Some are more equal than others...
- Thread starter Padawanbater2
- Start date
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Congress proposes bill to allow even MORE money in politics
Here is the actual bill, get a load of the language that's used to purposely confuse the people not very well versed in political language, pretty interesting shit...;
"DIVISIONN—OTHER MATTERS
SEC. 101. SEPARATE CONTRIBUTION LIMITS FOR CONTRIBUTIONS MADE TO NATIONAL PARTIES TO SUPPORT PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATING CONVENTIONS, NATIONAL PARTY HEADQUARTERS BUILDINGS, AND RECOUNTS.
(a) SEPARATE LIMITS.—Section 315(a) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (52 U.S.C. 30116(a)) is amended—
(1) in paragraph (1)(B), by striking the semicolon at the end and inserting the following: ‘‘, or, in the case of contributions made to any of the accounts described in paragraph (9), exceed 300 percent of the amount otherwise applicable under this subparagraph with respect to such calendar year;’’;
(2) in paragraph (2)(B), by striking the semicolon at the end and inserting the following: ‘‘, or, in the case of contributions made to any of the accounts described in paragraph (9), exceed 300 percent of the amount otherwise applicable under this subparagraph with respect to such calendar year;’’; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph: ‘‘(9) An account described in this paragraph is any of the following accounts: ‘‘(A) A separate, segregated account of a national committee of a political party (other than a national congressional campaign committee of a political party) which is used solely to defray expenses incurred with respect to a presidential nominating convention (including the payment of deposits) or to repay loans the proceeds of which were used to defray such expenses, or otherwise to restore funds used to defray such expenses, except that the aggregate amount of expenditures the national committee of a political party may make from such account may not exceed $20,000,000 with respect to any single convention.‘‘(B) A separate, segregated account of a national committee of a political party (including a national congressional campaign committee of a political party) which is used solely to defray expenses incurred with respect to the construction, purchase, renovation, operation, and furnishing of one or more headquarters buildings of the party or to repay loans the proceeds of which were used to defray such expenses, or otherwise to restore funds used to defray such expenses (including expenses for obligations incurred during the 2-year period which ends on the date of the enactment of this paragraph). ‘‘(C) A separate, segregated account of a national committee of a political party (including a national congressional campaign committee of a political party) which is used to defray expenses incurred with respect to the preparation for and the conduct of election recounts and contests and other legal proceedings.’’. (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT RELATING TO DE11
TERMINATION OF COORDINATED EXPENDITURE LIMITATIONS.—Section 315(d) of such Act (52 U.S.C. 30116(d)) is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph: ‘‘(5) The limitations contained in paragraphs (2), (3), and (4) of this subsection shall not apply to expenditures made from any of the accounts described in subsection (a)(9).’’. (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by this section shall apply with respect to funds that are solicited, received, transferred, or spent on or after the date of the enactment of this section."
http://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20141208/CPRT-113-HPRT-RU00-HR83sa.pdf
So in other words;
"The omnibus bill includes a provision (on page 1,599) to create three separate funds within the Democratic National Committee and the Republican National Committee. Each fund would be allowed to accept $97,200 from just one donor per year. If this change becomes law, it would mean that a single donor could give up to $324,000 per year, or $648,000 for a two-year election cycle, to finance the party’s operations.
The change would effectively obliterate campaign contribution limits to the parties, while eviscerating the limits placed by the 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law on how much a political candidate can seek from a donor. The current maximum a donor can give to a national party committee is $32,400 per year, plus an additional $32,400 per year to a separate fund to be used only in case of an election recount."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/10/cromnibus-campaign-finance_n_6298984.html
https://www.rollitup.org/t/3-down-31-to-go.853030/
www.wolf-pac.com
Here is the actual bill, get a load of the language that's used to purposely confuse the people not very well versed in political language, pretty interesting shit...;
"DIVISIONN—OTHER MATTERS
SEC. 101. SEPARATE CONTRIBUTION LIMITS FOR CONTRIBUTIONS MADE TO NATIONAL PARTIES TO SUPPORT PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATING CONVENTIONS, NATIONAL PARTY HEADQUARTERS BUILDINGS, AND RECOUNTS.
