Some Super PAC Donors Have Corporate Bribery Issues

There is a reason this site has changed names to include Republicans because now it is both parties trying to buy the Presidency for their own purposes so they can continue to get even wealthier and regulations go the way of the dinosaur which makes them more money.  Looks like in this election the big money is on Romney to give them more breaks and to allow them to get even wealthier while paying low taxes and shipping jobs overseas.

Watchdogs fear that a future administration, brought to power by these donors, could drop investigations, appoint or hire opponents of FCPA enforcement at the Justice Department and the SEC, or otherwise shift the focus away from FCPA.

"Administrations can set priorities," said Bill Allison, the Sunlight Foundation's editorial director. "They can lower the priority of going after Foreign Corrupt Practices prosecutions. They can spend less on investigations, less on oversight. And they can just send the message that our priorities are this, this and this, and Foreign Corrupt Practices [enforcement] isn't one of them." 

Not shocked to see this article because the rumors have been out there for some time on some of these investigations which are aimed at huge donors of both parties.  Adelson and the Koch Brothers can scream witch hunt all they want but we heard the same from Rupert Murdoch when the story in London broke about News Corp.  First of all agencies don't waste money tracking down unfounded rumors.  IOTW where there is smoke, there is usually fire. 

In this instance the Koch Brothers fired a group of employees overseas which I guess they thought would make the issue of bribes go away.  Since they openly admit they will spent $100,000,000 to put Romney in office you have to wonder how much that has to do with the charges pending against them.  Will Romney reward his big donors with getting these investigations stopped and make any charges disappear just like Obama made sure his donors made out like bandits with the stimulus?  Unfortunately, believe that is exactly what will happen. 

Was disgusted when George Soros tried to buy the election in 2004 by defeating President Bush and electing John Kerry.  He got his President in 2008 with Obama but he didn't get everything he wanted so he is not on board this time.  Like spoiled brats who don't get their way so the take the ball and go home.

Koch Brothers don't believe in unions or the minimum wage.  We are not talking public service unions but regular unions.  What would manufacturing look like without a minimum wage and unions.  We would be back to the days where workers were treated like slaves to do the bidding of the owners.  I am certainly not a big union supporter but the Koch Brothers have gone way too far in what they want for America taking us back in time to where the middle class had a hard time making ends meet while owners of businesses were making huge profits. 

It is obvious the Koch Brothers don't value the middle class as evidenced by their comments and using a multi-millionaire as their candidate to buy this election.  They believe their millions are the answer to everything.  Romney is not a strong individual and would be in their hip pocket to do their bidding.  He would be so afraid that they would turn on him, he would do what they said.  Anyone who flip flops all the time is subject to being a puppet of the wealthy donors. 

We have seen it with the first two years of Obama when he was beholding to big donors.  He decides to step outside the box and go after Wall Street.  What happens?  The the big donors from Wall Street dump Obama and go to their next pigeon Mitt Romney.  The group that caused this financial disaster hasn't made enough money so now they want one of their own, Mitt Romney, to make sure they continue to get even more wealthy.  He is one of them -- no additional teachers, police, fire, and cut government workers along with regulations but no cuts to programs that favor the wealthy.  Those programs are off limits like DoD contracts where billions are made.

Wish I could say it was only the Presidency that was For Sale but it is Congress as well as big donor groups like the Koch Brothers and Crossroads spend millions on ads for Senate seats.  They spin and sometimes lie in the ads to make their candidates look better.  Many of the large donors hide behind groups like Crossroads that do not have to disclose donors. 

It is time for the American people to rise up and demand transparency in all elections -- make everyoine play by the same rules.  It is obvious that donors need rules because after Citizens United the ordinary person has little say in this election except with our vote.  Big donors are keeping the GOP and Romney afloat because of the 600,000 donors to all the GOP campaigns out of those who gave less than $200 only 13% have given to Romney.   Romney has the big donors all lined up to help him buy the Presidency but the 87% of us who gave to other candidates all have votes which far out number his large donor base. 

Republican small donors are speaking with their checkbooks against Romney so now it is time to speak out with our voices against a man who has bought this primary election with irregularities in state after state along with State Conventions.  When you cheat to win and then act like a juvenile with your campaign having your bus driving around an Obama speech site honking, that person is not ready for prime time and certainly not ready for President. 

