Sign Up | Log In
REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS
Stephen strikes again
Friday, January 13, 2012 10:04 AM
NIKI2
Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...
Quote:"It requires evidence with respect to communications and conversations that took place, and usually those are not documented," Sandstrom said. The regulations governing independent expenditures are so specific that unless the commissioners have a witness to one of those consultations, the FEC is unlikely to gather enough evidence to open an investigation. An expenditure is not independent if the candidate or his staff is "materially involved in decisions regarding the communications" or "shares financial responsibility" for it, according to FEC rules. .... The PAC was founded and run by operatives from Romney's 2008 presidential campaign, including Charles Spies, former chief financial officer, Carl Forti, former political director, and Larry McCarthy, a former media team member. Billionaire casino mogul Sheldon Adelson has answered by writing a $5 million check to "Winning Our Future," a Gingrich-supporting super PAC. The money is expected to fund a $3.4 million ad campaign in South Carolina criticizing Romney's tenure with private equity firm Bain Capital. The most recent FEC investigation regarding coordination was settled in May 2009 and involved the election committee of former Rep. Joe Schwarz, R-Mich., and the Republican Main Street Partnership PAC. The FEC uncovered emails spanning six months in 2006 between members of the PAC and the Schwarz campaign. One email revealed Schwarz campaign director Matt Marsden had contacted the PAC's treasurer with a suggestion for a radio ad on behalf of Schwarz. One week later, two radio stations ran ads following the theme the Schwarz director suggested. Other emails revealed Schwarz staffers recommended which radio stations the PAC should target. The complaint was filed by Club for Growth, a conservative PAC backing Schwarz's main challenger. Schwarz vehemently denied his staff broke any laws and spent around $50,000 and three years fighting the charge before agreeing to settle, according to The Jackson (Michigan) Citizen Patriot. Each group was fined $2,500. ..... Election watchdogs Democracy 21 and the Campaign Legal Center filed a related complaint against Rick Perry and the Make Us Great Again PAC, alleging that Perry used several video clips, free of charge, in his own ad that Make Us Great Again produced. This constitutes an illegal in-kind contribution, the groups say. The complaint does not explicitly reference the coordination rule, but Campaign Legal Center attorney Paul Ryan said campaign contribution limits and coordination rules are directly related. "The whole purpose of the coordination rules is to prevent a candidate from evading campaign contribution rules," Ryan said. "Without them, the contribution rules would be pretty meaningless." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/the-center-for-public-integrity/rules-against-coordinatio_b_1204355.html, well, they ARE. And everyone knows it. As Gingrich pointed out,Quote:"This is a man whose staff created the PAC, his millionaire friends fund the PAC, he pretends he has nothing to do with the PAC — it's baloney. He's not telling the American people the truth," Gingrich said on CBS last week. ..... There's a never-ending debate over whether the ban has teeth and whether the Federal Election Commission really enforces it. As Cleta Mitchell, a long-time campaign finance lawyer for conservative causes and candidates, puts it: "There's this myth that somehow there's a 'wink-wink, nod-nod' between the campaigns and the PACs, and I just haven't seen it." Mitchell's current clients include one of the super PACs supporting Texas Gov. Rick Perry. http://kazu.org/post/look-super-pacs-and-political-coordination, huh. How stupid do they really think we ARE? Or is it more likely they figure (possibly quite rightly) that enough of us don't give a shit to do anything about it. So what Colbert's doing is obvious:Quote:Stephen Colbert is laughing at the U.S. Supreme Court. He started Thursday night, on his show, when Colbert transferred control of his super PAC to his mentor, business partner and friend, Jon Stewart. It’s a great set piece of comedic theater underscored by a serious argument: Justice Anthony Kennedy, joined by a majority on the Supreme Court, issued a ruling in 2010 rewriting the nation’s campaign finance rules that is, on its face, pretty absurd. In the majority opinion, the court agreed with past court rulings that the threat of corruption trumps the First Amendment rights of a person, corporation or union to give unlimited amounts of money to politicians for use in campaigns. But then Kennedy and the High Court created a huge carve-out based on a factual statement: “We now conclude that independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.” In other words, Kennedy stated that if a wealthy individual, corporation or union spends its money to support its candidate independently, the First Amendment does not have to be more important than the threat of corruption. Rather, “corruption or the appearance of corruption” is simply no longer a threat. Candidates would no longer feel the need to repay their contributors with favors, and contributors would no longer feel they can influence the candidates with the money. The key word here is “independent.” This word, in the 2012 presidential campaign, does not really mean in practice what it seems to mean on paper. It all comes down to the legal interpretation of “independence” that has been proffered by the Federal Election Commission. This regulatory body has decided that candidates can be considered independent of a supporting group as long as the candidate does not privately communicate with that group about the way it spends its money. That’s it. If the candidate, appears at the group’s fundraisers to speak, then the group is still independent. If the candidate publicly approves of the work the group is doing, then the group is still independent. If the group is run entirely by former staff and close friends of the candidate, then the group is still independent. If the group’s leaders tell donors that they will spend all of their money in a way that coincides with the candidate’s own public strategy, then the group is still independent. If the candidate slips up, as Romney has done, and suggests publicly that a donation to the group is a donation to himself, then the group is still independent. And so we get the case of Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, and the Definitely Not Coordinating With Stephen