TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Internet attack ad says Kerry got most “special interest money” of any senator. He di

Internet attack ad says Kerry got most “special interest money” of any senator. He di

Bush's Misleading Attack Video
Internet attack ad says Kerry got most “special interest money” of any senator. He didn't. And Bush got lots more.


http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=143


I like factcheck.org.

Re: Internet attack ad says Kerry got most “special interest money” of any senator. He di

quote:

Originally posted by DaveSZ Bush's Misleading Attack Video Internet attack ad says Kerry got most “special interest money” of any senator. He didn't. And Bush got lots more. http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=143 I like factcheck.org.

From the source above:


Special Interest Money
(Selected Industries)
(Donations to 2004 Presidential Campaign)

Bush

Paid Lobbyists
$960,154

Lawyers & Law Firms
$7,085,942

Real Estate
$6,678,976

Securities
$4,820,780

Health Professionals
$3,010,576

Insurance
$1,850,532

TV/Movies/Music
$522,725

Pharmaceuticals
$393,100

Telephone Utilities
$285,250

Health Services/HMOs
$171,450

Tobacco
$107,500

Source:www.opensecrets.org

Thats it???????

This is what all the fuss is about? This is the special interet money in the USA. Wow. This is pennies compared to what the government is dealing with. Oh no! The high and mighty HMOs have contributed together a WOPPING $171,450 !!! AHHHH

I guess the money goes into Congress, or else this whole special interest thing is an out blown conspiracy theory.

Afterall the money above is earmarked for an incumbent president. Which all in all is perhaps the worst place to give lobby money (and in control of the Mustrad lobby which has recently taken control of all other lobbies, I should know) as incumbent presidents have about as much to fear about their job as Greenspan does. They can basically do whatever the hell they think is in their best interest and get away without - without any consideration for special interests. Now 1st time presidents.. they are much more presuadable.

In case you didn't notice, Bush isn't campaigning on the issue. Kerry is.

We're happy he'd bring it up!

quote:

Originally posted by imokruok In case you didn't notice, Bush isn't campaigning on the issue. Kerry is.

quote:

Summary The Bush campaign sent an e-mail Feb. 12 to six million supporters with a link to an Internet video attacking Kerry for being "unprincipled." The ad claims Kerry got "more special interest money than any other senator," which is false. While it is true that Kerry got $640,000 over the past 15 years from individual lobbyists, that's only one type of special-interest money. And the Bush campaign itself has reported raising $960,000 from individual lobbyists in the past year alone. The ad says Kerry got "millions from executives at HMO's, telecoms, drug companies," which is true -- for Kerry's entire political career. But so far Kerry's presidential campaign has received a small fraction of what the Bush campaign has received from those particular sources. By any definition, Bush's "special interest" money greatly exceeds Kerry's.

Dunno about you, but I'd say anything coming out of the Bush campaign implies that Bush is campaigning on said issue.

And about the misleading/straight-out lies from the Bush Administration, a lesser known fact about the 2000 election was what he did to sabotage John McCain's campaign. Bush's team called voters and asked if they'd be more likely or less likely to vote for McCain if they knew "that Senator John McCain was a cheat and a liar and a fraud, and that he has fathered an illegitimate black child." Not only that, but Karl Rove got more negative press against McCain, most notably from a Bob Jones University professor who wrote several emails stating that McCain "chose to sire children without marraige." When the professor (Richard Hand... [email protected]) was asked about this on Inside Politics and told that there was no evidence to support such a claim, he responded "That's a universal negative. Can you prove that?"

what exactly is the differnece between a bribe and getting money from an lobbyist?

In practical terms, there is no difference. Technically though, a bribe is illegal and not reported to the public, whereas a contribution from a lobbyist is reported to the public (or at least made avaliable to the public - not necessarily reported).

quote:

Originally posted by Tranc3 In practical terms, there is no difference. Technically though, a bribe is illegal and not reported to the public, whereas a contribution from a lobbyist is reported to the public (or at least made avaliable to the public - not necessarily reported).

hmm, so why is it legal then? i know it would be hard to prove what's what in court, but perhaps you could make it illegal to give countributions in any other way than anonymously?

Re: Internet attack ad says Kerry got most “special interest money” of any senator. He di

quote:

Originally posted by DaveSZ I like factcheck.org.

Your welcome

LOL I learned of it from Bill Moyers.

But ok thanks anyways for giving it your endorsement!

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew hmm, so why is it legal then? i know it would be hard to prove what's what in court, but perhaps you could make it illegal to give countributions in any other way than anonymously?

It's simple. Lawmakers (a.k.a. politicians) make laws (duh). Said politicians recieve money from special interest groups. Said politicians want to keep recieving money from said special interest groups, so said politicians will keep the money-giving practice legal.

But in all seriousness, it's a lot more complicated than that. If individuals that were campaigning for any sort of office were not allowed to recieve any sort of outside money whatsoever, then only the extremely wealthy candidates would ever bother running, as they would be the only ones capable of funding their own campaign. Plus I believe the courts have said giving money to a political candidate is a form of free speech...

The major campaign finance reform issues deal with soft money though, which I can explain if you wish but don't feel like writing an explanation just now.

