 mags2Agent Provocateur
join:2001-07-19
SoCal | Gimme Fritz for a Hunderd Grand, Alex! The CBDTBA's sponsors in the Senate:
- Senator Fritz Hollings (D-SC) - (202) 224-6121
- Senator Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) - (202) 224-3004
- Senator Daniel Inouye (D-HI) - (202) 224-3934
- Senator John Breaux (D-LA) - (202) 224-4623
- Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL) - (202) 224-5274
- Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) - (202) 224-3841
- Capitol switchboard -- call YOUR Senator! - (202) 224-312
A little while ago I read a list of the politicians Enron bought off and how much they each received in soft money, respectively. There was a good mixture of both parties, but the Grand Oil Party got bigger payoffs than the Dems which were -apparently- deep discounted. I wonder how much the RIAA & the entertainment industry paid the above mentioned (and I use the term loosely) leaders to sponsor the CBDTPA garbage?
--
All your computer are belong to us. -Hillary & the RIAA |
|
|
|
 Polaris5All Hail, The Vulture From Van Nuys
join:2002-03-26
old RIA of A | Actually, it was $215,284 Then, you'll enjoy this!
»www.opensecrets.org/industries/r···torder=U |
|
mags2Agent Provocateur
join:2001-07-19
SoCal | said by Polaris:
Then, you'll enjoy this!
»www.opensecrets.org/industries/r···torder=U
Hey, that was a great link. Thanks.
--
All your computer are belong to us. -Hillary & the RIAA |
|
| reply to mags2
Re: Gimme Fritz for a Hunderd Grand, Alex! said by mags2:
A little while ago I read a list of the politicians Enron bought off and how much they each received in soft money, respectively. There was a good mixture of both parties, but the Grand Oil Party got bigger payoffs than the Dems which were -apparently- deep discounted.
Hopefully the new Campaign Reform Bill will help make some changes once it's rolled. Not a perfect solution, but better than what we have now.
--
When do I get my freakin' third star?!?!? |
|
mags2Agent Provocateur
join:2001-07-19
SoCal
| said by SRFireside:
Hopefully the new Campaign eform Bill will help make some changes once it's rolled. Not a perfect solution, but better than what we have now.
I haven't really gotten a chance to read & judge for myself whether it's a step in the right direction or not. Not really holding my breath, either. For all the hemming & hawing that went on with this particular bill, I do not realistically see the feds passing laws to curtail their campaign coffers from special interests anytime soon.
If ignorance is bliss, why aren't more people happy?
-T.Jefferson
[text was edited by author 2002-03-28 11:52:35] |
|
| reply to mags2
Bill Nelson? He's outta here! |
|
mags2Agent Provocateur
join:2001-07-19
SoCal | Speaking of Reforms This article illustrates how corporate America has been givin it to the rest of us all along, for at least the past 50 yrs. It also explains where all of the $pecial intere$t dollar$ come from $o freely:
»www.progressive.org/April%202002···402.html
--
If ignorance is bliss, why aren't more people happy? -T.Jefferson |
|
mags2Agent Provocateur
join:2001-07-19
SoCal | reply to SRFireside
Re: Gimme Fritz for a Hunderd Grand, Alex! said by SRFireside:
Hopefully the new Campaign Reform Bill will help make some changes once it's rolled. Not a perfect solution, but better than what we have now.
Just from what I understand the McCain-Feingold bill will curtail some dramatic abuses in the system: the use of unlimited "soft money" that is not supposed to support federal candidates but which has been used to do so, and tighter control of campaign advertising that tries to masquerade as independent "issue adverting." The other major provision of the bill, even as it reduces soft money and discouraged sham "issue advertising," McCain-Feingold doubles the size of "hard money" contributions, those that directly fund a candidate.
Here's the irony in that: Recall that record-breaking, headline-making $100 million that George W. Bush raised in the 2000 primary season? It was all hard money, raised mostly in $1,000 denominations, the maximum then allowed by law. Even as McCain-Feingold reduces the influence of soft money, it doubles the amount of hard money that donors can give. Soft money makes up one-third of the money in federal politics, while hard money accounts for most of the other two-thirds. So, if we cut soft money but all hard-money donors double their gifts, we'll end up with four thirds, or a third more money in federal politics than before. This is progress?
--
If ignorance is bliss, why aren't more people happy? -T.Jefferson |
|
| That hard money limit that was raised applies only to individual donations. I don't think corporations in of themselves can benefit from that. Only the fat cats IN the company. There was much debate regarding individual contribution limits and many conservatives call it unconstitutional ("If I want to give my own money away to a politician I support I should give whatever I want" being the credo). I suppose they had to make that compromise. I haven't seen anywhere on the bill that states corporations or organizations have higher limits on hard money contributions. I don't see where big business and their massive lobbying are getting a better deal here.
--
When do I get my freakin' third star?!?!? |
|
