Those Troubling Foreign Campaign Cash Flows!

Posted by Tina

Complaints about the supreme court finding that allows the free flow of cash from every American and through every American corporation, group, union or special interest have been loud and disdainful. But money, the court found, is free speech. Money flowing from foreign sources, both by individuals and corporations is another matter. Democrats are pretty loud and obnoxious in trying to pin that on “others.”

The Washington Examiner points out today that unlawful contributions to union PACs by workers who have entered the country illegally are also going on:

A push by Democrats on the Federal Election Commission to ban corporate political donations has revealed a new unlawful cash flow benefiting Democratic candidates: contributions by illegal immigrants through major labor unions.

An analysis of a Democratic plan expected to be presented at the Thursday FEC meeting that targets corporate contributions said unions use dues from illegal immigrants to fund their political operations in violation of election laws.

Seems like Democrats only care about foreign donors when they can use it as a bludgeon to discredit and demean their Republican opponents or to divide people based on class. Not only that, but Democrats speak out of both sides of their mouths on the issue. They decry foreign donations from corporations on the one hand and solicit foreign donations on the other. In the 2012 election an “independent” webpage, Obama.com, that steered it’s users to Obama campaign websites got “most of its traffic from foreign countries.” Backdoor and behind the radar donations from “fat cats” and “foreign corporations” “seem to be a staple in the politics of those on the left who scream loudly and point fingers:

The Government Accountability Institute today released details of an eight-month probe into fundraising by the presidential candidates and all House and Senate candidates that also shows that the president’s outreach and fundraising have targeted websites in Chinese, Arabic, Thai, and Korean. Generally, donations from foreign nations are illegal.

The 108-page analysis from the group that made news in an earlier report that suggested President Obama skips many of his national security briefings studied security flaws in credit card fundraising conducted by Obama, Mitt Romney, and congressional candidates. Many have security flaws, said the report.

The practice is illegal and every effort to prevent donations from foreign entities should be made. Democrats need to stop trying to brand the opposition through deceitful rhetoric. Their willingness, indeed their direct solicitation, to accept donations from foreigners brand them as deceitful liars. Given their position on illegal foreign entry into our country this added blatant disregard for our laws make them undesirable as candidates and unfit to govern.

(Heads-up: Old Bernie Sanders is supported by union PACs)

This entry was posted in Constitution and Law. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Those Troubling Foreign Campaign Cash Flows!

  1. Dewster says:

    Yes The DNC and GOP are both ran for the “Elite Donors” I have been saying this for awhile. DWS at the DNC is the ne that got the Superpac rules roled back.

    The 2 Party System is now 100% rigged.

    The Citizens United Decision was the nail in the coffin. You all agree with that decision and rail me everytime I point it out.

    You will not rail gainst any GOP Corruption. Why because all you care about is the Republican Brand.

    Pot call Kettle Black.

    We must reverse the Citizens United Decision. We must have Campaign election reform.

    Until one supports this it is simply hypocritical to complain.

    I told yu there is foreign Dark Money too. Read the book Dark Money it is actually very good.

    We are not a democracy we are ran by an Oligarchy many Elite Fascists. The fascists tried to physically take the FDR Whitehouse with the bonus vets. they failed. Since then they have written many a plan to ruin all the progress that started with the new deal.

    BTW one of the 1st things Hitler did was to take down unions.

    Ever read the “Powell Memo”? 1970’s?

    • Tina says:

      “The Citizens United Decision was the nail in the coffin.”

      So more speech “rigs” the system? That’s absurd. More speech counters a a lopsided “rigged” system which is why the socialists are against it.

      Prior to CU billionaires like George Soros and Warren Buffet were free to flush all kinds of money through leftist nonprofits, unions and environmental groups. Millions of dollars were spent to promote Democrats under the cover of the non-profit. The system was rigged in one direction. That’s over now.

      You rail against corruption but have decided that money is the problem. It is people who are corrupt. Money is the distraction that the corrupt hope you’ll buy. The corrupt use you by presenting a false enemy.

      It isn’t the republican “brand” I like. It is the ideology that was the basis of republicanism I defend and support.

      What are your proposals to get evil money out of the system? How do you propose those desiring to run for election compete for our votes?

      You’re the one doing a lot of complaining. Complaining and being bossy is about all you do.

      “Since then they have written many a plan to ruin all the progress that started with the new deal.”

      You still don’t seem to understand that you live in a free nation where objection to what you call progress is based in our Constitutional principles and the vision of the founders. This nation was not formed on the ideas of Marx or Mussolini. The New Deal assumes the collective must take care of things that individuals should provide for themselves. The “progress” that followed starkly demonstrates that the purpose behind the New Deal was growing the size of the federal government and increasing it’s control over the people…that my friend is fascistic, the very thing you think you’re against.

