Republicans | What are they good for?

[Nonc Hilaire]

Republicans – What Are They Good For
November 15, 2014

by: the Common Constitutionalist

The Republicans won the election. Everyone on the right is thrilled about being able to depose Harry Reid and stop Obama. Hooray for us!

Now just two weeks later an inevitable and all too predictable reality has set in. The Republicans have begun surrendering before the battle even starts.

Biz Pac Review reported of Trey Gowdy’s (whom I mostly love), appearance on the Bill O’Reilly show Thursday. Gowdy said “Impeaching the president is a really bad idea. Have you met Joe Biden?”

Well no Mr. Gowdy. I have not and I understand that VP Biden has been demonstrably wrong about pretty much everything in his decades of public service. We get that he is a boob, but he’s not Obama and he’s not black. Gowdy claimed that Obama actually wants them (Congress) to pursue impeachment but that he (Gowdy) won’t be taking the bait.

Biz Pac’s tagline for the article was “Damned if we do, and damned if we don’t.” If that’s the case, which it is, why not just do the right thing? Whoever you think is going to hate and resent you will do so anyway.

Okay, so that’s one option off the table. Now to Mitch McConnell, the uncontested new Imperial leader of the Senate (or soon to be). When asked, he once again reiterated, rather gruffly, that they will not be shutting down the federal government and defaulting on the national debt.

And there you go. Another viable option shot down and worse – with that definitive statement, he has boxed them in. There is no way to change their minds. Thanks Mitch!

And why is a shutdown not an option? Well, they got hammered so hard last time. Remember how terrible it was for Republicans during the last shutdown between October 1 and October 16, 2013?

It was a bloodbath – so much so that a mere 13 months later the Republicans practically swept the 2014 elections. Wow – that’s a heavy price to pay.

So why did we vote for these guys? They’ve given away the power of the purse, impeachment is off the table, and a shutdown is out of the question. Without these weapons, will someone please tell me how these guys are going to stop Obama?

The answer is of course, they won’t and by destroying their own weapons, they can’t.

By witnessing this fiasco so far, the Republicans, at least the leadership, appear to be either imbecilic or corrupt – and I choose the latter.

To prove just that, Eric Erickson at RedState wrote that next week the House and Senate are going to attempt to bring back the defunct practice of earmarks. In other words, bribes – payola. Earmarks are “given by leadership to members of Congress as a form of bribery to induce those members to vote for much larger spending packages,” writes Erickson.

Erickson wrote that a source told him that “Boehner was firmly committed to keeping the earmarks ban…” I’m thinking I don’t believe that. I’m thinking he’s as underhanded as McConnell. But hey, at least the Republicans will soon be in charge and that’s really all that matters, right? You didn’t really believe all that stop Obama jive, did you? Stupid voters (hat tip Jonathan Gruber).

So who’s up for a fight? Sure we have no arrows left in our quiver – our swords are dull and rusted and our powder is all wet – but come 2015, our side will be ready to battle!

Anyone want to buy a slightly used turnip truck we’ve recently fallen off?

http://commonconstitutionalist.com/poli ... -good-for/

[Miss_Faucie_Fishtits]

Republicans.... huwah, yeah. What are they good for. Absolutely nothing. Say it again, y'all.....XD............

When you say stuff you won't do and then some more stuff that comes across as stupid, it won't go well for you. That lil' rat you cornered against the wall in the rubbish tip is baring its teeth and looking at you with fire in its eyes. This is called, you have a problem....'>>.......

[manolo]

..... will someone please tell me how these guys are going to stop Obama?

Nonc,

I thought the main GOP complaint about Obama is that he does nothing (except play golf). So what is there to stop? The golf?

Alex.

[Parodite]

By witnessing this fiasco so far, the Republicans, at least the leadership, appear to be either imbecilic or corrupt – and I choose the latter.

