Only 200K for a Private Dinner with Hillary...

https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/17287

This stuff is making me nauseated.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Well...at least one course should be palatable.

Originally posted by joe shmo
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/17287

This stuff is making me nauseated.

If you think that is a lot of money for Hillary supporters to pay, imagine how her daughter feels having to pay her mother to eat with her all those years.

Originally posted by joe shmo
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/17287

This stuff is making me nauseated.

Fortunately people can vote for politicians who want to ban bribery.

Unfortunately they don't.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Fortunately people can vote for politicians who want to ban bribery.

Unfortunately they don't.

I'm pretty sure bribing a public official is already illegal. I think what you mean is ban "campaign contributions"?

Originally posted by joe shmo
I'm pretty sure bribing a public official is already illegal. I think what you mean is ban "campaign contributions"?

bribery, yes

Originally posted by joe shmo
I'm pretty sure bribing a public official is already illegal. I think what you mean is ban "campaign contributions"?

Back in the good ole days, there were limits on how much an individual could give to parties and political campaigns. But the right wingers on the Supreme Court did away with such restrictions in McCutcheon v. FEC, a logical follow up to the infamous Citizens United decision.

So if you want to be "nauseated" by such practices, you can blame Scalia, Thomas, Alioto, Roberts and Kennedy for your upset tummy.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Back in the good ole days, there were limits on how much an individual could give to parties and political campaigns. But the right wingers on the Supreme Court did away with such restrictions in McCutcheon v. FEC, a logical follow up to the infamous Citizens United decision.

So if you want to be "nauseated" by such practices, you can blame Scalia, Thomas, Alioto, Roberts and Kennedy for your upset tummy.

Do you think that will ever be overturned? My guess is ALL politicians would love this ruling and would only part with it under threat of death.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Do you think that will ever be overturned? My guess is ALL politicians would love this ruling and would only part with it under threat of death.

The Democratic platform specifically calls for a Constitutional Amendment overturning Citizens United. https://www.demconvention.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Democratic-Party-Platform-7.21.16-no-lines.pdf at p. 25

Originally posted by no1marauder
Back in the good ole days, there were limits on how much an individual could give to parties and political campaigns. But the right wingers on the Supreme Court did away with such restrictions in McCutcheon v. FEC, a logical follow up to the infamous Citizens United decision.

So if you want to be "nauseated" by such practices, you can blame Scalia, Thomas, Alioto, Roberts and Kennedy for your upset tummy.

Right, Hillary says she wants to make Citizens United null and void but has not problem taking the money. 😵

Originally posted by sonhouse
Do you think that will ever be overturned? My guess is ALL politicians would love this ruling and would only part with it under threat of death.

The ruling gave Dims something to whine about after having pretty much everything go their way in terms of health care legislation and gay rights etc.

They desperately needed something to rally around, but will it be enough?

Originally posted by whodey
Right, Hillary says she wants to make Citizens United null and void but has not problem taking the money. 😵

She could voluntarily place herself at a disadvantage by not taking it I suppose, but why should she? It's not illegal.

Originally posted by no1marauder
She could voluntarily place herself at a disadvantage by not taking it I suppose, but why should she? It's not illegal.

In politics, winning is much more important than principles and morals. The sell out Bernie Sanders is a good example of this as he endorsed Hillary after she had rigged the primary against him. Ted Cruz, on the other hand, is the exception as he refused to endorse Trump.

Originally posted by whodey
In politics, winning is much more important than principles and morals. The sell out Bernie Sanders is a good example of this as he endorsed Hillary. Ted Cruz, on the other hand, is the exception as he refused to endorse Trump.

LMAO! Ted Cruz is "exceptional" because he is only concerned with himself and doesn't let minor details like he repeatedly pledged to support his party's nominee get in the way of his personal ambition.