Billionaire Adelson: Donations to Romney ‘Limitless’

Willing to donate as much as $100 million
Politics • Views: 27,287

He’s already given at least $20 million to Newt Gingrich’s failed campaign, but now right wing billionaire Sheldon Adelson is poised to donate as much as $100 million to Mitt Romney, in what can only be described as a blatant attempt to buy an election.

Forbes has confirmed that billionaire Sheldon Adelson, along with his wife Miriam, has donated $10 million to the leading Super PAC supporting presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney–and that’s just the tip of the iceberg. A well-placed source in the Adelson camp with direct knowledge of the casino billionaire’s thinking says that further donations will be “limitless.”

Adelson, who has built Las Vegas Sands into an global casino empire, will do “whatever it takes” to defeat Obama, this source says. And given that Adelson is worth $24.9  billion–and told Forbes in a recent rare interview about his political giving that he had been willing to donate as much as $100 million to his initial presidential preference, Newt Gingrich–that “limitless” description telegraphs potential nine-digit support of Romney.

NPR has more:

MP3 Audio

Adelson has said he might spend as much as $100 million on this election. That’s about one-half of 1 percent of his wealth.

Put another way, if the typical American family gave the same percentage of its net worth, the family would write a check for $360.

Jump to bottom

196 comments
1 dragonfire1981  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 1:41:46pm

Politics = A bunch of rich people kissing other reach peoples asses

2 Targetpractice  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 1:45:37pm

Nothing quite as fun as bringing back the ol' days of buying elections, is there?

3 Kragar  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 1:45:57pm

Campaign Finance Reform? Wuzzat? LOLZ.

4 Kragar  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 1:46:52pm

re: #2 Targetpractice

Nothing quite as fun as bringing back the ol' days of buying elections, is there?

I don't know. Seizure of assets and banishment are right up there as well.

5 bratwurst  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 1:47:24pm

Economic might makes right!

6 Charles Johnson  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 1:47:56pm

From the update above:

Adelson has said he might spend as much as $100 million on this election. That’s about one-half of 1 percent of his wealth.

Put another way, if the typical American family gave the same percentage of its net worth, the family would write a check for $360.

7 wrenchwench  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 1:48:29pm

re: #1 dragonfire1981

Politics = A bunch of rich people kissing purchasing other reach peoples asses

FTFY.

re: #0 Charles

He’s already given at least $20 million to Newt Gingrich’s failed campaign, but now right wing billionaire Sheldon Adelson is poised to donate as much as $100 million to Mitt Romney, in what can only be described as a blatant attempt to buy an election a president.

FTFYToo.

8 Our Precious Bodily Fluids  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 1:49:53pm

re: #1 dragonfire1981

Politics = A bunch of rich people kissing other reach peoples asses

Billionaires using millionaires to convince the middle class to blame all their problems on the poor.

9 abolitionist  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 1:55:02pm

Since Romney has argued that corporations are people, it is not far-fetched that some would advocate for voting rights. Among many questions that this would raise, I offer this one: Are there any practical limits to the number of corporations that can be created and sustained, under our present system of laws?

10 dragonfire1981  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 1:55:21pm

I think it's time for another one of these...

Initiate Romney Bot Software ver. 2.012

Preparing Personality files...

Loading FAKESMILE.EXE
Loading GAFFESAPLENTY.EXE
Loading CONSERVATIVE.EXE
Loading MODERATE.EXE

WARNING! MODERATE.EXE is NOT FOUND!

Loading backup file: WINGNUT.EXE

MODERATE.EXE will be saved for future use.

Preparing character files...

Loading POLICIES.EXE

WARNING! FILE IS UNSTABLE AND SUBJECT TO SUDDEN AND RANDOM CHANGE. PROCEED WITH LOAD? Y/N

Y

File loaded.

Loading MATURITY.EXE

WARNING! FILE NOT FOUND!

Loading backup file: LACKOFMATURITY.EXE

Loading associated subfiles...
BUS.EXE
SIREN.EXE
FAKECOP.EXE
BULLY.EXE
MYDADISBETTERTHANYOURDAD.EXE

Load complete.

Intializing economic files....

Loading SUPERPAC.EXE
Loading KOCHHEADS.EXE
Loading CITIZENSUNITED.EXE
Loading MONEY.EXE

WARNING! MONEY.EXE IS INCREASING IN SIZE EXPONENTIALLY AND MAY SHORTLY BECOME UNSTABLE OR CORRUPT! PROCEED WITH LOAD? Y/N

Y

Load complete.

Loading public sympathy files...1% complete...

LOAD FAILED. TRY AGAIN? Y/N

Y

Loading public sympathy files...1% complete...

LOAD FAILED. TRY AGAIN? Y/N

Y

Loading public sympathy files...1% complete...

LOAD FAILED. Only 1% of the files can be accessed at this time.

Proceed with load? Y/N

Y

Load complete.

Initializing campaign database.

Loading REPUBLICAN.EXE

Loading associated subfiles...

NOBLACKS.EXE
NOMUSLIMS.EXE
NOWOMEN.EXE
NOBROWNPEOPLE.EXE
NOPOFOLKS.EXE

Load complete.

Loading last batch of campaign files...

OBAMASUCKS.EXE
BIRTHER.EXE
WHITEHOUSE.EXE
FLIPFLOP.EXE
ETCHASKETCH.EXE

Load complete. Romneybot is now fully powered and ready for use.

11 simoom  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 1:56:04pm

Considering so much of that money is coming from or tied to China, as that's where much of Adelson's big deals and future bets are now, it should definitely make folks wonder about any GOP promises to crack down on Chinese currency manipulation and unfair trade practices.

12 dragonfire1981  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 1:57:37pm

re: #11 simoom

Considering so much of that money is coming from or tied to China, as that's where much of Adelson's big deals and future bets are now, it should definitely make folks wonder about any GOP promises to crack down on Chinese currency manipulation and unfair trade practices.

But of course they are more than happy to manipulate the Chinese currency in their own bank accounts...

13 darthstar  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 2:01:30pm

Every Mormon has his price.

14 simoom  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 2:01:40pm

re: #11 simoom

From a couple months back, Bloomberg:

[Link: www.bloomberg.com...]

Sheldon Adelson is adding a fourth casino in Macau, the world’s largest gambling hub, drawing almost six times the revenue of the Las Vegas Strip. The billionaire’s rivals are cheering him on.

Sands China Ltd. (1928), the Asian arm of Adelson’s Las Vegas company, next month will open the Cotai Central resort with a 300,000-square-foot casino, almost 6,000 hotel rooms and cascading waterfalls tailored for the 16 million mainland Chinese tourists who visited Macau last year.

...

Macau, which had $34 billion in gambling revenue last year, has 20,000 hotel rooms, a fraction of the almost 150,000 that Vegas has, researcher CLSA estimated in a September report titled “Raining Cash.” The Las Vegas Strip had revenue of $6.07 billion in 2011, according to Nevada’s Gaming Control Board.

...

Adelson’s casino operator may win the most market share in Macau in 2012 because of the new resort, expanding 9 percentage points to 24 percent in the fourth quarter from a year earlier, said Karen Tang, an analyst at Deutsche Bank.

That would also solidify Sands’s position on the increasingly popular Cotai Strip, where it already has the island’s largest resort, the Venetian Macau that boasts singing gondoliers, a grand canal and an artificial blue sky.
Sands China, which is a unit of Las Vegas Sands Corp. (LVS) where Adelson is chairman, reported a 44 percent jump in profit in the fourth quarter.

...

The 78-year-old Adelson, who made his money in the casino business, ranked 11th on the Bloomberg billionaires list with an estimated net worth of $26.8 billion as of March 27.

...

Sands also faces added risks if there are “unfavorable outcomes” from a U.S. regulatory investigation related to its Macau operations ...

Las Vegas Sands last year said it received a subpoena from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to produce documents relating to its Macau operations’ compliance with the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.

15 CuriousLurker  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 2:05:33pm

Great. So America has no say in the matter, she's is just a whore that gets rented out to the highest bidder 4 years at a time? Good to know exactly how much these "patriots" love & respect America. // *disgusted*

16 Achilles Tang  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 2:08:54pm

Thank you SCOTUS.//

Jerks

17 CuriousLurker  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 2:11:53pm

re: #16 Achilles Tang

Thank you SCOTUS.//

Jerks

I had the exact same thought as soon as I hit the "Post It" button for my comment.

18 researchok  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 2:19:11pm

re: #15 CuriousLurker

I agree, but buying influence isn't one sided.

Soros spent 400 million to do just that via his Open Society agenda.

When money can spent with the intent to influence as opposed to promote and pay for actual good works, we're in more trouble than we might realize.

19 simoom  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 2:19:37pm

So I guess we can add Adelson's $100 million to the $100 million raised by the Koch's four or five months back.

[Link: www.huffingtonpost.com...]

At a private three-day retreat in California last weekend, conservative billionaires Charles and David Koch and about 250 to 300 other individuals pledged approximately $100 million to defeat President Obama in the 2012 elections.

A source who was in the room when the pledges were made told The Huffington Post that, specifically, Charles Koch pledged $40 million and David pledged $20 million.

Though it sounds like the Koch's are actually looking to hit closer to $400 million:

[Link: www.politico.com...]