To prove just that, Eric Erickson at RedState wrote that next week the House and Senate are going to attempt to bring back the defunct practice of earmarks. In other words, bribes – payola. Earmarks are “given by leadership to members of Congress as a form of bribery to induce those members to vote for much larger spending packages,” writes Erickson.

Erickson wrote that a source told him that “Boehner was firmly committed to keeping the earmarks ban…” I’m thinking I don’t believe that. I’m thinking he’s as underhanded as McConnell. But hey, at least the Republicans will soon be in charge and that’s really all that matters, right? You didn’t really believe all that stop Obama jive, did you? Stupid voters (hat tip Jonathan Gruber).

It keeps boggling my mind about US politics. Money buys legislation more than the votes of Jo and Mary do. Bribery is legalized in the USA. But Jo and Mary don't seem to care.

This oligarchic monopoly where politics and business symbiotically rule society on major issues can only be broken if the US voters demand new law and legislation that makes bribery illegal again and can be prosecuted as any other crime. But Americans seem not interested one iota in what needs to change in order to achieve that goal. How is that possible?

Nor do they seem to be interested in the fact that the evil symbiosis between illegal drugs and law enforcement fighting illegal drugs is responsible for creating a multi-trillion narcotics market ruled by extremely violent cartels in Mexico et-al, with misery for millions of people down the chain as a result and turning Mexico into a failed state.

Do people have any interest in cause and effect at all here?

If some oligarchic gang decides that a maximum speed of 60 miles/hour in neighborhood areas serves better their own interest than a maximum of 30 miles/hour which would be better security/ health wise... why do the people living in those neighborhoods not demand and vote for a 30 miles/hour limit? In the USA it appears they just keep cheering for either a Red or a Blue biggest dick president. In both cases 60 miles/hour will remain the speed limit because legalized bribery is an indispensable source of income for the oligarchic cancer and the voting public should never be given the idea there is anything they can do about it. Best is to keep them distracted.

But this is just an overseas impression from Yurp. Any meat on these bones?

Legalized Bribery
Four years on, Citizens United is ruining democracy. Here’s how to get it back.
By FRED WERTHEIMER
January 19, 2014

Exactly four years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court changed the landscape of American politics—and in ways we have yet to understand fully. In its 5-to-4 decision in Citizens United v. FEC, the court struck down the longstanding ban on corporate expenditures in federal elections, a move that reversed its position on how corporate money enters the political system and created new avenues for corrupting our government.

Today individual Americans are allowed to contribute only $2,600 per election to a federal candidate. Corporations, for their part, are prohibited from giving money directly to office-seekers. The Supreme Court didn’t change those facts, but its ruling made them far less relevant. The decision opened the door for anybody—individuals, corporations, interests groups—to give unlimited contributions to groups that then do the spending to influence federal elections. In effect, the donors and candidates are now allowed to circumvent the contribution limits.

The results have already been striking: During the 2012 election cycle, super PACs, tax-exempt nonprofit organizations and businesses spent more than $1 billion, including more than $300 million contributed by donors whose identities were never disclosed. This represented three times as much spending by outside groups as in either the 2008 or the 2010 election. In 2012, just 100 of the wealthiest people in America gave $339,490,176 to super PACs, or an average contribution of $3.4 million per donor, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

The unlimited contributions, the secret money and the corporate cash washing into our politics returns us to a system that existed before the reforms enacted by Congress after the Watergate scandal—an era when government decisions could be routinely purchased with campaign contributions. (Overriding the objections of his Department of Agriculture, President Richard Nixon, for example, ordered the increase of dairy prices shortly after the industry gave $2 million to his 1972 reelection committee.)

And the bad situation could be made worse. In October, the Supreme Court heard arguments in another case—McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission—that involves a challenge to the limits on the total contributions a donor can make to federal candidates and party committees in a two-year election cycle. If the Supreme Court strikes down these contribution limits, upheld by the court in 1976, we could well institute a system of legalized bribery—one where officeholders could solicit for their party $1 million contributions from influence-seeking donors, and then have the party spend the cash on their campaigns.