(a) SEPARATE LIMITS.—Section 315(a) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (52 U.S.C. 30116(a)) is amended—
(1) in paragraph (1)(B), by striking the semicolon at the end and inserting the following: ‘‘, or, in the case of contributions made to any of the accounts described in paragraph (9), exceed 300 percent of the amount otherwise applicable under this subparagraph with respect to such calendar year;’’;
(2) in paragraph (2)(B), by striking the semicolon at the end and inserting the following: ‘‘, or, in the case of contributions made to any of the accounts described in paragraph (9), exceed 300 percent of the amount otherwise applicable under this subparagraph with respect to such calendar year;’’; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph: ‘‘(9) An account described in this paragraph is any of the following accounts: ‘‘(A) A separate, segregated account of a national committee of a political party (other than a national congressional campaign committee of a political party) which is used solely to defray expenses incurred with respect to a presidential nominating convention (including the payment of deposits) or to repay loans the proceeds of which were used to defray such expenses, or otherwise to restore funds used to defray such expenses, except that the aggregate amount of expenditures the national committee of a political party may make from such account may not exceed $20,000,000 with respect to any single convention.‘‘(B) A separate, segregated account of a national committee of a political party (including a national congressional campaign committee of a political party) which is used solely to defray expenses incurred with respect to the construction, purchase, renovation, operation, and furnishing of one or more headquarters buildings of the party or to repay loans the proceeds of which were used to defray such expenses, or otherwise to restore funds used to defray such expenses (including expenses for obligations incurred during the 2-year period which ends on the date of the enactment of this paragraph). ‘‘(C) A separate, segregated account of a national committee of a political party (including a national congressional campaign committee of a political party) which is used to defray expenses incurred with respect to the preparation for and the conduct of election recounts and contests and other legal proceedings.’’. (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT RELATING TO DE11
TERMINATION OF COORDINATED EXPENDITURE LIMITATIONS.—Section 315(d) of such Act (52 U.S.C. 30116(d)) is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph: ‘‘(5) The limitations contained in paragraphs (2), (3), and (4) of this subsection shall not apply to expenditures made from any of the accounts described in subsection (a)(9).’’. (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by this section shall apply with respect to funds that are solicited, received, transferred, or spent on or after the date of the enactment of this section."
http://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20141208/CPRT-113-HPRT-RU00-HR83sa.pdf
So in other words;
"The omnibus bill includes a provision (on page 1,599) to create three separate funds within the Democratic National Committee and the Republican National Committee. Each fund would be allowed to accept $97,200 from just one donor per year. If this change becomes law, it would mean that a single donor could give up to $324,000 per year, or $648,000 for a two-year election cycle, to finance the party’s operations.
The change would effectively obliterate campaign contribution limits to the parties, while eviscerating the limits placed by the 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law on how much a political candidate can seek from a donor. The current maximum a donor can give to a national party committee is $32,400 per year, plus an additional $32,400 per year to a separate fund to be used only in case of an election recount."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/10/cromnibus-campaign-finance_n_6298984.html
https://www.rollitup.org/t/3-down-31-to-go.853030/
www.wolf-pac.com
Last edited:
heckler73
Well-Known Member
I'm only part of the way in it. Still watching Stiglitz, and he's getting a little wonkish. Not that the math is difficult, but it may be excessively technical, in retrospect.
I'm also in the middle of constructing a special spreadsheet for some friends who prefer it when technology can do the decision making of where to throw money and when, which caused my computer to seize. So, I'll get back with some notes when I finish watching.
I notice Krugman is in the latter part. One may be able to skip the middle two speakers if the minutes are deemed precious...It's a gamble. The whole presentation may be bullshit.
Over an hour of vid and a book to read as well?Congress proposes bill to allow even MORE money in politics
Here is the actual bill, get a load of the language that's used to purposely confuse the people not very well versed in political language, pretty interesting shit...;
"DIVISIONN—OTHER MATTERS
SEC. 101. SEPARATE CONTRIBUTION LIMITS FOR CONTRIBUTIONS MADE TO NATIONAL PARTIES TO SUPPORT PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATING CONVENTIONS, NATIONAL PARTY HEADQUARTERS BUILDINGS, AND RECOUNTS.
