@DCGoldPants Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44011308/ns/politics-decision_2012/#.Tjq2IILlrS4 A mystery company that pumped $1 million into a political committee backing Mitt Romney has been dissolved just months after it was formed, leaving few clues as to who was behind one of the biggest contributions yet of the 2012 presidential campaign.The existence of the million-dollar donation — as gleaned from campaign and corporate records obtained by NBC News — provides a vivid example of how secret campaign cash is being funneled in ever more circuitous ways into the political system. The company, W Spann LLC, was formed in March by a Boston lawyer who specializes in estate tax planning for “high net worth individuals,” according to corporate records and the lawyer’s bio on her firm’s website. The corporate records provide no information about the owner of the firm, its address or its type of business. Six weeks later, W Spann LLC made its million-dollar donation to Restore Our Future — a new so-called “super PAC” started by a group of former Romney political aides to boost the former Massachusetts governor’s presidential bid. It listed its address as being in a midtown Manhattan office building that has no record of such a tenant. The Boston lawyer, Cameron Casey, dissolved the company on July 12 — two weeks before Restore Our Future made its first campaign filing of the year reporting the donation from the now-nonexistent company, the corporate records show. “I don’t see how you can do this,” said Lawrence Noble, the former general counsel of the Federal Election Commission, when asked about the contribution from the now defunct company. more after the jump Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 You mean, when we rule that corporations are immune to campaign finance laws, then wealthy people who want to get around campaign finance laws will create dummy corporations to launder their money? Who could have predicted that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artmonkforHOF Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 what's the big deal? I thought Rove got Bush to cut limits on campaign donations from corporations to presidential candidates.Oh wait, my bad,that just for state supreme court judges, so I guess I can see how people want to have this investigated. The easiest way to stop this kind of political purchasing is to ban political campaign donations from corporations. There is no reason for a corporation to fund a political campaign, if the people working for the company believe one candidate is better for their business than another candidate, then let employees contribute. Corporations do not need an additional voice in politics, their concerns are shared by the employees who can take those matters to elected officials individually. Some might argue that this method could burden a politician, but if a politician is burdened by talking to his/her constituents, then maybe they should not be in politics to begin with. How different would DC look if there where no lobbyists? One can dream can't he? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 Well, in fairness, this is how Romney became a gazillionaire. A lof of companies paid him big money and then went out of business. Granted, he usually made them go out of business but whatever. Same spirit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 This is certainly a way to hide identities of donors, but why is that such a big deal? Romeny didnt get the money directly, so what's the problem? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 Hunt the orchestrators down and make examples of them if nefarious. Don't vote for his ass if he doesn't lead the charge! There are good people not running because of crap like this. Money rules unfortunately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 Can politicians just wear advertisements like NASCAR and get it over with? It would make things much more legitimate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 This is certainly a way to hide identities of donors, but why is that such a big deal?Romeny didnt get the money directly, so what's the problem? Right. What could possibly be wrong, for our democratic process, for our politicians to be receiving millions of dollars in untraceable cash, where the politician knows where the money came from, but the voter's don't? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 Right. What could possibly be wrong, for our democratic process, for our politicians to be receiving millions of dollars in untraceable cash, where the politician knows where the money came from, but the voter's don't? Romney didnt get the money. Restore Our Future did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 Romney didnt get the money. Restore Our Future did. An organization which was founded for the purpose of funding Romney. But, hey, if it passes through the hands of a couple of entities that exist on paper only, then that makes it OK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 Can politicians just wear advertisements like NASCAR and get it over with? It would make things much more legitimate Awesome!!! Talk about truth in politics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
