Politics

[Sea Turtle]

No, you're not less of a citizen if you're poor. The problem is that the poor will overwhelmingly vote for whoever promises to increase or at least continue providing them with various forms of welfare in exchange for their vote. It's like letting your kids vote on how much their allowance should be.

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the people discover they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy--to be followed by a dictatorship.” ― Alexander Fraser Tytler Woodhouselee

“When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic.” ― Benjamin Franklin

I think The Great Society really pushed us toward this I'm afraid.

 

[IrishLax]

I have been talking with a friend about it. He goes even further stating that James Madison had it right and that only those who own property should vote. Those with a vested interest in the country, state and county.

Madison did have a point and I think he saw an Atlas Shrugged scenario in the future but I'm not so sure I would go that far. I do have an issue with the fact that people who do not have a vested interest in the country AND who are dependent on the government get to vote for those who will simply promise them more from tax payers.

If you wanted to make the case that only people who pay taxes should vote, or that a Republic without direct election of anything but representatives is the best form of government, that's a discussion you can have.

However, what you said was people on "government assistance programs." Believe it or not there are a LOT of people who own property and pay taxes that are also on some sort of social safety net whether it is unemployment benefits, social security, etc. So you need to be far more precise with your terms, or what you're basically implying is that someone would have to choose between utilizing social safety nets that are there for a reason or having representation.

To address your argument head on, the issue right now with politics (domestic and abroad) is the rich/influential having too much power not too little.

 

[Irish#1]

I have been talking with a friend about it. He goes even further stating that James Madison had it right and that only those who own property should vote. Those with a vested interest in the country, state and county.

Madison did have a point and I think he saw an Atlas Shrugged scenario in the future but I'm not so sure I would go that far. I do have an issue with the fact that people who do not have a vested interest in the country AND who are dependent on the government get to vote for those who will simply promise them more from tax payers.

Regardless of your income and status, if you're a citizen you should be able to vote. You never know the circumstances that put some people in the position they are. Do they vote for those that promise them what they want? Maybe, but isn't that what all of us do when we vote?

 

[Legacy]

No, you're not less of a citizen if you're poor. The problem is that the poor will overwhelmingly vote for whoever promises to increase or at least continue providing them with various forms of welfare in exchange for their vote. It's like letting your kids vote on how much their allowance should be.

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the people discover they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy--to be followed by a dictatorship.” ― Alexander Fraser Tytler Woodhouselee

“When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic.” ― Benjamin Franklin

Both to follow-up on my comment as well as yours, social safety nets were established both as a moral imperative as well as the hope that Americans would be able to lift themselves out of poverty and pursue the American dream, which has been demonstrated in millions of cases. Depriving citizens born in this country of the freedom to vote to elect their representatives to work for their common good and not just for moneyed interests is an assault on the root of our democracy.

Feel free to make the argument that some social safety net programs are wasteful and do not help the poorest of our society escape poverty or that morality should not enter into legislation. Just realize the implications. Homeownership is 64%. Most of those servicemen in the military and their families, for instance, do not own homes and rely on the government for assistance, others include farmers who get crop subsidies and crop insurance, those impacted by disasters, those who live and work in high cost of living areas, children of poor parents who get free lunches and medical care, students pursuing a college education, workers who have lost their jobs, those over sixty-five who have worked all their lives and run out of their retirement savings, the disabled, lawful immigrants and those under thirty-two - the average age of first time home buyers - and many others who rely on social safety net program, which may well be eliminated by a Congress and President elected under the criteria you advocate.

Our republican system of government with democracy only exercised at the ballot box sends representatives to Congress to debate and resolve issues in which all are concerned, though as Lax points out the rich get significant breaks and and an inordinate amount of power through nearly unlimited campaign donations, lobbying and insertions of breaks to them in legislation. Such extreme views is something that we all recognize is a core of decision-making in the current Administration. In 2013, forty-three millions Americans lived in poverty. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that should the Republican health care bill have passed, twenty-one million people by 2020 would lose health insurance increasing to fifty-two million by 2026.