Republican super PACs and other outside groups shaped by a loose network of prominent conservatives – including Karl Rove, the Koch brothers and Tom Donohue of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce – plan to spend roughly $1 billion on November’s elections for the White House and control of Congress, according to officials familiar with the groups’ internal operations.

That total includes previously undisclosed plans for newly aggressive spending by the Koch brothers, who are steering funding to build sophisticated, county-by-county operations in key states. POLITICO has learned that Koch-related organizations plan to spend about $400 million ahead of the 2012 elections - twice what they had been expected to commit.

20 researchok  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 2:19:58pm

re: #16 Achilles Tang

No one else to blame.

No one.

21 Achilles Tang  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 2:21:05pm

re: #18 researchok

I agree, but buying influence isn't one sided.

Everyone has to play by the rules in effect or one loses by default.

22 Achilles Tang  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 2:21:57pm

re: #20 researchok

I sense the sarc, and I agree with you.

23 Daniel Ballard  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 2:22:21pm

re: #15 CuriousLurker

Great. So America has no say in the matter, she's is just a whore that gets rented out to the highest bidder 4 years at a time? Good to know exactly how much these "patriots" love & respect America. // *disgusted*

The critics may say so, but I don't really think so. Look, this limitless donation thing has got to stop. The wealthy have serious advantages especially now. Wealth must be separated from power somehow.

But we should remember the long list of wealthy executives that failed to buy in. they spent huge and lost anyway. For example in California it's Governor Brown, not Whitman. This link has some data.

24 researchok  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 2:22:25pm

re: #21 Achilles Tang

Exactly

The game is rigged- and not in our favor.

That is the real outrage.

25 CuriousLurker  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 2:25:18pm

re: #18 researchok

I agree, but buying influence isn't one sided.

Soros spent 400 million to do just that via his Open Society agenda.

When money can spent with the intent to influence as opposed to promote and pay for actual good works, we're in more trouble than we might realize.

I'm really not in the mood to hear about the MBF at the moment. It's massively disrespectful to the American people & effed up in the extreme no matter who does it, and it's not Soros or the Dems who're killing off unions, changing the abortion laws, pushing religion into government, or trying to purge huge numbers of voters (among other things).

26 simoom  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 2:27:54pm

Perhaps it's a good time to quote from Justice Kennedy's Citizen's United majority opinion:

[Link: www.supremecourt.gov...]

Reliance on a “generic favoritism or influence theory . . . is at odds with standard First Amendment analyses because it is unbounded and susceptible to no limiting principle.” Id., at 296.

The appearance of influence or access, furthermore, will not cause the electorate to lose faith in our democracy. By definition, an independent expenditure is political speech presented to the electorate that is not coordinated with a candidate. See Buckley, supra, at 46. The fact that a corporation, or any other speaker, is willing to spend money to try to persuade voters presupposes that the people have the ultimate influence over elected officials. This is inconsistent with any suggestion that the electorate will refuse “‘to take part in democratic governance’” because of additional political speech made by a corporation or any other speaker. McConnell, supra, at 144 (quoting Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC, 528 U. S. 377, 390 (2000)).

...

This confirms Buckley’s reasoning that independent expenditures do not lead to, or create the appearance of, quid pro quo corruption. In fact, there is only scant evidence that independent expenditures even ingratiate. See 251 F. Supp. 2d, at 555–557 (opinion of Kollar-Kotelly, J.). Ingratiation and access, in any event, are not corruption. The BCRA record establishes that certain donations to political parties, called “soft money,” were made to gain access to elected officials. McConnell, supra, at 125, 130– 131, 146–152; see McConnell I, 251 F. Supp. 2d, at 471–481, 491–506 (opinion of Kollar-Kotelly, J.); id., at 842–843, 858–859 (opinion of Leon, J.). This case, however, is about independent expenditures, not soft money.

...

Political speech is so ingrained in our culture that speakers find ways to circumvent campaign finance laws. See, e.g., McConnell, 540 U. S., at 176–177 (“Given BCRA’s tighter restrictions on the raising and spending of soft money, the incentives . . . to exploit [26 U. S. C. &sect527] organizations will only increase”). Our Nation’s speech dynamic is changing, and informative voices should not have to circumvent onerous restrictions to exercise their First Amendment rights. Speakers have become adept at presenting citizens with sound bites, talking points, and scripted messages that dominate the 24-hour news cycle. Corporations, like individuals, do not have monolithic views. On certain topics corporations may possess valuable expertise, leaving them the best equipped to point out errors or fallacies in speech of all sorts, including the speech of candidates and elected officials.

Derp.

27 Kragar  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 2:30:03pm

Rep. Huelskamp Claims the Left Plans to 'Repeal any Religious Liberties or any Religious Values' in America

Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-TX) today spoke to the Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins and the American Family Association’s Tim Wildmon about the sale of bibles in LifeWay stores, which is affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention. The stores were selling Bibles with the emblems of the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps. However, the store’s permission to use such trademarks “was revoked when the military revamped its trademark licensing regulations in 2011.”

A LifeWay spokesman told Fox News that “after selling existing inventory of those bibles, B&H [Publishing] replaced the official seals with generic insignias which continue to sell well and provide spiritual guidance and comfort to those who serve.” The Defense Department also “stressed that the revocation was solely a trademark issue.”

But Religious Right groups instead are blaming the decision on the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, and Huelskamp alleged that the Obama administration is the main culprit. He said that “folks on the left” would “like to delete, exclude and repeal any religious liberties or any religious values throughout our entire government and our entire society,” and argued that the administration seeks to use the military as a “training ground for a radical, leftist agenda.”

Perkins and Huelskamp later twisted the story to claim that soldiers are now being deprived of Bibles, even though the only thing that changed was the logo and not the publication, and suggested that the move could contribute to mental health problems and suicide among soldiers.

28 sagehen  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 2:31:21pm

re: #14 simoom

From a couple months back, Bloomberg:

[Link: www.bloomberg.com...]

Las Vegas Sands last year said it received a subpoena from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to produce documents relating to its Macau operations’ compliance with the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.

So he's willing to spend $100 million to cancel an investigation into how much of his $24 billion is the fruits of criminal behavior, and to be allowed to make more by continuing to continuing that criminal behavior. That's a pretty good return on investment. Capitalism!!

There's also the guy in Texas who's willing to spend $50 million on the election to get an administration whose EPA won't block the nuclear waste dump he wants to build on his land in Texas. Those pesky regulations about shielding and the aquifer and... what are Texan lives worth compared to the $10 billion he expects to make if he can use the non-farmable, non-ranchable land for such a purpose. Capitalism!!

29 erik_t  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 2:33:56pm

re: #10 dragonfire1981

NOBLACKS.EXE
NOMUSLIMS.EXE
NOWOMEN.EXE
NOBROWNPEOPLE.EXE
NOPOFOLKS.EXE

Are you suggesting that Mitt Romney has never encountered a... segmentation fault?

/two drums and a cymbal fall off a cliff

30 researchok  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 2:34:16pm

The real shame is that money is spent primarily on advertising and advertising research.

Why? So as to get people who might otherwise not be inclined or undecided to vote for a particular candidate.

Corporations spend tens of millions of dollars for a 30 second Super Bowl ad slot for just that reason, to influence behavior. If it didn't work, they would not spend the money.

Political campaigns are years long ad campaigns. The respective candidates need not be truthful or accurate- if their influence can be measured as an uptick, they will say what they have to say. Apologies or clarifications are always meaningless (it is kind of like agreeing to obey the speed limit after an accident).

It's all about advertising, image, influence and the truth be damned.

Political debates are not immune. Candidates don't actually answer questions. They use the query to launch into a soliloquy of self promotion or denigration of their opponents. The only ideas remembered are the snappy one liners.

Our world- and as the man once said, we get the government we deserve.

We put up with this crap.

Want to overturn Citizens United? It isn't that hard. Have both parties sponsor a bill limiting the influence of corporate cash in elections.

Hard to believe no one has thought of that yet.
/

31 sagehen  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 2:34:19pm

But of course, that's not what they say in the ads they pay for, is it?

No suggestion that "vote for the guy who won't investigate my casinos" or "vote for the guy who'll let me irradiate half of West Texas." It's SOCIALISM, KENYA, ABORTION, EVOLUTION, MICHELLE'S BROCCOLI!!"

32 researchok  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 2:34:48pm

re: #25 CuriousLurker

Doesn't change reality.

33 MittDoesNotCompute  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 2:35:50pm

re: #19 simoom

So I guess we can add Adelson's $100 million to the $100 million raised by the Koch's four or five months back.

[Link: www.huffingtonpost.com...]

Though it sounds like the Koch's are actually looking to hit closer to $400 million:

[Link: www.politico.com...]

This shit makes me sick to my stomach...how in the hell are the Democrats are going to counter a tidal wave of cash (and the media influence it buys) like this?

President Obama could wipe every terrorist off the face of the earth, cure every disease and malady known to man, and shit rainbows and Skittles, but with the amount of money coming in from these uber-rich "conservative" pricks over in the Republican side, there's a very real chance that he can lose this election, even if he does everything right.

I'm not trying to sound defeatist, but when you have these GOP screwheads ready to spend over one billion dollars to defeat President Obama and Congressional Dems this fall, it's hard to keep a good attitude.

