http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/05/keith-olbermann-suspended_n_779586.html
Shit is getting weird now America.
Why on earth would Keith have to have permission to make a political donation?
There are some massive control issues going on with the MSM.
Politico reported Friday that Olbermann had donated $2,400 each to Reps. Raul Grijalva and Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona, and to Kentucky Senate contender Jack Conway. While NBC News policy does not prohibit employees from donating to political candidates, it requires them to obtain prior approval from NBC News executives before doing so.
In a statement earlier Friday, Olbermann defended his donation, saying, "I did not privately or publicly encourage anyone else to donate to these campaigns nor to any others in this election or any previous ones, nor have I previously donated to any political campaign at any level."
Griffin's statement underscores that it was Olbermann's failure to obtain approval, and not the actual political donations, that prompted the suspension.
Showing posts with label Political donations. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Political donations. Show all posts
Friday, November 5, 2010
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Top Companies Aid Chamber of Commerce in Policy Fights
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/22/us/politics/22chamber.html?_r=1&emc=na
It's fun to think as taxpayers we actually hold a little sway, but the fact of the matter is
We don't at all
The political system is bought by the highest bidder
Because that's all our country has become
Pay per view for the elite only
Prudential Financial sent in a $2 million donation last year as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce launched a national advertising campaign to weaken the historic rewrite of the nation’s financial regulations.
Dow Chemical delivered $1.7 million to the chamber last year as the group took a leading role in aggressively fighting proposed new rules that would impose tighter security requirements on chemical facilities.
And Goldman Sachs, Chevron Texaco, and Aegon, a multinational insurance company based in the Netherlands, donated more than $8 million in recent years to a chamber foundation that has helped wage a national campaign to limit the ability of trial lawyers to sue businesses.
These large donations — none of which were publicly disclosed by the chamber, a tax-exempt group which keeps its donors secret — offer a glimpse of the chamber’s money-raising efforts, which it has ramped up recently in an orchestrated campaign to become one of the most well-financed critics of the Obama administration and an influential player in this fall’s Congressional elections
It's fun to think as taxpayers we actually hold a little sway, but the fact of the matter is
We don't at all
The political system is bought by the highest bidder
Because that's all our country has become
Pay per view for the elite only
Prudential Financial sent in a $2 million donation last year as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce launched a national advertising campaign to weaken the historic rewrite of the nation’s financial regulations.
Dow Chemical delivered $1.7 million to the chamber last year as the group took a leading role in aggressively fighting proposed new rules that would impose tighter security requirements on chemical facilities.
And Goldman Sachs, Chevron Texaco, and Aegon, a multinational insurance company based in the Netherlands, donated more than $8 million in recent years to a chamber foundation that has helped wage a national campaign to limit the ability of trial lawyers to sue businesses.
These large donations — none of which were publicly disclosed by the chamber, a tax-exempt group which keeps its donors secret — offer a glimpse of the chamber’s money-raising efforts, which it has ramped up recently in an orchestrated campaign to become one of the most well-financed critics of the Obama administration and an influential player in this fall’s Congressional elections
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Tidal wave of outside money swamping 2010 elections
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/10/04/101589/tidal-wave-of-outside-money-swamping.html#storylink=omni_popular#ixzz11XVPV5Q0
Oh somebody is buying big favor and it's definitely not the majority of the taxpayers
How much do you figure the investment banks and wall street have chipped in?
Taking that much money promised big favors
Collusion of the corruption.
Yeah that was some transparency in that rule change.
Obama sure shut this down didn't he?
Him and Hillary are going to have a field day running together with this much money.
Half a billion dollars from independent groups with strong but unofficial connections to Republicans and Democrats is flooding into congressional campaigns across the country this year, according to a study released Monday.
The Center for Public Integrity found that Republican-allied groups are likely to outspend their Democratic-oriented rivals by 3 to 2, and maybe even by 2 to 1. The center is a respected nonprofit, nonpartisan source of investigative journalism devoted to making institutional power transparent and accountable.
While big money in politics is hardly new, there never have been sums of this magnitude in midterm elections. The Center for Responsive Politics, another independent research group, estimates that in 2006, the last nonpresidential federal election year, independent interests spent about $300 million.
Further, never have so many donors been unidentified before elections; so far only about one-third of donors have been identified, the Center for Public Integrity study says.
"What this amounts to, say veteran money and politics watchers, is a virtual Wild West, with fewer rules and more cash than ever," says the study, written by center analyst Peter Stone. Each party's allies now can cite "10 or so deep-pocketed independent groups with plans to spend $10 million-plus helping Senate and House candidates by running expensive ads and/or conducting get-out-the-vote efforts."
Previous elections were waged under rules that limited how much a donor could give. The rules changed this year.
The key reason is January's 5-4 Supreme Court ruling in the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case. It removed curbs on independent expenditures by corporations and unions, freeing them to spend without limit from their own treasuries on campaign ads and advocacy efforts so long as they're not coordinated with candidate campaigns.
Under tax and campaign-finance laws, most of these independent groups aren't required to disclose their donors until after the elections.
"Now, if you're a company that wants to write a $10 million check to help or hurt a candidate, you can go to town," said Dave Levinthal, a spokesman for the Center for Responsive Politics.
The spending spree also is rooted in other causes, including
Oh somebody is buying big favor and it's definitely not the majority of the taxpayers
How much do you figure the investment banks and wall street have chipped in?
Taking that much money promised big favors
Collusion of the corruption.
Yeah that was some transparency in that rule change.
Obama sure shut this down didn't he?
Him and Hillary are going to have a field day running together with this much money.
Half a billion dollars from independent groups with strong but unofficial connections to Republicans and Democrats is flooding into congressional campaigns across the country this year, according to a study released Monday.
The Center for Public Integrity found that Republican-allied groups are likely to outspend their Democratic-oriented rivals by 3 to 2, and maybe even by 2 to 1. The center is a respected nonprofit, nonpartisan source of investigative journalism devoted to making institutional power transparent and accountable.
While big money in politics is hardly new, there never have been sums of this magnitude in midterm elections. The Center for Responsive Politics, another independent research group, estimates that in 2006, the last nonpresidential federal election year, independent interests spent about $300 million.
Further, never have so many donors been unidentified before elections; so far only about one-third of donors have been identified, the Center for Public Integrity study says.
"What this amounts to, say veteran money and politics watchers, is a virtual Wild West, with fewer rules and more cash than ever," says the study, written by center analyst Peter Stone. Each party's allies now can cite "10 or so deep-pocketed independent groups with plans to spend $10 million-plus helping Senate and House candidates by running expensive ads and/or conducting get-out-the-vote efforts."
Previous elections were waged under rules that limited how much a donor could give. The rules changed this year.
The key reason is January's 5-4 Supreme Court ruling in the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case. It removed curbs on independent expenditures by corporations and unions, freeing them to spend without limit from their own treasuries on campaign ads and advocacy efforts so long as they're not coordinated with candidate campaigns.
Under tax and campaign-finance laws, most of these independent groups aren't required to disclose their donors until after the elections.
"Now, if you're a company that wants to write a $10 million check to help or hurt a candidate, you can go to town," said Dave Levinthal, a spokesman for the Center for Responsive Politics.
The spending spree also is rooted in other causes, including
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)