Amid the flood of cash threatening to corrupt the system, an opportunity now exists to make major changes to our campaign finance process. After all, it’s historically been the moments when money is most threatening our politics that Americans have seized the chance to make a change.
***
The corrupting evils of money in politics threatened even the Roman Republic, as far back as the first century, when the ancient historian Plutarch noted that “buying and selling votes crept in and money began to play an important part in determining the elections.” In the United States, by the gilded-age period of the late 19th century, corporate money had became so intrusive that senators were jokingly referred to by the companies that supported them, rather than the states they represented—as in “the senator from Standard Oil” or his colleague, “the senator from Union Pacific.”

Elihu Root, who later became the U.S secretary of state, addressed the Constitutional Convention of New York State on the scourge of corporate money in 1894, saying it was doing “more to shake the confidence of the plain people of small means in our political institutions than any other practice which has ever obtained since the foundation of our government.”

Root called for an end to “the giving of $50,000 or $100,000 by a great corporation toward political purposes, upon the understanding that a debt is created” to the corporation in return for the money. The crisis and the call for reform led eventually to a measure pushed by President Theodore Roosevelt in 1907 to ban corporate contributions to federal candidates and political parties—a ban that still exists today, though, of course, it has been weakened by the Citizens United decision.

Money in politics is a cyclical issue. The cycle consists of scandals, followed by new laws, followed by those laws breaking down after a period of effectiveness, followed by new scandals—which in turn beget new laws. Thus, the response to the historic campaign finance abuses of the Watergate era was the landmark campaign finance reform legislation enacted in 1974. In addition to disclosure requirements, the law established limits on contributions from individuals to candidates and parties and created a public financing system for presidential elections that made funds available to candidates who agreed to limit spending. (The presidential financing system worked well for the nation and candidates of both parties for more than two decades.)

From the outset, efforts arose to curtail the contribution limits, but in 1976 the Supreme Court found that they were necessary “to deal with the reality or appearance of corruption inherent in a system permitting unlimited financial contributions.” Unlimited or very large contributions, the court reasoned, created an inherently corrupt system.

Of course, reforms can never solve all problems or anticipate all consequences. The failure to have an effective enforcement agency for the laws opened the door to abuses. For example, the explosive growth in the 1990s of “soft money”—donations unfettered by limits that are made not to a candidate, but to a candidate’s party, which then spends on the candidate’s behalf. Ironically, the loophole that allowed for this was created by flawed regulations issued by the Federal Election Commission, the agency that is supposed to enforce the laws. Congress put an end to this practice with a reform measure in 2002, but not before the spirit of the era was captured colorfully by Johnny Chung, an influence-seeking businessman who, in the late 1990s, gave $366,000 to the Democratic Party. “The White House is like a subway,” Chung said. “You have to put in coins to open the gates.”

Supporters of such a system perhaps wouldn’t all use Chung’s analogy, but they do argue that corporations, wealthy individuals and other donors have First Amendment free speech rights to give as much money as they want to candidates and parties. They agree with Justice Anthony Kennedy who, in 2009, authored the majority opinion in Citizens United and wrote that there is nothing wrong with money being used to buy “influence over or access to elected officials.

Fred Wertheimer is founder and president of Democracy 21, a nonpartisan organization promoting campaign finance transparency and reform.

[Doc]

All fine and well but it does not help when the party you are complaining about is second fiddle to the too much money in politics to the party doing most of the complaining. The Democrats have far more money in the game. Tom Steyer gave the Dems $74 million this past election. The Second place went to another Democrat contributor of $20 million The third split between the two parties.

[YMix]

All fine and well but it does not help when the party you are complaining about is second fiddle to the too much money in politics to the party doing most of the complaining. The Democrats have far more money in the game. Tom Steyer gave the Dems $74 million this past election. The Second place went to another Democrat contributor of $20 million The third split between the two parties.

