A couple of related things happened yesterday; first, the Republicans engaged ina fillibuster in the Senate that defeated a bill that would have required corporations,unions, and nonprofits to disclose anytime they donated $10,000 to a political campaign. http://bostonglobe.com/news/politics/20 ... story.html ; secondly, there was an article published alleging that Shelden Adelsons's company, Las Vegas Sands, may have violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act by donating money to local Chinese officials in Macu to obtain favorable Chinese government decisions on sevearl issues (including a concession on a ferry that brought gamblers to the casino), the selling of property in Macu, and having an IPO on the Hong Kong stock exchange to obtain billions of dollars in needed money for the company (which was struggling mightily because of the downturn in gamblers to Vegas due to the 2008 downturn).

Shelden Adelson has reportedly donated a large amount of money to Romeny (also 5 milloin to Eric Cantor). He has a vested interest in getting Romney reelected to make sure there is no investigation of his dealings in Macu. Adelson would already benefit from Romney cutting the corporate tax rate to 25%. Romney would also cut all taxes on profits U.S. companies made overseas--this would help Adelson as well. Adelson therefore has a huge financial intereste in getting Romney reelected and thus has a prudent (not ideological) finanical interest in donating large amounts of money to Romney.

It it also noteworthy that Republican superpacs have raiised much money than Demoractic superpacs since Citizens United. See e.g. http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2 ... erpac.html for an article about this presidential race.

At best, Adelson i having much too influence by one person in a presidential election for his own financial benefit (at worst there is the appearance of corruption). And Republicans used a fillibuster to defeat disclosure of donations to superpacs. Where, Republicans, is your defense of doing a filibuster to defeat a disclosure bill that would allow us to at least track where the money is going? I don't see what the defense is going to be--you don't mind winning even at the cost of having billionaires buy our elections?

Allowing donations to be hidden is bad for companies and for politics. Shareholders deserve to know where their money is going (and I would argue that employees and regulators do too). The people deserve to know who is backing candidates before they vote for or against.

regardless of which party is doing this (and I suspect that there are donors to the Dems who would also like to hide) it is corrosive. That it is bound up with possible bribery and corruption in Macau should give us pause - what is to stop it being used to enable bribery and corruption in the USA?

freeman2 wrote:Where, Republicans, is your defense of doing a filibuster to defeat a disclosure bill that would allow us to at least track where the money is going? I don't see what the defense is going to be...

Such righteous outrage! But you can't see if you won't see. Obviously you didn't read the very article to which you linked. The defense you seek was hiding in plain sight. I quote the last few lines:

...Republican Scott Brown, called the legislation “a cynical ploy masquerading as reform” in restating his opposition. Brown voted against a previous version put to a vote in 2010. “Rather than treat all sides equally as a true reform bill would, it contains special carve-outs for union bosses and other favored interest groups,” he said.

Can you now "see what the defense is going to be"? Maybe it's a bad defense, maybe a good one, maybe an indifferent one, but it does qualify as one. Curb your outrage.

At the exact same time, Romney went after Obama on the issue of Crony Capitalism.....

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/ ... -guide.php

Yeah, you have to watch out for Presidential candidates raising money overseas:

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/art ... in_geneva/

He's also holding fundraisers in France, China, and who knows where else.

Ricky, that's a fine issue, but wrong forum.

I still never understand how it is that riders and carve-outs get added to the bills. I mean, I get the basic idea but when they create awful bills almost every time it surely indicates there's a problem with the process, not the politics.

Fate; below is from your first article. When did Americans living abroad become foreigners?

Actor George Clooney is offering more help to President Barack Obama's re-election campaign by headlining a European fundraiser this summer for Americans living abroad

Well, Fate, the bill includes unions so it sound like Scott Brown had a pretty bad defense

fate

Ricky, that's a fine issue, but wrong forum

Its exactly the right forum. Political donations are offered with expectations...
One protection against the corruption is to ensure complete transparency of who receives donation, from whom ..and how much.
Unwillingness to be transparent can only lead to an assumption that there is something very significant to keep secret.
The whole reason Romney had any information to use in his attempted foray on Obamas cronyism is that all the donations to Obama were made public. And Romneys team could follow the money trail...
But his congressional allies would like that to end.

rickyp wrote:Fate; below is from your first article. When did Americans living abroad become foreigners?

Actor George Clooney is offering more help to President Barack Obama's re-election campaign by headlining a European fundraiser this summer for Americans living abroad

Right, an who is there screening the money?

Obama had to return some 2008 contributions, well after the election, because their source could not be documented.

This is all funny anyway. Obama broke the campaign finance system by ignoring it last time. Now, Democrats are up in arms that Republicans are going to raise money like the President did and is doing. Oh, the shame--using his own strategy!

http://freebeacon.com/not-so-full-disclosure/

This is a fuller account of the issue, although it is from a biased source.

rickyp wrote:fate

Ricky, that's a fine issue, but wrong forum

Its exactly the right forum. Political donations are offered with expectations...

You don't want to go down that road. Obama, corruption fighter?

The man who vowed to keep lobbyists out?

The man who took the "high road" on bundlers?

One protection against the corruption is to ensure complete transparency of who receives donation, from whom ..and how much.
Unwillingness to be transparent can only lead to an assumption that there is something very significant to keep secret.

Obama is in a saran wrap house. Stop throwing the bricks. If you just google what his bundlers got and how he broke his promises re lobbyists, it's not so hard to see.

The man invokes the word "transparency" but also invokes executive privilege for no good legal reason. How about the Rezko (felon) real estate deal? His college applications (those might be intriguing)? His college thesis?

There are many things Obama has kept sealed.

The whole reason Romney had any information to use in his attempted foray on Obamas cronyism is that all the donations to Obama were made public. And Romneys team could follow the money trail...
But his congressional allies would like that to end.

Really? A Chicago pol is clean? You really want to make that wager? Oh, I forgot: you don't bet. You just make outrageous claims, fail to back them up, etc.

Ray Jay wrote:http://freebeacon.com/not-so-full-disclosure/

This is a fuller account of the issue, although it is from a biased source.

Well, if this is true, it certainly would undercut any bias claim. From your link:

The American Civil Liberties Union, which also supported the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United, opposes the DISCLOSE Act as well.

So, is the ACLU suddenly a shill for the GOP?



Thanks for the link, RJ.

Ray Jay wrote:This is a fuller account of the issue, although it is from a biased source.

Neither side comes out of that account particularly well, as much as it was largely aimed at attacking the Democrats and unions.

I'm not sure the ACLU are right to be standing up for the 'right' to hide what is really large-scale political funding. It's not 'private', it has an effect on the public sphere and so should be public. If you are going to remove limits on funding for 'free speech', at least people should be prepared to be open about what they are saying (and how much they are paying to say it).

PS: Ricky, DF, let's end the argument now. You both lose

danivon wrote:

Ray Jay wrote:This is a fuller account of the issue, although it is from a biased source.

Neither side comes out of that account particularly well, as much as it was largely aimed at attacking the Democrats and unions.

I'm not sure the ACLU are right to be standing up for the 'right' to hide what is really large-scale political funding. It's not 'private', it has an effect on the public sphere and so should be public. If you are going to remove limits on funding for 'free speech', at least people should be prepared to be open about what they are saying (and how much they are paying to say it).

I fully agree. If the constitution permits unlimited funding, at the very least we should just require full disclosure so that we can all realize the extent to which the election is about competing special interest groups. It's frustrating that it all has to be so complicated and partisan.