Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
U.S. Constitution
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="roadrunner2012" data-source="post: 1027488" data-attributes="member: 40736"><p>Moreluck,</p><p></p><p>Being the inquisitive person I am, I read your article, and said 'wow, maybe she has something here, this cant be true.' So I grabbed one particularly onerous sounding point: 7. Political-speech disclosure for federal contractors. This really sounds like you'd need to be a Democrat, or at least not pro Republican in order to get a govt contract. That sucks.</p><p></p><p>So I looked that up, sure enough, that's what Obama wants. Here's why:</p><p><a href="http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/05/repbublicans-push-back-on-planned-disclosure-order.php" target="_blank">Republicans Push Back On Obama Plan To Force Disclosure Of Political Contributions | TPMDC</a></p><p></p><p><em>The only problem with the logic is that, up until early 2010, federal contractors and all businesses had to disclose their political activity. Before the Supreme Court’s landmark Citizen’s United ruling, federal contractors and all companies that donated or spent money on elections were forced to set up a political action committee and disclose their campaign finances to the Federal Election Committee. </em></p><p><em></em></p><p><em>The Citizens United ruling lifted most of those rules — all companies and unions can donate unlimited amounts of money straight from their treasuries — and they don’t have to report it to anyone. Democrats are trying to force at least a level of disclosure so voters can track those special interests attempts at influencing elections.</em> </p><p></p><p></p><p>So unless you have a real, specific example that can be shown to be unconstitutional, and is not considered 'past practices', these threads only go to shown a position that is only defensible with partisan cartoons.</p><p></p><p>BTW -- Mitt thinks you're a freeloader.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="roadrunner2012, post: 1027488, member: 40736"] Moreluck, Being the inquisitive person I am, I read your article, and said 'wow, maybe she has something here, this cant be true.' So I grabbed one particularly onerous sounding point: 7. Political-speech disclosure for federal contractors. This really sounds like you'd need to be a Democrat, or at least not pro Republican in order to get a govt contract. That sucks. So I looked that up, sure enough, that's what Obama wants. Here's why: [url=http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/05/repbublicans-push-back-on-planned-disclosure-order.php]Republicans Push Back On Obama Plan To Force Disclosure Of Political Contributions | TPMDC[/url] [I]The only problem with the logic is that, up until early 2010, federal contractors and all businesses had to disclose their political activity. Before the Supreme Court’s landmark Citizen’s United ruling, federal contractors and all companies that donated or spent money on elections were forced to set up a political action committee and disclose their campaign finances to the Federal Election Committee. [/I] [I]The Citizens United ruling lifted most of those rules — all companies and unions can donate unlimited amounts of money straight from their treasuries — and they don’t have to report it to anyone. Democrats are trying to force at least a level of disclosure so voters can track those special interests attempts at influencing elections.[/I] So unless you have a real, specific example that can be shown to be unconstitutional, and is not considered 'past practices', these threads only go to shown a position that is only defensible with partisan cartoons. BTW -- Mitt thinks you're a freeloader. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
U.S. Constitution
Top