What does that have to do with the GOP's apparent betrayal of its own base?

[Doc]

All fine and well but it does not help when the party you are complaining about is second fiddle to the too much money in politics to the party doing most of the complaining. The Democrats have far more money in the game. Tom Steyer gave the Dems $74 million this past election. The Second place went to another Democrat contributor of $20 million The third split between the two parties.

What does that have to do with the GOP's apparent betrayal of its own base?

Unbelievable.

[Doc]

Follow the money....

The Big Money Behind the Push for an Immigration Overhaul


By JULIA PRESTONNOV. 14, 2014

Immigrants’ rights advocates, like those at a Washington rally, have mobilized again after President Obama’s vow of action. Credit Jacquelyn Martin/Associated Press

When President Obama announces major changes to the nation’s immigration enforcement system as early as next week, his decision will partly be a result of a yearslong campaign of pressure by immigrant rights groups, which have grown from a cluster of lobbying organizations into a national force.

A vital part of that expansion has involved money: major donations from some of the nation’s wealthiest liberal foundations, including the Ford Foundation, the Carnegie Corporation of New York, the Open Society Foundations of the financier George Soros, and the Atlantic Philanthropies. Over the past decade those donors have invested more than $300 million in immigrant organizations, including many fighting for a pathway to citizenship for immigrants here illegally.

The philanthropies helped the groups rebound after setbacks and financed the infrastructure of a network in constant motion, with marches, rallies, vigils, fasts, bus tours and voter drives. The donors maintained their support as the immigration issue became fiercely partisan on Capitol Hill and the activists intensified their protests, engaging in civil disobedience and brash confrontations with lawmakers and the police.

The donors’ strategy arose in 2007, as immigrant groups nursed wounds from a rout after a bill pushed by President George W. Bush failed in Congress.

“For all our vaunted work, we were basically a fractious coalition that just got our butts kicked,” said Frank Sharry, a longtime advocate who is now executive director of America’s Voice, a core organization in the coalition.

Atlantic and several other philanthropies funded a series of soul-searching retreats. Days and nights of arguments produced a plan that came to be known as the four pillars. The groups agreed to redouble their local community organizing; to expand their work into mobilizing voters; to create policy research to underpin their pro-immigrant message; and to “turbocharge” their communications with the news media, as Mr. Sharry put it, a task that fell to him.

[Nonc Hilaire]

Off topic, Doc. What are the 'publicans going to do now that they have unilaterally taken impeachment and budget controls off the table?

[Doc]

Off topic, Doc. What are the 'publicans going to do now that they have unilaterally taken impeachment and budget controls off the table?

I was replying to parodite and ymix

As for what the Republicans can do? Give the dems more rope. I have already said as much more or less several times. The republicans just have to let the dems hang themselves with their own policies and laws already passed by Dems. They are a completely disaster and they can no longer save themselves without republican help.

[manolo]

As for what the Republicans can do? Give the dems more rope. I have already said as much more or less several times. The republicans just have to let the dems hang themselves with their own policies and laws already passed by Dems. They are a completely disaster and they can no longer save themselves without republican help.

Doc,

Good metaphor.

When the Republicans "hang themselves with their own policies" it tends to be more expensive and bloodier, but your metaphor does hold for both sides in a two party state. A strong and morally responsible opposition is crucial, and yes I think it is "help" in broad terms.

Alex.

[Nonc Hilaire]

Off topic, Doc. What are the 'publicans going to do now that they have unilaterally taken impeachment and budget controls off the table?

I was replying to parodite and ymix

As for what the Republicans can do? Give the dems more rope. I have already said as much more or less several times. The republicans just have to let the dems hang themselves with their own policies and laws already passed by Dems. They are a completely disaster and they can no longer save themselves without republican help.

I think impeachment and removal from office are moral imperitives. So is strong prosecution of the lawbreakers in the IRS and Justice, and restraint of the executive branch.

