HERE's the link to the original posting, I think. I'm wondering why or how this is connected to Obama? Isn't the donor lists public knowledge these days so doesn't everyone have this list? Looks to me like just another fly by night outfit doing what political cronies do, try and make the other side look bad.

~Matt

Navigate through Obama's website to the truth team and there will be a linke to KeepingGOPHonest

http://www.barackobama.com/.../?source=tt-home-btn

This is a campaign run website. So by default this is our president calling out individuals who are supporting opposition. This is outrageous and sickening. I go back to a statement I said a long time ago here and got a lot of heat for. Barak Obama is a POS and I stand by that. This just supports it. But everybody should be mad at this Republican and Democrat alike. Maybe he can STEP BACK on this one to.

---

---

"In the world I see you are stalking elk through the damp canyon forests around the ruins of Rockefeller Center. You'll wear leather clothes that will last you the rest of your life. You'll climb the wrist-thick kudzu vines that wrap the Sears Towers. And when you look down, you'll see tiny figures pounding corn, laying stripes of venison on the empty car pool lane of some abandoned superhighway." T Durden

How should we regulate and censor this public information?

Here's a good website that outs all donors from each side by name.
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php

---

----
Don't hold back

I don't think there's any way to censor it. That doesn't make it right.

The website you linked to is quite different than the one Forge linked to.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

This is a campaign run website. So by default this is our president calling out individuals who are supporting opposition. This is outrageous and sickening.

Ok, hard to say that aren't related under those conditions and I would agree. This is nothing new for Obama, he likes to demonize people.

That being said I still think making this out as some "Secret list" in the spirit of Edgar Hoover is a bit disingenuous, although it should turn ones stomache ANYTIME a president goes after a private citizen in this manner...leave that to their media lap dogs.

~Matt

This isn't about publicly available information. That information is and should remain public for you to obtain if you so desire. Or even for a private organization to publish. But for the President of the United States to endorse the calling out of individuals with labels like "individuals with less-than-reputable reocrds. quite a few have been on the wrong side of the law, others have made profits at the expense of so many Americans" is disgusting. You cannot defend such behavior in a Constitutional Republic by its leaders, let alone one who has the authority through executve power to arrest, detain, charge, and damage an individual. This amounts to intimidation by our leaders and if it does not bother you when it is your guy, you should be ashamed of yourself.

---

---

"In the world I see you are stalking elk through the damp canyon forests around the ruins of Rockefeller Center. You'll wear leather clothes that will last you the rest of your life. You'll climb the wrist-thick kudzu vines that wrap the Sears Towers. And when you look down, you'll see tiny figures pounding corn, laying stripes of venison on the empty car pool lane of some abandoned superhighway." T Durden

I wouldn't compare it to Hoover's list, but more akin to a public shaming to scare people from supporting his opponant. Consistent with New Black Panthers standing guard at a polling center, union thugs coming ot your door for card check, or showing up at townhalls.

---

---

"In the world I see you are stalking elk through the damp canyon forests around the ruins of Rockefeller Center. You'll wear leather clothes that will last you the rest of your life. You'll climb the wrist-thick kudzu vines that wrap the Sears Towers. And when you look down, you'll see tiny figures pounding corn, laying stripes of venison on the empty car pool lane of some abandoned superhighway." T Durden

I don't see how it is different. These guys are big players, lobbyists, and people out in the public eye actively raising big money for the campaign. They are pulling public news quotes etc from these people and unless this information isn't factual they are illustrating that the Republican's are being funded by AINOs. Seems ironic doesn't it?

---

----
Don't hold back

If the information is factual shouldn't they be proud of their accomplishments?

---

----
Don't hold back

Really? You don't see how publishing a list of all the top campaign contributors is different from publishing the names of private citizens who donate to the president's opponent, and accusing those private citizens of various illegal/sordid behavior?

OK. Sorry I can't help you with that.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

On a separate note I wonder if this type of behavior from the presidents office will backfire.

From what I'm seeing it looks like Obama is attempting to run the same campaign that he ran in 2008. Problem with that is two fold. First he is now part of the problem and he has a record. Second you are expected to hold a higher standard of dignity and respect as a sitting president if for no other reason than the level of power at your disposal.

I've been saying for a long time that Obama isn't going to loose, however I never really factored in him completely blowing the campaign. If he doesn't start campaigning as a president rather than as a community organizer "Outsider" he may well blow this thing.

~Matt

I seriously hope for all our sake you are trying to be funny. If you don't find a problem with this, you deserve the gov't you get. This is wrong plain and simple and it is indefensible. If it were Romney doing this it would be wrong, and I can assure you no Libertarian candidate would ever do something this vile.

