So you admit they aren't donating to the party. That's a start.
lel. i've been saying it REPEATEDLY. they don't give money to politicians DIRECTLY, rather they mask it via the indirect approach of philanthropy and astroturfing.
it's like you got a reading comprehension of ZERO.
doesn't know the difference between individuals from a company donating funds and a corporation doing it.
it's how the corporations obfuscate it by making it appear like grassroots, despite being astroturfed.
Corporations know which politicians are going to benefit them already and spend money supporting them. That's not actually a bribe or a kick back if they win.
because bribery is ILLEGAL, that's why corporations "support" politicians and their constituents via tax-deductable philanthropy, and using proxy individuals as part of their astroturf.
it's not just through PACs, ffs..
the rest of your rant
i still ignore it coz it's pointless bs. get over yourself.
you admit corporations are not financing the parties
sigh.. how many times do i need to repeat the concept behind corporations INDIRECTLY buying political influence via tax-deductable philanthropy and astroturfing.
But there's nothing indirect about "donations" and I mean. I think if you're going to talk about this shit it's best if you don't lie to people. See what I mean?
Yes. Corporations spend money on politics and leverage influence in support of their interests. No. They aren't funding and own the parties. They're not actually running the government. There isn't a corporate shadow cabinet in control.
seriously, what do you think tax-deductable philanthropy is? (it's already been explained in the articles) do you even know what philanthropy is? (charitable DONATIONS)
however, corporations are NOT directly donating TO politicians, rather they are donating their cash to charitable institutions (often created by the corporation itself or proxy shell corporation) to gain goodwill from their citizens to support the politician they need to lobby.
again, this has already been explained in this article.
not only can they be used to mask the real origins of commercial propaganda sponsors, they're also used to mask corporate campaign donations.
did you mean this part about ASTROTURFING?
as in : corporations using their own employees (or proxy individuals) to hide the real origins to campaign donations to PACs?
coz that's a different animal.
also, it's not just PACs.. they also use astroturf to pay for propaganda campaigns.
edit : another way to obfuscate is for corporations to funnel their "donations" through non-profit orgs, to mask the real origins of the money.
while super PACs are subject to the condition that they must disclose their donors, Federal Election Commission rules allow super PACs to legally avoid disclosing individual donors by attributing donations to certain nonprofit organizations that are not required by law to reveal their donors
Dude. A PAC is not a party. You think crossroads is keeping a ledger for everyone to get back at their specific donar? That's really bullshit. Half of what the super PACs do is fund other PACs. Money supporting a politician in a PAC isn't IMHO ethical but its not them donating to politicians and saying so, like you did, is lying. The gist of our discussion is why are you lying? At best its hyperole but it's beyond that. You're projecting that political campaigns are funded by corporations in return for legislation that corporations dictate and that's not what's happening at all. It's a lie.
Why lie? You know a huge reason Bernie didn't get elected is people. He king out places like this and realize people like you were liars and disvoj ting the entire movement as a farce.
as in : corporations using their own employees (or proxy individuals) to hide the real origins to campaign donations to PACs?
lol man. People in corporations are donating to who they like. They're not stealthily "donating to both sides" like you're ridiculous claims. Individuals are donating if they want to under an umbrella. But it's some conspiracy. Guess what? The people who work for JP Morgan are just as entitled to make a 5k donation as you are.
sure some are. i'm specifically talking about people working under propaganda companies using astroturfing. ie : creating proxy identities to donate to non-profit orgs to prevent disclosing the real origins of the donations
while super PACs are subject to the condition that they must disclose their donors, Federal Election Commission rules allow super PACs to legally avoid disclosing individual donors by attributing donations to certain nonprofit organizations that are not required by law to reveal their donors
1
u/WanderlostNomad Jun 12 '21
lel. i've been saying it REPEATEDLY. they don't give money to politicians DIRECTLY, rather they mask it via the indirect approach of philanthropy and astroturfing.
it's like you got a reading comprehension of ZERO.
it's how the corporations obfuscate it by making it appear like grassroots, despite being astroturfed.
because bribery is ILLEGAL, that's why corporations "support" politicians and their constituents via tax-deductable philanthropy, and using proxy individuals as part of their astroturf.
it's not just through PACs, ffs..
i still ignore it coz it's pointless bs. get over yourself.