In uncertain times, Dems actually invoke God's name.

[AZhitman]

http://www.rollcall.com/news/50944-1.html

Boo hoo hoo.

Everything was going great until all this secret money from God-knows-where (wait, who? Are Progressives allowed to say God? I thought that was off-limits?) came pouring in and ruined everything...

Kinda like all the DNC's offshore contributions? Hmmmm?

Find a new excuse, Granny. Better yet, go hang yourself with your LifeAlert cord, you Botox-bloated dust-farting lintbag.

[IBCoupe]

The Supreme Court knew when it decided Citizens United that the only way the decision would work is if there was a robust system of disclosure. Reasoned the Court, there should be no problem with unlimited election spending so long as it's clear who's paying for it.

And those were the conservative Justices, Greg. Well, at least four of them - Thomas thought disclosure requirements were unconstitutional, too, but there were eight Justices who disagreed with him.

Disclaimer and disclosure requirements may burden the ability to speak, but they “impose no ceiling on campaign-related activities,” Buckley, 424 U. S., at 64, and “do not prevent anyone from speaking,” McConnell, supra, at 201 (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). The Court has subjected these requirements to “exacting scrutiny,” which requires a “substantial relation” between the disclosure requirement and a “sufficiently important” governmental interest.

He also illustrated a history of cases where, even Judges wanting to overturn spending caps didn't want to overturn disclosure laws.

[audtatious]

I don't think that's his point. During the '08 election there were millions and millions given to Obama that were never really disclosed. Now, here's Pelosi whining about this election since "they" are losing and not getting as much money.

IMO

[IBCoupe]

Because they were given in such small amounts, Aud. Maybe that's a problem. But that was before Citizens United, and now we've got large sums of money coming from groups that don't identify who's paying them, or even if they're paid in many small amounts or a few large sums.

[audtatious]

Small ( $2,300 ea? ) untraceable amounts via pre-paid phone cards vs. larger sums. Still comes out in the wash.

[dusred]

The Supreme Court knew when it decided Citizens United that the only way the decision would work is if there was a robust system of disclosure. Reasoned the Court, there should be no problem with unlimited election spending so long as it's clear who's paying for it.

Because they were given in such small amounts,

Should there be full disclosure or not? Did Citizens United say 'full disclosure unless they are small amounts'? It appears that you are bashing Conservatives for not giving a full disclosure and then in the next breath you are making up excuses for Obama. Double standard?

[IBCoupe]

Aud:
$2300 was (maybe still is?) the cap on annual individual donations to a political candidate - no single person could give more than $2,300.00 to then-Candidate Obama's (Or McCain's or Clinton's or Edwards', for that matter) presidential campaign. That was, by no means, the average donation size. If you look at the amount of money he collected and then make a series of assumptions (half of voting-age Americans would like President Obama to win, half of those would actually participate, maybe a quarter of that would actually contribute and assume that there were no donations outside of the year 2008), if I recall correctly, the average donation size was between $50 and $100 per donor. I never spent the time to look into whether it was possible to find actual names with donations, but I know that a lot of them were bundled.

Dus:
Citizens United didn't make a ruling on disclosure except to say that the existing disclosure laws were constitutional. I'm talking about the reasoning employed in the opinions of the Court.

[audtatious]

Yes, the average donation size was smaller than the $2,300 and I do believe you are correct in the average was between 50 and 100.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 03413.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/10/us/po ... .html?_r=1
Far Right Wing report but interesting nonetheless: http://biggovernment.com/pgeller/2010/1 ... bed-clean/

I believe the GOP kept calling ( whining perhaps? ) for full disclosure and the Obama Administration refused. Sometime after the election it kinda went away. Now it's Pelosi doing the whining. Ball on other foot.

[IBCoupe]

The difference being that full disclosure on a massive pile of little donations is a huge pain in the a**. There's been no formal request for disclosure because we're not sure who to send it to, or who we'd turn to in order for the response. When you've got a large sum of money being spent by a group whose membership is anonymous and whose only legal address is a PO Box in Podunk, "disclosure" becomes a problem for a completely different reason: the nature of the thing is secretive, rather than the nature of the disclosure being burdensome.