Now we learn that big donors to Super PACs have bribery issues.  Who would have thought they were not honest?  (sarcasm)

Paul Blumenthal
paulblumenthal@huffingtonpost.com
Sheldon Adelson, Other Super PAC Donors Have Corporate Bribery Issues

Posted: 06/18/2012 3:38 pm Updated: 06/18/2012 4:52 pm

WASHINGTON -- A federal law to prevent U.S. companies from paying bribes to business overseas recently came to the forefront when The New York Times reported that Walmart officials had covered up alleged bribes made by company representatives in Mexico. The retail giant faces federal investigation for violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). Wealthy individuals connected with Walmart have meanwhile taken advantage of new campaign finance rules that allow for unlimited contributions -- and raise fears of unlimited influence over a future administration.

Jim and Alice Walton, children of the founder of Walmart, have contributed $200,000 each to Restore Our Future, the super PAC supporting Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney's campaign. Jim Walton sits on the board of Walmart, and both owe their place near the top of the Forbes list of the 400 richest Americans to their stake in the company.

The Waltons are not alone among super PAC donors with businesses facing FCPA investigation. At least three other major contributors currently have FCPA worries, and others may be looming. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, another big-money campaign spender, continues its lobbying to loosen enforcement of the anti-corruption law.
Campaign finance watchdogs warn that limitless contributions to super PACs today could influence future priorities at the Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission, where FCPA investigations originate.

"You've got a whole business community that wants to exercise whatever it takes to maximize their profits," said Craig Holman, Public Citizen's government affairs director. "These are the types of people who want to weaken oversight that would govern fair business practices."

The most notable of the super PAC donors with FCPA concerns is Sheldon Adelson, international casino magnate and eighth richest person in the United States.

Adelson and his family have already contributed $21.5 million to a super PAC that supported Newt Gingrich's presidential bid, $10 million to the pro-Romney super PAC and $5 million to a super PAC with close ties to House Republican leadership. A recent Huffington Post report found that he had given or promised to give $71 million to both super PACs and nonprofits spending money in the 2012 election.

The billionaire's business, Las Vegas Sands Inc., faces three FCPA investigations into casino operations in Macau, China.

Those investigations center on allegations made by the former Sands China chief executive officer, Steve Jacobs, that payments were made by company representatives in Macau to government officials and deals cut with members of the Chinese mafia known as the Triads.

(snip)

Oil tycoons Charles and David Koch, who have promised to spend no less than $100 million to defeat President Barack Obama and place Romney in the White House, have similar legal concerns. Their company, Koch Industries, is under investigation for potential FCPA violations. The company has already fired a host of employees from the European subsidiary involved in the alleged payments to officials in Africa, India and the Middle East.

The computing company Hewlett-Packard is under investigation for alleged payments made by former employees to help a German subsidiary expand into Russia. CEO Meg Whitman and her husband combined to give $200,000 to the pro-Romney super PAC.

Romney supporters are not the only big-money donors with FCPA troubles. While it is not a full-blown investigation, the SEC has opened an inquiry into whether Hollywood studios could be involved in making payments to gain access to the lucrative Chinese movie market, according to CNN Money. One of those studios is DreamWorks, whose CEO Jeffrey Katzenberg has contributed $2 million to Priorities USA Action, the super PAC backing President Barack Obama's reelection, and has raised at least $500,000 for the president's campaign committee.
(snip)

Excerpt:  Read More at Huffington Post and view more of the large donors trying to buy this election

Have House Republicans Tossed Transparency Under the Bus?

Looks like there is little transparency in the Republican Party today -- it left with this election when the Wall Street and wealthy donors took over the Republican Party for their own special interests with Romney and his millions heading the ticket.  Guess they like paying less than 15% taxes, no problem if they want to keep millions offshore, donate to a Super PACs and have your identity hidden, and now this.

No public disclosure who is behind these campaign ads on TV thanks to Republicans in the House is a total lack of transparency.  The dumbest comment I saw at The Hill said the Obama thugs will target big donors to Republicans.  The demonization of Obama and his supporters is continuing with the Romney paid hacks posting all over the net.

Don't agree with Obama's agenda or his liberal views but he has as much right to them as I do to mine which are more conservative.  This idea we have to all think alike is ludicrous.  That is what I am seeing out of Romney supporters today on-line and in my community.  If you haven't signed on to Romney you are attacked and called names like RINO -- Republican in Name Only and a lot worse in some cases.  I have been a Republican and a conservative a lot longer than Mitt Romney who was an independent from 1976 until 1994 when he decided it was easier to take on Kennedy in the general election then the primary. I voted Republican for Richard Nixon in 1968 my first time to vote for President and have voted for a Republican every time since then for President.  This will be my first time to vote for someone other than a Republican.  Although if you stop to think about it, Former NM Republican Governor Gary Johnson who is running as a Libertarian has been a Republican longer then Romney as well but the RNC didn't think he was worthy of being in debates.  Might damage the Romney brand if he, Perry, and Huntsman all Governors with conservative records were on stage at the same time with the flip flopper?