Colbert Super PAC, which has been established with the clear intent of showing how much coordination is still allowed with out triggering the legal definition of coordination. It is a grand experiment. And it clearly mocks the logic that the Supreme Court and the Federal Elections Commission have constructed. If anyone thinks that Stephen Colbert will not take note of, or be grateful for, contributions to the Definitely Not Coordinating With Stephen Colbert Super PAC, they can step forward now. As Rick Tyler, who is running the Newt Gingrich Super PAC told me for my TIME article on the topic, “It’s a big shell game.” UPDATE: The Supreme Court’s reasoning is about to be further put to the test. Rick Tyler, who runs Winning Our Future, previously told me that he takes his strategic cues from Newt Gingrich’s public statements. Today, in Florida, Gingrich called on Winning Our Future to pull its King of Bain attacks on Romney. The LA Times reports: “Rick Tyler, a spokesman for the PAC, responded that he was “aware of and share the speaker’s concerns about accuracy,” and promised a more thorough response would be forthcoming.” If Tyler does what he said he would do, and follows Gingrich’s lead, there will be little doubt that Gingrich effectively controls Winning Our Future, even if he legally is not coordinating with the group. http://swampland.time.com/2012/01/13/stephen-colbert-vs-the-supreme-court-testing-the-limits-of-super-pac-coordination/#ixzz1jN0apzLa"Citizens United" is a joke, and PLANNED "legal" corruption, nothing more. Go Stephen!
Quote:"This is a man whose staff created the PAC, his millionaire friends fund the PAC, he pretends he has nothing to do with the PAC — it's baloney. He's not telling the American people the truth," Gingrich said on CBS last week. ..... There's a never-ending debate over whether the ban has teeth and whether the Federal Election Commission really enforces it. As Cleta Mitchell, a long-time campaign finance lawyer for conservative causes and candidates, puts it: "There's this myth that somehow there's a 'wink-wink, nod-nod' between the campaigns and the PACs, and I just haven't seen it." Mitchell's current clients include one of the super PACs supporting Texas Gov. Rick Perry. http://kazu.org/post/look-super-pacs-and-political-coordination, huh. How stupid do they really think we ARE? Or is it more likely they figure (possibly quite rightly) that enough of us don't give a shit to do anything about it. So what Colbert's doing is obvious:Quote:Stephen Colbert is laughing at the U.S. Supreme Court. He started Thursday night, on his show, when Colbert transferred control of his super PAC to his mentor, business partner and friend, Jon Stewart. It’s a great set piece of comedic theater underscored by a serious argument: Justice Anthony Kennedy, joined by a majority on the Supreme Court, issued a ruling in 2010 rewriting the nation’s campaign finance rules that is, on its face, pretty absurd. In the majority opinion, the court agreed with past court rulings that the threat of corruption trumps the First Amendment rights of a person, corporation or union to give unlimited amounts of money to politicians for use in campaigns. But then Kennedy and the High Court created a huge carve-out based on a factual statement: “We now conclude that independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.” In other words, Kennedy stated that if a wealthy individual, corporation or union spends its money to support its candidate independently, the First Amendment does not have to be more important than the threat of corruption. Rather, “corruption or the appearance of corruption” is simply no longer a threat. Candidates would no longer feel the need to repay their contributors with favors, and contributors would no longer feel they can influence the candidates with the money. The key word here is “independent.” This word, in the 2012 presidential campaign, does not really mean in practice what it seems to mean on paper. It all comes down to the legal interpretation of “independence” that has been proffered by the Federal Election Commission. This regulatory body has decided that candidates can be considered independent of a supporting group as long as the candidate does not privately communicate with that group about the way it spends its money. That’s it. If the candidate, appears at the group’s fundraisers to speak, then the group is still independent. If the candidate publicly approves of the work the group is doing, then the group is still independent. If the group is run entirely by former staff and close friends of the candidate, then the group is still independent. If the group’s leaders tell donors that they will spend all of their money in a way that coincides with the candidate’s own public strategy, then the group is still independent. If the candidate slips up, as Romney has done, and suggests publicly that a donation to the group is a donation to himself, then the group is still independent. And so we get the case of Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, and the Definitely Not Coordinating With Stephen Colbert Super PAC, which has been established with the clear intent of showing how much coordination is still allowed with out triggering the legal definition of coordination. It is a grand experiment. And it clearly mocks the logic that the Supreme Court and the Federal Elections Commission have constructed. If anyone thinks that Stephen Colbert will not take note of, or be grateful for, contributions to the Definitely Not Coordinating With Stephen Colbert Super PAC, they can step forward now. As Rick Tyler, who is running the Newt Gingrich Super PAC told me for my TIME article on the topic, “It’s a big shell game.” UPDATE: The Supreme Court’s reasoning is about to be further put to the test. Rick Tyler, who runs Winning Our Future, previously told me that he takes his strategic cues from Newt Gingrich’s public statements. Today, in Florida, Gingrich called on Winning Our Future to pull its King of Bain attacks on Romney. The LA Times reports: “Rick Tyler, a spokesman for the PAC, responded that he was “aware of and share the speaker’s concerns about accuracy,” and promised a more thorough response would be forthcoming.” If Tyler does what he said he would do, and follows Gingrich’s lead, there will be little doubt that Gingrich effectively controls Winning Our Future, even if he legally is not coordinating with the group. http://swampland.time.com/2012/01/13/stephen-colbert-vs-the-supreme-court-testing-the-limits-of-super-pac-coordination/#ixzz1jN0apzLa"Citizens United" is a joke, and PLANNED "legal" corruption, nothing more. Go Stephen!