Poorest Expected to Lose Food Stamps First Under New Rules (Governing)

 

[GowerND11]

To add to all of this, how many Americans actually own their property. Last I checked, many are paying a mortgage to some institution, so can we say that person isn't allowed to vote since they don't technically own property yet?

This is just a bad argument to say only the landed gentry are privileged enough to vote.

 

[Sea Turtle]

To add to all of this, how many Americans actually own their property. Last I checked, many are paying a mortgage to some institution, so can we say that person isn't allowed to vote since they don't technically own property yet?

This is just a bad argument to say only the landed gentry are privileged enough to vote.

Well I agree, as I said above, I wouldn't go that far. I lean more to what LAX said of those who pay taxes should vote. I also get that there are a lot of different government assistance programs but if you are able bodied and completely dependant on the government then I still have a problem with them voting.

I'm really enjoying the discussion about this and welcome more thoughts on the subject.

 

[Old Man Mike]

Making argument for not allowing citizens to vote .... never thought I'd see that even on IE.

Also, I still care about the Gospel message of the need, and in Christ's words the reason for Life itself, to share loving and material support for those who don't have it. ... even if those gifts are sometimes abused. God's statement is that He'll be The Judge of that part of it.

This country is too big for little me to walk around being The Good Samaritan, though I do a fair amount of that (20% of my yearly income), so I must count on my country to reach those I cannot. I realize that religion and spiritual concern is now passe in favor of "me and mine", but I too am a citizen and will vote for the World that my dreams are about.

"You can be in my Dream, if you let me be in yours."
Bob Dylan

 

[Sea Turtle]

If you wanted to make the case that only people who pay taxes should vote, or that a Republic without direct election of anything but representatives is the best form of government, that's a discussion you can have.

However, what you said was people on "government assistance programs." Believe it or not there are a LOT of people who own property and pay taxes that are also on some sort of social safety net whether it is unemployment benefits, social security, etc. So you need to be far more precise with your terms, or what you're basically implying is that someone would have to choose between utilizing social safety nets that are there for a reason or having representation.

To address your argument head on, the issue right now with politics (domestic and abroad) is the rich/influential having too much power not too little.

You're right, I should have been more precise. I like the taxpayer voting idea you brought up.

 

[GowerND11]

Well I agree, as I said above, I wouldn't go that far. I lean more to what LAX said of those who pay taxes should vote. I also get that there are a lot of different government assistance programs but if you are able bodied and completely dependant on the government then I still have a problem with them voting.

I'm really enjoying the discussion about this and welcome more thoughts on the subject.

Isn't that a symptom not the disease though? Like, wouldn't it make more sense to go after why people are on programs for so long, public works programs, etc.?

Also, how is that really that much different than people voting who work in government, contracted through the government, and such too?

 

[Legacy]

Republican Presidential candidate, Mitch Romney, in 2012 to Republican wealthy donors in a video:

"There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what."

"And I mean the president starts out with 48, 49 percent … he starts off with a huge number. These are people who pay no income tax. Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax. So our message of low taxes doesn’t connect. So he’ll be out there talking about tax cuts for the rich. I mean, that’s what they sell every four years. And so my job is is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

I, too, never thought this argument would ever be raised on a Notre Dame board. As I have said before, only those who can vote should be the ones to serve in the military and not get exemptions. In the 2017 Tax Act, the Alternative Minimum Tax was eliminated so many more of the very rich may pay no taxes and those who take a minimum salary but have their compensation funneled through corporations or LLCs and pay no taxes should not have a vote.

Further, any candidate for office or office holder should be required to prove that they paid individual federal income taxes, disclosing their tax returns, to run for office and annually to retain their office.

