Comments on: Berry Faults Moran for Hypocrisy on Campaign Finance:10-Term Democrat Steers Earmarks to Campaign Donors http://www.gaypatriot.net/2010/01/22/berry-faults-moran-for-hypocrisy-on-campaign-finance10-term-democrat-steers-earmarks-to-campaign-donors/ The Internet home for American gay conservatives. Fri, 10 Feb 2012 20:51:40 -0700 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.1 By: heliotrope http://www.gaypatriot.net/2010/01/22/berry-faults-moran-for-hypocrisy-on-campaign-finance10-term-democrat-steers-earmarks-to-campaign-donors/comment-page-1/#comment-540566 heliotrope Sat, 23 Jan 2010 22:55:31 +0000 http://www.gaypatriot.net/?p=21671#comment-540566 Why are you talking about campaign contributions to candidates? Why are you talking about campaign contributions to candidates?

]]> By: shodane http://www.gaypatriot.net/2010/01/22/berry-faults-moran-for-hypocrisy-on-campaign-finance10-term-democrat-steers-earmarks-to-campaign-donors/comment-page-1/#comment-539681 shodane Fri, 22 Jan 2010 17:13:28 +0000 http://www.gaypatriot.net/?p=21671#comment-539681 So the ruling means that previous restrictions on non-PAC 527 groups have been lifted? or that corporations no longer have to operate through 527 groups? are corporations now allowed to openly co-ordinate political campaigns with candidates? So the ruling means that previous restrictions on non-PAC 527 groups have been lifted? or that corporations no longer have to operate through 527 groups? are corporations now allowed to openly co-ordinate political campaigns with candidates?

]]> By: heliotrope http://www.gaypatriot.net/2010/01/22/berry-faults-moran-for-hypocrisy-on-campaign-finance10-term-democrat-steers-earmarks-to-campaign-donors/comment-page-1/#comment-539562 heliotrope Fri, 22 Jan 2010 14:52:29 +0000 http://www.gaypatriot.net/?p=21671#comment-539562 shodane, You are asking about two different things. 1) Moran has earmarked money to certain entities who have made political contributions to him in return. Those political contributions belong to him, should he leave office. 2.) The Supreme Court ruled that unions and corporations have the right to express themselves politically right up to election day. McCain/Feingold had made this illegal. The decision did not change the"rules" about how much can be contributed to a candidate's political campaign fund. You seem to be saying that there is some connection between these two. If you believe in a voter being informed, then you must also accept the right of voices, corporate or otherwise, to campaign for or against a person or a concept. The Supreme Court says that unions and corporations can spend as much as they wish supporting or opposing a candidate or political concept. Jim Moran appears to be tapping the corporate gravy train by sending earmarks their way and accepting donations in return. Whether there is any provable quid pro quo is doubtful in terms of proving graft and corruption, but it sure smells bad. You may recall that Obama made a point of not accepting campaign contributions from all sorts of special interests. It turned out to be a totally false claim, but he did successfully imply he was above graft and corruption. shodane,

You are asking about two different things.

1) Moran has earmarked money to certain entities who have made political contributions to him in return. Those political contributions belong to him, should he leave office.

2.) The Supreme Court ruled that unions and corporations have the right to express themselves politically right up to election day. McCain/Feingold had made this illegal. The decision did not change the”rules” about how much can be contributed to a candidate’s political campaign fund.

You seem to be saying that there is some connection between these two.

If you believe in a voter being informed, then you must also accept the right of voices, corporate or otherwise, to campaign for or against a person or a concept. The Supreme Court says that unions and corporations can spend as much as they wish supporting or opposing a candidate or political concept.

Jim Moran appears to be tapping the corporate gravy train by sending earmarks their way and accepting donations in return. Whether there is any provable quid pro quo is doubtful in terms of proving graft and corruption, but it sure smells bad.

You may recall that Obama made a point of not accepting campaign contributions from all sorts of special interests. It turned out to be a totally false claim, but he did successfully imply he was above graft and corruption.

]]> By: shodane http://www.gaypatriot.net/2010/01/22/berry-faults-moran-for-hypocrisy-on-campaign-finance10-term-democrat-steers-earmarks-to-campaign-donors/comment-page-1/#comment-539443 shodane Fri, 22 Jan 2010 10:59:14 +0000 http://www.gaypatriot.net/?p=21671#comment-539443 Please, i need to understand better, because i do not right now. if it is bad that moran has been taking this money to finance his campaigns, and the supreme court ruling apparently removes almost all restrictions on the amount of money that corporate entities spend on candidates campaigns, how will this decision limit things like directing earmarks to campaign contributors. now defence contractors can surely put more money into the system to ensure that elected officials are even more financially beholden to them? or are you saying that that is not a bad thing? Please, i honestly don't understand. Please, i need to understand better, because i do not right now. if it is bad that moran has been taking this money to finance his campaigns, and the supreme court ruling apparently removes almost all restrictions on the amount of money that corporate entities spend on candidates campaigns, how will this decision limit things like directing earmarks to campaign contributors. now defence contractors can surely put more money into the system to ensure that elected officials are even more financially beholden to them? or are you saying that that is not a bad thing? Please, i honestly don’t understand.

]]>