No, you're a simpleton who can't do basic math. Paul paid some of his relatives about $50k a piece to work for his campaign. Like I said on another thread, they're really getting rich on that type of money.
I may be a simpleton who can't do basic math and EthanEdwards may care less what political staff did to earn their 50K that he calls �near poverty wages .�
But I know this�
When I send a dollar to any politician, I want to know how that dollar was spent. Right down to the last dime.
The problem seems to be unregulated PAC donations instead of campaign money.
�Schweizer said leadership PACs are like having a "second pocket." Schweizer said the "first pocket is highly regulated campaign funds"; he noted how former Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. went to jail because he violated the ways in which money from the "first pocket" could be spent.�
Nepotism may be legal in private business, but it has no place where public funds are involved.
That is a no-brainer. There are good and valid reasons why nepotism is illegal in Federal Civil Service.
Schweizer proves why it should be that way in all politics.
I should NOT have to read his book to find out that� �Rep. Grace Napolitano (D-CA) has bagged at least $294,245 since 1998 by loaning her congressional campaign money at interest rates up to 18%�a scheme that effectively funneled campaign contributor donations into her personal bank account.�
�Rep. Rob Andrews (D-NJ), for example, tapped his wife, a lawyer and an associate law dean at Rutgers School of Law-Camden, to be a PAC compliance officer for his leadership PAC. She approved the use of donor dollars to fly her, Rep. Andrews, and their two daughters to Edinburgh, Scotland for a wedding at a posh resort. Andrews�s leadership PAC paid $16,575 in airfare. His campaign committee picked up the rest of the tab, which was slightly under $14,000. Schweizer says Andrews�s leadership PAC even paid for the wedding gift, which was china from Bloomingdale�s. Andrews and his wife even merged a campaign event with their daughter�s graduation party, allowing them to combine the costs of the two events, even though the PAC did not pick up the entire bill.�
I should NOT have to read his book to find out that�My politician used MY money for $108,000 family vacations at the Breakers resort in Palm Beach.
Nor golf outings tabs of $100,000 or $35,000 for NFL tickets and over $6000 in campaign funds to pay for a personal trainer.
Ron Paul PAC donators should have the right to know what his daughter, daughter's mother in-law, three grandchildren and a grandchild in-law did to earn their 50K.
The Fix is simple.
Dump the PACS.
Unlimited contributions for campaigns and total transparency for each and every dollar.
Us small donors have the right to know where our bucks are going.
And the right to know who the big fat cat donor contributor are, how much they spent to buy their favorite politician and how that politician used the big bucks.
Simple.
But what do I know? I�m just a simpleton who can't do basic math.
Ron Paul isn't rich but has become well-to-do by wise investments.
"Nepotism" is when you hire or otherwise place a family member in a position regardless of merit. It is a lot more difficult to say what actual Nepotism is when you are talking positions where there is a high value placed upon trust and confidentiality. As was already pointed out to you in not so many words, you might have some guy with a PhD apply to be your personal secretary and end up hiring your maiden aunt who never finished high school instead. The guy's better education might indeed come in handy even though a secretary generally doesn't need that much of it. However, such an emphasis is placed on trust in the position that it overrides and consideration of the guy's greater education, especially since he was sent up the river for fraud a few years previously. Or even if he wasn't in prison, he is simply an unknown quantity in an area where nearly the whole responsibility rests.
I don't expect you to act like you understand this since the whole thing derives from your desire to make your heroine look good by making some of her "rivals" look bad, but there it is anyway.
I don't expect you to act like you understand this since what I am talking about is complete accountability of public funds.
You have never stated why you are against my simple solutions listed above.
Ron Paul PAC donators should have the right to know what his daughter, daughter's mother in-law, three grandchildren and a grandchild in-law did to earn their 50K. (remember there are a lot of other politicians caught with their hand in the cookie jar, besides Paul in the book)
The Fix is simple. Dump the PACS.
Unlimited contributions for campaigns and total transparency for each and every dollar.
Us small donors have the right to know where our bucks are going. And the right to know who the big fat cat donor contributor are, how much they spent to buy their favorite politician and how that politician used the big bucks.
Simple.
