless of party, do not care about the law... well, very very few of them do.
The law is something to be sidestepped, skirted, and overcome, be that CFR or the US Constitution.

[franksargent]

If the law makes everyone a criminal, shouldn't we question the law?

Should William Danielczyk go to jail just because he wanted to give Hillary Clinton more money?



Killing the messenger instead of considering the message. Check.



Well considering Hillary KKKlinton is leading all fund raisers from all parties, I'm going to presume your racist attack is on her.



Yes, because the last thing we would want is for some rich people to write some big checks so then the elected officials could get down to talking with "we the people" instead we want them to waste all their time circumventing the law, finding side deals to benefit themselves since no direct contributions can occur (say a nice large book advance while you were in the senate for example) and then you can claim not to do the will of the people since you have to spend all your time "fundraising."

Nick

Question the rule of law or enforce the laws? Don't mean to go wing-nut on you, but we need to enforce existing laws or make them even tougher if in fact all people making campaign contributions are in fact "breaking the law!" Care to provide links proving that all campaign contributiors are in fact "breaking the law?" :D

And if someone breaks the law or coerced others working for them to do something that they would not otherwise do of their own free will, than yes he should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, or the laws need to be changed to prevent these practices. :D

As to the WSJ, a well known RWR with a penchant for attack dog pieces on progressives, that's known as "bias with intent" itself an ad hominem, so somehow given their well know biases, your suggesting that I shouldn't respond in kind, in a caustic, blunt, and sardonic fashion? :lol:

Racism? Hmmm, the Knights of the Konservative Krackers, are by and large racists (although these days you rarely see them do so in public, it isn't PC you know, but embed yourself (like I have) and surprise the closet doors start to open)! What's your point?

Your last comment makes absolutely no sense, isn't even remotely rational or logical.

Somehow, I sense you don't think the current game is fair, and are bitter about what will undoubtedly be overwhelming Democratic victories in '08. :p

I must admit that you are a rather easy mark, I always have a boatload of fun, because basically I can't remember a single thread that I've seriously debated you, where I've come out on the short end of the stick! :wow:

EDIT - Instead of cherry picking your responses to my reply please address the following comment from my previous post;

Heck why have any laws, because we all know all laws are broken, we all know the legal system isn't foolproof, so why have ANY laws, because we all know that it just doesn't work.

Maybe now you see the basic flaw in your argument? :\

Signed,
someone who continuously thinks outside the box

[trumptman]

Question the rule of law or enforce the laws? Don't mean to go wing-nut on you, but we need to enforce existing laws or make them even tougher if in fact all people making campaign contributions are in fact "breaking the law!" Care to provide links proving that all campaign contributiors are in fact "breaking the law?" :D

Frank, I'm giving you a chance or two to not be on the ignore list. Please don't "go wing-nut on" me because I'm not coming from that angle on you. Also I've never claimed that all campaign contributors are breaking the law though that is what happens in after the fact because the law basically keeps changing to to attempt to capture and control funds. The tricks from one election cycle become the criminal offenses of the next.

Look at all the laws that ignored when you consider it from your perspective. Campaigns are not supposed to coordinate with 529's. You had loads of folks on the left SCREAMING about the Swift Boat Vets being tied to Bush. Yet there were no firm links. Why? It was because it was a 527 that was NOT regulated by the FEC that just so happened to allow large and unlimited donations expressly because they COULDN'T be controlled by a candidate and COULDN'T coordinate with a campaign.

Sure we could say... well so and so sits on the board and was a major bundler for Bush, but his own contribution was only...$5000. He didn't contribute anything to the 527 on which he sits on the board, but he gave a large donation to another 527 which he doesn't control by sitting on the board and it JUST SO HAPPENED to make a large contribution to this 527, but that isn't in his name.

This complaint (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/527_group) came from both sides.

Yet instead of sounding like nutjob conspiracy theorists, wouldn't it just be easier to say.. yeah Ralph Smith gave Clinton, Bush or whomever $100,000.

The rest wanders off into rant land and I prefer the occasionally rationality you show.

Heck why have any laws, because we all know all laws are broken, we all know the legal system isn't foolproof, so why have ANY laws, because we all know that it just doesn't work.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

If those being governed, are not giving their consent, then the power of the government in that instance is destructive and the people have the right to alter it, not submit to it on their knees.

Maybe now you see the basic flaw in your argument?

Maybe I can see that a government that does not follow the consent of the governed, doesn't mean that there can never be laws or governments, but instead that the government ought to be altered or even abolished (according to the Declaration of Independence) and replaced with that will follow the consent of the governed.

Your flaw is you think that a law must be followed because a government says so. In reality the law is a law because the PEOPLE say so.

Okay I think I get your point after thinking about it more.

The reasoning is that campaign finance laws are ineffectual because everyone seems to find ways around them. And because people have found these other ways, we're in the same position (or in not that much better of a position) as if we didn't have the laws in the first place. Is that what you were trying to say?

Actually the position is worse. Every time we have had campaign finance reform, the level of incumbency has gone up. The money sources are harder than ever to track.

I'm not sure the campaign finance laws are entirely circumvented by current fundraising practices. Candidates might always find craftier ways to get money into their campaigns, but I don't think I'm ready to throw the baby out with the bathwater because of that.

Perhaps you will be when you get tired of people staring at you blankly while you explain the six degrees of separation with regard to following the money.