Romney has his little minions in the House doing his bidding now like he has the RNC.  The lack of transparency and taking full advantage of the Citizens United ruling which did not say you could hide donors names has become the way of life for Romney and his pals at Wall/K Streets.  These are the people who tanked our economy that are best buds with Romney now after helping give us Obama in 2008 when they tanked McCain.  Yet Republicans yell foul that Obama is collecting donations from Hollywood and the Gay Community.  Guess in the Romney Republican Party no Democrat is allowed to raise money -- only Romney Republicans.

Why are Republicans trying to hide who is paying for the ads on the TV?  I say we have a right to full disclosure on who is behind every ad that appears on my TV, and I should not have to visit my local station to find that information.  Also have a right to full disclosure for everyone who gives even one penny to a candidate or Super PAC.  We also have a right to know when a candidates loans himself money or when he takes contributions that are not allowed to show that he has a better fundraising month even if he has to return them.

Now we have a Republican House subcommittee who doesn't believe in transparency with lame excuses?  What has happened to the Republican Party as it has morphed into the Romney Republican Party?

This article from The Hill has the details of what is happening in the House and paints a picture of Republican members of the House being in the hip pocket of special interest.  Are they trying to catch up with their Democrat counterparts in one election?

House Republicans move to block FCC’s political ad rule
By Erik Wasson and Brendan Sasso - 06/06/12 12:47 PM ET  

House appropriators voted Wednesday along party lines to block a Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulation that would require television stations to disclose political ad buyers online. 

Republicans included a provision to spike the FCC rule in the 2013 Financial Services spending bill that passed out of subcommittee Wednesday. GOP appropriators voted down an attempt from Democrats to remove it from the bill. 

Democrats accused Republicans on the House Appropriations Financial Services subcommittee of acting to keep the names and spending of outside “fat cats” secret in an attempt to hide their influence on elections.

It's obvious what this is all about and it is embarrassing, frankly,” said Rep. Norm Dicks (D-Wash.), the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee. “It looks like you are trying to cover up the fact that these fat cats are coming into these elections and they don’t want their names known.” 

The FCC in April voted to require major network affiliates in the top 50 TV markets to post information about their political ads online. The rule would apply to all broadcast stations after the first two years.

The files about political ad purchases are currently available to anyone who travels to the television stations to view physical copies of the documents. The new rule requires the information to be posted online as well. 

Rep. José Serrano (D-N.Y.) offered an amendment to strip out the language blocking the ad rule. He said the FCC decision is important because it brings more transparency to spending on issue ads, and for ads in state and local races that is not easy to track under Federal Election Commission requirements. 

Serrano’s amendment was defeated in a party-line vote of 4 to 8. 

Republicans offered a variety of reasons for imposing the restrictions on the FCC.
Subcommittee Chairwoman Jo Ann Emerson (R-Mo.) said that the requirement was burdensome to local television stations. She cited a station manager who told her he would have to hire a new staff member to post the information to the Internet. 

Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers (R-Ky.) said it was an instance of the federal government interfering with the private sector. 

“Television station fiscal matters are private and should be kept private,” he said. 

He also said he does not want his political opponent knowing his reelection strategy. 

Emerson and Democrats, however, said campaign media buyers are already given access to the cost and sponsors of opponent ads. 

Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-Fla.) said that the information was already available, that putting it online did not change things, and that Democratic regulations were “destroying” the economy.
The political ad rule has been strongly opposed by the broadcasting industry. 

The National Association of Broadcasters has sued the FCC over the rule, arguing it is “arbitrary and capricious.” The group argues it is unfair to impose requirements on broadcast television that don't apply to competitors in cable and satellite. 

But Free Press, a public advocacy group that supports the FCC's rule, accused House lawmakers of catering to the broadcasting industry at the expense of political transparency. 

"Some members of Congress, working at the behest of the broadcast industry, want to keep the public in the dark," said Corie Wright, senior policy counsel of the Free Press Action Fund, in a statement. 

The Financial Services bill heads now to the full House Appropriations panel and then to the floor. It is based on a lower overall budget allocation than a similar bill in the Senate, and will not become law without extensive negotiation.