Citizens United and its ilk fucking sucks and will be the downfall of the American political system as we've come to know it...

34 CuriousLurker  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 2:36:35pm

re: #32 researchok

Doesn't change reality.

Which reality would that be?

35 erik_t  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 2:36:36pm

re: #30 researchok

The real shame is that money is spent primarily o advertising and advertising research.

Why? So as to get people who might otherwise not be inclined or undecided to vote for a particular candidate.

Corporations spend tens of millions of dollars for a 30 second Super Bowl ad slot for just that reason, to influence behavior. If it didn't work, they would not spend the money.

On the dubiously-plus side, the effect it has is not guaranteed to be enough to swing an election. If some evil rich fuck wants to waste $200M of his own money stimulating the economy and getting not a goddamned thing to show for it, well, let's not pretend that there's not a silver lining there.

Still needs to be fixed, of course.

36 erik_t  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 2:37:39pm

re: #33 Gitarzan

I'm not trying to sound defeatist, but when you have these GOP screwheads ready to spend over one billion dollars to defeat President Obama and Congressional Dems this fall, it's hard to keep a good attitude.

Everything, including political spending, encounters diminishing returns. Spending a billion dollars on advertising would not guarantee a Romney win. Spending a trillion dollars on advertising wouldn't, either.

37 makeitstop  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 2:37:55pm

re: #30 researchok

Want to overturn Citizens United? It isn't that hard. Have both parties sponsor a bill limiting the influence of corporate cash in elections.
/

Yeah, one party ain't gonna play. Guess which one.

38 Killgore Trout  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 2:41:37pm

re: #30 researchok

Well, said. It's sadly effective to sway voters mostly with 30 second TV spots. But we are a consumer culture. The same advertising agencies that sell us our leaders are the same ones who sell us soap, soda, cars and "news"/radio programs. As long as we keep buying, they'll keep selling.

39 Achilles Tang  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 2:43:12pm

re: #37 makeitstop

Yeah, one party ain't gonna play. Guess which one.

Some members are willing to try

40 Killgore Trout  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 2:44:24pm

re: #37 makeitstop

Yeah, one party ain't gonna play. Guess which one.

The one who is shortest on large corporate donors at the moment. Neither party is going to give up an advantage.

41 makeitstop  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 2:45:10pm

re: #39 Achilles Tang

Some members are willing to try

Two ain't gonna cut it.

42 researchok  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 2:45:20pm

re: #34 CuriousLurker

The reality that unlimited union support is not viable.

Look at all the states with underfunded public pensions, for example. Even California under Jerry Brown is having to deal with that reality.

We tell vets their lifetime health benefits are not guaranteed- but ask union members to contribute 2%-3% to their medical plans and it hits the fan.

And that isw just the tip of the iceberg.

And for the record, I do support unions and I am totally against union busting.

Start here and here.

Spending is out of control and the special interest who lobby to keep the status quo are sinking us.

43 researchok  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 2:46:22pm

re: #37 makeitstop

Neither side will play.

If the Dems wanted to look like heroes, they would float the idea nd make the GOP look bad.

We're all still waiting.

44 CuriousLurker  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 2:46:51pm

re: #38 Killgore Trout

Well, if we're collectively effing stupid enough to vote against our interests and elect a bunch of knuckle-dragging wingnuts who want to drag us back to the Middle Ages while just a few at the top win, then I guess we deserve whatever we get.

45 researchok  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 2:47:40pm

re: #38 Killgore Trout

That's why I said we get the government we deserve.

Just once I'd like to hear 'Just answer the question'', sir.

Equally applied.

46 Jimmi the Grey  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 2:48:13pm

re: #40 Killgore Trout

The one who is shortest on large corporate donors at the moment. Neither party is going to give up an advantage.

And there is the hurdle. Individual candidates are in favor of reform, but both parties platforms are not.

Capt Obvious out.

47 blueraven  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 2:48:48pm

Justice Stevens' Dissenting Opinion in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission

It's very long, this is just the tail end of it.

Today's decision is backwards in many senses. It elevates the majority's agenda over the litigants' submissions, facial attacks over as-applied claims, broad constitutional theories over narrow statutory grounds, individual dissenting opinions over precedential holdings, assertion over tradition, absolutism over empiricism, rhetoric over reality. Our colleagues have arrived at the conclusion that Austin must be overruled and that &sect203 is facially unconstitutional only after mischaracterizing both the reach and rationale of those authorities, and after bypassing or ignoring rules of judicial restraint used to cabin the Court's lawmaking power. Their conclusion that the societal interest in avoiding corruption and the appearance of corruption does not provide an adequate justification for regulating corporate expenditures on candidate elections relies on an incorrect description of that interest, along with a failure to acknowledge the relevance of established facts and the considered judgments of state and federal legislatures over many decades.

In a democratic society, the longstanding consensus on the need to limit corporate campaign spending should outweigh the wooden application of judge-made rules. The majority's rejection of this principle "elevate[s] corporations to a level of deference which has not been seen at least since the days when substantive due process was regularly used to invalidate regulatory legislation thought to unfairly impinge upon established economic interests." Bellotti, 435 U. S., at 817, n. 13 (White, J., dissenting). At bottom, the Court's opinion is thus a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining selfgovernment since the founding, and who have fought against the distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering since the days of Theodore Roosevelt. It is a strange time to repudiate that common sense. While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majorityof this Court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics.

48 researchok  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 2:49:26pm

re: #44 CuriousLurker

No argument here.

We are getting what we deserve- regardless of who we vote for.

CL. it has become a beauty contest- and that is depressing.

49 erik_t  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 2:51:10pm

re: #48 researchok

No argument here.

We are getting what we deserve- regardless of who we vote for.

CL. it has become a beauty contest- and that is depressing.

It's been that before... it's both amazing and encouraging that we ever broke the cycle. Maybe we can do it again.

50 kirkspencer  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 2:51:55pm

because I like to play skeet with the MBF:

Soros spent over 400 million ($407,790,344).
Since 2000.
Around the world, with the Central European University receiving over $250 million of that.

So the MBF is saying $150 million over 10 years matches $100 million from adelson and $100 million (and perhaps more) from the Kochs over one year.

Pull. Bang.

51 Kragar  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 2:54:17pm

The New Yorker has published their entire Bryan Fischer background for non-subscribers.

Bully Pulpit
An evangelist talk-show host’s campaign to control the Republican Party.
by Jane Mayer June 18, 2012

52 blueraven  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 2:54:20pm

re: #50 kirkspencer

because I like to play skeet with the MBF:

Soros spent over 400 million ($407,790,344).
Since 2000.
Around the world, with the Central European University receiving over $250 million of that.

So the MBF is saying $150 million over 10 years matches $100 million from adelson and $100 million (and perhaps more) from the Kochs over one year.

Pull. Bang.

Yeah but SOROS!!

53 CuriousLurker  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 2:54:23pm

re: #42 researchok

Really? Union support is unlimited? It can compare with the billionaires & all the money poured into the system by corporate special interests? Then why should CU matter?

I'll look at your data later, I'm too annoyed to focus at the moment.

54 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 2:55:20pm

I hope Buffett and others will step up to the plate to offset this fucker's meddling.

55 researchok  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 2:55:23pm

re: #50 kirkspencer

You'r right but you're missing my point.

I could care less about who spent what, where.

The issue is buying influence by anyone- that is the outrage.

56 goddamnedfrank  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 2:56:48pm

I'm a little bit surprised that Sheldon Adelson's children haven't smothered the old man in his sleep. They've probably thought about it.

57 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 2:56:48pm

re: #44 CuriousLurker

Well, if we're collectively effing stupid enough to vote against our interests and elect a bunch of knuckle-dragging wingnuts who want to drag us back to the Middle Ages while just a few at the top win, then I guess we deserve whatever we get.

The rest of the world doesn't.

58 Daniel Ballard  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 2:57:30pm

re: #42 researchok

The reality that unlimited union support is not viable.

Look at all the states with underfunded public pensions, for example. Even California under Jerry Brown is having to deal with that reality.

We tell vets their lifetime health benefits are not guaranteed- but ask union members to contribute 2%-3% to their medical plans and it hits the fan.

And that isw just the tip of the iceberg.

And for the record, I do support unions and I am totally against union busting.

Start here and here.

Spending is out of control and the special interest who lobby to keep the status quo are sinking us.

THIS.

59 researchok  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 2:57:34pm

re: #53 CuriousLurker

That is what the unions want- to be untouchable.

They want to be the sacred cow.

And CU enshrined that idea as well as unlimited corporate influence buying.

That is the outrage.

60 Killgore Trout  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 2:57:52pm

re: #54 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton

I hope Buffett and others will step up to the plate to offset this fucker's meddling.

They probably will. Fundraising will probably closer this time. Last time Obama spent 3 times more than McCain.

61 simoom  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 2:58:43pm

re: #47 blueraven

Justice Stevens' Dissenting Opinion in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission

It's very long, this is just the tail end of it.

Related (as it covers how Roberts maneuvered Souter from writing a epic rant of an opinion), from Jeffrey Toobin:

Money Unlimited How Chief Justice John Roberts orchestrated the Citizens United decision.