Gowdy's saying they should not impeach Obama because Biden would be worse is despicable and cowardly. Two years of thumb twiddling and turd flinging is NOT the mandate the people gave congress. It is breathing fresh life into the image of the GOP as the party of inaction and no ideas.

GOP 2014 - "We are impotent because of partisan Democrats in the Senate".
GOP 2015 - "Impotence is our strategy to win in 2016".

[Doc]

Off topic, Doc. What are the 'publicans going to do now that they have unilaterally taken impeachment and budget controls off the table?

I was replying to parodite and ymix

As for what the Republicans can do? Give the dems more rope. I have already said as much more or less several times. The republicans just have to let the dems hang themselves with their own policies and laws already passed by Dems. They are a completely disaster and they can no longer save themselves without republican help.

I think impeachment and removal from office are moral imperitives. So is strong prosecution of the lawbreakers in the IRS and Justice, and restraint of the executive branch.

Gowdy's saying they should not impeach Obama because Biden would be worse is despicable and cowardly. Two years of thumb twiddling and turd flinging is NOT the mandate the people gave congress. It is breathing fresh life into the image of the GOP as the party of inaction and no ideas.

GOP 2014 - "We are impotent because of partisan Democrats in the Senate".
GOP 2015 - "Impotence is our strategy to win in 2016".

Like I also said before the Democrats will impeach Obama if he by passes congress on granting amnesty. Now that all the House bills that Reid refused to bring to the senate floor will go through everyone will clearly see who is the party of no. That is why the Dems were so desperate to win this months election. Obama will no longer have the Senate to cover up what he has been doing. Obama in turn will throw the Democrats under the bus. That is what Nixon did to the Republicans in 1972 and that is why more than anything the reason Nixon had to resign or be impeached.

[YMix]

Conservatives complain House GOP leaders ramming through spending bill

House conservatives are griping that Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) is putting the squeeze on them by rushing through a $1 trillion spending bill in Congress’s last week in session.

Appropriators are expected to roll out the legislation early next week, giving critics scant time to figure out what’s inside before they cast their votes by the end of the week. The government would shut down on Dec. 12 without a new funding bill.

“Here we are doing the appropriations bill the last couple days” before a government shutdown, conservative Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-Kansas) said in an interview this week. “That’s not to squeeze Harry Reid. That’s to squeeze us.”

Boehner critics say there’s no reason the Speaker couldn’t have brought the spending package to the floor this past week, giving the House more time to consider it.

But doing so would also give more time for the right to build a case against it.

“They don’t want you to read it, that’s why! You think they want you to analyze all the mischievous items in there?” Rep. Walter Jones (R-N.C.) told The Hill.

Asked if the timing of the plan was aimed at jamming the Senate or House conservatives, Jones replied: “I think its aimed at screwing over the American people. You can quote me on that.”

Pushing a government funding bill through Congress at the 11th hour is nothing new.

What’s striking this time, however, is that Boehner and outgoing Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) are mostly in agreement on how to do it.

And the Speaker, fresh off a big midterm victory, seems in no mood to kowtow to conservatives who’ve been agitating for a lame-duck spending fight to stop President Obama’s executive action on immigration.

House Appropriations Chairman Hal Rogers (R-Ky.) said the legislation will be unveiled on Monday, setting up a likely House vote on Wednesday — just one day before money runs out for the government.

[...]

I remember Mr. Perfect used to have Boehner as his avatar, complete with sig about how Boehner had "brought change".

[Nonc Hilaire]

HOUSE GOP LEADERS TRICK 216 HOUSE REPUBLICANS INTO ACCIDENTALLY SUPPORTING OBAMA'S EXECUTIVE AMNESTY

In a lengthy interview on Friday afternoon, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) exposed how House Speaker John Boehner, Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy and Majority Whip Steve Scalise strengthened President Barack Obama’s executive amnesty with procedural trickery former Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber would envy—and they did it all in the name of pushing a bill that they told Republicans would block Obama’s executive amnesty.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government ... ve-Amnesty

[YMix]

In the wake of the GOP mid-term victory, things are already better in Washington.