Put another way: it's the difference between actively hiding the identities of your donors and failing to reveal them.

[audtatious]

So, they were not tracking donations because they were small? I find that hard to believe.

GOP got steamrolled in '08 and they learned a lesson.

[IBCoupe]

Because they were small and sporadic or they were bundled. Don't know if they weren't tracking them, but that's a pretty big task to organize large amounts of data that you wouldn't otherwise be required to do, right?

[AZhitman]

And again, point is lost in the minutiae.

That's ok, though - Assuming Pelosi is right and there's an influx of "mystery money"... If a "reasonable person" were to be asked to GUESS which party receives more funding from questionable foreign sources, that person would be hard-pressed (given the apologist tone of the past two years, the pandering to lunatic heads-of-state, the offers to legitimize rogue factions by inviting them to the table) to point to the GOP.

If she's SO stupid that she doesn't realize that there is a well-to-do silent majority out here in America that is fed the F up with the progressive agenda, and is digging into their savings to remove those who promote that agenda from office, then she deserves what's coming to her this year.

Oh, yeah. It must be a conspiracy... After all, how could ANYONE not be on board with our plan? What an arrogant b**** she is.

[IBCoupe]

Is Pelosi specifically complaining about foreign sources? I'm pretty sure that most of the fears about faceless money have to do with industry special interests who might love to buy a politician but might not love the publicity associated with buying a politician.

[audtatious]

Because they were small and sporadic or they were bundled. Don't know if they weren't tracking them, but that's a pretty big task to organize large amounts of data that you wouldn't otherwise be required to do, right?

Yet banks and other establishments are required to do just that. Just don't ask the DNC to do it I guess.

[IBCoupe]

Obvious Observation #4827: A presidential candidate isn't a bank.

[audtatious]

Obvious Observation #4828: DNC mentioned, not President

FECA limits individuals to $2,400. What's the point if nobody tracks the money? It's also against FECA to give donations under a false name yet that happened quite a bit during the '08 election (and others) yet nothing is done to resolve the issue.

[IBCoupe]

Neither is the DNC a bank.

What does FECA prescribe as the corrective action? Look, if there's enough anger for you to be aware of it, there's enough anger out there to organize a suit against the FEC administrator.

[audtatious]

Obvious Observation #4829: DNC is not a bank

So, FEC does not require disclosure of all donations to political candidates?

"Federal campaign finance law covers three broad subjects, which are described in this brochure:

* Public disclosure of funds raised and spent to influence federal elections;
* Restrictions on contributions and expenditures made to influence federal elections; and
* The public financing of Presidential campaigns."

I would think the above states they should have that information. I could be wrong but my assumption is they are required to track all donations should disclosure be required?

Ah....

"Disclosure

The FECA requires candidate committees, party committees and PACs to file periodic reports disclosing the money they raise and spend. Candidates must identify, for example, all PACs and party committees that give them contributions, and they must identify individuals who give them more than $200 in an election cycle. Additionally, they must disclose expenditures exceeding $200 per election cycle to any individual or vendor."

So, by using prepaid credit cards and keeping the donations below the 200 level then there is no need to trace the individuals and there is also no way track back for fraud either. At least that's the way the law was in 2004. Explains why there was nothing that could be proven should someone choose to send one thousand $100 prepaid cards to the Obama fund (or McCain as the case may be). They would be committing fraud by sending them under different peoples name but since there is no way to track back then it seemed to be a "free for all".

[IBCoupe]

Hooray, elections!

[AZhitman]

...and yet the misperception remains.

[IBCoupe]

Which misperception is that?

[audtatious]

Hooray, elections!

Hooray for whiners!!!

[AZhitman]

Which misperception is that?

The one that got lost in all the legal mumbo-jumbo.

(kidding - actually, your response was better than the OP by far)

The misperception that the Speaker is boo-hooing about...

[IBCoupe]

Well, I don't think she's got much of a misconception. I think you guys could accurately complain that she's only worrying about the most recent iteration of secret election money, and forgetting about the secret election money that we've always had.