Along with how much,when,and what did they get in return?It does take two to tango,and in this case it was just as bad to receive as it was to give.

Does it really matter, WCA?

You want to show 'your side' as being pristine when the whole boat is sinking.

The fact of the matter is that this is clear evidence that OUTSIDE moneyed interests have the means to influence OUR elections.

Wake up and smell the coup de etat, WCA.

Aww - it's only right that "others" can donate.

Afterall Obama is the world's president, isn't he?

This is an NBC scoop! I just checked other websites and no one has reported this yet.

WCA,

All you need to do is run the guy's name through the FEC database and, voila...

Turns out he was an "Equal Opportunity" contributor as he appears to have made contributions to both sides of the political aisle:

$250 to Gore 2000, Inc in 1999

$250 to Obama for America in 2008

$3500 to the National Republican Senatorial Committee in 2004

$5000 to the National Republican Senatorial Committee in 2006

$2000 to Joe Pitts (R) in 2004

$500 to Yvette Clark (D) in 2007

Great job, FBI.

It doesn't matter which side received the money, a Pakistani group contributed money to try buying influence. That's what matters, UAW, not who got the money because the person or party receiving it most likely did not know it was illegal money.

While I do not dispute the idea that anyone, any business or any group can contribute money to campaigns, every person, group or business must be required to disclose who and how much was given and to whom it was given and there should be limits on the amount. Every campaign ad run by anyone should declare in large, bold letters WHO paid for that ad. When people see an add talking about the merits of such and such, they deserve to know who is telling us something is wonderful. I see big oil ads all the time touting the greatness of the technology to obtain natural gas from sources no one thought possible but they don't bother to tell people the process or that fracking contaminates the underground water sources and destabilizes the land--but at least they put their name on the ad.

Da Noid, that's why I said probably not. Of course this guy played both sides of the same coin. Lobbyists do it all the time. Really, I was just calling out what I considered shoddy reporting.

After all, you were able to find out who and what without much trouble weren't you?

Jody - That's what matters, UAW,

Jody, I am not a member of the UAW, if in fact you are referring to me.

And so there it is - Jody calling for full disclosure in ads.

Golly Jody, you mean Fruit Loops isn't good for you? 9 out 10 dentists do not recommend Dentine for to their patients that chew gum. Huh.

See Jody you can disclose everything under the sun, but it really means very little. Just look at all the mis-information/thinkprogress drivel you spout regarding fraking.

Destabilizes the land? Contaminates ground water? You do realize the NYT had to come clean and its Ombudsman had to admit they were flat making crap up?

Sure you do. See Jody ignorance is bliss. All of the disclosure in the world is not going to change that. or you ability to process the information given anyway. Confusion is a state of mind for some.

Danoid

I don't think it is as simple as that. Why would it take the FBI to go after contributions that had already been reported to the FEC?

he is charged with being an unregistered agent or lobbyist of the Pakistani government.

But if he registered? Well that's okay because we certainly want foreign nationals and corporations buying our politicians to do their bidding not ours.

I see big oil ads all the time touting the greatness of the technology to obtain natural gas from sources no one thought possible but they don't bother to tell people the process or that fracking contaminates the underground water sources and destabilizes the land--but at least they put their name on the ad.

Thanks for the reminder Jody!

When you turn on your kitchen sink, your water should NOT BURN!

In the fracking process, they use over 596 chemicals, many of which are known carcinogens... Which have created numerous health issues for those unfortunate enough to live within the circle of mayhem.

For those who haven't seen it, I highly recommend the documentary 'Gasland'! It lays out exactly how the 'poison for profit barons' operate!

It's sickening!

Wow - so this goes well beyond simple ignorance. That film has been discredited as a hoax. Yet here Feisty is shilling for it.

Does she know, or is she just that dishonest?

Which is worse. Oh well, anatomy of a libbie I guess.

The EPA announced June 23, 2011 that it will examine claims of water pollution related to hydraulic fracturing in Texas, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Colorado and Louisiana

Hmmm Spanky; My company contracts analytical analysis, field sampling and remediation planning for the EPA and we are directly involved this EPA decision. We now have ground water and soil samples being processed that are contaminated; some are so bad that we have to dilute them up to 100x so they will fall within the standard curve of our instrumentation. A few energy companies that will go unnamed in this post have lawyers all over our labs like flies on crap doing damage control. Truthfully, the problem is more regulatory than fracking persay. If not watched closely drillers will add more chemicals than allowed before they inject the water (chemicals soften/dissolve the rock to increase the amount of fracture) and they will go as far as fracking wells that don't pass the pressure test.

Looks like to me that when it comes to fracking someone here has an agenda besides Jody and Fiesty.

