Liberal punching bags, the Koch brothers, are not even in top 50 political donors in America

RPGNinja

RPGNinja

CAGiversary!
www.bizpacreview.com/2014/02/15/liberal-punching-bags-the-koch-brothers-are-not-even-in-top-50-political-donors-in-america-101064

Excerpt from article:

"The top spot belongs to ActBlue, which contributed nearly $100 million to Democratic candidates and committees since 2004. Federally registered as a political action committee, ActBlue describes itself as “the online clearinghouse for Democratic action,” OpenSecrets.org reported.

Six of the top 10 slots belong to unions, led by the muscular American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) at $60.6 million and the National Education Association (NEA) at $53.5 million. With the Koch brothers mustering a paltry $18 million, it almost doesn’t seem fair, does it?"

End.


The hypocrisy of the liberals are truly astounding, they have been bashing the Koch brothers for years when in reality it is the Democrats who have the majority of the money in America, they have just been misleading you for years to create the narrative that evil rich Republicans are the reason for their own failed policies.
 
Interesting - although reading the original link brings some more light to the subject...

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php

"For example, this list does not include casino magnate Sheldon Adelson. He and his wife Miriam donated nearly $93 million in 2012 alone to conservative super PACs — enough to put him at No. 2 on this list. Similarly, the list excludes former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg, who has donated more than $19 million in the past two years, largely to groups that support gun control."

Regardless - the real truth is, donors for both major parties really know how to cover their tracks. Virtually all the top candidates are bought and sold before they ever reach the federal level.
 
UncleBob said:
Interesting - although reading the original link brings some more light to the subject...

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php

"For example, this list does not include casino magnate Sheldon Adelson. He and his wife Miriam donated nearly $93 million in 2012 alone to conservative super PACs — enough to put him at No. 2 on this list. Similarly, the list excludes former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg, who has donated more than $19 million in the past two years, largely to groups that support gun control."

Regardless - the real truth is, donors for both major parties really know how to cover their tracks. Virtually all the top candidates are bought and sold before they ever reach the federal level.

Thanks for adding to the discussion. And you are exactly right, but the point is they need to stop acting like it is one sided affair.

This is the same thing with Democrats trying to defend their horrible charitable donations record, Al Gore actually said things like "Paying taxes is my charitable contribution", whereas people like Mitt Romney who I am no fan of, has donated millions to charity. Literally every picture Democrats try to paint is false.
Click to expand...
 
Msut77 said:
http://www.thenation.com/blog/178743/koch-brothers-spent-twice-much-2012-election-top-ten-unions-combined

[background=#ffffff]For the last election, Koch PACs spent [/size][/background]
Click to expand...
$4.9 million[background=#ffffff] in disclosed contributions (figures that appear on the chart referenced by Strassel). But they also spent over [/size][/background]$407 million[background=#ffffff] on undisclosed campaign entities, which does not show up in the CRP chart.[/size][/background]

Except when you actually go to the site where they supposedly spent 407 million dollars it gives no mention of them actually spending the money but just that are they are "Koch-backed PACs". That doesn't mean they personally spent their own money.
 
Msut77 said:
Move goalposts much?
Click to expand...
Just don't post something and not back it up. Koch-backed PACs mean nothing if they don't include any details at all. Just like I don't start putting "Soros-backed PACs" when I include his donations because I am looking at what he actually donated.

The fact is the Koch brothers are looked at as big bad and evil and they are the only ones possible of "controlling elections" when Democrats actually spend way more. Not to mention with Obama in power he got money from the federal government itself.
 
RPGNinja said:
A) Just don't post something and not back it up. Koch-backed PACs mean nothing if they don't include any details at all.

B)Just like I don't start putting "Soros-backed PACs" when I include his donations because I am looking at what he actually donated.
Click to expand...
A) like what details, like the information that used to be included before these things were legal?

B) Oh gosh, yes you are really protecting your credibility.

 
Msut77 said:
A) like what details, like the information that used to be included before these things were legal?
B) Oh gosh, yes you are really protecting your credibility.
Click to expand...
You didn't protect your credibility when you tried to sneakily make that post without any back up details.

The point is, Democrats outspent the Republicans and yet they want to focus on the Koch brothers and depict them as villains because they are spending way more. It is a classic diversion tactics.
 
Msut77 said:
A) like what details, like the information that used to be included before these things were legal?

B) Oh gosh, yes you are really protecting your credibility.
Click to expand...
^This. If you don't understand Citizens United and how this money is hidden in the ways Msut describes then you don't understand election financing. Now that the corporate cronies on the SC have ruled to made it easy to hide your money, you and your pro-business goons can claim it doesn't exist. You should refrain from speaking on such matters you do not understand.

 
irideabike said:
if you dont think the rich benefit from either side winning the presidency you are an idiot,
Click to expand...
Amen. I think OP's point is that high campaign contributions, despite being a common talking point of the left, is done by both parties. Which you'd have to be an idiot not to think.

I don't think anyone's going to argue that the Koch brothers are innocent (they're not), but they're definitely targets used to establish a narrative by hypocrites.

But at the presidential level, candidates of both parties are already bought and sold. That's why the two-party system is a joke now, and why we need strong third-party candidates to break away from it. The rich look out for their own, and ensure that despite pretending who we pick matters, that for their purposes, it doesn't. The rich always make sure they win because that's how the game is rigged, you're stuck picking one of two of their hand-picked candidates. And the best part is they use the two-party divide to get us to waste our time squabbling with and hating each other over minor differences in ideology, to keep us from all uniting to get things done. It's brilliant, and incredibly effective given human nature.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
BobbyTastic said:
Amen. I think OP's point is that high campaign contributions, despite being a common talking point of the left, is done by both parties. Which you'd have to be an idiot not to think.

I don't think anyone's going to argue that the Koch brothers are innocent (they're not), but they're definitely targets used to establish a narrative by hypocrites.

But at the presidential level, candidates of both parties are already bought and sold. That's why the two-party system is a joke now, and why we need strong third-party candidates to break away from it. The rich look out for their own, and ensure that despite pretending who we pick matters, that for their purposes, it doesn't. The rich always make sure they win because that's how the game is rigged, you're stuck picking one of two of their hand-picked candidates. And the best part is they use the two-party divide to get us to waste our time squabbling with and hating each other over minor differences in ideology, to keep us from all uniting to get things done. It's brilliant, and incredibly effective given human nature.
Click to expand...
I really couldn't agree more with your overall positive vibe and sentiment that came through with what you posted. However I would hardly call alot of the things being argued about "minor difference" in ideology. A socialist healthcare system with no choice versus one where you can choose which provider you want is just an example.
 
RPGNinja said:
I really couldn't agree more with your overall positive vibe and sentiment that came through with what you posted. However I would hardly call alot of the things being argued about "minor difference" in ideology. A socialist healthcare system with no choice versus one where you can choose which provider you want is just an example.
Click to expand...
In my ideal system, there'd be public health care providers and private health care providers. Of course, you'd get the cries about how the rich are getting the good doctors, etc....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top