(a) SEPARATE LIMITS.—Section 315(a) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (52 U.S.C. 30116(a)) is amended—
(1) in paragraph (1)(B), by striking the semicolon at the end and inserting the following: ‘‘, or, in the case of contributions made to any of the accounts described in paragraph (9), exceed 300 percent of the amount otherwise applicable under this subparagraph with respect to such calendar year;’’;
(2) in paragraph (2)(B), by striking the semicolon at the end and inserting the following: ‘‘, or, in the case of contributions made to any of the accounts described in paragraph (9), exceed 300 percent of the amount otherwise applicable under this subparagraph with respect to such calendar year;’’; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph: ‘‘(9) An account described in this paragraph is any of the following accounts: ‘‘(A) A separate, segregated account of a national committee of a political party (other than a national congressional campaign committee of a political party) which is used solely to defray expenses incurred with respect to a presidential nominating convention (including the payment of deposits) or to repay loans the proceeds of which were used to defray such expenses, or otherwise to restore funds used to defray such expenses, except that the aggregate amount of expenditures the national committee of a political party may make from such account may not exceed $20,000,000 with respect to any single convention.‘‘(B) A separate, segregated account of a national committee of a political party (including a national congressional campaign committee of a political party) which is used solely to defray expenses incurred with respect to the construction, purchase, renovation, operation, and furnishing of one or more headquarters buildings of the party or to repay loans the proceeds of which were used to defray such expenses, or otherwise to restore funds used to defray such expenses (including expenses for obligations incurred during the 2-year period which ends on the date of the enactment of this paragraph). ‘‘(C) A separate, segregated account of a national committee of a political party (including a national congressional campaign committee of a political party) which is used to defray expenses incurred with respect to the preparation for and the conduct of election recounts and contests and other legal proceedings.’’. (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT RELATING TO DE11
TERMINATION OF COORDINATED EXPENDITURE LIMITATIONS.—Section 315(d) of such Act (52 U.S.C. 30116(d)) is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph: ‘‘(5) The limitations contained in paragraphs (2), (3), and (4) of this subsection shall not apply to expenditures made from any of the accounts described in subsection (a)(9).’’. (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by this section shall apply with respect to funds that are solicited, received, transferred, or spent on or after the date of the enactment of this section."
http://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20141208/CPRT-113-HPRT-RU00-HR83sa.pdf
So in other words;
"The omnibus bill includes a provision (on page 1,599) to create three separate funds within the Democratic National Committee and the Republican National Committee. Each fund would be allowed to accept $97,200 from just one donor per year. If this change becomes law, it would mean that a single donor could give up to $324,000 per year, or $648,000 for a two-year election cycle, to finance the party’s operations.
The change would effectively obliterate campaign contribution limits to the parties, while eviscerating the limits placed by the 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law on how much a political candidate can seek from a donor. The current maximum a donor can give to a national party committee is $32,400 per year, plus an additional $32,400 per year to a separate fund to be used only in case of an election recount."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/10/cromnibus-campaign-finance_n_6298984.html
https://www.rollitup.org/t/3-down-31-to-go.853030/
www.wolf-pac.com
Ya, getting right on that.
heckler73
Well-Known Member
You can skip the vid.
Stiglitz' presentation may be worth a 2nd look, but Krugman, no. The other two are indecipherable.
Red1966
Well-Known Member
You used to say a court case in 2014 was the cause of this "sudden burst" in 1980. so why should we believe you now?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
actually, as i recall he cited two cases from before 1980. buckley v valeo and boston v belloti.
in fact, here is the post even:
now that you have been caught in an obvious lie for the Nth time, why should anyone believe a word you say?
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
That was 1 page of a 1,600 page bill that partly details how politicians have set the same system back up that fucked us in 2008
People that are too lazy to read 1 fucking page deserve everything that's coming to them and they relinquish the right to condemn social safety net programs and the people that use them for being "too lazy" in the future(now that's ironic)
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
One page out of 1600? Would you say that might be a bit of cherry picking? Would you say that one page out of 1600 might be taken out of context?
I knew you wouldnt because... SCIENCE!!! That will never get old... LOL!!!
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
speaking of science, care to take us through the science behind your belie that the earth has been cooling for a decade now?
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
http://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20141208/CPRT-113-HPRT-RU00-HR83sa.pdf
Go read the bill for yourself and tell me how I'm taking it out of context
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
Ok, so now I got to read the whole 1600 pages? You know, to make sure it is in context? TL;DR
Its not lazy, just goal orientated. My goal here is to have fun, and that didn't look like any fun times were gonna be had, so I didn't read it.
"A NEW paper by Emmanuel Saez of the University of California, Berkeley, and Gabriel Zucman of the London School of Economics suggests that, in America at least, inequality in wealth is approaching record levels. The authors examine the share of total wealth held by the bottom 90% of families relative to those at the very top. In the late 1920s the bottom 90% held just 16% of America’s wealth—considerably less than that held by the top 0.1%, which controlled a quarter of total wealth just before the crash of 1929. From the beginning of the Depression until well after the end of the second world war, the middle class’s share of total wealth rose steadily, thanks to collapsing wealth among richer households, broader equity ownership, middle-class income growth and rising rates of home-ownership. From the early 1980s, however, these trends have reversed. The top 0.1% (consisting of 160,000 families worth $73m on average) hold 22% of America’s wealth, just shy of the 1929 peak—and almost the same share as the bottom 90% of the population."
http://popist.com/s/a356785/
Are you ready for another great depression?
hmmmmmm were trading at 18000.
dodd frank ammended..why was it so important, now?