It's the super-pacs and other dark-money schemes that funnel tens and hundreds of millions of dollars to campaigns that are supposedly not coordinated with the candidates themselves.Not just "supposedly."Yeah, sure. This reminds me of a scene in a recent episode of the HBO series Boardwalk Empire. It's set during Prohibition. The gangster proposes to the U.S. secretary of the treasury who secretly owns a distillery to run it for him. The offer is accepted with the condition that they never talk to each other again.Had the Supreme not overturned McCain–Feingold, spending by Adelson and Soros would NOT have been affected. The McCain–Feingold Act does not regulate spending by individuals.The supreme court has made it easier for the likes of Adelson, Koch and Soros too, by allowing them to spend through corporations which hide the identity of the spenders. What may be legal can still be very embarrassing to a candidate if there is full disclosure. There are hundreds of millionaires who, unlike the characters above, still have some shame, or make contributions solely as political bribes, and would not contribute if their identity had to be disclosed.FWIW, I actually favor an amendment that would limit spending to qualified electors. By that I mean that only individuals could contribute to campaigns, and then only to campaigns in which they are permitted to vote. So no rich Californians donating to a Senate race in Massachusetts, and no wealthy Utah Mormons contributing money to fight gay marriage in California.I agree. That is what Public Citizen is trying to do, in one form or another.Elan
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. Market data provided by Interactive Data.
Company fundamental data provided by Morningstar. Earnings Estimates, Analyst Ra