 

[Irish#1]

Further, any candidate for office or office holder should be required to prove that they paid individual federal income taxes, disclosing their tax returns, to run for office and annually to retain their office.

He's talking to you DJT!

 

[Sea Turtle]

Republican Presidential candidate, Mitch Romney, in 2012 to Republican wealthy donors in a video:





I, too, never thought this argument would ever be raised on a Notre Dame board. As I have said before, only those who can vote should be the ones to serve in the military and not get exemptions. In the 2017 Tax Act, the Alternative Minimum Tax was eliminated so many more of the very rich may pay no taxes and those who take a minimum salary but have their compensation funneled through corporations or LLCs and pay no taxes should not have a vote.

Further, any candidate for office or office holder should be required to prove that they paid individual federal income taxes, disclosing their tax returns, to run for office and annually to retain their office.

Mitt Romney makes some very good points here.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Surprised we haven't seen any posts here on the NBA/ China shitshow this week. Absolutely mind blowing that the NBA moved the all star game out of Charlotte because North Carolina passed a bathroom law for males and females, but have no issue bowing down to communist China.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Surprised we haven't seen any posts here on the NBA/ China shitshow this week. Absolutely mind blowing that the NBA moved the all star game out of Charlotte because North Carolina passed a bathroom law for males and females, but have no issue bowing down to communist China.

It's all about the money. Our elites have been selling us out for decades, and will continue to do so until we find a way to bring the corporate sector to heel.

Here's a list of major American companies that have recently bowed to Chinese demands for censorship.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

It's all about the money. Our elites have been selling us out for decades, and will continue to do so until we find a way to bring the corporate sector to heel.

Here's a list of major American companies that have recently bowed to Chinese demands for censorship.

Yep, you won't hear any argument from me on US companies selling out to China for cheap labor. But this is different. NBA isn't bowing down for cheap labor here. They're bowing down for...well, not human rights.

The NBA's most popular and outspoken personalities have equated Trump to Hitler, call him a dictator, etc. and they have every right to do it. But an NBA GM sends out a tweet supporting free speech in China (with millions of citizens imprisoned for this) and the NBA has to apologize to a communist state? Woke sports is full of shit.

 

[ulukinatme]

Surprised we haven't seen any posts here on the NBA/ China shitshow this week. Absolutely mind blowing that the NBA moved the all star game out of Charlotte because North Carolina passed a bathroom law for males and females, but have no issue bowing down to communist China.

There's been talk in the NBA thread.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Yep, you won't hear any argument from me on US companies selling out to China for cheap labor. But this is different. NBA isn't bowing down for cheap labor here. They're bowing down for...well, not human rights.

Same thing. Regardless of whether it's cheap labor or access to its 1 billion+ consumer market, China has most American multinationals by the short-hairs. And when it comes down to principle v. shareholder value, they're always going to sell out the former for Chinese cash.

Our politicians are on the take as well, so there's no solution on the horizon. Better pray we get this sorted out before we go to war with them.

 

[Irish YJ]

Talk about lib/elite hypocrisy at it's best. Woke domestically, asleep at the wheel internationally when it comes to the holy dollar.

Just one more reason to tell athletes and coaches to STFU and play/coach the damn game.

 

[NorthDakota]

Yep, you won't hear any argument from me on US companies selling out to China for cheap labor. But this is different. NBA isn't bowing down for cheap labor here. They're bowing down for...well, not human rights.

The NBA's most popular and outspoken personalities have equated Trump to Hitler, call him a dictator, etc. and they have every right to do it. But an NBA GM sends out a tweet supporting free speech in China (with millions of citizens imprisoned for this) and the NBA has to apologize to a communist state? Woke sports is full of shit.

They get away with it because...let's be honest...Republicans dont watch basketball. They can say completely insane shit about half the country at home because that half isnt their demographic.

They like Chinese money/viewers. Steve Kerr and Adam Silver would give President Xi a rim job if it meant they could keep having access to that market.