As the senior Justice in the minority, John Paul Stevens assigned the main dissent to Souter, who was working on the opinion when he announced his departure, on April 30th. Souter wrote a dissent that aired some of the Court’s dirty laundry. By definition, dissents challenge the legal conclusions of the majority, but Souter accused the Chief Justice of violating the Court’s own procedures to engineer the result he wanted.

Roberts didn’t mind spirited disagreement on the merits of any case, but Souter’s attack—an extraordinary, bridge-burning farewell to the Court—could damage the Court’s credibility. So the Chief came up with a strategically ingenious maneuver. He would agree to withdraw Kennedy’s draft majority opinion and put Citizens United down for reargument, in the fall. For the second argument, the Court would write new Questions Presented, which frame a case before argument, and there would be no doubt about the stakes of the case. The proposal put the liberals in a box. They could no longer complain about being sandbagged, because the new Questions Presented would be unmistakably clear. But, as Roberts knew, the conservatives would go into the second argument already having five votes for the result they wanted. With no other choice (and no real hope of ever winning the case), the liberals agreed to the reargument.

62 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 2:59:08pm

re: #60 Killgore Trout

They probably will. Fundraising will probably closer this time. Last time Obama spent 3 times more than McCain.

Yes, but the last time another law was in effect. This is an entirely new situation.

63 erik_t  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 2:59:44pm

re: #60 Killgore Trout

They probably will. Fundraising will probably closer this time. Last time Obama spent 3 times more than McCain.

There's an implicit equality there with which I am uncomfortable. I'm deeply disturbed by a single filthy-rich fellow funding an entire campaign. On the other hand, if a hundred million people want to contribute ten bucks apiece of a campaign, that doesn't sound like buying votes. That sounds like democracy.

64 JeffFX  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 3:00:33pm

This is a huge win for the advertising industry and media outlets; Not so great for the rest of us.

I do have to grudgingly admire their ability to fleece Adelson and others like him. Many many people will be living large off of this cash cow, and the economy gets a boost. Capitalism!

65 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 3:01:20pm

re: #63 erik_t

Exactly. Obama:McCain diff represented a level of popular support, not billionaire support.

66 ContinentalOp  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 3:02:20pm

Adelson's main political interest is Israel. He is quite frank about this, but it doesn't always get mentioned in articles about his political donations. American foreign policy is being bought and sold.

67 researchok  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 3:03:24pm

re: #63 erik_t

I take issue with one part of your remarks.

If 300 million Americans contribute one dollar, they can easily be outspent by a few rich guys who can spend billions upon billions.

This is unacceptable.

68 erik_t  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 3:03:48pm

re: #66 ContinentalOp

Adelson's main political interest is Israel. He is quite frank about this, but it doesn't always get mentioned in articles about his political donations. American foreign policy is being bought and sold.

If he's spending a hundred million dollars because Obama isn't friendly enough to the Israelis, then he's even dumber than I thought.

69 Someone Please Beam Me Up!  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 3:03:55pm

Adelson made his fortune on casinos, i.e. gambling.

The Mormon church "has always opposed gambling in every form, including government-sponsored lotteries."

I'm waiting to hear some enterprising journalist ask the candidate how he reconciles those two points. But not holding my breath.

70 Obdicut  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 3:04:08pm

re: #60 Killgore Trout

They probably will. Fundraising will probably closer this time. Last time Obama spent 3 times more than McCain.

Obama's monetary advantage reflected an actual different level of support in the voting populace, though. This, rather obviously, favors a single billionare over a hundred thousand citizens willing to donate a thousand dollars apiece, and that's not right. That's corruptive to democracy.

71 erik_t  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 3:04:26pm

re: #67 researchok

I take issue with one part of your remarks.

If 300 million Americans contribute one dollar, they can easily be outspent by a few rich guys who can spend billions upon billions.

This is unacceptable.

Um... I think that's literally exactly what I said?

72 researchok  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 3:04:41pm

re: #66 ContinentalOp

It doesn't matter what his agenda is. He is free to believe whatever he wishes.

It is his spending that is the problem, not his agenda.

73 goddamnedfrank  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 3:05:00pm

re: #42 researchok

Look at all the states with underfunded public pensions, for example. Even California under Jerry Brown is having to deal with that reality.

California's budget problem is Prop 13. For years I rented half a house in Montecito, a gorgeous property on an acre in the seventh wealthiest zip code in the United States. The only reason I could afford the rent was because the landlady inherited the property from her parents who built it, so she was paying taxes on an assessed value of $150K, for a property that was worth $2-2.5 million easy. California's budget is starving because the one thing that's actually worth a lot here, real estate, is protected like crazy.

74 researchok  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 3:05:40pm

re: #71 erik_t

Apologies- I misunderstood what you were trying to say.

75 researchok  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 3:06:39pm

re: #73 goddamnedfrank

Another special interest group.

76 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 3:08:08pm

re: #68 erik_t

If he's spending a hundred million dollars because Obama isn't friendly enough to the Israelis, then he's even dumber than I thought.

"If you're so smart, why aren't you rich?!?!" ///

77 gwangung  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 3:09:02pm

re: #73 goddamnedfrank

California's budget problem is Prop 13. For years I rented half a house in Montecito, a gorgeous property on an acre in the seventh wealthiest zip code in the United States. The only reason I could afford the rent was because the landlady inherited the property from her parents who built it, so she was paying taxes on an assessed value of $150K, for a property that was worth $2-2.5 million easy. California's budget is starving because the one thing that's actually worth a lot here, real estate, is protected like crazy.

Not just residential property, but commercial property as well, I believe.

78 goddamnedfrank  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 3:12:35pm

re: #77 gwangung

Not just residential property, but commercial property as well, I believe.

The thing about Prop 13 was that values were supposed to be reassessed when ownership changed hands or when new construction was completed. All this did was incentivize ownership through trusts, remodeling and clandestine additions.

79 Charles Johnson  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 3:12:36pm

Lots more info about Sheldon Adelson: [Link: www.newyorker.com...]

80 kirkspencer  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 3:12:58pm

re: #55 researchok

You'r right but you're missing my point.

I could care less about who spent what, where.

The issue is buying influence by anyone- that is the outrage.

Actually, you muddied your point by bringing in Soros and Open Society. (I got the impression you were echoing the Media Research Center's "special report" in this.) The reason is that the vast majority of money Soros spent, both direct and through Open Society, went to things other than PACs and political campaign funds. Heck, the majority went to things other than lobbyists. As #52 blueraven notes, it's "But Soros" - and it's almost completely irrelevant.

As Kennedy noted in his opinion, we've always bought influence. To a certain extent "if you do this I'll vote for you" is buying influence. The principle isn't, at heart, a problem. The problem is the excess and exhuberance - something Kennedy thought would not exist or be significant.

For what it's worth, I agree with your underlying point. I don't think there's a simple solution. I don't think there's an easy solution. In fact, I think workable solutions that don't have their own major traps in unintended consequences will end up being complex and "better than nothing" to most eyes.

But please don't use the MBF, especially when it is a faux MBF.

81 Gus  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 3:13:21pm

Not sure if you've seen this yet but this is hilarious...

We Will Not Mock This Pamela Gellar Post Until A Doctor Assures Us She Did Not Have A Stroke
by Rebecca Schoenkopf

Charles Johnson at LittleGreenFootballs has taken a break from twirling his mustaches and imprisoning free-speech martyrs in their Twitter Killing Fields in order to find this primary source evidence of Pamela Gellar, Empress of Wingnuttia, speaking in tongues and blooging at the very same time. We will just steal the whole thing, because we are sure he doesn’t mind.

Keep reading.

"Charles Johnson at LittleGreenFootballs has taken a break from twirling his mustaches and imprisoning free-speech martyrs in their Twitter Killing Fields!" Woot!

82 Someone Please Beam Me Up!  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 3:14:36pm

re: #81 Gus

Not sure if you've seen this yet but this is hilarious...

We Will Not Mock This Pamela Gellar Post Until A Doctor Assures Us She Did Not Have A Stroke
by Rebecca Schoenkopf

"Charles Johnson at LittleGreenFootballs has taken a break from twirling his mustaches and imprisoning free-speech martyrs in their Twitter Killing Fields!" Woot!

Mustaches? Doesn't she mean his ponytail?

83 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 3:14:58pm

re: #81 Gus

Geller.
Geller.
Geller.

/

84 erik_t  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 3:15:24pm

re: #82 One of the Seventeen

Mustaches? Doesn't she mean his ponytail?

What if Soros had a ponytail? I think the right-wing bloogs would explode.

85 simoom  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 3:15:26pm

One of my major concerns with all this is that I fully expect, over the next couple election cycle, if CU remains fully in effect, that outside money parity between the parties will begin to reach some sort of equilibrium. The Dems will need it in order to compete in a post-CU world, and in order to make that happen they'll need to completely sell out to enough favored industries (and Billionaires) to get that much support. That seems to me to be the inevitable legacy of Citizens United, that both sides will be perpetually groveling before / competing over the available corporate sponsors, and the actual vast-vast majority of citizens' voices will be entirely irrelevant to the process.

Thanks Roberts court. /// ///

86 researchok  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 3:16:04pm

If corporations are people, there are political contribution limits already in place

The following limits apply to contributions from individuals to candidates for all Federal offices.

$2,500 per Election to a Federal candidate -- Each primary, runoff, and general election counts as a separate election.

$30,800 per calendar year to a national party committee -- applies separately to a party's national committee, and House and Senate campaign committee.

