http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... rs/392738/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;Savvier donors will resist the temptation to make public fools of themselves. In which case, the press should to go to them. Reporters should do whatever it takes, consistent with journalistic ethics and the law, to find out which donors met which candidates, and who said what to whom. After all, the creation of a secret political discourse, in which rich people pay money to hear candidates say things they won’t say in public, is profoundly undemocratic.
The New York Times’ Maggie Haberman provided a great example of what such reporting can achieve when she broke the news last month that two gay hoteliers, Matt Weiderpass and Ian Reisner, had held an event for Ted Cruz, apparently because they share his hawkish views on Israel. By making the event public, Haberman made Cruz—who had been going around evangelical Iowa denouncing gay marriage—look like a hypocrite. And she made Weiderpass and Reisner—whose hotels were quickly boycotted by gay groups—look like traitors to their community. By making a private event public, in other words, Haberman threw sand in the Super PAC Machine.
Mega-donors should face a version of the same tradeoff politicians face. Presidential candidates know that in exchange for pursuing immense political power, they must forfeit much of their privacy. Mega-donors, who are also seeking immense political power via their donations, should have to make the same trade. Journalists should not only investigate their interactions with politicians, they should ferret out information about what they believe and how they conduct their affairs.
Last month, The New York Times offered a model for how to do that when Eric Lichtblau and Alexandra Stevenson reported that a hedge fund tycoon named Robert Mercer had donated millions, if not tens of millions, to super PACs associated with Cruz. Lichtblau and Stevenson went on to note that the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations has accused Mercer’s hedge fund of cheating the government out of $6 billion in taxes. (Both Mercer and Cruz want to abolish the IRS). They also reported that workers in Mercer’s home had sued him for not paying them overtime, and that Mercer had himself sued a toy manufacturer for allegedly overcharging him $2 million when it constructed a model railroad in his house. Will these unflattering nuggets embarrass Mercer into abandoning super PACs? I don’t know. But if such reporting became the norm, it would scare away some donors. And American democracy would be better for it.
Abolish the FEC
-
kalm
- Supporter

- Posts: 69142
- Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:36 pm
- I am a fan of: Eastern
- A.K.A.: Humus The Proud
- Location: Northern Palouse
Re: Abolish the FEC
A good piece on exposing the donors. I would be nice if more of this occurs.
- CID1990
- Level5

- Posts: 25486
- Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:40 am
- I am a fan of: Pie
- A.K.A.: CID 1990
- Location: กรุงเทพมหานคร
Abolish the FEC
thats a well written article about how donors to right wing politicians should be exposedkalm wrote:A good piece on exposing the donors. I would be nice if more of this occurs.![]()
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... rs/392738/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;Savvier donors will resist the temptation to make public fools of themselves. In which case, the press should to go to them. Reporters should do whatever it takes, consistent with journalistic ethics and the law, to find out which donors met which candidates, and who said what to whom. After all, the creation of a secret political discourse, in which rich people pay money to hear candidates say things they won’t say in public, is profoundly undemocratic.
The New York Times’ Maggie Haberman provided a great example of what such reporting can achieve when she broke the news last month that two gay hoteliers, Matt Weiderpass and Ian Reisner, had held an event for Ted Cruz, apparently because they share his hawkish views on Israel. By making the event public, Haberman made Cruz—who had been going around evangelical Iowa denouncing gay marriage—look like a hypocrite. And she made Weiderpass and Reisner—whose hotels were quickly boycotted by gay groups—look like traitors to their community. By making a private event public, in other words, Haberman threw sand in the Super PAC Machine.
Mega-donors should face a version of the same tradeoff politicians face. Presidential candidates know that in exchange for pursuing immense political power, they must forfeit much of their privacy. Mega-donors, who are also seeking immense political power via their donations, should have to make the same trade. Journalists should not only investigate their interactions with politicians, they should ferret out information about what they believe and how they conduct their affairs.
Last month, The New York Times offered a model for how to do that when Eric Lichtblau and Alexandra Stevenson reported that a hedge fund tycoon named Robert Mercer had donated millions, if not tens of millions, to super PACs associated with Cruz. Lichtblau and Stevenson went on to note that the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations has accused Mercer’s hedge fund of cheating the government out of $6 billion in taxes. (Both Mercer and Cruz want to abolish the IRS). They also reported that workers in Mercer’s home had sued him for not paying them overtime, and that Mercer had himself sued a toy manufacturer for allegedly overcharging him $2 million when it constructed a model railroad in his house. Will these unflattering nuggets embarrass Mercer into abandoning super PACs? I don’t know. But if such reporting became the norm, it would scare away some donors. And American democracy would be better for it.
Atlantic doesnt havt shit to say about the Clinton pay to play operation because they dont was to be shut out
"You however, are an insufferable ankle biting mental chihuahua..." - Clizzoris
-
kalm
- Supporter