 

[ACamp1900]

Yep, you won't hear any argument from me on US companies selling out to China for cheap labor. But this is different. NBA isn't bowing down for cheap labor here. They're bowing down for...well, not human rights.

The NBA's most popular and outspoken personalities have equated Trump to Hitler, call him a dictator, etc. and they have every right to do it. But an NBA GM sends out a tweet supporting free speech in China (with millions of citizens imprisoned for this) and the NBA has to apologize to a communist state? Woke sports is full of shit.

This all the way,...

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Same thing. Regardless of whether it's cheap labor or access to its 1 billion+ consumer market, China has most American multinationals by the short-hairs. And when it comes down to principle v. shareholder value, they're always going to sell out the former for Chinese cash.

Our politicians are on the take as well, so there's no solution on the horizon. Better pray we get this sorted out before we go to war with them.

There are similar interests, but definitely not the same scenario. The board of trustees/ CEO/ president at Old Navy aren't championing human rights and social justice while using cheap Chinese labor to make their products.

 

[Legacy]

CREW FORCES HISTORIC RELEASE OF DARK MONEY DONORS

In a major victory for transparency, Americans for Job Security (AJS) will register as a political committee and release their donors — the first major release of dark money sources in the post-Citizens United era — following a complaint and several lawsuits from Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW).

During the 2010 and 2012 election cycles, AJS was one of the top five dark money giants, spending more than $25 million on independent expenditures and electioneering communications. Despite failing to register with the Federal Election Commission (FEC), AJS clearly functioned as a political committee, devoting most of its activities to campaign ads. However, in violation of the law, AJS kept the sources of its funding secret — until now....

Beware Florida's campaign finance sinkhole (Orlando Sentinel)

Florida law limits contributions to political candidates in statewide races to $3,000, a lower ceiling than in most other states. Yet politically powerful special interests — including the sugar industry, theme parks, insurers, developers and trial lawyers — aggressively pursue access to policy makers and influence on decisions by raining six-figure checks on their favorite candidates. How can this happen?

Despite the cap on direct financial support for candidates, there’s none on contributions for separate political committees set up by their campaigns to rake in additional dollars for advertising and other expenses. Nor does Florida law place upper limits on checks cut to political parties or committees created by the special interests themselves. Both can conduct campaigns of their own, or serve as a conduit for unlimited cash for candidates’ committees.

Florida’s limit for direct contributions to candidates was raised from $500 by a law passed in 2013. The same law required more frequent disclosure on contributions and expenditures from candidates and political committees, but not political parties. And often the names of the committees are so generic — Fight for Florida and Citizens for Effective Leadership are two typical examples — that it’s hard to know who or what they represent. With frequent transfers of funds among committees, the origin of the dollars becomes even harder to trace — like trying to follow the pea in a shell game.

Labeling the lack of a limit on contributions to committees a loophole understates its scope and impact on state politics. Call it Florida’s campaign finance sinkhole — a chasm for money from deep-pocketed contributors.

A campaign finance system that amplifies the power of wealthy special interests — and often covers their tracks — skews policy and corrodes public confidence in democracy.

It calls into question how decisions are made, especially in the state capital. Consider these three recent examples: (Examples follow, with recommendations on closing the loopholes) (cont'd)

It was no coincidence, for instance, that the Soviet-born Ukranians recently arrested for violating campaign financing laws set up a shell corporation in Florida to disguise the origin of contributions in order to benefit candidates that could help them change officials in positions of power in the Ukraine to further their business interests.

 

[Irish YJ]

CREW FORCES HISTORIC RELEASE OF DARK MONEY DONORS



Beware Florida's campaign finance sinkhole (Orlando Sentinel)


It was no coincidence, for instance, that the Soviet-born Ukranians recently arrested for violating campaign financing laws set up a shell corporation in Florida to disguise the origin of contributions in order to benefit candidates that could help them change officials in positions of power in the Ukraine to further their business interests.

