- Dec 16, 2006
- 7,401
- 785
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I could be mistaken but I believe it is illegal for them to coordinate with the PACs. PACs don't finance their campaigns. They just do favors for them (run political ads etc), and expect nothing in return later.
I could be mistaken but I believe it is illegal for them to coordinate with the PACs. PACs don't finance their campaigns. They just do favors for them (run political ads etc), and expect nothing in return later.
They should be religious. 'Tis our roots and all.Beyond the fact that most Republicans are religious zealots, Democrats and Republicans have significantly different views on how society should operate.
No, they are not obligated to obey any campaign supporters.
I could be mistaken but I believe it is illegal for them to coordinate with the PACs. PACs don't finance their campaigns. They just do favors for them (run political ads etc), and expect nothing in return later.
Hi, I'm calling about the bridge you advertised. Is it still for sale?
-- A2SG, already have one in San Fran, need to complete the set....
Yes it's still for sale and I have easy credit terms if you want to make installments.
Seriously though..... What I said is approximately accurate from a legal standpoint. I am sure they keep the money trail separate between PACs and campaigns. But the candidates stating there is no coordination has to be bunk. I laugh when they claim that during debates. How could they possible control that?
In exactly the same way that donors who give a lot to a campaign suddenly find the elected official sponsoring or voting for legislation that favors them.
In other words, complete and utter coincidence!
-- A2SG, each and every time it happens, every day.....
I would love to see Trump's taxes from prior election years. Not that he is necessarily among the larger contributors but it would still be interesting to see who he bought in the past.
I suspect Trumps a smart enough businessman to have thrown his money far and wide, hoping for the best possible value for his dollar. He's also from New York, so throwing money after bible belt republicans probably won't help him all that much.
-- A2SG, unless Trump has a resort casino in Biloxi......
Agreed. I assume it was mostly DEMs since his neighborhood is dominated by them.
I'd assume the same. But I'm sure he also paid for....er, contributed to many republicans as well, since he represents their main constituency: the rich.
-- A2SG, not sure if that is the correct term, though....and by that, I mean "main"....does the GOP have any other constituents?
Campaign contributions aren't necessarily always quid pro quo. Corporations want to have their agendas heard and these contributions achieve that. PACs are a bit different in that they can be single-issue focused.
Even Charles Koch is finding that money has it's limits in political influence.
He's raised a lot of money. But it's hard to see that Republican views have changed in his direction much. The entire party denies climate change and wants to lower taxes already, so there was no work to be done there. But a less aggressive foreign policy? An end to corporate welfare? Turning down the volume on social issues? Koch is right: all his money has had no effect on that. It's only had a significant effect when he's pushing in the same direction that the GOP wind is already blowing.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?