[YMix]

Congress Passes Deal to Drastically Raise Political Donation Limits

If money is the life blood of politics, things in Washington are about to get livelier. Thanks to a provision in the new spending bill, an individual donor will soon be able to make political donations of $1.5 million over a two-year period.

The deal to increase the donation limit is tucked into the omnibus spending bill and will allow individual donors to give $97,200 per year to a separate DNC or RNC account solely for defraying expenses related to running a presidential convention. That's up nearly three times the current limit of $32,400 per calendar year. Each major party has three of these. The Democrats have the Democratic National Committee (the umbrella group), the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (for Senate campaigns) and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (for House campaigns). The Republican equivalents are the Republican National Committee, the National Republican Senatorial Committee, and the National Republican Congressional Committee.

The bill would also allow ALL six committees to raise up $97,200 per year into a separate building fund that could be tapped to pay for construction, renovation or repaying loans. The six groups could each raise another $97,200 per year into another fund that could be used to prepare for election recounts and challenges "and other legal proceedings."

Add all of that up, and one donor theoretically could give a total of $777,600 in one year and $1,555,200 over two years to all of one party's national accounts, according to Common Cause. That number will be a little higher in the 2015-2016 after the donation limits are indexed for inflation. It's unclear how many (if any) wealthy donors will approach the limits; it's a very select group of people who give seven figures every election cycle.

Though they cannot accept unlimited funds from individual donors, the national parties have groused about campaign money as outside groups like super-PACs and 501(c) nonprofits accept funds in unlimited amounts to influence elections. The 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign finance law banned the national parties from raising and spending so-called "soft money," the unlimited and largely unregulated funds that they used to air issue ads on television.

Check out the details of the new deal for yourself, if you dare. The campaign finance language in the omnibus starts on page 1,534, tucked in a section innocuously titled, "Division N - Other Matters." Bills aren't written in plain English, so you'll need to consult the relevant sections of the federal code to which the bill refers.

Money we can believe in.

[Doc]

Congress Passes Deal to Drastically Raise Political Donation Limits

If money is the life blood of politics, things in Washington are about to get livelier. Thanks to a provision in the new spending bill, an individual donor will soon be able to make political donations of $1.5 million over a two-year period.

The deal to increase the donation limit is tucked into the omnibus spending bill and will allow individual donors to give $97,200 per year to a separate DNC or RNC account solely for defraying expenses related to running a presidential convention. That's up nearly three times the current limit of $32,400 per calendar year. Each major party has three of these. The Democrats have the Democratic National Committee (the umbrella group), the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (for Senate campaigns) and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (for House campaigns). The Republican equivalents are the Republican National Committee, the National Republican Senatorial Committee, and the National Republican Congressional Committee.

The bill would also allow ALL six committees to raise up $97,200 per year into a separate building fund that could be tapped to pay for construction, renovation or repaying loans. The six groups could each raise another $97,200 per year into another fund that could be used to prepare for election recounts and challenges "and other legal proceedings."

Add all of that up, and one donor theoretically could give a total of $777,600 in one year and $1,555,200 over two years to all of one party's national accounts, according to Common Cause. That number will be a little higher in the 2015-2016 after the donation limits are indexed for inflation. It's unclear how many (if any) wealthy donors will approach the limits; it's a very select group of people who give seven figures every election cycle.

Though they cannot accept unlimited funds from individual donors, the national parties have groused about campaign money as outside groups like super-PACs and 501(c) nonprofits accept funds in unlimited amounts to influence elections. The 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign finance law banned the national parties from raising and spending so-called "soft money," the unlimited and largely unregulated funds that they used to air issue ads on television.

Check out the details of the new deal for yourself, if you dare. The campaign finance language in the omnibus starts on page 1,534, tucked in a section innocuously titled, "Division N - Other Matters." Bills aren't written in plain English, so you'll need to consult the relevant sections of the federal code to which the bill refers.