While we need to shine a light on dark money, how about we do something to limit the exaggerated influence that some individuals have, like Bloomberg (more than half a Billion spent on Dems), Steyer (almost a quarter Billion spent on Dems), Soros, Dustin Moskovitz, etc..

 

[Legacy]

During his transition in November 2016, Trump was outspoken about the DC environment and who power players would leave government and turn their experience and contacts into lucrative jobs often with the companies that they may have been overseeing.

Trump:

"That's the problem with the system -- the system. We're doing a lot of things to clean up the system. But everybody that works for government, they then leave government and they become a lobbyist, essentially. I mean, the whole place is one big lobbyist."

Take Interior for instance. Ryan Zinke was a politician coming through state politics after serving as a SEAL. He represented Montana in the House before becoming Secretary of the Department. His Deputy Secretary, David Bernhardt, did serve in the Interior Department as Solicitor in the GWB Admin for three years, but then went back to the practice of law where he lobbied for such clients as Halliburton, Independent Petroleum Association, Cobalt, and others. Bernhardt is now Secretary after Zinke was forced to resign due to eighteen ethics investigations with two now in the hands of the Justice Department. One of those DOJ is pursuing involves a real estate deal involving a foundation established by Ryan Zinke and developers including Halliburton Chairman David Lesar. Bernhardt is also under investigation by the Department's Inspector General for a conflict of interest issue. What do you expect of Bernhardt when he leaves? Not lobby for his oil and gas clients like Halliburton nor use his connections and knowledge of regulations processes and changes especially with his access to Trump?

Despite the DOJ cases against Zinke and the ban on lobbying, Zinke is fine. Soon after leaving, he landed a job with an investment banking and blockchain advisory firm, Artillery One. Their CEO Daniel P. Cannon said Zinke will provide “analysis” of pending legislation and regulatory requirements and receive “C level executive compensation” for that work. Cannon said of Zinke, “His expertise in the energy and technology sectors will help Artillery One to continue to expand its consulting and finance business in the core areas of cybersecurity, energy, fintech and digital assets. We look forward to introducing him to our strategic partners and clients around the globe". Artillery One’s news release said Zinke "will be based in Montana and California but his work activities are expected to include extensive travel overseas in Europe and elsewhere.” Zinke has no experience in investment banking, cybersecurity, fintech or digital assets. He got a degreee in geology at the University of Oregon, but went into the SEALs and politics.

Ryan Zinke Now Works for Blockchain Kingpin With a Shady Past (Daily Beast)

Most recently, despite all the demands of his position at Artillery One traveling around the world, Zinke became an adviser to the Washington lobbying firm Turnberry Solutions and has most recently become a consultant and a member of the board of directors at U.S. Gold Corp. The company’s CEO cited Zinke’s “excellent relationship” with the Bureau of Land Management and the Interior Department in explaining his hiring as a consultant and board member. Zinke will receive $90,000 in cash and stock for consulting fees. His consulting agreement also allows expenses, with fees and expenses not to exceed $120,000 annually, according to papers filed with the SEC. He also will get $24,000 a year for serving on the company’s board of directors, according to CEO Edward Karr and the company’s SEC filing. Zinke's "excellent relationship" with BLM and other agencies are not considered by the company as lobbying.

Turnberry Solutions is a lobbying firm founded in 2017 by Jason Osbourne, Mike Rubio and Ryan O’Dwyer, aides to Trump’s 2016 presidential election campaigny where Zinke joins Corey Lewandowski as senior advisors and is expected to register as a lobbyist.

I found only Zinke's salaries and benefits from U.S. GoldCorp, but not for Artillery One or Turnberry Solutions. If similar, Zinke would be making over $500,000 a year.