---

---

"In the world I see you are stalking elk through the damp canyon forests around the ruins of Rockefeller Center. You'll wear leather clothes that will last you the rest of your life. You'll climb the wrist-thick kudzu vines that wrap the Sears Towers. And when you look down, you'll see tiny figures pounding corn, laying stripes of venison on the empty car pool lane of some abandoned superhighway." T Durden

I have no issue with them posting the names, but don't editorialize on each donor. That's where Team Obama crosses the line. This is nothing but an attempt to intimidate by Team BHO, and the closer the election gets, or the more they fall behind in the money game, the more desperate they will become.

A tactic like this speaks volumes about the pettiness of this administration.

Again, if the information is anything less than factual then it is reprehensible. If the information is public and factual then why should it not be known what they do? They are lobbyists and executives at *large public corporations". It's very different than signaling out the little old lady next door who donated $100 to the campaign.

---

----
Don't hold back

Save Mr. Obama, who acknowledges no rules. This past week, one of his campaign websites posted an item entitled "Behind the curtain: A brief history of Romney's donors." In the post, the Obama campaign named and shamed eight private citizens who had donated to his opponent. Describing the givers as all having "less-than-reputable records," the post went on to make the extraordinary accusations that "quite a few" have also been "on the wrong side of the law" and profiting at "the expense of so many Americans."

These are people like Paul Schorr and Sam and Jeffrey Fox, investors who the site outed for the crime of having "outsourced" jobs. T. Martin Fiorentino is scored for his work for a firm that forecloses on homes. Louis Bacon (a hedge-fund manager), Kent Burton (a "lobbyist") and Thomas O'Malley (an energy CEO) stand accused of profiting from oil. Frank VanderSloot, the CEO of a home-products firm, is slimed as a "bitter foe of the gay rights movement."

---

~
"You lie!" The Prophet Joe Wilson

It's intimidation and an attempt to manipulate by the POTUS.

Again, I wonder if this will back fire. Intimidation by a community organizer outsider is one thing, by the POTUS is another and often not looked upon kindly.

This is clearly not unprecedented by this president either as evident by him involving himself in situations that are well outside of his normal realm and making snap judgements on those situations. Beer summits to save face etc.

~Matt

I have no issue with them posting the names

I think even posting the names is petty. There are plenty of sites to go to that provide this information without the president pointing out only the "Other sides" donors.

If the point was truly to try and inform the voting public just how awful the people are that are contributing to their opponents one could just simply say go to this site and educate yourself on who's giving what to which campaigns.

Unless you're getting an award no one wants anyone from the government "Posting your name".

~Matt

How should we regulate and censor this public information?

You can't. The damage was already done by the campaign law that requires that donors be disclosed--a law that has the effect of opening up political opponents to government reprisals and intimidation.

---

-----
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I--
I took the one less traveled by,
Which is probably why I was registering 59.67mi as I rolled into T2.

Why are you betting against Americas?

Seriously. I doubt the President has anything to do with this. If this ever catches hold in the mainstream media (aside from a WSJ article) its just going to turn into a "I wasnt aware that my campaign staff was using this tactic that I highly disagree with.... blah blah blah."

I think even posting the names is petty.

As do I. However, when you consider that other sites already post the information (as you noted) then who cares if they repeat. Either take the information out of the public domain entirely, or don't sweat it. I'm choosing not to sweat it with my comment. What bothers me, as I stated, was their editorializing on each donor.

So if you are a CEO of a large company, you are no longer a private citizen. At what point does a company become large? Lobbyist I can argue subject themselves to that because lobbying is regulated and their specific purpose is to influence politicians. But perhaps these CEOs just don't like Obama and think, like I do, that he is destructive to America. I can't donate that kind of money, so I'm glad people like him are. But does that warrant that he gets listed on a president controlled website? I'm not seeing the logic you are using that makes it any more right than if it were a old lady next door donating 100. You can defend it all you want, but this is supporter intimidation and is pretty consistent with the Bamster's MO. If you don't see that, like others have said, can't help you there. You just don't get it.

---

---

"In the world I see you are stalking elk through the damp canyon forests around the ruins of Rockefeller Center. You'll wear leather clothes that will last you the rest of your life. You'll climb the wrist-thick kudzu vines that wrap the Sears Towers. And when you look down, you'll see tiny figures pounding corn, laying stripes of venison on the empty car pool lane of some abandoned superhighway." T Durden

At the end of the day I think it comes down to the first paragraph. If they would have avoided "have less-than-reputable records" this would be pointing out readily public information on lobbyists and public executives, some of his largest supporters, who are actively outsourcing jobs etc. Given the economy that's pretty crappy. I'm not sure about wrong side of the law part but I'm sure time will show the accuracy of that statement. Of thousands of campaign posts and thousands of people on the campaign this was probably written by some 22 year old activist. I wonder what the conversations are around this internally right now.