$10,000 per calendar year to state, district & local party committees

$5,000 per calendar year to state, district & local party committee
Aggregate Total -- $117,000 per two-year election cycle as follows:

$46,200 per two-year cycle to candidates

$70,800 per two-year cycle to all national party committees and PACs

NOTE: Married couples are considered to be separate individuals with separate contribution limits.

Source.

Of course the real problems are the 'independent' PACs and SUPERPACS.

CU gives them carte blanche to spend as much as they can.

Time to get rid them- all of them.

87 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 3:16:14pm

Barrett Brown used to twirl his handlebar moustache. I'm just sayin'./

88 Gus  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 3:17:40pm

re: #87 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton

Barrett Brown used to twirl his handlebar moustache. I'm just sayin'./

Barrett Whiplash. What ever happened to him? He was like the Brooks Bayne of "anonymous."

89 erik_t  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 3:18:02pm

re: #86 researchok

While we're at it, it's about time to nuke the tax-exempt status of any church who engages in political proselytizing.

90 researchok  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 3:18:24pm

re: #80 kirkspencer

Fair enough- but my point was in reference and reply to Adelson's obscene spending.

As I noted, I could care less who spent what and how much they spent.

My objections are to unlimited spending to buy votes.

91 The Ghost of a Flea  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 3:19:05pm

re: #66 ContinentalOp

Adelson's main political interest is Israel. He is quite frank about this, but it doesn't always get mentioned in articles about his political donations. American foreign policy is being bought and sold.

Not just America's. Is Adelson's vision of Israel in keeping with the desires of voting Israelis?

Call me jaded, but I find that a lot of conservatives when they speak of "supporting Israel" have a very, very distinct idea of what they want Israel to be...and is usually involves the Likud...and by influencing American foreign policy they're engaging in a kind of by-proxy influence of Israeli internal politics.

92 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 3:19:19pm

re: #88 Gus

Last time I heard he was raided by someone. Nothing since then. Black helicopters must've taken him.

93 Charles Johnson  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 3:19:52pm

Besides Israel, Adelson's other big issue is unions. He hates unions. I believe his Las Vegas casino is one of the only non-union casinos in town. (Could be the only one, I'm not sure.)

So that's another indicator of what he might reasonably expect to get for investing $100 million smackers.

94 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 3:20:07pm

re: #91 The Ghost of a Flea

He's a far right nut. This says all.

95 researchok  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 3:20:51pm

re: #89 erik_t

Absolutely.

In fact, I am considering (haven't made up my mind yet) removing tax exmpt status from every religious institution. That would cut down on a whole lot of institutions who exist solely because they are aren't the 'other'.

Taxes encourage responsible behavior- and spending.

96 CuriousLurker  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 3:21:03pm

re: #79 Charles Johnson

I read the Wonkette article about PG a little while ago and I noticed the way a basic user profile pops up when you hover over an avatar in the comments, then when you go to the full profile, you automatically get the most recent comments. I thought that was way cool.

Can we do that? Maybe? Someday? Pleeeease...

97 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 3:23:14pm

re: #95 researchok

Absolutely.

In fact, I am considering (haven't made up my mind yet) removing tax exmpt status from every religious institution. That would cut down on a whole lot of institutions who exist solely because they are aren't the 'other'.

Taxes encourage responsible spending.

I used to think that, but then Obdi asked a simple question - how do they differ from, say, a philately club?

I think that churches (and other institutions) should be left tax exempt as long as they don't push hateful/backwards agenda. But the definition of that latter is a whole can of worms, and wingnuts won't ever agree with mine.

98 CuriousLurker  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 3:23:18pm

re: #91 The Ghost of a Flea

Not just America's. Is Adelson's vision of Israel in keeping with the desires of voting Israelis?

Call me jaded, but I find that a lot of conservatives when they speak of "supporting Israel" have a very, very distinct idea of what they want Israel to be...and is usually involves the Likud...and by influencing American foreign policy they're engaging in a kind of by-proxy influence of Israeli internal politics.

Hmmm, I never thought of it like that before, in reverse.

99 Douchecanoe and Ryan Too  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 3:23:48pm

Evening Lizardim. Citizens United has really worked out for America's best interests, hasn't it? And this is just a taste of the efforts to which the rich will go to maintain their stranglehold on power and financial gain.

100 Gus  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 3:24:24pm

Given the unlimited money supply from Adelson to Milton I find this rather pathetic:

101 Daniel Ballard  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 3:25:14pm

re: #63 erik_t

Two things separate there IMO-One is influence. 100 million people vs one mans agenda. A committee of 100 million can not drive the agenda. But only winners execute agendas.

If each candidate has a billion to spend in the race, that is equal in the competitive get elected sense. IMO it would be cheaper to Federally fund both at 500 million each than suffer the consequences of corporate influence.

102 Douchecanoe and Ryan Too  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 3:25:55pm

re: #100 Gus

Given the unlimited money supply from Adelson to Milton I find this rather pathetic:

Wait a minute, is he serious? I gotta step out for a minute, my bullshit detector exploded. Good thing I made a non-shrapnel version this time around.

103 jamesfirecat  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 3:26:57pm

///That poor rich man, he's got all that money and yet somehow he's reduced to casting only one vote just like the rest of us, is there no justice in the world?

104 HappyWarrior  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 3:27:25pm

Man has Obama ruined free enterprise.//

105 Charles Johnson  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 3:28:16pm

re: #96 CuriousLurker

Yeah, that is kind of cool. Maybe just show a selection of the last comments when you click a user's icon, along with all the other profile info.

The hover effect can be a problem with non-paginated comments, though, because Javascript starts to get bogged down when there are lots of hover event handlers installed.

106 erik_t  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 3:28:19pm

re: #100 Gus

Philosoraptor is confused by the idea of an anti-capitalist president attempting to buy an election.

107 Douchecanoe and Ryan Too  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 3:29:10pm

re: #106 erik_t

Philosoraptor is confused by the idea of an anti-capitalist president attempting to buy an election.

Make it happen.

108 researchok  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 3:29:16pm

re: #97 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton

I used to think that, but then Obdi asked a simple question - how do they differ from, say, a philately club?

I think that churches (and other institutions) should be left tax exempt as long as they don't push hateful/backwards agenda. But the definition of that latter is a whole can of worms, and wingnuts won't ever agree with mine.

Why should they be any different?

I can understand why tax exempt status should be granted to institutions which serves the public regardless of race, creed, orientation, religion- hospitals, schools, social programs, etc.

However, by definition Churches only serve their membership.

Gays for example cannot go in and demand the right to be married with sacraments, etc.

109 Gus  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 3:29:23pm

LOL That comes with a political cartoon:

Image: Tornoe-20120614-Rove.jpg

110 HappyWarrior  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 3:30:26pm

re: #109 Gus

LOL That comes with a political cartoon:

Image: Tornoe-20120614-Rove.jpg

Heh it's like when they complain about union money having too much influence when unions are at a historic low in influence and corporate influence is at an all time high.

111 CuriousLurker  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 3:31:30pm

re: #105 Charles Johnson

Yeah, that is kind of cool. Maybe just show a selection of the last comments when you click a user's icon, along with all the other profile info.

The hover effect can be a problem with non-paginated comments, though, because Javascript starts to get bogged down when there are lots of hover event handlers installed.

So then how about a hover just showing existing profile info with a button going to the comments search? The hover was the coolest part, IMO. Plus, the formatting was really nice & compact, attractive.

112 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 3:32:19pm

re: #108 researchok

Why should they be any different?

I can understand why tax exempt should be granted to institutions which serves the public regardless of race, creed, orientation, religion- hospitals, schools, social programs, etc.

However, by definition Churches only serve their membership.

Gays for example cannot go in and demand the right to be married with sacraments, etc.

And a philately club only "serves" those who collect stamps. The point about marriage doesn't refute mine - OK, leave those tax exempt that don't refuse same-sex and interracial marriage.

113 researchok  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 3:33:01pm

re: #112 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton

But they are open to all

114 CuriousLurker  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 3:34:17pm

*listening to Barry White to reduce blood pressure...*

115 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 3:34:53pm

re: #113 researchok

But they are open to all

In what way? Open as in, literally, you can visit such a club arriving "from the street"? I don't know if you can, there may be rules against that. But even if so - many religious institutions allow for outsiders visiting services.

116 researchok  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 3:38:34pm

re: #115 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton

In that there are no restrictions to membership. One can believe whatever one wishes, etc. The only requirement is an interest in stamps.

Hospitals serve all equally, regardless of creed, race, etc. The same cannot be said for churches or other religious institutions.

And visiting is not membership.

117 SpaceJesus  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 3:40:47pm

Dont worry. Master Soros will even the score.

118 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 3:41:22pm

re: #116 researchok

In that there are no restrictions to membership. One can believe whatever one wishes, etc. The only requirement is an interest in stamps.

Hospitals serve all equally, regardless of creed, race, etc. The same cannot be said for churches or other religious institutions.

But it can be. Just as philately clubs serve the collectors, religious institutions serve believers. It's a "common interest club", so to say. You can't join a philately club if you're not a collector, you will still be treated in the hospital. You can't join a church if you're not a believer, you will still be treated in the hospital. Again, I don't see the diff.