Quote:Stephen Colbert is laughing at the U.S. Supreme Court. He started Thursday night, on his show, when Colbert transferred control of his super PAC to his mentor, business partner and friend, Jon Stewart. It’s a great set piece of comedic theater underscored by a serious argument: Justice Anthony Kennedy, joined by a majority on the Supreme Court, issued a ruling in 2010 rewriting the nation’s campaign finance rules that is, on its face, pretty absurd. In the majority opinion, the court agreed with past court rulings that the threat of corruption trumps the First Amendment rights of a person, corporation or union to give unlimited amounts of money to politicians for use in campaigns. But then Kennedy and the High Court created a huge carve-out based on a factual statement: “We now conclude that independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.” In other words, Kennedy stated that if a wealthy individual, corporation or union spends its money to support its candidate independently, the First Amendment does not have to be more important than the threat of corruption. Rather, “corruption or the appearance of corruption” is simply no longer a threat. Candidates would no longer feel the need to repay their contributors with favors, and contributors would no longer feel they can influence the candidates with the money. The key word here is “independent.” This word, in the 2012 presidential campaign, does not really mean in practice what it seems to mean on paper. It all comes down to the legal interpretation of “independence” that has been proffered by the Federal Election Commission. This regulatory body has decided that candidates can be considered independent of a supporting group as long as the candidate does not privately communicate with that group about the way it spends its money. That’s it. If the candidate, appears at the group’s fundraisers to speak, then the group is still independent. If the candidate publicly approves of the work the group is doing, then the group is still independent. If the group is run entirely by former staff and close friends of the candidate, then the group is still independent. If the group’s leaders tell donors that they will spend all of their money in a way that coincides with the candidate’s own public strategy, then the group is still independent. If the candidate slips up, as Romney has done, and suggests publicly that a donation to the group is a donation to himself, then the group is still independent. And so we get the case of Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, and the Definitely Not Coordinating With Stephen Colbert Super PAC, which has been established with the clear intent of showing how much coordination is still allowed with out triggering the legal definition of coordination. It is a grand experiment. And it clearly mocks the logic that the Supreme Court and the Federal Elections Commission have constructed. If anyone thinks that Stephen Colbert will not take note of, or be grateful for, contributions to the Definitely Not Coordinating With Stephen Colbert Super PAC, they can step forward now. As Rick Tyler, who is running the Newt Gingrich Super PAC told me for my TIME article on the topic, “It’s a big shell game.” UPDATE: The Supreme Court’s reasoning is about to be further put to the test. Rick Tyler, who runs Winning Our Future, previously told me that he takes his strategic cues from Newt Gingrich’s public statements. Today, in Florida, Gingrich called on Winning Our Future to pull its King of Bain attacks on Romney. The LA Times reports: “Rick Tyler, a spokesman for the PAC, responded that he was “aware of and share the speaker’s concerns about accuracy,” and promised a more thorough response would be forthcoming.” If Tyler does what he said he would do, and follows Gingrich’s lead, there will be little doubt that Gingrich effectively controls Winning Our Future, even if he legally is not coordinating with the group. http://swampland.time.com/2012/01/13/stephen-colbert-vs-the-supreme-court-testing-the-limits-of-super-pac-coordination/#ixzz1jN0apzLa
YOUR OPTIONS
NEW POSTS TODAY
OTHER TOPICS
FFF.NET SOCIAL