Money we can believe in.

Republican or Democratic Money?

[Nonc Hilaire]

Congress Passes Deal to Drastically Raise Political Donation Limits

If money is the life blood of politics, things in Washington are about to get livelier. Thanks to a provision in the new spending bill, an individual donor will soon be able to make political donations of $1.5 million over a two-year period.

The deal to increase the donation limit is tucked into the omnibus spending bill and will allow individual donors to give $97,200 per year to a separate DNC or RNC account solely for defraying expenses related to running a presidential convention. That's up nearly three times the current limit of $32,400 per calendar year. Each major party has three of these. The Democrats have the Democratic National Committee (the umbrella group), the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (for Senate campaigns) and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (for House campaigns). The Republican equivalents are the Republican National Committee, the National Republican Senatorial Committee, and the National Republican Congressional Committee.

The bill would also allow ALL six committees to raise up $97,200 per year into a separate building fund that could be tapped to pay for construction, renovation or repaying loans. The six groups could each raise another $97,200 per year into another fund that could be used to prepare for election recounts and challenges "and other legal proceedings."

Add all of that up, and one donor theoretically could give a total of $777,600 in one year and $1,555,200 over two years to all of one party's national accounts, according to Common Cause. That number will be a little higher in the 2015-2016 after the donation limits are indexed for inflation. It's unclear how many (if any) wealthy donors will approach the limits; it's a very select group of people who give seven figures every election cycle.

Though they cannot accept unlimited funds from individual donors, the national parties have groused about campaign money as outside groups like super-PACs and 501(c) nonprofits accept funds in unlimited amounts to influence elections. The 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign finance law banned the national parties from raising and spending so-called "soft money," the unlimited and largely unregulated funds that they used to air issue ads on television.

Check out the details of the new deal for yourself, if you dare. The campaign finance language in the omnibus starts on page 1,534, tucked in a section innocuously titled, "Division N - Other Matters." Bills aren't written in plain English, so you'll need to consult the relevant sections of the federal code
to which the bill refers.

Money we can believe in.

Republican or Democratic Money?

It's all dog food, Doc. Purina or Science Diet; doesn't matter. Congress is fed the money and we pick up the poop.

[Doc]

Congress Passes Deal to Drastically Raise Political Donation Limits

If money is the life blood of politics, things in Washington are about to get livelier. Thanks to a provision in the new spending bill, an individual donor will soon be able to make political donations of $1.5 million over a two-year period.

The deal to increase the donation limit is tucked into the omnibus spending bill and will allow individual donors to give $97,200 per year to a separate DNC or RNC account solely for defraying expenses related to running a presidential convention. That's up nearly three times the current limit of $32,400 per calendar year. Each major party has three of these. The Democrats have the Democratic National Committee (the umbrella group), the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (for Senate campaigns) and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (for House campaigns). The Republican equivalents are the Republican National Committee, the National Republican Senatorial Committee, and the National Republican Congressional Committee.

The bill would also allow ALL six committees to raise up $97,200 per year into a separate building fund that could be tapped to pay for construction, renovation or repaying loans. The six groups could each raise another $97,200 per year into another fund that could be used to prepare for election recounts and challenges "and other legal proceedings."

Add all of that up, and one donor theoretically could give a total of $777,600 in one year and $1,555,200 over two years to all of one party's national accounts, according to Common Cause. That number will be a little higher in the 2015-2016 after the donation limits are indexed for inflation. It's unclear how many (if any) wealthy donors will approach the limits; it's a very select group of people who give seven figures every election cycle.

Though they cannot accept unlimited funds from individual donors, the national parties have groused about campaign money as outside groups like super-PACs and 501(c) nonprofits accept funds in unlimited amounts to influence elections. The 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign finance law banned the national parties from raising and spending so-called "soft money," the unlimited and largely unregulated funds that they used to air issue ads on television.