Nick

[franksargent]

Frank, I'm giving you a chance or two to not be on the ignore list. Please don't "go wing-nut on" me because I'm not coming from that angle on you. Also I've never claimed that all campaign contributors are breaking the law though that is what happens in after the fact because the law basically keeps changing to to attempt to capture and control funds. The tricks from one election cycle become the criminal offenses of the next.

Look at all the laws that ignored when you consider it from your perspective. Campaigns are not supposed to coordinate with 529's. You had loads of folks on the left SCREAMING about the Swift Boat Vets being tied to Bush. Yet there were no firm links. Why? It was because it was a 527 that was NOT regulated by the FEC that just so happened to allow large and unlimited donations expressly because they COULDN'T be controlled by a candidate and COULDN'T coordinate with a campaign.

Sure we could say... well so and so sits on the board and was a major bundler for Bush, but his own contribution was only...$5000. He didn't contribute anything to the 527 on which he sits on the board, but he gave a large donation to another 527 which he doesn't control by sitting on the board and it JUST SO HAPPENED to make a large contribution to this 527, but that isn't in his name.

This complaint (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/527_group) came from both sides.

Yet instead of sounding like nutjob conspiracy theorists, wouldn't it just be easier to say.. yeah Ralph Smith gave Clinton, Bush or whomever $100,000.

The rest wanders off into rant land and I prefer the occasionally rationality you show.



That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

If those being governed, are not giving their consent, then the power of the government in that instance is destructive and the people have the right to alter it, not submit to it on their knees.



Maybe I can see that a government that does not follow the consent of the governed, doesn't mean that there can never be laws or governments, but instead that the government ought to be altered or even abolished (according to the Declaration of Independence) and replaced with that will follow the consent of the governed.

Your flaw is you think that a law must be followed because a government says so. In reality the law is a law because the PEOPLE say so.



Actually the position is worse. Every time we have had campaign finance reform, the level of incumbency has gone up. The money sources are harder than ever to track.



Perhaps you will be when you get tired of people staring at you blankly while you explain the six degrees of separation with regard to following the money.

Nick

I have never seen the point of ignore lists, I'm the curious sort, so I will forever read whatever anyone posts, because even the most extreme (or winger) position may make a point.

I'd even go so far as to say that all POV's encourage me to seek out whatever factual basis is behind the poster's arguments.

And if there is little factual basis, I tend towards the sardonic cartoonish POV.

I don't like today's political landscape one bit, all the ads by special interests, the PAC's, the 527's, the lobbyists, the multitude of campaign promises never met, or most often outright broken. The list goes on, and on, and on, ... :\

So basically I'd like to see less FUD, and more truth, or a more factual basis to our political system, not less by anything goes politics, an anything goes politics by abandoning any limits on campaign contributions however "clever" these groups get with their funding methods in the mean time.

Because its tantamount to anarchy, it becomes nothing more than white noise, look at the opinion polls, on our political leaders, 11% approval ratings for congress. :\

Whatever the original intent of our founding fathers was, I'd like to think they'd all be shocked if they all could look at our current political system in action. :\

And somehow after all this, we all are supposed to be a "beacon" of democracy in action, an example of "democracy" for the rest of the world to follow?

It's all becoming a very bad nightmare, and somehow I can't seem to wake up, Americans can't seem (or don't want) to wake up. :\

Somehow this all seems like ...

http://www.authorama.com/files/humpty-dumpty.gif

Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall. Humpty Dumpty had a great fall. All the king's horses and all the king's men, couldn't put Humpty together again.

[Nightcrawler]

Democracy as in one human, one vote, is an illusion. Big money chooses which candidates to support and therefore defines who gets set up in the first place, the masses that go to vote only have the power to confirm the candidates preselected. And who wins in these elections? Those that have the most money for the election-campaign and those that have the best media-coverage.

The funny thing is that when it comes down to it, in the end it doesn't really matter if candidate a or candidate b wins, mostly it comes down to a 1 vs 1- election, both are a-ok with big money, cause they wouldn't come so far without the support from big money and they are substantially the same only in flavour they differ.

It's completely from ground to top corrupt and rediculous, so why doesn't the US abolish election by the masses and replace it with an election by the big-money-company-ceo's and the billionaires, would be way more transparent, more efficient, save a lot of money and hassle, and instead of one human one vote, it could be tallied as one dollar one vote, the outcome would be exactly the same.


Nightcrawler

[@_@ Artman]

Oh dear, corruption in politics. Wake me when the heads roll...:rolleyes:

http://www.taft.k12.ca.us/library/images/guillotine.jpg

[SDW2001]

Okay I think I get your point after thinking about it more.

The reasoning is that campaign finance laws are ineffectual because everyone seems to find ways around them. And because people have found these other ways, we're in the same position (or in not that much better of a position) as if we didn't have the laws in the first place. Is that what you were trying to say? I'm not sure the campaign finance laws are entirely circumvented by current fundraising practices. Candidates might always find craftier ways to get money into their campaigns, but I don't think I'm ready to throw the baby out with the bathwater because of that.

I think that it goes a step further. To me it seem that campaign finance has gotten WORSE. The best thing would just be to have full disclosure. Ronald Reagan said this 30 years ago...and he was right. He said that if you try and limit contributions, people will just find "various devices" to get around the limits. I see no problem with individuals contributing whatever they want, and perhaps even corporations. In today's media, that person would be labeled a Corporate Whore™ in the blink of an eye. It might actually reveal MORE about our candidates than we know now.