Sean Spicer in November 2016 on why Trump instituted a five year ban on lobbying:

"Why that is crucial is that it goes back to Mr. Trump's goal of making sure that people aren't using the government to enrich themselves and using their service in government to do that. "

Zinke, Lewandowski join Trump veterans’ lobbying firm (The Hill)

Interior watchdog opens probe of land deal linking Zinke, Halliburton chairman (Politico)

Whitefish Energy gets US contracts after Puerto Rico ouster (AP)

A year after losing a $300 million no-bid contract to restore Puerto Rico’s hurricane-shattered electric grid, Whitefish Energy Holdings has quietly been seeking and winning U.S. government contracts.

Founded in 2015 in Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke’s tiny Montana hometown, Whitefish had just two employees when Hurricane Maria hit in September 2017. The company was ousted weeks later by Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority amid concerns about the slow pace of recovery and eyebrow-raising charges that included electrical linemen hired at a rate of more than $300 per hour.

Records show that in June Whitefish won a $225,000 job from the Interior Department to perform electrical work at three fish hatcheries in the state of Washington. In September, the Energy Department awarded Whitefish a more than $1 million contract to build power transmission lines in Missouri and Arkansas.

The Interior Department denied this week that Zinke, a former Montana congressman, played any role in the contract award. The department acknowledged last year that Zinke knows Whitefish CEO Andy Techmanski and that the secretary’s son had a summer job at one of the company’s construction sites....

 

[Irish#1]

[It was no coincidence, for instance, that the Soviet-born Ukranians recently arrested for violating campaign financing laws set up a shell corporation in Florida to disguise the origin of contributions in order to benefit candidates that could help them change officials in positions of power in the Ukraine to further their business interests.

Looks like the Dems are outdoing the Repubs when it comes to dark money.

https://about.bgov.com/news/shadow-of-dark-money-grows-as-2020-groups-shun-donor-disclosure/

Shadow of Dark Money Grows as 2020 Groups Shun Donor Disclosure

Posted August 2, 2019
By Kenneth P. Doyle

Democratic group overtakes GOP in keeping funding secret
Goal is to help primary winner beat Trump, says Priorities USA
Democratic and Republican groups raising tens of millions of dollars for the 2020 elections increasingly are keeping their funding sources secret, a trend that watchdog groups warn allows high-dollar donors to gain influence with candidates without risking exposure.

Priorities USA, which collected almost $200 million to help Hillary Clinton in 2016, says it wants to spend that much or more to help the next Democratic nominee defeat President Donald Trump.

This time, however, Priorities is being funded mostly by undisclosed donations. More than three-quarters of the $23.4 million it raised in the first half of year was collected by a nonprofit arm, organized under Section 501(c)(4) of the tax code, according to a statement from the group. The nonprofit isn’t required to report donors to the public. The group didn’t have a nonprofit arm in 2016.

America First, the main campaign spending group supporting Trump, is off to a slower fundraising start than the Democrats’ group and is also relying heavily on undisclosed contributions.

A statement from group said America First’s total funding of $17.8 million, so far this year, has been evenly divided between disclosed contributions to a super political actiion committee, America First Action, and undisclosed contributions to the nonprofit America First Policies.

Critics call undisclosed donations “dark money” and say it’s the most damaging cash in a campaign finance system where spending by groups not formally linked to candidates has skyrocketed. Contributions to outside groups are unlimited; meanwhile, federal candidates can collect no more than $2,800 per election from each individual contributor, and all donations must be disclosed.

“Dark money is a vehicle for wealthy donors and special interests to curry favor without accountability,” said Michael Beckel of the nonprofit watchdog Issue One. “Voters don’t know where the money is coming from, but the candidates often do.”

The amount of secret money has been increasing in federal elections, Beckel said in a phone interview. He said Republican groups in the past relied more heavily on groups funded by undisclosed contributions, but Democrats caught up with and then surpassed Republicans in this category in the 2018 midterms.