That is how all politicians, not just Paul can avoid stories like this one:
Content on the Daily Paul is the opinion of the original poster, not necessarily of the Daily Paul, its owner, moderators.
www.rawstory.com/.../ Ron Paul super PAC spent most of its money on non-campaign activities
By Stephen C. Webster Tuesday, December 4, 2012
The pro-Ron Paul group Revolution PAC spent 83 percent of its $1.2 million total fundraising haul on administrative costs and not on campaign activities, Bloomberg News revealed Tuesday. Bloomberg�s report noted that Revolution PAC director Gary Franchi paid himself and his companies roughly $153,000, including money for the PAC�s rent. The PAC is just one of many that devoted an unusually large percentage of its resources to administrative and salary costs. Bloomberg noted that the founder of the Newt Gingrich supporting PAC Winning Our Future did something similar, paying herself almost $240,000 in the months after Gingrich dropped out of the Republican presidential race. Overall, Federal Election Commission data provided to the paper found that all the super PACs combined spent over $86 million on administrative costs during the 2012 elections � roughly 16 percent of what they took in. To top it off, out of the 782 super PACs operating in the 2012 elections, 167 spent nothing at all on advertising or political advocacy, instead opting to use all their money for administrative or consulting costs. Super PACS, a creation of the Supreme Court�s Citizens United decision, are not limited in how much money they can take in, and FEC rules allow donors to keep their identities secret. Although President Barack Obama has called for a constitutional amendment to ban the practice, he also endorsed Priorities USA, a super PAC that supported his reelection efforts. The Sunlight Foundation said in September that super PAC spending was on track to account for about 78 percent of all political spending in 2012.
Leo of the Land of Dyr
NRA FOR LIFE
I MISS SARAH
“In Trump We Trust.” Right????
SOMEBODY please tell TRH that Netanyahu NEVER said "Once we squeeze all we can out of the United States, it can dry up and blow away."
so many comedy lines in this thread...people who cream over one politician who will never be elected again...poking fun at people who cream over another politician who will never be elected again...all while acting as if we might someday get a .gov that represents us...laffin
"What country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms." (Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, Dec. 20, 1787)
Exclusive�Palin: Congress Has America Caught Up in 'Endless Extortion Scheme' by Sarah Palin 21 Oct 2013� In a new book featured this Sunday on 60 Minutes titled Extortion: How Politicians Extract Your Money, Buy Votes, and Line Their Own Pockets, Peter Schweizer explains how Washington politicians use a set of mafia-style legislative tactics to extort people and industries into donating to them out of fear of political and legal reprisals. Schweizer interviewed former Chairman of Apache Corporation Ray Plank. Plank said campaign cash and lobbying contracts now function as �protection money� to keep lawmakers and regulators from going after you. �It�s what you expect from the mafia,� said Plank. �They basically come to you and say, �We are going to shove this bat up your ass and give you an enema. You better play ball.� We saw a great deal of it. It�s an insidious blight.�
There are left-wing progressives on Wall Street and in the high-tech world who bankrolled President Obama�s campaign because they love his radical agenda. But as Schweizer points out, many gave because they know they have to; if they don�t, Obama will come after them.......
Politicians' Extortion Racket by Peter Schweizer 22 Oct 2013, Editor's Note: Mr. Schweizer's book Extortion: How Politicians Extract Your Money, Buy Votes and Line Their Own Pockets is available in bookstores and at online retailers today from Houghton Mifflin.
We have long assumed that the infestation of special interest money in Washington is at the root of so much that ails our politics. But what if we�ve had it wrong? What if instead of being bribed by wealthy interests, politicians are engaged in a form of legal extortion designed to extract campaign contributions?
Consider this: of the thousands of bills introduced in Congress each year, only roughly 5 percent become law. Why do legislators bother proposing so many bills? What if many of those bills are written not to be passed but to pressure people into forking over cash? This is exactly what is happening. Politicians have developed a dizzying array of legislative tactics to bring in money.
Take the maneuver known inside the Beltway as the �tollbooth.� Here the speaker of the House or a powerful committee chairperson will create a procedural obstruction or postponement on the eve of an important vote. Campaign contributions are then implicitly solicited. If the tribute offered by those in favor of the bill�s passage is too small (or if the money from opponents is sufficiently high), the bill is delayed and does not proceed down the legislative highway.
House Speaker John A. Boehner appears to be a master of the tollbooth. In 2011, he collected a total of over $200,000 in donations from executives and companies in the days before holding votes on just three bills. He delayed scheduling a vote for months on the widely supported Wireless Tax Fairness Act, and after he finally announced a vote, 37 checks from wireless-industry executives totaling nearly $40,000 rolled in.
He also delayed votes on the Access to Capital for Job Creators Act and the Small Company Capital Formation Act, scoring $91,000 from investment banks and private equity firms, $32,450 from bank holding companies and $46,500 from self-described investors � all in the 48 hours between scheduling the vote and the vote�s actually being held on the House floor. Mr. Schweizer's op-ed originally appeared at The New York Times.
Leo of the Land of Dyr
NRA FOR LIFE
I MISS SARAH
“In Trump We Trust.” Right????
SOMEBODY please tell TRH that Netanyahu NEVER said "Once we squeeze all we can out of the United States, it can dry up and blow away."
