Democrats make it official- they will take undisclosed donations.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 15, 2011 8:44 AM GMT
    I think it is safe to assume that the right leaning members will say that it is just hypocritical of the Democrats, but I am interested in the "left leaning" take on the article. Is this really something that can just be swept under the rug; something to begrudgingly do "for the greater good.?" Do the ends finally justify the means and are people willing to swallow the bitter pill in order to collect millions and run a "better" campaign and does this make it a little harder to criticize the other party for pimping themselves out (yes, I am aware that it was a right leaning group who made this entire action possible.)

    "Priorities USA and Priorities USA Action, the two companion committees, hope to raise $100 million to defend Obama, organizers said, an amount that will allow them to run ads competing with American Crossroads, the American Action Network, and other Republican-backing outside organizations.

    The organization will not live up to the same campaign finance standards by which Obama has pledged to run its campaign. They will take unregulated donations that do not require disclosure; Obama and Capitol Hill Democrats have railed against Crossroads and other Republican groups that do the same thing. The organizers said the 2010 Supreme Court decision in Citizens United, opening the door to unlimited corporate contributions,
    left them no choice."
    Really??? NO choice??? Obama will take the high road and keep his integrity and soul intact while allowing somebody else to collect the money he refuses in order to spend it on his campaign. By this reasoning if the mob give my friend cash and it is my friend who buys me the Cadillac it is alright and not tainted. We all know that it is not my friend who would owe the mob a "favour".

    It would appear that many leaders (Obama included) want to criticize the very actions that will bring benefits. Obama will just hold his nose while his former deputy press secretary spends millions of undisclosed donations on his behalf. I'm sorry, I prefer a party of principals and it would appear that neither has any. I am not asking if you still consider one side or the other "the lesser of two evils. Is anybody willing to say this stinks like hell and ought not to be done (to actually want a politician to stick to principals even if it cost a few million in campaign funding?)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 15, 2011 3:24 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 saidWell, the Democrats don't want to... they're being forced to because of Bush.


    No !! Bush didn't do this !!! It was the Supreme Court that Bush put in place (in large part that is through picking roberts and Alito)