The Billionaire's Third Party

Of course anything the left does with its MSM/Hollywood branch that dwarfs Koch efforts is "irrelevant" and just fine with you. The very fact pattern and jurisprudential history of the Citizens United case, which of course you ignored as I knew you would, demonstrates unequivocally the direct relevance of Hollywood/MSM effectively advertising for the Democratic Party, near elections and at other times. It is the MAIN ISSUE, not your hackery and union label spin that omits the actual facts of the case. Readers can certainly read the links I provided describing exactly what the CU case is really about and make up their own minds. You haven't refuted anything I posted, just called me paranoid, hilariously ironic as the OP of -this- thread which is just more Kochanoia from the union label.

 

Then point that out to the poster who raised it, not me.

Yes, once the anointed Hillary, Joe Biden and Harry Reid were on board voting for it, suddenly the regular Bush hate from the media let up. Thanks for proving my point. It's a plain formula for anyone with eyes and ears watching US media for decades, target the GOP in all ways unless and until Democrats are on board, then let up and move the target to some other issue that Democrats don't support.

More proof of my point above, thanks.

 

Yeah, especially when the Hollywood/MSM branch of the Democratic Party does it to the tune of billions of dollars every single year, not just one (1) billion in one (1) election year, like they did in the Moore anti Bush movie ads that led to the Citizens United decision, and like they do in dozens of other ways such as the Rachel Ray example I posted and this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madam_Secretary_(TV_series)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_Affairs_(TV_series)

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/28/b...nces-mini-series-on-hillary-clinton.html?_r=0

Want your "amassed pools of dark money used to flood the market with their message?" Well right there it is. Of note is that neither of the dramatic series did very well, yet were touted all over television as "big hits!" and got far more press than other shows. Wonder why that is?

Did you make a thread on all this "dark money" from unnamed sources that floods our entertainment with leftist messages daily? Sorry, I guess I missed it. Maybe link it for us?

 

Your claim about Biden, Hillary ,etc does not make any sense at all.

In the marketing of the Iraq war, the American media repeated the Administration's claims without any serious inquiry at all. There was no questioning of the Bush adminstration's bogus attempts to imply that Sadaan as connected to 9/11 and the equally bogus claims about WMD's until after we were well into the war.

And how does the fact that I travel support any argument you make. Unless you're telling us how parochial you are.

 

Yes it does.

No it didn't.

Was just pointing out that you are resorting to anecdotes without even giving any concrete examples accompanying. So the guy who doesn't know who Rachel Ray is, calling me parochial? OK then.

 

That isn't all they are doing with the money. They are financing political parties and candidates. Like I said sharing ideals or beliefs is free speech. Attempting to overthrow an election or give a candidate an exceptional advantage against anyone else who can't get a word in edgewise, is criminal. Do you see the difference?

 

They cannot finance political parties or candidates there are limits to contributions. Only thing they can do is finance their own personal idea campaigns.

 

Oh please. Campaign finance laws are a joke, and full of more loopholes than Swiss cheese has holes. Money is funneled into these campaigns from every direction possible. Regularly. Anyone (including an entity) who donates funding to a candidate they cannot legally cast a vote for is without a doubt attempting to manipulate/meddle in an election they shouldn't be participating in, in the first place. There is no other way of looking at it as anything but.

Whether I give a politician max donation, and then give the party more money to funnel to their campaign, and they give it to the candidate I want it to go too, it still gets to them one way or another (see Tom Delay hypocrisy by whining that democrats do it too...) or represents them in the campaign. OR if I give $10,000,000 to one of these super pac scams and they spend the money running adds supporting them or attacking the opponent running against them, it still being used to get that candidate elected, even if the money isn't directly handed to them.

Semantics is all you are arguing, and honestly this tactic is reaching the point of being nothing but intellectual dishonesty.

http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/guide-to-political-donations ; Fun filled facts on how legally use loopholes to get around the intent of campaign finance rules.

 

I have the same definition as American law and most of the American public - my right to run a political ad, as much as my right to form a political rally, is political free speech. Someone else not liking it doesn't change that.

The group doesn't do it completely outside the political system, except that they don't do it within the major parties - or do you have a problem with the Green party getting any donations, too?

And it should go without saying that their wealth is irrelevant. Whether it's 3 rich people getting together to make an ad or 300,000 poor people getting together to do the same, the lawful rights don't change.

Secrecy? You mean the like "near absolute secrecy" of their plan to raise nearly a billion? Yeah, that's not uber-secret dude.

The whole idea of outside groups being secret is just silly. Whenever they run an ad, it reads "paid for by x". And? Where are your complaints about corporations and unions running ads under their own names? It's the same thing. Do you demand that a union (like SEIU) list the names of all of it's members when they run an ad? No, and that is inconsistent. In essence it's the same thing, there are only two things different: first, they're not supporting your party, and second they spend a little less. And? So what? Name me where in the Constitution there is a cap set on free speech.