While looking for details on this bill on line, I was flipping through channels on my TV looking for something to watch and found Rachel Maddow, MSNBC, was covering this item.  Never watch her, but the discussion was the topic I was researching.  Decided to listen and that is when I discovered there is a group of college students visiting television stations to get the information along with a group dedicated to full disclosure on campaign ads from both sides putting details on-line from the college students.  This is grassroots as its finest.

June 7, 2012 

Justin Elliot, reporter for ProPublica, talks with Rachel Maddow about ProPublica's crowdsourcing project to scan information about local TV station political ad buys to publish on the internet (while a new FCC rule requiring stations do it themselves languishes due to Republican opposition in Congress). 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=aCuWKtFfGlI  

Full disclosure of every penny spent in political campaigns should be required along with every penny that is taken in by a candidate and the Super PACs, 527's, or any other group doing advertising or supporting a candidate or issue in any way.  Anything less is not transparent and is threatening our elections.

All this money in this campaign is obscene as Romney tries to buy the election.  He is absolutely for sale because to become an advisor to him, just give almost a million dollars.

Another article I found while looking for the info on college students has to do with the billionaire oilman Harold Hamm from Oklahoma who gave almost $1M to Romney's Super PAC after becoming head of his Energy advisors.  BTW Romney has not released any more names for energy advisors -- guess other oil/gas people didn't agree to donate enough money.  Excerpt from the article:

Michael Isikoff recently reported, there's a little more to the connection between the two wealthy conservatives.

Just one month after he was named Mitt Romney's top energy adviser, Oklahoma billionaire Harold Hamm contributed $985,000 to the top pro-Romney Super PAC -- a donation that was the second largest the group collected in April, according to a new campaign disclosure filing today.

The cash infusion from Hamm, the chairman and CEO of Continental Resources -- a firm that touts itself as "America's Oil Champion" -- is a new example of how big Super PAC donors can make their policy views heard by the campaigns they are supporting.

Just a few months ago, the Republican nominee announced that Hamm would serve as the chairman of the Romney campaign's "Energy Policy Advisory Group," putting Hamm in a position to shape a new "pro-jobs, pro-market, pro-American" energy agenda, which Romney would presumably pursue if elected. 

And wouldn't you know it, soon after Romney gave Hamm the influential post, the oilman contributed nearly $1 million to Romney's super-PAC, on top of the money he'd already contributed to the Romney campaign itself.

Know over the years Republicans have done our fair share of gaming the system, but nothing compared to this Romney group who IMHO is most like Richard Nixon and his corrupt people he surrounded himself with who believed in win at any cost.  Ethics and integrity did not matter which we learned in his second term.  I for one don't want to have to learn how unethical and dishonest the Romney camp is after he is elected so he will never get my vote!

Super PACs Are Super-Fly! ProPublica Rocks an Explanation of Unrestricted Cash with Video

Maybe now some people will understand what a Super PAC is and what they can do.  The lines have been so blurred intentionally that most people just know how annoying all these negative ads have become from the Super PACs.  The idea that candidates try to make voters believe they don't have anything to do with the negative advertising from the Super PACs is ludicrous.  This video is a better explanation of what is happening then what we have been reading:

Super PACs Are Super-Fly! ProPublica Rocks an Explanation of Unrestricted Cash
By Bruce Watson

Posted 5:05PM 03/19/12

Over the past few months, newspapers, magazines and the Internet have been crammed with stories about super PACs. On the bright side, an ever-larger portion of the voting public has become aware of that the political system has a big, fat loophole that allows unlimited, almost-unrestricted campaign funding. In fact, notable PAC superstars like Sheldon Adelson, Foster Friess and Frank L. VanderSloot have become, if not household names, at least well-known for their contributions to the political process. 

Unfortunately, despite the best efforts of Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert -- not to mention much of the news media -- there still seems to be some widespread confusion about how exactly super PACs work, and how they came into being. Recently, investigative journalism website ProPublica and educational music company Explainer Music took the Schoolhouse Rock tack, creating "Oh, Super PACs," a 1970s Super Fly-style video that explains how super PACs are funded. Take a listen:

Way to go McCain/Feingold -- citizens who vote are limited in their donations to a candidate but a corporation/union can now donate unlimited amounts that has subjected us to all the negative advertising. Have seen negative ads before but NOTHING compared to the blitz of millions of dollars of them in primary states for Romney to take out everyone else. No wonder it is hard to get people to run now but believe it is going to get harder if something is not done to bring a halt to these attack PACS. This practice of anonymity of some donors through giving to a 501(c) non-profit or setting up a phony company to give and then shut it down needs to stop if individuals are restricted in what they can give.