119 moderatelyradicalliberal  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 3:42:03pm

Every Democrat should boycott Adelson's casinos forever.

Also nice to see the Romney campaign letting the bigoted base of the GOP that they have as much disdain and lack of respect for the ni*CLANG*! usurping the White House as they do.

[Link: www.balloon-juice.com...]

Today is the day of the dueling mega-speeches on the presidential campaign trail. And reporters waiting around the venue of President Obama’s event were greeted by a Romney campaign bus circling the venue and volubly honking its horn, something you’d expect a rival wrestling team to do to disrupt the other team’s pep talk.

These are awful disgusting people.

120 erik_t  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 3:43:14pm

re: #118 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton

But it can be. Just as philately clubs serve the collectors, religious institutions serve believers. It's as "common interest club", so to say. You can't join a philately club if you're not a collector, you will still be treated in the hospital. You can't join a church if you're not a believers, you will still be treated in the hospital. Again, I don't see the diff.

And an animal shelter won't serve you if they don't think you're responsible enough to own whatever pet you're trying to pick up.

Absolute ubiquity of service is a poor premise from which to base tax-exempt status.

121 researchok  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 3:43:21pm

re: #118 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton

Fair enough.

122 wrenchwench  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 3:47:41pm

re: #56 goddamnedfrank

I'm a little bit surprised that Sheldon Adelson's children haven't smothered the old man in his sleep. They've probably thought about it.

As a matter of fact....

Adelson’s own sons have also sued him, accusing him of cheating them in business deals.

123 CuriousLurker  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 3:47:45pm

Okay, I decided to cheer myself up by temporarily changing my nic in memory of...winter. Or something. // *snort*

124 erik_t  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 3:49:53pm

re: #123 Spayshul Snowflake

Okay, I decided to cheer myself up by temporarily changing my nic in memory of...winter. Or something. // *snort*

I, too, find that buying new computer equipment makes me happy. Just put in a big Newegg order yesterday!

125 CuriousLurker  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 3:51:10pm

re: #124 erik_t

I, too, find that buying new computer equipment makes me happy. Just put in a big Newegg order yesterday!

Maybe that's what I need, a visit to Newegg. ;)

126 wrenchwench  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 3:51:51pm

re: #122 wrenchwench

As a matter of fact...

More detail from Charles's link above:

In September, 1997, Adelson’s sons sued their father, alleging that he had defrauded them by not divulging material information, in order to induce them to sell their stock for less than its fair value. (Adelson’s daughter, who was married to a company executive, did not join the suit.) In April, 2001, the sons lost in a trial in Massachusetts Superior Court. In the Findings of Fact, Associate Justice Hiller B. Zobel wrote, “The evidence during the 14-day trial depicted, like something from the playwright Arthur Miller, a harsh, demanding, unfeeling, successful businessman frustrated in his inability to actuate his self-indulgent, substance-abusing, over-pampered, and (as he believes) ungrateful sons.” In the Conclusions of Law, the judge wrote, “Defendant Adelson, although perhaps lacking paternal kindliness and, indeed, cordiality generally, did not mislead, cheat, or defraud Plaintiffs.” In a separate memorandum, Justice Zobel denied a motion that Adelson had made to tax his sons with deposition costs. Mitchell, who pursued the case in appellate court, lost there, too, in 2004. (In September, 2005, Mitchell, who was married and had three sons, died unexpectedly at the age of forty-eight. Miriam Adelson recently told the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz that he died of a drug overdose.)

Read more [Link: www.newyorker.com...]

127 The Ghost of a Flea  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 3:52:59pm

re: #98 CuriousLurker

Hmmm, I never thought of it like that before, in reverse.

I live in an area where apocalyptic, LaHaye-style Christianity is very strong. I just lost a friend over his conversion and subsequent, gleeful FB posts about the eminent death and destruction that would herald Jesus's return.

"I support Israel" around here--which is something that comes up quite a bit and which people put money behind--is actually short for "I support a conservative super-hawkish Israel that not only refused a two-state solution but will expand out to it's biblical borders...at least until the Jesus returns and kills all the Jews that didn't convert."

The two things that make me twitch and get that forehead strain-vein is that (1) Israel the modern state with its gay-positiveness and social liberality is not "real Israel" and those people don't count and shouldn't be cared about; and (2) it's really important to encourage settlers because settler/Palestinian tensions could be the tinder that leads to an all-Jewish super-Israel..

When you scratch the thinking involved, it's insane turtles all the way down.

There's secular version, too--sort of the John Bolton-meets-80s-CIA idea of "supporting Israel" so that it can be the tip of the lance in the inevitable conflict with the Orientals Islamic world...which again has zero interest in what Israelis want their foreign policy to be.

128 CuriousLurker  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 3:56:50pm

re: #127 The Ghost of a Flea

I'd never thought of any of that either. Gonna favorite it and read it again later. Thanks.

129 Gus  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 3:58:10pm

Need. Nap. BBL.

130 CuriousLurker  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 4:00:11pm

What, there's like 50 people in here and no one's talking?

131 M. Dubious  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 4:00:59pm

re: #130 Spayshul Snowflake

They're all napping.

132 CuriousLurker  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 4:03:18pm

re: #131 M. Dubious

Must be. Hey, KT, are you here? I found something for you. I think you'll like it, heh.

133 Mich-again  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 4:05:07pm

re: #97 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton

I used to think that, but then Obdi asked a simple question - how do they differ from, say, a philately club?

I think that churches (and other institutions) should be left tax exempt as long as they don't push hateful/backwards agenda. But the definition of that latter is a whole can of worms, and wingnuts won't ever agree with mine.

I think the house of worship itself should be tax exempt. But not the TV studio, tour buses, real estate, jets, golf courses, gymnasiums, etc..

You always get more of whatever you subsidize.

134 CuriousLurker  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 4:05:37pm

Okay, I guess I'm gonna go take a nap or write some code. Later, lizards.

135 sagehen  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 4:06:53pm

re: #108 researchok

Why should they be any different?

I can understand why tax exempt status should be granted to institutions which serves the public regardless of race, creed, orientation, religion- hospitals, schools, social programs, etc.

However, by definition Churches only serve their membership.

Gays for example cannot go in and demand the right to be married with sacraments, etc.

And what would the property tax assessment be for The Cathedral of St John the Divine?

For any 200-year-old, center city, historic site/architectural jewel? Should they charge worshippers for attendance, to raise the money? Or maybe they should sell the real estate for redevelopment, and people can just go to church a half-hour train ride away instead?

136 I Am Kreniigh!  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 4:08:29pm

re: #13 darthstar

Every Mormon has his price.

It's a big love.

137 Charles Johnson  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 4:09:07pm

Testing something...

138 Charles Johnson  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 4:10:28pm

Another test...

139 Charles Johnson  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 4:12:56pm

And another test, with tweet...

140 William Barnett-Lewis  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 4:13:05pm

re: #130 Spayshul Snowflake

What, there's like 50 people in here and no one's talking?

Just heard that the Boss and Boss Jr. have arrived safe with the moving van at the new house. I'm waiting on tomorrows mail. OTOH, I still have internet, Guinness & a bottle of Bulleit (95) Rye so things could be worse.

(just don't remind me that there are no beds in the house as they're all 5 hours away... :banghead:)

141 Kragar  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 4:16:19pm

Stanford Sentenced to 110-Year Term in $7 Billion Ponzi Case

A defiant Mr. Stanford, in a rambling statement to the court before the sentencing, intermittently fought back tears and shuffled papers, and said, “I’m not up here to ask for sympathy or forgiveness. I’m up here to tell you from my heart I didn’t run a Ponzi scheme.”

He blamed the government for the collapse of his businesses and asserted that “we could have paid off every depositor and still have substantial assets remaining.”

In response, federal prosecutor, William J. Stellmach, called Mr. Stanford’s version of events “obscene.”

“This is a man utterly without remorse,” Mr. Stellmach said. “From beginning to end, he treated all of his victims as roadkill.”

“He went after the middle class, including people who didn’t have money to lose. People have lost their homes. They have come out of retirement.”

A federal jury in March convicted Mr. Stanford of 13 out of 14 counts of fraud in connection with a worldwide scheme over more than two decades in which he offered fraudulent high-interest certificates of deposit at the Stanford International Bank, which was based on the Caribbean island of Antigua.

Prosecutors argued that Mr. Stanford had consistently lied to investors, promoting safe investments for money that he channeled into a luxurious lifestyle, a Swiss bank account and various business deals that almost never succeeded.

142 b_sharp  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 4:16:42pm

re: #105 Charles Johnson

Yeah, that is kind of cool. Maybe just show a selection of the last comments when you click a user's icon, along with all the other profile info.

The hover effect can be a problem with non-paginated comments, though, because Javascript starts to get bogged down when there are lots of hover event handlers installed.

Bigger hamster wheel = more hamsters = faster site.

143 celticdragon  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 4:17:11pm

re: #15 Spayshul Snowflake

Great. So America has no say in the matter, she's is just a whore that gets rented out to the highest bidder 4 years at a time? Good to know exactly how much these "patriots" love & respect America. // *disgusted*

I made the same point to my spouse earlier:

The Roberts SCOTUS turned American politics into an exclusive brothel.