You mean that I'm stating that there isn't a Constitutional cap to how the volume of free speech you can have? What, are you going to tell me next that you can only be free from quartering six months a year?

 

Yeah, campaign finance is littered with loopholes. Take this major one for example

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. -Murica

 

As I went through all that, it became abundently clear to me that you don't understand election finance law or how the flood of dark money has been, or will be used.

The clues came from your use of the Green Party and SEIU examples, neither of which even really address the point.

We have created a system that permits anyone with money to buy the message they want to send without the recipient knowing who is behind the message. Conservatives consistantly argue that this doesn't matter, which is ridiculous on its face. There's not better way to hide your agenda than to use laws that allow you to pass youself off as someone else! Which is what dark money does.

The Koch annoucement was bold and blatantly anti democratic.
,
They announced that they are going to build a war chest from among their very wealthy and corporate friends, a fund bigger than either of the two political parties, and direct it themselves as they see fit.

This is entirely outside the normal poltical fundraising sphere, and outside campaign finance laws. This money will be funnelled through third party front groups (501c4 and 6 groups) to do political advertising for campaigns (and if the lax enforcement of the tax definitions in the tax code are any indication) of candidates as well.

Neither of the poltical parties will have any say in how this money gets spent. The GOP might be able to consult on where some of it goes, but the Koch's giant slush fund will be spent pushing Koch candidates. If they happen to be Republicans, that's a happy coincidence. If they happen to be the kind of candidates the GOP has been trying to get rid of for the last two years, that's bad for the GOP (McConnell knows it too).

None of this will happen where you can see it. The Kochs operate through an elaborate network of front groups. All of them utilize parts of the tax code that allow them to collect unlimited cash, and not tell anyone where it came from. There are hints of where it came from in their tax returns. But, of course, by then it will be too late.

Conservatives offer weak and often irrelevant rationalizations to justify this. It appears to be because the Koch agenda appears to be similar to the views of liberatarians. The issue here, is that the Kochs don't give a damn what literatarians think. They're just useful idiots in service of a corporate agenda.

In the short term, the Kochs are trying to buy democracy usuing ill concieved laws and a very poorly drawn Supreme Court decision to subvert democracy.

Democracy does not thrive in a world of dark money and corporate influence peddling. We know that from our own history.

The Green Party has nothing to do with what's going on here.

If the SEIU set up a 501c4 group and started raising money for it, I would most certainly support a law requiring that group to list it's donors.

I just wanted to make that clear.

 

You made your unfounded Kochanoia clear in your OP, which you just parrot again wholesale in the above post. The union label spin doctoring of campaign finance issues as faceless, dark corporate boogeymen has been utterly destroyed in this thread.

That political ads are going to somehow steal American politics in an environment where one party has had Hollywood and MSM inserting billions of dollars worth of blatant political messages into "entertainment" for over two generations now is laughable. What "steals" politics is money in brown bags and the equivalent, not ADVERTISEMENTS. People can easily spot propaganda in an ad or a flyer, not so much in their favorite talk show, nightly news, sitcom or drama. The "big money influence" cat was out of the bag decades ago, YOUR SIDE let it out, now you and yours just can't stand the thought of the other side having any of the same tools at its disposal. The actual facts and history of the CU decision prove this unequivocally, and again, anyone interested should educate themselves as to the real history there the union label doesn't want you to know.

 

And you think Bloomberg, Soros, and Styrer don't? Put it this way no one who becomes involved in politics, in whatever way, doesn't have an axe to grind or an agenda to push. And the Tea party is far more real and Grass roots than the wall street protest group ever thought of being.

 

Not a word of your response to my remarks is true. Not one.

I documented the way this works in detail, and I can give very specific examples.

If you don't think people in both parties (but especially the GOP) are scared down to their socks over this, you really don't understand politics at all.

 

Of course they do. All of them have declared thier agenda in the open, too.

This is a rotten system regarless of whether the name is Koch, Soros or Steyer.

And if the GOP is stupid enough to continue perpetuating it, they will be on the wrong end of it in 2016.

Of course, the difference is only of degree, which, I believe is the point you're trying to make.

But what a degree!

The Koch's have committed themselves to out fundraising either of the poltical parties. It's worth noting that the money that some of the money they raise will come out of money that would have gone to the parties (especially the GOP).

The Kochs, based on their history, are planning on using this money to pick and promote thier own conservative candidates, regardless of what the GOP wants, or what the GOP game plan is.

As a liberal, and speaking only in the short term, I should be delighted, as this will drive the wedge that already splits the GOP far deeper, using a weapon that every politician understands; cash!

But as an American, I am deeply disturbed. You mention the usual names, Soros, Steyer and Bloomberg. Let us say, for example, that these three banded together along with a like minded collection of well heeled liberals, and started assembling a secret war chest funneled through various front groups for the purpose of running a national campaign to get a secret slate of candidates elected.

