Quote:
Originally Posted by baddog
The aren't either. What's the gripe?
|
it isn't fair. that's the gripe. like snake said, why can 100 people only give $230,000 to obama's campaign and these 100 give $10,000,000 to clintons (albeit indirectly, but if you don't see the connection here you're blissfully ignorant) it is about fairness and ethics. you seem to be lacking them since you can't wrap your head around this to see why it's not a good idea..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snake Doctor
I think the American people have the right to know who is paying for these ads. I'm sick of seeing ads on TV against something like a communications deregulation bill and it's paid for by "citizens for telephone truth"....when in fact it's paid for by AT&T or Verizon.
|
i strongly agree with this. we need more transparency. i would like to see this information listed publicly on a new government campaign finance website - full disclosure. i would also like to see earmarks public, and on the internet, so you can see who asked for money and what it's for. obama is pushing the latter
now if he'll support and work to achieve the former, that'd be great.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snake Doctor
Do you think someone out there will actually spend $10 million to get a candidate elected and not want something HUGE in return?
|
of course. no one would drop that type of money unless they have a political agenda or want favors returned.