88Comrade2000 Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 I think Romney might be toast once Perry gets in unless the anti tea party people settle on him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 An organization which was founded for the purpose of funding Romney. But, hey, if it passes through the hands of a couple of entities that exist on paper only, then that makes it OK. Even that is true and the PAC does nothing but help Romney, it's not nefarious or illegal. If Romney created it, that's a problem. But you could start a PAC to solely support any candidate you like and collect money to do so. Super Pacs are perfectly legal and support both parties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 I think Romney might be toast once Perry gets in unless the anti tea party people settle on him. Been wondering whether to start a thread on this. I'm not certain that it's really worthy. HuffPo: Rick Perry Day Of Prayer Shadows 2012 Ambitions AUSTIN, Texas — Openly and deeply religious, Texas Gov. Rick Perry organized what seemed like a slam-dunk event for a politician in a state where religion and politics walk hand in hand: He would fill Houston's Reliant Stadium with fellow believers in a seven-hour session of Christian atonement by some of the nation's most conservative preachers, exhorting believers to pray about the nation's moral decline.Since he set up the event scheduled for Saturday, however, Perry has become the most talked-about almost-candidate in the 2012 Republican presidential field. But with only 8,000 RSVPs for a stadium that seats 71,500 people, virtually no politicians planning to attend, and a slate of organizers who hold out-of-mainstream views on religious freedom, gay rights and even Adolf Hitler, the event has become a potentially risky gamble if Perry is serious about running for the White House. Some conservatives suggested the overtly religious event, called "The Response," could distract from Perry's key selling points on the relatively successful Texas economy and could backfire in places like New Hampshire, the first primary state. I mean, the thing reads kind of like they're trying to work up outrage over a GOP politician appealing to the GOP religious wing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimmySmith Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 An organization which was founded for the purpose of funding Romney. But, hey, if it passes through the hands of a couple of entities that exist on paper only, then that makes it OK. Just like 20,000 paperless internet transactions for $50 that could have come from anywhere in the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 Just like 20,000 paperless internet transactions for $50 that could have come from anywhere in the world. Yeah but no campaign or candidate would accept those without full disclosure of donors.:pfft: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 Right, because there's no difference between somebody sending in twenty bucks and somebody creating a disposable corporation for the purpose of donating a million. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 The more I learn about campaign finance the more I realize that campaign donations are just bribes made legal to make it more likely the person in power stays in power or that the wealthy get to choose the leaders. Campaign finance is an elected leaders full time job, the actually legislating is secondary. Where they go, who they speak with, and what legislation they support or oppose is entirely dictated by money. The parties won't fund your campaign if you oppose X so they do. Major donors are more likely to support your campaign if you avoid X and appear to support Y, so they do. It's all about cash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 What about all campaign funds coming from taking a few dollars per person out an EXISTING tax we're already paying and putting it to campaigning, with every candidate having to show costs for every event/methodology and over-seeing to see the numbers match? All other contributions other than volunteer "labor" would be illegal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 The more I learn about campaign finance the more I realize that campaign donations are just bribes made legal to make it more likely the person in power stays in power or that the wealthy get to choose the leaders. Oh, not necessarily. For example: Does the NRA pay people to vote the way the NRA tells them to? Or do they pick the candidates who they think will vote the "right" way, and help them? Which came first, the candidate's position, or the donation? ---------- By the same token, I'm not convinced that all lobbying organizations are simply money launderers for illegal bribes. I observe that some "special interests" or "lobbying groups" are like the NRA, the ACLU, or the AARP. They are coalitions of citizens, banding together to attempt to support politicians they agree with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimmySmith Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 Right, because there's no difference between somebody sending in twenty bucks and somebody creating a disposable corporation for the purpose of donating a million.There is no difference between 50,000 paperless $20 transactions and a million dollar paperless transaction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 Right, because there's no difference between somebody sending in twenty bucks and somebody creating a disposable corporation for the purpose of donating a million. There is a bigger issue in anon donations to a candidate then there is with anon donations to a PAC. But while the above are completely different, they are both completely legal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenspandan Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 This is certainly a way to hide identities of donors, but why is that such a big deal?Romeny didnt get the money directly, so what's the problem? when did legalizing bribery become part of the conservative platform? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 There is no difference between 50,000 paperless $20 transactions and a million dollar paperless transaction. Yes there is. I'll mention you one: I can prove that the second, was an illegal million dollar donation, from a single individual, who deliberatly planned in advance to break the law. You can speculate about conspiracy theories, about how someone can't prove that it wasn't illegal. This is not a subtle distinction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenspandan Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 Super Pacs are perfectly legal and support both parties. doesn't make it ok. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.