Would you view that as a threat to the democratic process?

I would.

 

No not really. I frankly look forward to the change. Given the sort of leadership those pacs you spoke of have provided us over the last few years I can't feature almost any change that doesn't involve brown shirts and frying small business people in their own oil, not being to the good.

 

I think you are kind of missing the point. While I do have reservations about unlimited funding, since the SCOTUS has ruled on it, I will abide by their interpretation. But that does not mean the donors should be anonymous. It you want to speak in the town square, fine but don't hide behind the woodshed then scream Fire!

A perfect example was here in Florida where we had a ballot amendment to legalize medical marijuana. It was a rather low funded affair with some 80% approval in late summer. But it failed to gather 60% mostly because of an extremely aggressive media buy during the last month of the campaign. Who by? It turned out that 95% of all funding for the anti-amendment campaign came from Sheldon Adelson. Interestingly enough, there was a 10 point swing back in favor of the amendment after the filing became public, so it looks like we will have another chance in 2 years. Meanwhile those whose suffering could have been improved will have to wait because an out of state casino owner didn't think they mattered.

If you are going to enter the poltical arena, do so bravely and openly. John Hancock had no reservations pledging his Life, Forture, or Sacred Honor. Why should a billionaire be given a pass?

 

We're not talking about pacs. If you don't know the difference, you really don't understand how dangerous this is.

 

Ayuh,... Funny, that sounds exactly like the way Obama came into power,......

This is what yer truly scared of,... A strong 3rd party that's gonna upset yer apple cart,....

Many of Us common folk happen to believe as the Koch Bros.....
Just because the Koch Bros name is what you've been told to attack, don't mean there ain't a followin' of common folk who are also a part of the movement that scares you so badly,...

Just as you, 'n yer side loves to attack the NRA,...
We are a group of common folk, who pool our resources to create a bigger bang, for our limited bucks,.....
Almost 6 million of Us,....
Citizen United gave Us our voice back,...

 

Every word in my response is true. Every one.

 

You stated, did you not, that the super pac system pretty much gave us our Last few Presidents? I merely stated that given the record of the various super pac candidates over the last few I was willing to let someone else pick the eventual winners because the super pac system isn't exactly producing the best the brightest or the most qualified.

 

Actually, that' not how Obama came to power.

Doing that in the same manner as the Koch groups do now, would have been illegal in 2008.

You're working hard to ignore my point, and rationalize the theft of democracy by plutocrats because you're apparantly naieve enough to believe that you should support a robber baron's agenda, just because they feed you some pablum that happens to coincide with what you believe.

My point is that this sort of secret bundling of huge sums of money by very powerful people on a scale that dwarf any established poltical organization in this country is a potential threat to democracy. When a group of billionaires works in secret to install their candidates in office, the only people being served are the billionaires.

This is not a "strong third party". Its not a party at all. It's the appearance of one for the purposes of advancing the cause of billionaires.

A lot of conservatives try and rationalize the acceptability of that because they think that the libertarian fantisies and simplistic slogans they peddle will be good for them.

You may "believe as the Kochs do", but they don't give a damm about you, and helping you is not on their to do list.

Then you go on about the NRA. Which has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Citizen's United did not alter either the status or the power of the NRA at all.

 

No, I did not.

I never cared much for the Super Pac model either, as it too, allowed a lot of influence to be concentrated.

Of course, Super Pacs have been used for graft too. Karl Rove put a lot of the cash he raised for Crossroads GPS, which is actually two funds, a super pac and a 501c4 group, in his pocket.

501c4's are often used by thier operators to pocket their donor's money. A number of tea party groups operated that way.

The issues is secrecy and power.

People with integrity take responsibility for what they say. The sign their names.

People like the Kochs do not. They have something to hide, and they work hard at hiding it. Now they're being joined by other wealthy people who will work to hide their role in trying to manipulate your vote.

Conservatives either go to great lengths to miss that point, or they pretend it's acceptable, or they try and deflect by talking about Soros, Steyer and Bloomberg. (all three added together invested a fraction of what the Kochs did in 2012).

As always in discussions like this, the final conservative rationalization is that money doesn't really matter in politics, which is ridiculous on its face. The obvious response is to ask why the GOP especially is always money grubbing from fat cats, and why, if it doesn't matter, are the Koch's more than doubling their bet????

No one ever wants to answer that question. Why? Because the Koch's behavior makes a mockery of all the arguments that right wingers use to defend it.

 

Yes but when your name is attached to right wing groups leftist twits show up on your front door step and at your place of business with picket signs and the NYT prints your name in the paper. Hence people on the right who do not wish their lives disrupted by the young stalinist crowd aka OWS etc. want anonymity.

 

So, you really are opposed to free speech.