Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
LOLZ, both the Federalist and Jeffersonian camps were refusing to pay their fair share under British rule.
The DNC is nearly broke
- Thread starter StormX
- Start date
LOLZ, both the Federalist and Jeffersonian camps were refusing to pay their fair share under British rule.
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
Because they were profaning the Temple, a house of God, with their commercial interests.
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
oh, like the Democrats are doing with the government........
StormX
Banned
Maybe Obama will bail them out.
LOL
Just a matter of time. But in the meantime, Desh and the rest of the libtards should be writing big donation checks to keep their party in cash, so they can continue to buy those voters.
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
An inconvenient truth .. Obama has raked in more corporate cash than any politician in American history.
That's the truth.
evince
Truthmatters
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_donations#Political_donations
Contrary to political discourse and media attention, plutocratic funding and interested money are no longer a great danger in most established democracies. Due to political action committee (PAC) money and independent expenditures by Super PACs the U.S. may be the most important exception to that rule. Australia seems to come rather close.[6] The case of Japan seems to be unsettled still. Neither dominate corporate donors political funding as they used to do until the 1970s, nor has this source of political money been replaced by other sources or been limited by reform legislation. Japanese parties are heavily supported by public subsidies, campaign spending is relatively moderate. However, individual MPs still incur considerable expenses for "services" (presents) to their constituents.[7]
In Canada and France corporate contributions to political parties and candidates have been banned by law. In other established democracies of western Europe contributions from the business community ("corporate donations") have declined without such drastic measures. Germany, Sweden, and the United Kingdom can be named as the most outstanding examples. Public disincentives to discourage the flow of interested money into party coffers (disclosure of donor's identity, publication of political donations in annual reports by recipient parties and/ or by contributing publicly listed corporations, the need for shareholders' approval and occasionally the loss of previous tax benefits) reinforce the general trend. However, there are still relevant cases of political graft, among them the abuse of public resources for partisan purposes and the extortion of private businesses by politicians in need of cash.
Contrary to political discourse and media attention, plutocratic funding and interested money are no longer a great danger in most established democracies. Due to political action committee (PAC) money and independent expenditures by Super PACs the U.S. may be the most important exception to that rule. Australia seems to come rather close.[6] The case of Japan seems to be unsettled still. Neither dominate corporate donors political funding as they used to do until the 1970s, nor has this source of political money been replaced by other sources or been limited by reform legislation. Japanese parties are heavily supported by public subsidies, campaign spending is relatively moderate. However, individual MPs still incur considerable expenses for "services" (presents) to their constituents.[7]
In Canada and France corporate contributions to political parties and candidates have been banned by law. In other established democracies of western Europe contributions from the business community ("corporate donations") have declined without such drastic measures. Germany, Sweden, and the United Kingdom can be named as the most outstanding examples. Public disincentives to discourage the flow of interested money into party coffers (disclosure of donor's identity, publication of political donations in annual reports by recipient parties and/ or by contributing publicly listed corporations, the need for shareholders' approval and occasionally the loss of previous tax benefits) reinforce the general trend. However, there are still relevant cases of political graft, among them the abuse of public resources for partisan purposes and the extortion of private businesses by politicians in need of cash.