It was easy to find Corzines money flowing to Obama. So not sure what you mean.

Feisty seems to be displeased that the country follows the law of land. The SCOTUS has the final say in matters brought to them. They ruled about Super-Pacs, the results weren't what she and other liberal loons wanted, so she can't resist saying anything against the ruling.

Bet she'd be standing right behind them on any ruling they passed if the court were packed with liberal loons.

The Karl Rove-linked American Crossroads Super PAC and Crossroads GPS 501(c)(4) organizations have the same president, same spokesman, same mailing address, and the same ideology.

What we know is that 62% of the dollar donations come from secret donors. And while the same may be true for Liberal Super PAC’s the problem is that more than half the money could be coming from foreign countries/businesses trying to influence our election results.

This has the potential to be far worse than any voter fraud.

The Republican mantra = no oversight, no disclosure, no accountability, no rules, no worries.

leftliberalliars---how is the dissatisfaction of the left with the Citizens United ruling any different than those on the right who constantly challenge Roe v. Wade, also the law of the land? We believe Citizens United to be wrongly decided and believe that we are saw that play out during the Republican primary contest. It ought to be troubling to everyone that our elections could be bought by the highest bidder and we not even know who it is or what country he or she is from.

I attended my Democratic County convention on Saturday, participated as a delegate. Submitted a resolution for adoption to the Texas Dem platform that they stand against further state cuts to education and pillaging of retiree's pensions to pay for Republican malfeasance and continual property tax cuts.

Another resolution from someone else asked for the repeal and or rehearing of the Citizen's United case. I supported it but I asked to add a provision that stipulated that to show solidarity against the principle of "money equals speech" that Obama's super pac be dissolved. I strongly believe that campaigns can be fought and won using the regulations set up through McCain/Feingold. Any easing of that only contributes to the "swift boat" attack ads that used to be the exception becoming the norm that they are now.

That amendment was defeated. Hey, I also disagreed with the silly legalize and regulate mary jane resolution that our convention enthusiatically endorsed for the Democratic Texas platform. I wasn't too popular, but still spoke my mind.

Yellowdog-Mark--thanks for sharing your experiences at your convention. Sounds like it was a good time. And how novel that everyone was allowed to be heard.

steeler -- does that mean if the election is bought by the highest bidder (expected to be President Obama's $1,000,000,000) and if the donor's are known, folks like John Corzine for example, then it is OK because we will then understand why people receive governmental favors?

Of course not, james---the anonymity of the Super PACs is something that makes them even more troubling. The fact that our elections are so dependent on money is discouraging. I've heard that billion dollar number thrown around about the President but quite frankly I suspect that we will find that Romney and his SuperPACs as well as those of people like Karl Rove outraise and outspend the President.

steeler -- money is money. whether Romney can keep up with the Obama cash machine is a big question. Obama has demonstrated an ability to raise more than any other politician getting nearly $740,000,000 the last time and outspending McCain significantly.

you raise the idea that contributions may be coming from outside the US. is that your opinion or something that has been proven?

Before the Citizens United ruling was handed down by the corrupt Conservative bloc of the Supreme Court there was a name for large, anonymous cotributions from people whose main goal is to remain faceless and nameless.

It's called bribery.

The president has no choice but to fight fire with fire until and unless Citizen's United is contained with legislation. The big thing is President Obama still raises money from smaller, individual contributions in comparison.

That clowns like Gingrich or Santorum can run with only ONE zillionare backing them, WTF? This definitely is NOT the way democracy works. Nor the "shadow" influences via Super PACS, which could include foreign influences. Why the right-wing isn't as freaked out about this as progressives are, I can only guess it's the FOX Noise/Hate Radio factor.

Sorry to burst your bubble but Obama has more money from large contributors anyone. Even Mitt Romney. Granted the percentage of small donations is bigger but the fact remains that Obama has gotten APRX. 25% MORE money from large individual donors than Romney.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/candidate.php?id=N00009638

Obama large contributions 108,924,530

Romney large contributions 77,631,320

BTW what does it say about someone when they publicly denounce a practice but then use it when it is to their advantage? Liar? Flip-Flopper? FOS? Guess it doesn't matter he did the same thing wtih the Patriot Act and the deficit. He also skiped the vote on student loans that he is now pushing.

http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/04/as-senator-obama-missed-votes-on-student-loan-bill-121386.html

And how much of the anonymous contributions allowed by the Citizens United ruling are being routed toward support of President Obama. Your information is misleading without that...which is the whole reason for support of this legalized bribery.

As for why he's going to also be involved in this practice, it's pragmatism pure and simple. Only an idiot would continue fighting with swords because it's "honorable" given that his opponents are using machine guns.

Here's the difference, and it's a big one; President Obama is expressing public reluctance to use this means of fundraising while continuing to work to get it overturned. Republicans are entirely silent on the subject while working hard to make sure it continues.