Thank you KRT for your comments on what's going on in the real world!

Much appreciated!

Uh oh Spanky, Did you get that from the anga web site? I guess they don't have any skin in the game? Nope you can trust them. How about the other articles about hydro fracking? A tad bit disingenuous Spanky?

You're most welcome Feisty;

I think you will find this fact interesting.

Under the Bush administration’s 2005 Energy Policy Act, chemicals used in
natural gas extraction are exempt from the Clean Air Act, Safe Drinking Water Act,
Superfund and Clean Water Act........(courtesy of the evil Dick....lol)

It really is some scary crap that's going on with the fracking process...

What everyone fails to realize is there is a finite amount of consumable water on this planet & without it, we're toast!

BS

And Paul-Florida, you are so predictable as well. Who cares which party the donations were going to?

I will agree with you that the FBI did a great job rooting this out. But how many OTHERS are doing what this person did that the FBI did NOT catch?

OUR ability to influence our lawmakers with OUR issues (via our votes) are being jerked out from under us and the American populace doesn't know or care because they are ASLEEP.

So Pietro is the only way you influence your lawmakers is with cash?

I have never understood the outrage - all Citizens dealt with was monetary contributions. So what?

Unless you all think the only way you can do anything is through huge cash donations. Funny thing is Obama is the man when it comes to raking in cash. Too bad that ain't going to get him elected. Too bad he can't buy a better unemployment rate.

Genius Spanky, "it's only money" is a brilliant point. I wonder why Madison Avenue and all it's billions exist??? It's not because advertising works, is it? And therefore money is critical in any campaign, maybe?

I would argue that anyone defending the Citizens United decision would defend child abuse if their party supported it, and should therefore be ignored.

Just a fact Nick - all an ad is is a form of advocacy.

I advocate for my clients. Advertisers advocate for their clients. Politicians advocate for themselves. Good thing were are all adults and can interpret information on our own. No one has to rely on just one sourse for info.

But let's get back to Citizens. What about the ruling, in your own words is wrong? Cause see I represent and sue corporations all the time. Let me bust some wisdom on you:

"As a general rule, a corporation is considered to be a legal entity that has an existence seperate from that of its shareholders. Erkenbrecker v. Grant (1921) 187 Cal. 7, 9.

Google that cite. Now take a look at the year it was decided.

Yep - it's all about the evil, and current Supreme Court, right?

Of course not.

Spanky, I'm far from only blaming this court for the course of campaign finance, this has been argued since the founding of the country (try Google Corporate Personhood). I do argue, however, that money is not speech, a corporation is not a "person", and an entity that can accumulate wealth in perpetuity and enoys many financial benefits that people don't have should not be allowed unchecked money into "advocating" for their political positions.

A corporation is a legal contract between shareholders and the government. If you and I form a contract, do we each get an extra vote?

How would your court system work if only one side had the time/resources to gather all the info and present it to the judge/jury? I'm guessing they'd probably win most of the time, and the system would quickly turn into the sort of landed gentry structure that this country revolted from.

I wish Republicans actually learned the principles this country was founded on, but then again, if they did they wouldn't be Republicans.

Nick - speaking about what this country was founded on will get you this...

The vast majority of the populace was self employed with only a small percentage working for someone else. Today, only a small percentage are self employed and hire the vast majority.

It was also founded on less government controls than what we have today, perhaps you should reflect on those principles rather than thinking that big brother is your friend.

As the entity that merely interprets the law, how do you ascribe 100% responsibility for the "dismantling" to the Supreme Court.

Pietro - if the decision is as vile as you ascribe why hasn't the legislative branch drafted a law that would address the problem? Because if it is how you say, and the decision is so terribly horrible, surely the people would demand it be addressed.

Pietro, is it maybe possible that some of the people out there disagree with your assessment?

Tell us - you are from Ohio, what are you congress critters doing to fix the situation to your satisfaction?

Oh and tell us Pietro did this Paki make his donations through a corporate entity, or are you just chucking mud up on the wall.

Now we are starting to see what was in Pandora's Box that the SCOTUS opened. From this article, we are seeing some PROOF of influence in OUR elections by outside, foreign moneyed interests.

_______________________________________________

Pete: you aren't very bright are you?

If this is "what was in Pandora's Box that the SCOTUS opened", why did the FBI arrest him and charge him with a federal crime?

Don't blame Pietro he threw the mud.

Blame Think Progress for not giving him the right mud.

Guess the new line from the libbies will be to scream Citizens United on any story regarding political contributions.

Unless those contributions come from the AFSCME or SEIU. Those are totally ok, cause it "really comes from the individual members."