144 MittDoesNotCompute  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 4:17:46pm

re: #100 Gus

Given the unlimited money supply from Adelson to Milton I find this rather pathetic:

[Embedded content]

That's some unmitigated gall right there...

145 Killgore Trout  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 4:19:04pm

re: #132 Spayshul Snowflake

Must be. Hey, KT, are you here? I found something for you. I think you'll like it, heh.

9.95? That's a bargain!

146 celticdragon  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 4:20:47pm

re: #33 Gitarzan

This shit makes me sick to my stomach...how in the hell are the Democrats are going to counter a tidal wave of cash (and the media influence it buys) like this?

President Obama could wipe every terrorist off the face of the earth, cure every disease and malady known to man, and shit rainbows and Skittles, but with the amount of money coming in from these uber-rich "conservative" pricks over in the Republican side, there's a very real chance that he can lose this election, even if he does everything right.

I'm not trying to sound defeatist, but when you have these GOP screwheads ready to spend over one billion dollars to defeat President Obama and Congressional Dems this fall, it's hard to keep a good attitude.

Citizens United and its ilk fucking sucks and will be the downfall of the American political system as we've come to know it...

I am hard put not to believe that Roberts, Scalia and Alito and Thomas really want it this way.

147 researchok  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 4:21:08pm

re: #130 Spayshul Snowflake

Must be the cheese cake.

148 JamesT  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 4:26:59pm

What distracted Obama from reforming this type of favoritism? Why has he not refused to accept such funding?

Obama dropped ball on campaign reform
[Link: articles.cnn.com...]

149 Kragar  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 4:30:33pm

Michigan State Representative Silenced By GOP For Saying ‘Vagina’

Michigan House Republicans blocked a state representative from speaking on the floor on Thursday after she referenced certain parts of female anatomy in a speech on an abortion bill.

“Finally, Mr. Speaker, I’m flattered that you’re all so interested in my vagina, but ‘no’ means ‘no,’” Rep. Lisa Brown (D) said to cap her remarks in which she expressed stark opposition to a series of bills regulating abortion, including one that would ban the procedure after 20 weeks unless the woman’s life was in danger, according to The Detroit News.

House Republicans called the remarks over the line and barred her from participating in a subsequent debate on education.

“It was so offensive, I don’t even want to say it in front of women,” one state representative said. “I would not say that in mixed company.”

But Brown was defiant, accusing her colleagues of trying to censor her with their sensitive take on acceptable decorum.

“If I can’t say the word vagina, why are we legislating vaginas?” Brown said at a press conference. “What language should I use?”

150 Dancing along the light of day  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 4:31:03pm

re: #15 Spayshul Snowflake

Love the new nic & the picture is perfect!

151 Dancing along the light of day  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 4:32:30pm

re: #38 Killgore Trout

Well, said. It's sadly effective to sway voters mostly with 30 second TV spots. But we are a consumer culture. The same advertising agencies that sell us our leaders are the same ones who sell us soap, soda, cars and "news"/radio programs. As long as we keep buying, they'll keep selling.

SHOOT YER TEEVEE!

152 Achilles Tang  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 4:33:30pm

re: #139 Charles Johnson

And another test, with tweet...

[Embedded content]

I don't know if it's LGF or me, but with my Chrome clicking a link normally opens a new tab, but clicking the tweet link uses the LGF tab. It's annoying because I'm used to closing the new tab and tend to close the LGF tab in these cases if I don't remember to go back instead.

Just saying...

153 Kragar  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 4:34:51pm

RNC’s Dysfunctional Latino Site Posts Vote On Obama — And Loses

It’s been a rough day for the Republican National Committee’s Latino outreach website.

On Thursday afternoon, the RNC had to hastily take down the site’s banner, which featured a picture of Asian children, replacing it with an all-caps headline “HISPANIC LATINO STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIPS.”

But other features of the site aren’t working quite as planned, either. The main page features a straw poll asking visitors whether they’re disappointed with President Obama, a talking point Republicans have been pushing as part of their outreach effort. As of Thursday evening, however, Obama was winning the unscientific survey 55 percent to 45 percent — highly unusual on a partisan website.

In another broken feature, the site’s info page, in English “Who Are We?”, is left entirely blank.

154 simoom  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 4:38:08pm

re: #152 Achilles Tang

I don't know if it's LGF or me, but with my Chrome clicking a link normally opens a new tab, but clicking the tweet link uses the LGF tab.

Are you middlebutton-clicking? That should force a new tab.

155 MittDoesNotCompute  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 4:38:38pm

re: #153 Kragar

RNC’s Dysfunctional Latino Site Posts Vote On Obama — And Loses

That's funny!

156 Page 3 in the Binder of Women  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 4:45:03pm

My tweet from today, I thought it was good...


#Romney bus driving around in circles blowing horn illustrates CLOWN CAR #GOP to perfection

157 Lidane  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 4:50:32pm

re: #81 Gus

Not sure if you've seen this yet but this is hilarious...

We Will Not Mock This Pamela Gellar Post Until A Doctor Assures Us She Did Not Have A Stroke

The comments at Wonkette are glorious:

My vote is botox poisoning. That, or she is trying to impress Ted Nugent or get out of jury duty.
---

Spell check seizure!
---

I thought NO ONE could be more bat shit crazy than Ann Coulter, but Pam? Winning!
---

Nothing says "subversive" more than Walter Cronkite.
---

Someone shouldn't have been snarfing Adderall and Ambien together like they were tic-tacs.
---

Unfortunately, I find nothing unusual in this writing example. Baggers gonna bag. All in all, I'd say it's just a Thursday.
---

Wow. It's like a mashup of Naked Lunch, the Vogon poetry from Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, and Glenn Beck's Fever Dream Journal gone horribly, horribly wrong.

158 Killgore Trout  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 4:50:47pm

re: #151 Dancing along the light of day

SHOOT YER TEEVEE!

Mine done been shot already.

159 Lidane  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 4:53:58pm

Cry me a goddamn river:

Obama snubbed me, says McCain

160 Achilles Tang  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 4:58:51pm

re: #154 simoom

Are you middlebutton-clicking? That should force a new tab.

The things I still have to learn...

Yes that works, but the previous condition still exists. I use the middle button for scrolling and the like, but why should it have to be used selectively for something like this?

161 dragonfire1981  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 4:59:18pm

re: #159 Lidane

Cry me a goddamn river:

Obama snubbed me, says McCain

I can't help but wonder if a certain Caribou Barbie had something to do with that...

162 dragonfire1981  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 4:59:43pm

re: #149 Kragar

Michigan State Representative Silenced By GOP For Saying ‘Vagina’

How old are these legislators? 8?

163 Achilles Tang  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 4:59:43pm

re: #157 Lidane

The comments at Wonkette are glorious:

Yes, we should get some of those people over here.

164 Achilles Tang  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 5:00:09pm

re: #162 dragonfire1981

How old are these legislators? 8?

My thoughts exactly.

165 dragonfire1981  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 5:00:22pm

re: #163 Achilles Tang

Yes, we should get some of those people over here.

Now there's an idea: A targeted LGF recruiting drive

166 Page 3 in the Binder of Women  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 5:02:41pm

re: #161 dragonfire1981

I can't help but wonder if a certain Caribou Barbie had something to do with that...

Ya, that whole "pallin around with terrorists" thing.

167 Charles Johnson  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 5:05:24pm

re: #152 Achilles Tang

I don't know if it's LGF or me, but with my Chrome clicking a link normally opens a new tab, but clicking the tweet link uses the LGF tab. It's annoying because I'm used to closing the new tab and tend to close the LGF tab in these cases if I don't remember to go back instead.

Just saying...

I know - it's because the code for the embedded tweets is supplied by Twitter from a Javascript call, and the links returned from that call do not have the attribute that makes them open in a new tab.

168 Patricia Kayden  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 5:10:14pm

Americans appear to be comfortable with bought elections. As a Canadian-raised (now US) citizen, I find it strange that companies/corporations can pay billions to elect who they want. How in the world can regular citizens (even Unions) compete with that? Does any other Western democracy allow this?

169 Achilles Tang  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 5:12:25pm

re: #168 Patricia Kayden

It hasn't been so in the past, except perhaps in the "smoke filled back room" sense.

This is new, and not yet played out.

170 freetoken  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 5:13:11pm

re: #168 Patricia Kayden

... Does any other Western democracy allow this?

See, right there you've made your mistake.

As we've been repeatedly told, the US is not a democracy, but is a Republic.

Weren't you listening?

171 Page 3 in the Binder of Women  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 5:18:03pm

re: #157 Lidane

Glenn Becks fever dream journal gone horribly horribly wrong.

My sides are aching after that one.

172 b_sharp  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 5:18:24pm

re: #170 freetoken

See, right there you've made your mistake.

As we've been repeatedly told, the US is not a democracy, but is a Republic.

Weren't you listening?

And the difference is ...?

Or should I be asking Plato?

173 wrenchwench  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 5:22:18pm

re: #148 JamesT

Greetings, hatchling.

174 Daniel Ballard  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 5:23:39pm

re: #148 JamesT

What distracted Obama from reforming this type of favoritism? Why has he not refused to accept such funding?

Obama dropped ball on campaign reform
[Link: articles.cnn.com...]

Maybe the prospect of campaigning with one hand tied behind his back.