Check out the details of the new deal for yourself, if you dare. The campaign finance language in the omnibus starts on page 1,534, tucked in a section innocuously titled, "Division N - Other Matters." Bills aren't written in plain English, so you'll need to consult the relevant sections of the federal code
to which the bill refers.

Money we can believe in.

Republican or Democratic Money?

It's all dog food, Doc. Purina or Science Diet; doesn't matter. Congress is fed the money and we pick up the poop.

There is a very easy way to stop it. Just banned campaign money from crossing state lines. And/or repeal the 16th amendment. Either way the government trough will shrink dramatically

[YMix]

Texas Republican announces challenge to Boehner for Speaker in new Congress

Rep. Louis Gohmert (R-Texas) said Sunday that he will challenge John Boehner (R-Ohio) as Speaker in the new Congress.

“I’m putting my name out there today to be another candidate for Speaker,” Gohmert said on "Fox and Friends."

Gohmert said that after “years of broken promises, it’s time for a change.”

Rep. Ted Yoho (R-Fla.) on Saturday announced that he would not support Boehner for Speaker.

"This is not a personal attack against Mr. Boehner, however, the people desire and deserve a choice," Yoho said in a Facebook post. "In November, they resoundingly rejected the status quo."

“Eventually, the goal is second, third, fourth round, we have enough people that say ‘you know what, it really is time for a change,' ” Gohmert said Sunday. “'You deceived us when you went to Obama and Pelosi to get your votes for the cromnibus. You said you’d fight amnesty tooth an nail. You didn’t, you funded it.' ”

Gohmert said, if elected, he would ”fight amnesty tooth and nail. We’ll use the powers of the purse. We’ll have better oversight. We’ll fight to defund ObamaCare.”

“In 2010, Boehner and other leaders said if you put us in the majority, we will have time to read the bills,” Gohmert said. “That hasn’t happened. We saw that with the cromnibus, again.”

“We’ll get back to appropriating and we will go through regular committee process, so every representative from both parties will have a chance to participate in the process and not have a dictator running things,” he added.

"With a growing Republican majority in the House and a historically high number of liberty-voting fiscal conservatives within it, there is an urgent need replace Speaker Boehner with fresh, bold leadership that better represents the views of the whole caucus," FreedomWorks President Matt Kibbe said in a statement on Sunday.

“Speaker Boehner has kicked fiscal conservatives off committee positions for voting against his wishes, caved on numerous massive spending bills at the eleventh hour, and abused the legislative process to stomp out opposition by holding surprise votes and giving members little time to actually read the bills before they vote," Kibbe added.

The conservative group will urge activists to contact their representatives ahead of Tuesday’s vote.

Incoming Rep. Barbara Comstock (R-Va.) said Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union” that she would vote for Boehner.

“We voted in our conference in November, and … it was near unanimous. I think there was one weak voice that didn't say, that may have said ‘nay.’ There hasn't been a campaign or any phone calls that anyone has received, so I expect that will move forward very smoothly.”

Years of broken promises...

[YMix]

John Boehner survives House rebellion in US Congress

Well, I guess we can expect more years of broken promises and deception.

[manolo]

John Boehner survives House rebellion in US Congress

Well, I guess we can expect more years of broken promises and deception.

YMix,

Thank God for gridlock.

Alex.

[Heracleum Persicum]

.


Watch Obama’s response to mocking GOP applause


wVNC6dAeeyA


.

[monster_gardener]

.


Watch Obama’s response to mocking GOP applause


wVNC6dAeeyA


.

Thank you Very Much for your post, Azari,

Remembering that when Obama was elected, he told opponents that "Elections have consequences".......

But when by his own words*, Obama and his policies were on the ballot in 2014..... When Obama claimed to be representing those who didn't vote...

Arrogant Liar.....


*Something that Democrats on the ballots were quite dismayed to hear Obama claim.....