---

A closer look at Romney’s donors reveals a group of wealthy individuals with less-than-reputable records. Quite a few have been on the wrong side of the law, others have made profits at the expense of so many Americans, and still others are donating to help ensure Romney puts beneficial policies in place for them.

---

----
Don't hold back

I would argue that he is attempting to run the same campaign that he ran for Illinois senate and US Senate when he invalidated his opponents.

He is not listing all of those who are giving to his opponent. No, he is listing only those he wants to list and providing some less than flattering information.

Why are you against freedom of the press?

---

"The great pleasure in life is doing what people say you cannot do."

Dude, can't you see that the only standard the Dems have is that they have no standards? I been sayin' that for years. They do whatever it takes to win and advance their cause, which they've been trying to do since at least the 60s, if not back during the New Deal era, and they're vicious about it, to boot. See, they convince themselves that it's all for "the greater good," and that such extremism in service to the greater good is actually to be lauded, not condemned. The Right needs to wake up to that fact or it'll always find itself on the defensive against these mooks.

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

Of course you are still a private citizen. However the CEO of a public company is by definition in the public eye. The article is talking about how those organizations are actively outsourcing etc and painting that as not being pro-American.

Every single day the media and groups associated with politicians name all kinds of people. Is it different than McCain/Palin outing Obama's Reverend Angry or any other controversial person associate with him (and vilifying them, right or wrong)? It's part of the political system we have created. (To note.. I'm not for negative campaigns; I hate the concept. I'm more just discussing this out loud.)

---

----
Don't hold back

I don't think a reasonable person would consider any of these people public figures. So this might border on slander or libel. And if donating to a candidate makes you by definition a public figure subject to such labels under the guise of opinion, satire, etc. then we have bigger problems.

Comparing this to Reverend Wright is not the same thing. Nor did the President of the United States at the time, GWB, call out his behavior when GWB was the subject of most of Reverend Wrights vile rants. This is just another sad attempt by you, an Obama Butt Boy, to defend what is clearly indefensible. This shit will be what we in the accounting biz call controllables that will have the biggest impact on Obama losing in November. This is an irresponsible use of power and unpresidential.

---

---

"In the world I see you are stalking elk through the damp canyon forests around the ruins of Rockefeller Center. You'll wear leather clothes that will last you the rest of your life. You'll climb the wrist-thick kudzu vines that wrap the Sears Towers. And when you look down, you'll see tiny figures pounding corn, laying stripes of venison on the empty car pool lane of some abandoned superhighway." T Durden

This is just another sad attempt by you, an Obama Butt Boy, to defend what is clearly indefensible.

Come on man everything Obama does is indefensible in your eyes. I know you have been very very angry lately and truly believe in a black and white demarcation where democrats are vile and evil anti-americans and republicans are pure and righteous in every way. If that is not the case let's have a serious discussion about what the other party is doing right and see who is a party line "butt boy". Should you be willing to have a conversation along those lines, you might find that it is you my friend.

---

----
Don't hold back

I've never called Republicans pure. In fact, I'll probably be on the same side as you when Romney has been in office for a year. I don't think democrats are inherently evil. I think they just don't know what they don't know. They fail to realize that the road to hell is paved with good intentions and their liberal followers are paving the way. Obama though, is evil. I don't like anything about him. I thought Bush was bad, and nobody could fuck things up worse than him. Boy was I wrong. The sad part is, I think Bush just failed. I think Obama by doing things we know will fail is doing so on purpose. He is paving the way for a massive top to bottom command and control welfare state (corporate and social). Where the political and power elite accumulate even more power by throwing scraps to bought and paid for eaters and moochers. Those of us who value freedom, self reliance, and prosperity will be vilified until we must go into hiding figuratively.

---

---

"In the world I see you are stalking elk through the damp canyon forests around the ruins of Rockefeller Center. You'll wear leather clothes that will last you the rest of your life. You'll climb the wrist-thick kudzu vines that wrap the Sears Towers. And when you look down, you'll see tiny figures pounding corn, laying stripes of venison on the empty car pool lane of some abandoned superhighway." T Durden

Can't believe you're serious about their "less-than-reputable records," when Obama has Immelt outsourcing, Geithner evading, and Corzine stealing from thousands of investors while being a top bundler for Obama, the same Obama who received record support from the financial sector he publicly derides. This is rich. Likely to backfire though, because any POTUS, candidate or sitting, will be receiving huge sums from 1%ers. The hypocrisy of this man and his admin continues to be outsized, but now there is a campaign on the other side that will be doing the leg-work to prove and get the word out, in a way the the MSM has largely refused to do with this POTUS.

Then Mitt should call those citizens out. "Obama says my guys outsource jobs, look at his cronies!"