175 Decatur Deb  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 5:24:42pm

re: #119 moderatelyradicalliberal

Every Democrat should boycott Adelson's casinos forever.

Also nice to see the Romney campaign letting the bigoted base of the GOP that they have as much disdain and lack of respect for the ni*CLANG*! usurping the White House as they do.

[Link: www.balloon-juice.com...]

These are awful disgusting people.

Can't join your Democratic boycott of Adelson's casino because I'm already pledged to the Smart People's boycott of all casinos.

176 Ming  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 5:26:54pm

re: #126 wrenchwench

Since you mention Judge Hiller Zobel, this is OT but he's the guy who presided over the trial of that British nanny who shook a baby to death, and then, after her conviction, stunned the courtroom by deciding, completely on his own, to sentence her to time served. [Link: www.nytimes.com...] By the way, the prosecutor was Martha Coakley, who many years later ran the inept Massachusetts Senate campaign, for Ted Kennedy's seat, that led to the election of Scott Brown. Small world! Sorry to be off-topic, but the trial of Louise Woodward is one of those painful news items that's stuck with me over the years.

177 b_sharp  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 5:30:57pm

re: #170 freetoken

See, right there you've made your mistake.

As we've been repeatedly told, the US is not a democracy, but is a Republic.

Weren't you listening?

Actually the US is both a republic and a democracy.

178 Obdicut  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 5:32:05pm

re: #175 Decatur Deb

Can't join your Democratic boycott of Adelson's casino because I'm already pledged to the Smart People's boycott of all casinos.

It still makes me so mad that we have state-run gambling-- lotto is a regressive goddamn tax on people the public school system didn't educate to well enough to not play the lotto.

The government should be keeping people from financial predation, not joining in on it.

179 Hal_10000  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 5:32:27pm

I hate to interrupt the SCOTUS bashing, but Citizens United has little to do with this. Individuals have been able to fund unlimited ads since the Buckley decision in '76. The only change is that it's going through a PAC rather than an individual, which gives the candidate some control. But if Adelson had wanted to do this ten years ago, he could have done it just fine on his own.

180 jamesfirecat  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 5:32:56pm

re: #148 JamesT

What distracted Obama from reforming this type of favoritism? Why has he not refused to accept such funding?

Obama dropped ball on campaign reform
[Link: articles.cnn.com...]

You campaign with the fiance rules you have, not the rules you wish you had.

181 jamesfirecat  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 5:33:53pm

re: #179 Hal_10000

I hate to interrupt the SCOTUS bashing, but Citizens United has little to do with this. Individuals have been able to fund unlimited ads since the Buckley decision in '76. The only change is that it's going through a PAC rather than an individual.

Citizen United must have done something, otherwise why have we not seen huge donations like this before it took place?

182 celticdragon  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 5:34:43pm

re: #81 Gus

Not sure if you've seen this yet but this is hilarious...

We Will Not Mock This Pamela Gellar Post Until A Doctor Assures Us She Did Not Have A Stroke
by Rebecca Schoenkopf

"Charles Johnson at LittleGreenFootballs has taken a break from twirling his mustaches and imprisoning free-speech martyrs in their Twitter Killing Fields!" Woot!

Oh my God, the comments are priceless...

I'm guessing the poor bastard who turns Pam's ramblings into complete sentences escaped through an open window and Ms. Gellar had to finish the essay on her lonesome.

Someone shouldn't have been snarfing Adderall and Ambien together like they were tic-tacs.

Beauty.

183 freetoken  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 5:36:02pm

re: #178 Obdicut

... lotto is a regressive goddamn tax on people the public school system didn't educate to well enough to not play the lotto.

...

Nothing quite like an infinite loop for eternal perpetuation.

184 Gretchen G.Tiger  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 5:36:10pm

Happy Birthday Army Soldiers!.

185 Kragar  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 5:45:52pm

re: #184 ggt

Happy Birthday Army Soldiers!.

derp, I messed up

186 freetoken  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 5:46:02pm

Contrary to the national mythologists, the world will continue even if we cease to exist:

Direct yen-yuan trade

On June 1, new currency markets opened in Tokyo and Shanghai for direct trading between the Japanese yen and the Chinese yuan. The direct trading of the two currencies has been motivated largely by the instability of the main currencies such as the U.S. dollar and the euro.

[...]

187 Gretchen G.Tiger  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 5:46:09pm

It's not a good sign.

80's music shouldn't be retained in any brain.

LOL

188 William Barnett-Lewis  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 5:46:25pm

re: #184 ggt

Happy Birthday Army Soldiers!.

Hoo-ah! Also flag day. I've always felt it was appropriate that both were born on the same day.

189 BongCrodny  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 5:46:29pm

From Wiki:

In February 2012, Adelson told Forbes Magazine that he's “against very wealthy ­people attempting to or influencing elections. But as long as it’s doable I’m going to do it. Because I know that guys like Soros have been doing it for years, if not decades. And they stay below the radar by creating a network of corporations to funnel their money. I have my own philosophy and I’m not ashamed of it. I gave the money because there is no other legal way to do it. I don’t want to go through ten different corporations to hide my name. I’m proud of what I do and I’m not looking to escape recognition.”[19]

Soros!

Sooooorrrrrrrroooooooos!!!

190 Kragar  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 5:47:08pm

re: #187 ggt

It's not a good sign.

80's music shouldn't be retained in any brain.

LOL

I'll have you know I only passed college Chemistry thanks to Motorhead lyrics!

191 palomino  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 5:47:18pm

If this is how Romney plans to win the election, does anyone think Dems will treat Mitt with any more respect (or afford him any more legitimacy) than the GOP/tp has towards Obama?

Whoever wins we're likely to be even more polarized over the next 4 years than we are now. If Obama wins, the right has already declared it the end of the Republic (despite Obama's objectively moderate overall record).

OTOH, if Romney is our next prez, his strategy of demonizing Obama as un-American, cozying up to charlatans like Trump, buying the election with money from billionaires, blaming immigrants and the poor, and flip flopping on virtually every issue (particularly regarding women and gays), then any chance of goodwill from the left and much of the middle will disappear. Scorched earth and smears may work in the short run, but they are no basis for governance or consensus building.

192 simoom  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 5:49:16pm

I'd missed this from a couple days back. WaPo's Editorial Board:

Mr. Romney’s secret bundlers

THE DIFFERENCE between President Obama and presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney when it comes to fundraising is not only that Mr. Romney managed to outraise the president last month. A more troubling difference is that Mr. Romney provided almost no information about the key “bundlers” who helped his campaign vacuum up such huge sums.

This omission distinguishes the former Massachusetts governor not only from his Democratic counterpart but from his two Republican predecessors. Both President George W. Bush, during his two campaigns, and Arizona Sen. John McCain, during his 2008 presidential race, released lists of their key fundraisers and, at least within general parameters, some indication of their hauls. But Mr. Romney’s campaign has repeatedly dismissed suggestions that he follow suit. The campaign has said that it has complied with campaign finance laws, which do not mandate such information except in the case of registered federal lobbyists.

This argument is correct but unconvincing. Bundlers play an essential role in presidential campaigns — Mr. Romney’s in particular. The latest figures show that just 15 percent of the Romney campaign’s May total came in donations of $200 or less, compared with 40 percent of contributions to the Obama campaign. Such hauls of maximum-dollar checks do not happen without the assiduous behind-the-scenes work of well-connected bundlers.

...

A Romney campaign pamphlet prepared for donors details the special perks lavished on those who haul in the biggest bundles: “Stars,” who raise $250,000, and ”Stripes,” who bring in $500,000 or more. “Stripes” receive everything from a “dedicated Romney Victory headquarters staff member” to access to debates to “signature membership pieces and apparel.” Indeed, the campaign promised to publish the information it declines to reveal to the public by listing bundlers’ names in a ”Stars and Stripes Commemorative Book.” The Post reported Friday that the Romney campaign’s “top 100 bundlers — ‘Team 100’ — are heading to a private retreat in Utah on June 22-24 to plot out how to replicate the May success in the months ahead.”

Who are these men and women to whom the campaign is so deeply indebted? Mr. Romney has yet to answer — indeed, he has yet to be directly asked — why his campaign will not live up to the standard set by Mr. Bush and Mr. McCain. Why would he hide his roster of key supporters?

I'd last seen a USA Today article mentioning that Romney was breaking with recent precedent by not disclosing bundler data, but as far as I've seen the media has shown little interest since, so it's good to see Post weighing in on the side of transparency.

193 Gretchen G.Tiger  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 5:49:59pm

re: #172 Can't Hold the Eat

And the difference is ...?

Or should I be asking Plato?

We are a Republic with near universal suffrage.

I'm not sure there is much difference.

194 Gretchen G.Tiger  Thu, Jun 14, 2012 6:24:29pm

Have a great evening all!

195 GunstarGreen  Fri, Jun 15, 2012 6:44:32am

It is difficult for me to fathom the level of avarice required to have so much money that $100M is literally unimportant chump change to you, and then feel the need to spend that $100M to ensure that your wealth will increase at the greatest rate.

196 carver  Fri, Jun 15, 2012 10:54:21am

The lottery is a tax on the poor - how many millionaires or billionaires buy lottery tickets? It offers a miniscule chance of wealth to the desperate by taking more of the money they don't have.


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ...
Cheechako
3 weeks ago
Views: 363 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1