Stop the pretense there is no coordination between Super PACs and the candidate because a Super PAC would not go against the wishes of the candidate. Supreme Court should have thrown out all of Campaign Finance Reform when they threw out this part that now allows unlimited donations to Super PACs. Make it so anyone can give unlimited to a candidate but every last dime a candidate receives has to be made public when they file versus today when they only have to report the information of the person giving if they give over the limit in a certain time period. If they don't have the information on who gave, the money goes to charity. Then we will know who is giving across the board.

Alabama and Mississippi Vote Today; Celebrate Negative Ads Demise Tomorrow

Having lived through the barrage of negative ads from Restore our Future, Romney's Super PAC, I feel for the people of AL and MS.  You cannot turn on your radio or TV without one of their negative ads which are some of the most disgusting ads I have ever seen or heard.  Over and over again to the point where you say you will never vote for Romney.

Whoever came up with the idea of Super PACs needs to go the way of the dinosaur.  They have supported campaigns which should have died.  Without the Super PACs would the Republican Party have better candidates?  Something to ponder because most Republicans I know think this primary has been a debacle.

Only other time I have heard so many negative ads here was in 2004 when the Democrat ran such ads against Dr. Coburn for Senate.  More and more the Romney campaign reminds me of Democrats and their 'scorched earth' but then the Romney Super PAC did hire the person responsible for the Willie Horton ad used against Dukakis by Bush 41.

Tomorrow the good people of AL and MS can celebrate the fact that Presidential primary ads are going to disappear off their airwaves.

How Romney can think this brings him supporters is beyond me.  His 'ya'll' along with his 'grits' comments which I found offensive out of the New England liberal shows how far he will go to pander for votes.  A lot of people in New England have great disdain for the south and Middle America not to mention southern California.  Never saw such arrogance, rudeness, and disdain for the rest of the Country as I did when my husband was on an Industry assignment for the Air Force in Massachusetts.

This Republican primary has been about the wealthy donors determining who stays in the race and who has to exit the stage.  It is no way to run a primary.  We have four years to get it right after this because no way should the Republican Party be stuck with a candidate because he and his Super PAC run the most negative ads to drive down the numbers of other candidates.  What a poor excuse for a primary we are witnessing and it is not getting over anytime soon.

We will have a brokered convention?  Who knows when the RNC Chair has not demanded that FL proportion their delegates like the rules require!

Stay tuned for more of this nonsense in the days ahead -- condolences to the states ahead that get to endure all these ads.  My advice turn off all broadcast media as you are going to want to throw your radios and TVs out the window with all the negative ads.

Super-PACs Dominate Republican Ads Aired in Alabama, Mississippi
Monday, 12 Mar 2012 06:29 PM 

Television advertisements in Alabama and Mississippi aiding Republican presidential contenders have been paid for almost exclusively by independent political action committees rather than the candidates’ campaigns. 

So-called Super-PACs supplied 91 percent of the 5,592 campaign ads that aired on broadcast television stations in the two states in the past 30 days, according to data from New York- based Kantar Media’s CMAG, which tracks advertising. 

(snip) 

Super-PACs are dominating the spending on television because they can collect unlimited contributions and replenish their treasuries more easily than candidate committees, which are limited to raising $2,500 per donor for the primaries. 

Super-PACs are “providing the campaign advertising that the candidates can’t afford,” Anthony Corrado, a political scientist at Colby College in Waterville, Maine, said in a podcast March 9 on the website of the Brookings Institution, a research center in Washington. 

Pro-Romney Group 

Restore Our Future, a super-PAC backing Romney, aired ads 2,098 times in Alabama, compared with 279 spots from Romney’s campaign, according to CMAG. 

Winning Our Future, which supports Gingrich, aired ads 411 times in Alabama, compared with 131 ads by Gingrich’s campaign. Santorum’s campaign hasn’t aired broadcast ads in Alabama; the Red White and Blue Fund that backs him aired ads 282 times. 

In Mississippi, Restore Our Future paid for 1,548 ads, compared with 454 for Winning Our Future and 300 for Red White and Blue Fund, CMAG data show. Gingrich, with 89 spots, is the only candidate who has aired broadcast ads in Mississippi. 

Restore Our Future aired 65 percent of all ads in Alabama and Mississippi, CMAG data show. 

The PAC had $16.3 million in leftover funds at the end of January, Federal Election Commission data show. 

(snip) 

Read more on Newsmax.com: Super-PACs Dominate Republican Ads Aired in Alabama, Mississippi