- Posts: 69142
- Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:36 pm
- I am a fan of: Eastern
- A.K.A.: Humus The Proud
- Location: Northern Palouse
Re: Abolish the FEC
Except the entire first paragraph was about Clinton directly courting super pac donors.CID1990 wrote:thats a well written article about how donors to right wing politicians should be exposedkalm wrote:A good piece on exposing the donors. I would be nice if more of this occurs.![]()
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... rs/392738/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Atlantic doesnt havt shit to say about the Clinton pay to play operation because they dont was to be shut out
If you're referring to lack of names, I agree. They should be exposed too.
Re: Abolish the FEC
Now CID...they did throw in a passing mention of The Shrilldabeast, and they even threw Obama's name in there once or so...you know to be "fair" and all. I'm sure the "journalist" was up against a deadline or something. I have no doubt they will call out all the Clinton donors by name and by scandal in the next article.CID1990 wrote:thats a well written article about how donors to right wing politicians should be exposedkalm wrote:A good piece on exposing the donors. I would be nice if more of this occurs.![]()
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... rs/392738/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Atlantic doesnt havt shit to say about the Clinton pay to play operation because they dont was to be shut out
-
kalm
- Supporter

- Posts: 69142
- Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:36 pm
- I am a fan of: Eastern
- A.K.A.: Humus The Proud
- Location: Northern Palouse
Re: Abolish the FEC
Point me to conservative writer who is decrying the corruption.Baldy wrote:Now CID...they did throw in a passing mention of The Shrilldabeast, and they even threw Obama's name in there once or so...you know to be "fair" and all. I'm sure the "journalist" was up against a deadline or something. I have no doubt they will call out all the Clinton donors by name and by scandal in the next article.CID1990 wrote:
thats a well written article about how donors to right wing politicians should be exposed
Atlantic doesnt havt shit to say about the Clinton pay to play operation because they dont was to be shut out
Re: Abolish the FEC
Maybe they should, but Conk writers don't have their panties in a wad over it.kalm wrote:Point me to conservative writer who is decrying the corruption.Baldy wrote: Now CID...they did throw in a passing mention of The Shrilldabeast, and they even threw Obama's name in there once or so...you know to be "fair" and all. I'm sure the "journalist" was up against a deadline or something. I have no doubt they will call out all the Clinton donors by name and by scandal in the next article.
Nice to see the Donks are holding truth to power, though.
-
Ivytalk
- Supporter

- Posts: 26827
- Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 6:22 pm
- I am a fan of: Salisbury University
- Location: Republic of Western Sussex
Re: Abolish the FEC
Peter Beinart?
Reliable Donk talking-point spouter.
Reliable Donk talking-point spouter.
“I’m tired and done.” — 89Hen 3/27/22.
-
kalm
- Supporter

- Posts: 69142
- Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:36 pm
- I am a fan of: Eastern
- A.K.A.: Humus The Proud
- Location: Northern Palouse
Re: Abolish the FEC
Who isnt? What do you find disagreeable?Ivytalk wrote:Peter Beinart?![]()
![]()
![]()
Reliable Donk talking-point spouter.
Now...back to your lack of substance/ kill the messenger fluffery
-
Ivytalk
- Supporter

- Posts: 26827
- Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 6:22 pm
- I am a fan of: Salisbury University
- Location: Republic of Western Sussex
Re: Abolish the FEC
No, back to your Mother's Day tomfoolery and trollery. Admit it, klam: you don't care a fig for the exchange of ideas. You just want to make conservatives look bad.kalm wrote:Who isnt? What do you find disagreeable?Ivytalk wrote:Peter Beinart?![]()
![]()
![]()
Reliable Donk talking-point spouter.
Now...back to your lack of substance/ kill the messenger fluffery
“I’m tired and done.” — 89Hen 3/27/22.
Re: Abolish the FEC
He's not doing a very good job of it either.Ivytalk wrote:No, back to your Mother's Day tomfoolery and trollery. Admit it, klam: you don't care a fig for the exchange of ideas. You just want to make conservatives look bad.kalm wrote:
Who isnt? What do you find disagreeable?
Now...back to your lack of substance/ kill the messenger fluffery
Last edited by Baldy on Sun May 10, 2015 6:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
kalm
- Supporter

- Posts: 69142
- Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:36 pm
- I am a fan of: Eastern
- A.K.A.: Humus The Proud
- Location: Northern Palouse
Re: Abolish the FEC
Campaign finance is the most important issue of our time...regardless of ideology. I've already posted several times regarding Hilary's ties to monied interests. Again, point me in the direction of a conservative who speaks to that topic...Ivytalk wrote:No, back to your Mother's Day tomfoolery and trollery. Admit it, klam: you don't care a fig for the exchange of ideas. You just want to make conservatives look bad.kalm wrote:
Who isnt? What do you find disagreeable?
Now...back to your lack of substance/ kill the messenger fluffery
-
Ivytalk
- Supporter

- Posts: 26827
- Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 6:22 pm
- I am a fan of: Salisbury University
- Location: Republic of Western Sussex
Re: Abolish the FEC
Carly Fiorina. Ramesh Ponnuru. Peter Wehner. There's three, douchebag.kalm wrote:Campaign finance is the most important issue of our time...regardless of ideology. I've already posted several times regarding Hilary's ties to monied interests. Again, point me in the direction of a conservative who speaks to that topic...Ivytalk wrote:
No, back to your Mother's Day tomfoolery and trollery. Admit it, klam: you don't care a fig for the exchange of ideas. You just want to make conservatives look bad.
“I’m tired and done.” — 89Hen 3/27/22.