---

----
Don't hold back

I think in that case it is much more important to you that the Republicans control congress (budget) than worrying about the Presidency. If Romney gets in there and sucks (I can't imagine a situation where he wouldn't because just cutting taxes on the wealthy is not going to get us out of this economic mess) the Dems are certainly going to take back the House which will be worse off for the issues you listed. You guys should elect Obama in there which will certainly keep that from happening, especially when we see the global economic downturn in 2013.

---

----
Don't hold back

    I'm doubting that the downturn will wait till 2013, and DC will just use horrible economic times to justify more Draconian Control of the economy, our day to day lives (taxation), and our futures(retirement accts, etc). Romney is the better choice by far, because his top role will not be the "redistributor in chief", as Obama sees himself (remember he has even said he'll opt for "fairness" even at the expense of the economy), but as job creator and economic leader of and for all America. That's what my expectation is anyway. ;)


edited to point out the real meaning of Washington DC.

It's all academic because they are looking at the wrong guy. My man Paul is still pulling this one out. He is going stealth on Obama's ass.

I agree! he is WAY out of line as the POTUS! Time for change, haha!

>More proof Obama doesn't respect the rules, traditions and all around common decency. He is the Thug in Chief and a bully.

Meh, on the Nixon 1-10 scale, this qualifies as maybe a 3. While I disagree with it, we've actually improved quite a bit, I think. What Hoover did with the FBI with probably implicit approval of the White House was unbelievable.

Donor disclosure is normal practice in a democracy. It keeps everyone honest.

---

___________________________________________
http://en.wikipedia.org/...eoesophageal_fistula
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerebral_palsy
2020 National Masters Champion - M40-44 - 400m IM
Canadian Record Holder 35-39M & 40-44M - 200 m Butterfly (LCM)

What about donor harassment?

---

~
"You lie!" The Prophet Joe Wilson

In every election, the donor list becomes public. This whole topic is much about nothing.

If you donate to Romney, then you are probably proud and publishing your name means nothing since you know that in a democracy that information is public. If you donate, and are a convicted felon, then there are some issues since you can't even vote. I wonder how many felons have donated to Romney's campaign?

Thats just a bonus. Abuses of power need to be dealt with seperatly.

---

___________________________________________
http://en.wikipedia.org/...eoesophageal_fistula
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerebral_palsy
2020 National Masters Champion - M40-44 - 400m IM
Canadian Record Holder 35-39M & 40-44M - 200 m Butterfly (LCM)

I have been waiting to see if anyone would post anything about what the WH and Dems in Congress have already tried and found a pattern.

Its sad how short some peoples memories can be.



This was the bill introduced last year by Sen. Chuck Schumer and Rep. Chris Van Hollen to overturn the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. FEC. The bill had onerous requirements that were duplicative of existing law and burdensome to political speech. It never passed Congress because of principled opposition to its unfair, one-side requirements that benefited labor unions at the expense of corporations. Democratic commissioners at the Federal Election Commission then tried to implement portions of the bill in new regulations. Fortunately, those regulations were not adopted because of the united opposition of the Republican commissioners.


As my source says:
Advertisement

It really is amazing — they lost in the Supreme Court, they lost in Congress, they lost at the FEC, so now the president is just going to do it by edict.
The draft Executive Order says it is intended to “increase transparency and accountability,” an interesting claim given the fact that federal contractors are already completely barred by 2 U.S.C. § 441c from making:

Any contribution of money or other things of value, or to promise expressly or impliedly to make any such contribution to any political party, committee, or candidate for public office or to any person for any political purpose or use.

Yet this proposed Executive Order would require government contractors to disclose:

(a) All contributions or expenditures to or on behalf of federal candidates, parties or party committees made by the bidding entity, its directors or officers, or any affiliates or subsidiaries within its control.
(b) Any contributions made to third party entities with the intention or reasonable expectation that parties would use those contributions to make independent expenditures or electioneering communications.

The problem is that this will require companies to delve into the personal political activities of their officers and directors — and require them to report political contributions those employees have made, not out of corporate funds (which is illegal), but out of their personal funds.
And note that these disclosure requirements will only apply to companies that make bids on government contracts. Federal employee unions that negotiate contracts for their members worth many times the value of some government contracts are not affected by this order. Neither are the recipients of hundreds of millions of dollars of federal grants.
Clearly, this administration is not interested in increasing “transparency and accountability” when it comes to forcing union leaders or the heads of liberal advocacy organizations such as Planned Parenthood from disclosing the personal political contributions they make to candidates running for federal office.




No pattern here.

---

~
"You lie!" The Prophet Joe Wilson

Exercising Executive branch presidential powers granted in the Constitution is outrageous? For some reason I thought conservatives were pro-Constitution, or is it only when it benefits them?

Worth a repeat.

---

~
"You lie!" The Prophet Joe Wilson