Add to that, Amy, the state Republican parties that are broke---like Nevada and Minnesota as Feisty pointed out---and it makes you wonder why they think we should entrust them with the economy.

Its accounting- as in, knowing the bills are coming in.

Nice story, by the way. How about a story on how much Corzine brought in, single handedly- and how that means he won't be indicted for embezzling investors' funds?

Bet Bernie Madoff is kicking himself for not thinking of Corzine's strategy to keep out of jail.

Hey No Joe---here's a novel idea. Let's wait to see if all the relevant agencies with jurisdiction over Jon Corzine's actions undertake an investigation and come forth with an indictment or a decision not to prosecute. At that point it would be fair to judge whether his past fund raising activities got him a break or not. Of course we will never be able to do the same for a Romney bundler since he doesn't release their names.

No Jo you are using conjecture. Steeler fan makes a fair statement at 2.3.

Is it conjecture? Sure. So is my belief that Obama will use a presidential pardon to preclude a jail sentence for Corzine.

Pure conjecture.

Know what's a fact? That $1.6 billion was stolen from accounts that should have been sequestered. That there is sworn testimony that the transfers were made on Corzine's orders.

Now, here's some more conjecture- were this being done for a republican candidate, you'd all be raising the roof. Claiming the term "thick as thieves" applied, as well as "birds of a feather", and using terms like "dirty money".

Which is all true, by the way. Just because Corzine and Obama are democrats does not negate any of that.

Corzine is a thief. He raises lots and lots of money for Obama- who should suffer from the association.

No Joe--I'm not as anxious as you to give away Jon Corzine's right to due process so easily. I want to see him receive due process so that I know it is there for all of us. You have him charged, convicted, sentenced and pardoned already.

No comment on how Romney doesn't release the names of his bundlers so that we can know who should suffer from association with him? And in your world, apparently having raised money for Obama in 2008 and later possibly committed a crime is enough. Shouldn't we know the same things about Romney supporters? Where is your outrage over not seeing Romney's taxes? Shouldn't we know whether he is in compliance with the tax laws?

Forgive me, I admit, I don't know all of the facts but if Corzine is found guilty we shall see...

If he stole from people or did other criminal acts so common with Wall Street executives, I would expect him to go to jail.

If that plays out, I would be disappointed if Obama pardoned him based on some earlier fundraising support. As I said earlier, I think Obama's association with the "at the least" disgraced firm is troubling. Regarding guilt by association, to forestall your next thread... I think Obama's super pac which in concept I don't agree with, should send back the $1,000,000 from Bill Maher due to his hateful rhetoric. A candidate should be proud of his associations. Is Mr. Romney proud of his associations with the NRA and Ted Nugent?

I think that no candidate is perfect. I have disagreed on some of his policies, but

Obama, still the best we got.

Yellowdog--I was never a big fan of Corzine but it was a surprise to me to hear of the acts he is alleged to have done. I can't see the President pardoning him based on the fact that he once raised money for him. Time will tell, of course.

We will have to agree to disagree on the President's Super PAC. I'm against Citizens United as well but I want to see the President use every tactic legally available to him.

Correction Bob, you Red state folks get the biggest handouts. That is a fact.

Interesting point Job1. So if Republicans want to limit handouts (entitlements), they are sacrificing more than others since Red state folks -- as you put it -- get the biggest handouts. Thank you.

I've seen some pretty slick ads for Republican Polquin in Maine, obviously paid for by the National Republican Senatorial Committee because they are running way more frquently than he could afford on his own.

What a waste of dollars, Angus King, Independent, has a 60% approval rating and will likely be our next Senator.

The good news is money can't substitute for feet on the ground. Get active and volunteer to go door-to-door for your local Dems.

How naive are you? The US Chamber and Koch Bros. expect much in return. The billion dollar figure is no where in Obama's plan. It's Karl Rove's creation to convince his donors to give and keep giving. Just look at Wisconsin and Ohio. Rove's allied groups are spending 4 to 1 to support Walker and did so earlier on the state senate recall. They outspent unions and their groups 5 to 1 in Ohio (and still lost). In this election year there is no way that the Democrats and their groups will out raise or out spend the GOP and their groups. The question will only be does the GOP have a 2 to 1 or 4 to 1 advantage.

Wm. -- I am not naive. I realize that politicians of both parties pay off their donors and in this respect President Obama has exceeded his predecessors with his administration's payoffs to unions in the form of stimulus money and the like.

Thanks for the standard comeback of Rove and the Koch brothers. Kinda like Axelrod and Soros.

You seem very concerned about how much the republicans are spending. Were you as concerned with President Obama who outspent McCain by more than 2 - 1? Or is it ok if democrats spend more?

I believe you may be a bit overwhelmed by the President's charisma. Look into the facts and see that it is very scary that it takes hundreds of millions of dollars to win.

just think what may have happened if the President would have kept his word to use public financing as agreed with McCain.

Well maybe not as naive as Brianb/Kirk. I just saw the Soros reference -- I take that back.