After Barack Obama won the Presidency in 2008, the big boy changed the rules of the game using legal channels to put he odds back in their favor, (eg Citizen United case). It's like a seven card stud poker game, where the dealer calls deuces wild after looking at his hold cards. LOL
Anyway, below is a link to an article that appeared in the NY Times today, (eg Who's Financing the Super PACs). #---------------------------------- Excerpt: Who’s Financing the ‘Super PACs’ The Times tracked donors to “super PACs” as they filed reports on Tuesday detailing their activities in the final three months of 2011. Unlike candidates, who can raise a maximum of $2,500 per person for each election, super PACs are independent from candidates and can raise unlimited amounts from individuals, corporations and labor unions, and spend unlimited amounts to support or oppose a candidate. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/01/31/us/politics/super-pac-donors.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=thab1 or http://tinyurl.com/76pcu3p #------------------------------------ Regards, LelandJ On 01/31/2012 01:33 PM, lelandj wrote: > Below is more information on super-PACs: > > #----------------------------------- > > Super PACs > > The 2010 election marked the rise of a new political committee, dubbed > the "super PAC," and officially known as "independent-expenditure only > committees," which can raise unlimited sums from corporations, unions > and other groups, as well as individuals.[5] The super PACs were made > possible by two judicial decisions. First the U.S. Supreme Court held in > Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that government may not > prohibit unions and corporations from making independent expenditures > about politics. Soon after, in Speechnow.org v. FEC, the Federal Court > of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit held that contributions to groups that > only make independent expenditures could not be limited.[6] Super PACs > are not allowed to coordinate directly with candidates or political > parties since they are "independent". However, a candidate may "talk to > his associated super PAC via the media. And the super PAC can listen, > like everybody else," according to journalist Peter Grier, election law > expert Rick Hasen[7] and former chairman of the United States Federal > Election Commission Trevor Potter (the lawyer of TV satirists Jon > Stewart and Stephen Colbert[8]). > > Super PACs are required to disclose their donors, just like traditional > PACs.[9] However, many exploit a technicality in the filing requirements > in order to postpone disclosure until well after the elections they > participate in.[10] > > Even absent a formal connection to a campaign, Super PACs openly support > particular candidacies. In the primary season before the 2012 > presidential campaign, for example, the Restore Our Future Super PAC > benefited Republican Mitt Romney while attacking rival Newt > Gingrich.[11] In the same election, the pro-Gingrich Winning Our Future > Super PAC attacked Romney.[12] Each Super PAC was run by former > employees of the candidate it supported, and each attracted money from > that candidate's associates.[11][12] > > During the 2012 presidential campaign season, comedians Stephen Colbert > and Jon Stewart created the Colbert Super PAC, which they used on their > satirical TV shows to illustrate the workings of election campaigns. > > Super Pacs use soft money, or they do not have a limit to how much money > they donate, unlike the traditional PAC's which use hard money meaning > that they are required under the 503(c)(3) tax, which requires them to > pay a basic tax and a reduction on what they donate to > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_action_committee > > #------------------------------------ > > Regards, > > LelandJ > > > > On 01/31/2012 12:09 PM, Stephen Russell wrote: >> On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 11:53 AM, lelandj<[email protected]> wrote: >>> On 01/31/2012 09:37 AM, Stephen Russell wrote: >>>> On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 9:27 AM, lelandj<[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> Members of the Church of Christ, whose headquarters are in Abilene, >>>>> Texas, detest Mormonism. I think the strong negative response to >>>>> Mormonism in Abilene, TX is due to "The Church of Christ" and "The >>>>> Church of Latter Day Saints" being two sides of the same coin. Members >>>>> of The Church of Christ, unable to hate/fear themselves, redirect their >>>>> feelings toward The Mormon Church, which they so closely resembles. >>>>> >>>>> The Church of Latter Day Saints and The Church of Christ are both very >>>>> controlling of their members, which is probably why Provo, UT, home of >>>>> Mormonism, was rank 1st most conservative city in the USA, and Abilene, >>>>> TX was ranked 3rd most conservative city in the USA. It's surprising to >>>>> me that Lubbock, TX, home of my alma mater Texas Tech, was rank 2nd most >>>>> conservative city in the USA. >>>>> >>>>> #--------------------------------------- >>>>> Excerpt: >>>>> >>>>> Heading into the Florida primary, Mitt Romney appears to be in the lead. >>>>> The candidate, whose results so far have been mixed, continues to be >>>>> stymied by suspicions about his religion. But why are so many Americans >>>>> uncomfortable with Mormonism? >>>>> >>>>> A recent Pew survey, found that Mormons are hard-working and >>>>> civic-minded. Couldn’t the nation use some Mormon discipline: frugality, >>>>> morality, self-improvement, worldliness? Indeed, with these traits, >>>>> shouldn’t Americans be dying to vote for a Mormon? >>>>> >>>>> http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/01/30/what-is-it-about-mormons >>>>> >>> I read in the comments of the article provided via link, that the Mormon >>> Church is now the wealthiest Church in the world, even exceeding the >>> wealth of the Catholic Church. With the new ruling from the Supreme >>> court regarding "Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission", Mitt >>> Romney will likely have all the contributions he needs in his super-PAC, >>> coming largely from his Mormon base, to finance his campaign. This >>> thought is a little disconcerting. >>> >> ----------------------------- >> >> I would worry about the super PAC that he has behind him first. Are >> those business who pony up the cash run by people outside of the >> religion shingle? My guess is yes. Now finding who they are is >> probably very difficult because Congress fixed it to make it easier >> for themselves didn't they? >> >> >> > [excessive quoting removed by server] _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