Of course it does. Just more Blue fail. Kinda seeing a pattern develop, eh Joe?

Pete: you aren't very bright are you?

If this is "what was in Pandora's Box that the SCOTUS opened", why did the FBI arrest him and charge him with a federal crime?

Joe in Albany - If ignorance was money, you would be an MILLIONAIRE by now.

Once again - slowly so that even you, Joe, can understand this - this article and it's content provides us with proof that outside moneyed interests are using their money to influence OUR elections. We - the American people - use our VOTE to get our government to do what WE want it to do.

Now Joe, that means that YOUR voice - and possibly vote - is being drowned out by the tsunami of money from interests outside of the United States to get your lawmakers to do what THEY want which may NOT be benevolent to what the American People want or need.

As much as I enjoy being on here showing the world how big of an idiot you are, Joe, I STILL will defend your right to cast your vote as YOU see fit even if it is diametrically opposed to mine. I will fight to make sure that NO ONE outside of the United States has a say in how WE run OUR Government.

Well Pietro, perhaps a good place to start would be the millions of dollars in anonymous foreign campaign contributions that came into now President Obama's coffers in the last Presidential election, but maybe I speak too soon, the recipient of the funds has not been identified for some strange reason.

JD STill - as I have pointed out to my idiotic Friend Joe in Albany and White Collar Auto, it doesn't matter to WHOM the contributions went to. What matters is that there is the ability of others with lots of money to influence OUR lawmakers to do what THEY want which MAY not be in the American People's best interest.

It should also interest you because YOUR voice in OUR Government is being stripped away.

Of course, you can sit on the sidelines and throw rocks at everyone while your voice on how your Government is being run is usurped by someone outside of the United States or you can join your fellow Americans - Republican and Democrat - to get OUR lawmakers to craft legislation to void this decision by the Supreme Court.

It is your choice, JD Still.

"Guess the new line from the libbies will be to scream Citizens United on any story regarding political contributions.

Unless those contributions come from the AFSCME or SEIU. Those are totally ok, cause it "really comes from the individual members."

Why do you post dishonest stuff like this? The issue is the SECRECY around the CU case. Even YOU know SEIU and AFSCME contribute, and to who. How come we didn't need the FBI to ferret THAT out for you??

So the FBI was invovled. It was a crime or civil infraction.

Again Drive By, this has what to do with Citizens?

The list I have seen so far, the republicans got the most of the money.

The problem is not who got the money, but that anonymous money can be used to influence elections, etc.

Like the debt ceiling. It is certainly not in Americas best interest to default on the debt ceiling. Yet, here we are being pushed by a fringe element being financed by????? These people have signed a pledge to never raise taxes on the rich. Surprise, Surprise. Mama taught us not to bite the rich hand that feeds us.

Meanwhile back at the ranch, they claim they are doing it for the people.

How silly of me, it is only a problem if a Democrat gets anonymous money.

Pietro

I see Your point, and I understand Your concern,however, no matter how a law is structured , there will always be those who will try to break it, but as for me, I would much prefer those individual lawbreakers be ferreted out and punished, than the establishment of Draconian measures by government, that take away anyone's rights, because a right once surrendered, is very difficult to recover.

I see Your point, and I understand Your concern,however, no matter how a law is structured , there will always be those who will try to break it, but as for me, I would much prefer those individual lawbreakers be ferreted out and punished, than the establishment of Draconian measures by government, that take away anyone's rights, because a right once surrendered, is very difficult to recover.

JD Still - we are in agreement here.

However - in this case, we have people who have the money to influence how government is run, and these people are NOT a part of the society run by the Government they want to influence. In other words, they have no skin in our game. On the other hand, WE do have skin in the game, and our ability to change the course of our Government is severly curtailed when we have no voice in how our Government is run. Then your fear of 'Draconian Measures' can be effected and you will not be able to stop it.

Money is a means to gain that 'voice' for the outside interests; for Americans it is their VOTE.

What better way to 'cancel' out the vote of the citizenry when you have unlimited and unaccountable money to push your influence?

Ok kr - in your own words tell us why and how Citizens was wrongly decided.

You are aware, I am sure that business entities are treated the same as individuals in nearly all respects, right?

The right side of SCOTUS was wrong--businesses are NOT people. Business had the right to contribute money before but the amount was limited. SCOTUS opened elections to undisclosed contributions--no names, no nothing--just give all the money they want and keep it secret. That's what SCOTUS got wrong--unlimited and secret donations--they left out "accountability".

Jody, Iowa..

Just as a note.

All that has to be done to correct the injustices you perceive under Citizens is to have Congress enact a law that requires 501(c)4 entities disclose their donor list as is required by 527 and 501(c)3 entities.