New No.1 Secret-Money Spender Wants to Flip Senate for Democrats


(Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)

Priorities USA says it’s focused solely on helping whichever Democrat emerges from the primary contest beat Trump. Priorities USA Action, the Democratic group’s super PAC arm, which is required to disclose donors, collected $4.8 million in the first half of 2019.

The contributions, mainly from from familiar, wealthy Democratic donors and unions, were reported to the Federal Election Commission Wednesday, the deadline for many PACs to file their first financial reports of the 2020 election cycle. Donald Sussman, founder of the investment fund Paloma Partners, was the biggest donor to the Priorities Super PAC, giving $2 million, followed by an affiliate of the Laborers International Union of North America, which gave $1.5 million.

At the same point in the last presidential election cycle, Priorities’ super PAC had raised almost $15.7 million.

A-Listers
Big early contributors to the Priorities super PAC in the last presidential election included familiar Democratic donors such as George Soros, Steven Spielberg, Jeffrey Katzenberg, and Haim and Cheryl Saban, who gave $1 million each in the first half of 2015. None of these contributors were on the super PAC’s latest report filed with the FEC Wednesday, listing contributors for the 2020 election.

The $18.6 million from undisclosed contributors collected this year by Priorities’ nonprofit arm has been used for polling and research ahead of the 2020 election, hiring staff in the presidential battleground states Florida, Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, and sponsoring digital ads arguing that Trump’s economic policies harm middle and working class Americans.

“Priorities is uniquely positioned to hold President Trump accountable at a time when many of our allies are focused on the primary,” Guy Cecil, Priorities USA President said in the group’s statement.

Priorities isn’t supporting any of the almost two-dozen Democrats competing for the presidential nomination but hopes to put the eventual nominee on a more level playing field with Trump. The president’s campaign committee and two joint fundraising committees, along with the Republican National Committee, have far out-raised any of the Democrats, so far, and had a total of $123.7 million in cash at the end of June. The top five Democratic presidential candidates combined had just $94 million in cash at the end of June.

The 2020 Money Race: Trump Juggernaut, Big Mo, Grassroots Power

Trump Group Lagging
Trump’s allied spending group, America First, has lagged behind its Democratic counterpart in fundraising.

Linda McMahon, a major Republican donor who was appointed by Trump to head the Small Business Administration, left that post earlier this year to help jump-start fundraising at America First.

“My first order of business as Chair of America First Action is to crush our fundraising goals and ensure we have every dollar we need to fight off each of President Trump’s enemies in 2020,” McMahon said in a statement released by the group.

The America First Action super PAC’s latest FEC report listed McMahon as one of its biggest donors in the first half of the year. She gave $1 million, surpassed only by Los Angeles developer Geoffrey Palmer. Other past Trump supporters, including Cherna Moskowitz, Marlene Ricketts, and Dick and Liz Uihlein, gave big again this year to the super PAC.

Absent from the donor list, so far, is Sheldon Adelson, the Las Vegas Sands Corp.founder, who along with his wife, Miriam, has been the biggest giver to Republican-allied groups in recent years. Adelson, who is 85 and has non-Hodgkins lymphoma, wasn’t on a recent Las Vegas Sands earnings call, according to a report in the Las Vegas Sun. Company executives said he was feeling well and would be on the next call in October.

Even as dark money is growing, the role of super PACs supporting a single presidential candidate, which were prominent in the 2016 primaries, is diminished this year, according to Adav Noti of the nonprofit Campaign Legal Center.

The 2020 Democratic challengers to Trump are being swayed by “widespread popular concern about big-money political corruption, and so they’ve decided not to engage in the super PAC game,” Noti said. “We’ll see how long that lasts, but it’s certainly a promising start.”

Many of the Democrats running this year have publicly declared they don’t want help from super PACs during the primaries, but the primary candidates haven’t ruled out, if they win the nomination, receiving help from these outside groups against Trump during the general election.

Congressional Fundraising
Groups focused on electing congressional candidates also are relying on undisclosed contributors for major funding.