      People who live in fascist and Marxist nations around the world have spent enormous sums of money, some have even died, trying to come to a “free” United States of America. The Constitution limits the federal government and acknowledges power vested in the people and the various states. This alone makes the New Deal an aberration that many citizens object to strongly, as is their right!

      “BTW one of the 1st things Hitler did was to take down unions.”

      And? Objections to the tactics and demands of unions is not an indication that anyone embraces Hitler…or the fascism he advocated.

      In America people have a right to assemble freely. People are free to form unions. My objection to government unions is they now collude with democrats against the taxpayers who have no seat at the bargaining table. I don’t think that’s right.

      I object to unions in general because they have been corrupted in the same way that government has been corrupted. They work as a body to undermine the companies that hire them.

      Pension and medical demands from unions have put state and city governments and companies in debt that threatens to place them in bankruptcy. That’s both greedy and irresponsible. It is definitely not indicative of free independent individuals providing for themselves and respecting their fellow citizens.

      You might want to look up the word covet. It is one thing to earn what we have. it is quite another to covet what another has and take steps to take it from him.

      The memo is posted at this site which points out that it was “leaked to Jack Anderson, a liberal syndicated columnist, who stirred interest in the document when he cited it as reason to doubt Powell’s legal objectivity. Anderson cautioned that Powell ‘might use his position on the Supreme Court to put his ideas into practice…in behalf of business interests.’”

      So right off the bat I imagine what I will find is something that will set your socialist hair on fire. To you, people who run companies have no rights. A very fascist notion, you should know. You should also know that this may have been the impetus that turned the Chamber of Commerce from a neutral body that served the business community to an arm of the socialist left.

      Our readers will find the sentiment in the memo as relevant today as it was in 1971:

      No thoughtful person can question that the American economic system is under broad attack. This varies in scope, intensity, in the techniques employed, and in the level of visibility.

      There always have been some who opposed the American system, and preferred socialism or some form of statism (communism or fascism). Also, there always have been critics of the system, whose criticism has been wholesome and constructive so long as the objective was to improve rather than to subvert or destroy.

      But what now concerns us is quite new in the history of America. We are not dealing with sporadic or isolated attacks from a relatively few extremists or even from the minority socialist cadre. Rather, the assault on the enterprise system is broadly based and consistently pursued. It is gaining momentum and converts. …

      … The most disquieting voices joining the chorus of criticism come from perfectly respectable elements of society: from the college campus, the pulpit, the media, the intellectual and literary journals, the arts and sciences, and from politicians. In most of these groups the movement against the system is participated in only by minorities. Yet, these often are the most articulate, the most vocal, the most prolific in their writing and speaking.

      Moreover, much of the media-for varying motives and in varying degrees-either voluntarily accords unique publicity to these “attackers,” or at least allows them to exploit the media for their purposes. This is especially true of television, which now plays such a predominant role in shaping the thinking, attitudes and emotions of our people.

      One of the bewildering paradoxes of our time is the extent to which the enterprise system tolerates, if not participates in, its own destruction.

      The campuses from which much of the criticism emanates are supported by (i) tax funds generated largely from American business, and (ii) contributions from capital funds controlled or generated by American business. The boards of trustees of our universities overwhelmingly are composed of men and women who are leaders in the system.

      Most of the media, including the national TV systems, are owned and theoretically controlled by corporations which depend upon profits, and the enterprise system to survive.
      Tone of the Attack

      This memorandum is not the place to document in detail the tone, character, or intensity of the attack. The following quotations will suffice to give one a general idea:

      William Kunstler, warmly welcomed on campuses and listed in a recent student poll as the “American lawyer most admired,” incites audiences as follows:

      “You must learn to fight in the streets, to revolt, to shoot guns. We will learn to do all of the things that property owners fear.”2 The New Leftists who heed Kunstler’s advice increasingly are beginning to act — not just against military recruiting offices and manufacturers of munitions, but against a variety of businesses: “Since February, 1970, branches (of Bank of America) have been attacked 39 times, 22 times with explosive devices and 17 times with fire bombs or by arsonists.”3 Although New Leftist spokesmen are succeeding in radicalizing thousands of the young, the greater cause for concern is the hostility of respectable liberals and social reformers. It is the sum total of their views and influence which could indeed fatally weaken or destroy the system. (continues)

      You still do not understand that you are a fascist…or at least support them. You do not believe in the founding ideals, freedom, or individual rights.

      We both agree that corruption is rampant in our society and governing bodies and we both agree that it must be exposed and shunned, if not prosecuted. Our founders new that freedom is only possible when the people are moral. We the people must reclaim the mantle of morality and respect for the rule of law and our Constitution.

  2. Dewster says:

    BTW yes I need a new keyboard, sorry for typos

  3. Tina says:

    An error in that last paragraph needs correcting and should read, “Our founders knew that freedom…” I’m sure most of you caught it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.