Bet you a nickle that neither the Democrats or Republicans want that sort of revision to the law.

That's right spankster. dollar 1 vote.....Right?

No Jody, you are wrong. The law treats business the same as people.

No I could try to 'splain that to you, but let's face it, you just do not want to hear it.

Torpedo, I have no idea what you are trying to say, but perhaps you can respond to Ira's post.

Go ahead, give it a try. We all know Jody can't.

hat on earth are you talking about Murdock's Supreme court? Until you can prove any wrong doing by the Supreme Court and Murdoch it is irresponsible to even say such outlandish acusations. But thats what the far left does, I guess.

Let's frame it this way" How about we ask the congress to wear coveralls like NASCAR drivers, plastered with the corporate logos, and flags of their contributors. After all we do have the best government that money can buy. I believe this would put me in agreement with Ira. How about you?

I do agree Torpedo.

So where would the giant ASFME and SEIU logos go on Obama's coveralls? Chest and stomach areas?

Again, Obama gets a lot more contributions than anyone else. And again, if only he could use all that cash to reduce the deficit, or lower unemployment.

But he most certainly will not, will he Torpedo? I'm thinking he'll use it to put out ads telling us what an awesome job he is doing and to ignore the debt and unemployment/that's still all Bush's fault.

Right? Of course. Me and Ira seem to agree on an awful lot given I am a conservative and he is a liberal. But I suspect that has more with the fact that he and I understand the way the world works, and particularly how the tax code is written.

Hey Ira - you see the latest Coburn proposal? No more AMT. Now that's change I can get behind. I frigging hate the damned AMT.

TorpedoYou....

There aren't enough corporate logos on this planet to hold all all the corporate contributors, lobbyist names, special interest groups, unions, PACS, etc. that each Congressperson is beholding to. On that we agree.

As I wrote to Amy, it's just a simple change to the IRC to change all that and that's never going to happen.

Think about it. If it weren't for special interests on both sides, do you think we'd be in this bi-partisan stalemate we find ourselves in today?

Spanky.. No AMT...God bless and keep Senator Coburn.

Spanky..

You sure....that's a tax increase.....oh my.

So tell me Spankster since you deflected the discussion to unemployment, just what should the government's role be in the realm of "job Creation." I would expect your answer would be to chant the mantra of "less regulation." To wit:

1. Gutting the FDA?

2. Wall Street Regulations? Been there done that with repealing Glass Stegall. You remember that Spankster don't you? The creation of the derivative market that brought us all "new and exciting" financial products like Credit Default Swaps and Collateralized Debt Obligations. Created lots of jobs in the construction industry for 5 or 6 years and really enriched those paper pushers on Wall Street.

3. And let's not forget NAFTA.

4. How about the H1B Visa program since we don't have enough engineers and physicians in the good ol USA.. What do you say we import some?

So tell me again..Just what is the role of government in job creation

No doubt, he was looking for cash. Turns out 70% of Mitt's contributors have "maxed out" their donations and it's still 6 months away from the Iowa Caucus.

Wow Pat - Da Noid gave you the info over 1/2 hour before your post.

Sloppy, or just an inability to understand?

So what are you saying, Patricia Larsen, is that OUR current President is a 'Manchurian Candidate'?

When you really look at it, George Bush II is more of a 'Manchurian Candidate' than this President. I mean he had the SCOTUS appoint him President in 2000, he was able to call in his favours in 2004 to stay President, and while he was president, he set precedence to make the President the Unitary Executive, via the Wiretapping Law and the Patriot Act that remain the law of the land today. Not to mention that the stories of rendition and secret sites for torture that are coming to light today, and the two wars that we are in based on the lies of the President in 2003.

Now THAT'S a Manchurian Candidate.

Patricia Larsen

"With a forgery of birth, the SSN of a dead person from Connecticut, etc. how was all that paid for before he even ran? It's buried so deep, Barry will be in his grave before it comes out in the news. And then this "first black pres" will have had years to keep it hidden."

Orley Taitz-is that you?? And I thought birthers were extinct.....

Patricia - no, I am very aware of how DC works. I just pointed out some of their best work in GWB II. At this point, with the current President showing his Birth Certificate (which doesn't convince you, but I digress), you are still touting that we have a 'foreign' President.

Foreign for you, maybe.

I would be in agreement with your argument about the corruption in DC, but the argument about President Obama being 'foreign', well, you are on your own there. It just so happens that the 'Americans' you are so fond of produced the most DAMAGE to our country (especially GWB II) and you are fixated on the 'foreign' President.

Good luck to you, Patricia.