The Congressional Leadership Fund, a super PAC aligned with House Republican leaders, said in a joint statement with the nonprofit American Action Network that the groups had raised a combined $19.3 million. Only $4.8 million came from disclosed contributions to the super PAC.

CLF’s latest report filed Wednesday with the FEC showed its biggest contributors included familiar Republican donors. Paul Singer and Kenneth Griffin each gave $1 million, while Bernard Marcus and Moskowitz gave $500,000 each.

The House Majority PAC , a super PAC aligned with Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and other Democratic leaders, discussed in a statement only the $8.1 million in disclosed contributions reported to the FEC Wednesday. This super PAC said it received more than 86,000 individual contributions, with an average online contribution of $13.49. It also took in millions of dollars from big donors, including Sussman and LIUNA, the laborers’ union.

Super PACs aligned with Senate Democratic and Republican leaders reported receiving a total of $18.3 million, FEC reports showed. The Democrats’ Senate Majority PAC, which hauled in $12.8 million, far out-raised the Republicans’ Senate Leadership Fund, which reported collecting $5.5 million.

Despite the proliferation of dark money, congressional Democrats, along with the party’s presidential contenders, are appealing to voters with messages focused on ending corruption by overhauling election and campaign finance laws and reversing the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United v. FEC. That ruling struck down limits on corporate money influencing federal elections and led the way to sharply increased campaign spending.

The Citizens United decision “opened the floodgates for dark money to pour into our elections and tipped the scales in favor of the ultra-wealthy and the most powerful corporations,” Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (N.Y.) said this week at a rally on the steps of the Supreme Court.

Sen. Tom Udall(D-N.M.) defended his party’s reliance on dark money, for now. “Until we are successful in enacting the change we need, suggestions that we should unilaterally disarm are unserious,” he said an an emailed statement.

To contact the reporter on this story: Kenneth P. Doyle in Washington at kdoyle@bgov.com

To contact the editors responsible for this story: Bennett Roth at broth@bgov.com; Robin Meszoly at rmeszoly@bgov.com

 

[Irish YJ]

A couple weeks after China bans South Park.....

'South Park' episode mocks LeBron James over China comments
https://www.foxbusiness.com/lifestyle/south-park-episode-mocks-lebron-james-over-china-comments

 

[Irish YJ]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">BREAKING: US Rep. Elijah Cummings has died from complications of longtime health challenges, his office said in a statement.</p>— The Associated Press (@AP) <a href="https://twitter.com/AP/status/1184761275655606272?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 17, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[Irish#1]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">BREAKING: US Rep. Elijah Cummings has died from complications of longtime health challenges, his office said in a statement.</p>— The Associated Press (@AP) <a href="https://twitter.com/AP/status/1184761275655606272?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 17, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

I can already imagine what Trump's tweet will be. lol

 

[ulukinatme]

A couple weeks after China bans South Park.....

'South Park' episode mocks LeBron James over China comments
https://www.foxbusiness.com/lifestyle/south-park-episode-mocks-lebron-james-over-china-comments

God bless Trey Parker and Matt Stone. Who would have thought 20+ years since it's launch that South Park is on point more than a woke athlete. As controversial as they are, they've been fairly good about calling it down the middle regardless of political affiliation or otherwise. Now South Park episodes have been banned in China. What a bunch of babies!

 

[Irish YJ]

God bless Trey Parker and Matt Stone. Who would have thought 20+ years since it's launch that South Park is on point more than a woke athlete. As controversial as they are, they've been fairly good about calling it down the middle regardless of political affiliation or otherwise. Now South Park episodes have been banned in China. What a bunch of babies!

Let them eat goo!

In all seriousness, China are some thin skinned girly SOBs.

I can already imagine what Trump's tweet will be. lol

I doubt he tweets anything lol. He did hit him pretty hard a few months ago regarding the state of his district.