Some nice questions from George Will here, starting with some relevant to this thread:

quote:

Kerry's got a lot to answer for February 15, 2004 BY GEORGE WILL In the more than 250 days until Nov. 2, John Kerry can answer questions that linger in spite of, or because of, all he has said so far. Such as: Other than denoting your disapproval, what does the adjective mean in the phrase ''special interest''? Is the National Education Association a special interest? The AFL-CIO? You abhor ''special tax giveaways for the privileged and special interests.'' When supporting billions in ethanol subsidies, did you think about corn-growing, caucus-holding Iowa? Is the National Rifle Association a ''special interest''? Is ''special'' a synonym for ''conservative''? When you denounce ''lobbyists'' do you include those for Planned Parenthood and the Sierra Club? Is ''liberal lobbyist'' an oxymoron? All the Americans affected by laws you pass -- that is, all Americans -- refuse to pipe down and mind their own business so that you can mind their business for them. Often they hire lobbyists to exercise their First Amendment right to ''petition the government for a redress of grievances.'' Can you despise lobbyists without disparaging that right? You say the rich do not pay enough taxes. In 1979, the top 1 percent of earners paid 19.75 percent of income taxes. Today they pay 36.3 percent. How much is enough? You say the federal government is not spending enough on education. President Bush has increased education spending 48 percent. How much is enough? In January 1991, after Iraq extinguished Kuwait's sovereignty, you opposed responding with force rather than economic sanctions. Have such sanctions ever undone such aggression? On Jan. 11, 1991, you said that going to war was abandoning ''the theory of deterrence.'' Was it not a tad late to deter Iraqi aggression? The next day you said, ''I do not believe our nation is prepared for war.'' How did unpreparedness subsequently manifest itself? On Jan. 22, 1991, responding to a constituent opposed to the Gulf War, you wrote ''I share your concerns'' and would have given sanctions more time. Nine days later, responding to a voter who favored the war, you wrote, ''I have strongly and unequivocally supported President Bush's response to the crisis.'' Did you have a third position? You say the Bush administration questions ''the patriotism'' of its critics. You say that as president you will ''appoint a U.S. trade representative who is an American patriot.'' You mean the current representative, Robert Zoellick, is not a patriot? You strongly praise former Treasury Secretary Bob Rubin, who strongly supports NAFTA and free trade. Have you changed your mind about him or about free trade (as you have changed your mind about No Child Left Behind, the 2002 war resolution, the Patriot Act, etc.)? You oppose immediate termination of U.S. involvement in Iraq, and you opposed the $87 billion to pay for involvement. Come again? In 1994, the year after the first attack on the World Trade Center, you voted to cut $1 billion from counterterrorism activities. In 1995, you proposed a $1.5 billion cut in intelligence funding. Are you now glad that both proposals were defeated? You favor civil unions but not same-sex marriage. What is the difference? What consequences of gay marriage worry you? Your state's highest court says marriage is ''an evolving paradigm.'' Do you agree? You say you agree with what Dick Cheney said in 2000: States should have a right to ''come to different conclusions'' about same-sex marriage. Why, then, were you one of only 14 senators who opposed the Defense of Marriage Act, which protects that right? Massachusetts opponents of the same-sex ruling are moving for a referendum to amend the state constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman. How will you vote? You favor full disclosure of political spending. Organized labor is fighting new regulations requiring full disclosure to union members of the political uses of their mandatory union dues. As president, would you rescind these regulations? Praising McCain-Feingold restrictions on political contributions, you said: ''This bill reduces the power of the checkbook, and I will therefore support it.'' In December you saved your sagging campaign by writing it a $6.4 million check. Why is your checkbook's unfettered freedom wholesome? You deny that restricting campaign contributions restricts speech. How much of the $6.4 million did you spend on broadcast messages? Billionaire George Soros says he will spend whatever is necessary -- just a few million so far, but more coming -- to defeat Bush. As one who believes -- well, who says -- there is ''too much money'' in politics, are you appalled? There are 28 more questions where these 28 came from.

quote:

Originally posted by Tranc3 It's simple. Lawmakers (a.k.a. politicians) make laws (duh). Said politicians recieve money from special interest groups. Said politicians want to keep recieving money from said special interest groups, so said politicians will keep the money-giving practice legal. But in all seriousness, it's a lot more complicated than that. If individuals that were campaigning for any sort of office were not allowed to recieve any sort of outside money whatsoever, then only the extremely wealthy candidates would ever bother running, as they would be the only ones capable of funding their own campaign. Plus I believe the courts have said giving money to a political candidate is a form of free speech... The major campaign finance reform issues deal with soft money though, which I can explain if you wish but don't feel like writing an explanation just now.

what about my idea of only permitting people to contribute anonymously? what's the flaw with that? because if you have that you can still contribute with money and you have your free speech right left, but the politicians can't see from where the money is comming?

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew what about my idea of only permitting people to contribute anonymously? what's the flaw with that? because if you have that you can still contribute with money and you have your free speech right left, but the politicians can't see from where the money is comming?

its not a problem i guess if you don't consider foreigners, criminals, and so forth meddeling with your internal affairs a problem. (oh and pirates too!)

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew what about my idea of only permitting people to contribute anonymously? what's the flaw with that? because if you have that you can still contribute with money and you have your free speech right left, but the politicians can't see from where the money is comming?

that (along with yoepus' exclusions) actually sounds like a good idea

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.