Private interest groups.

[too-open-minded]

In my personal opinion I don't think its right and they should not exist.

 

What are your opinions?

[ecoli]

what's the definition of a private interest group? Using a lose definition, this could be anything from corporate industry groups to labor unions to my high school chess club.

[too-open-minded]

A private interest group is any group or individuals that can invest money into a politician without anyone knowing where the money came from. Look it up.

[Iota]

A private interest group is any group or individuals that can invest money into a politician without anyone knowing where the money came from. Look it up.

 

I think examples could help to give us an idea. Freemasons? Bohemian Grove List?

[too-open-minded]

OMG no lol, regardless of all that stupid over the top conspiracy stuff.

 

The groups are private because they don't have to give their names or any information out about the money they donated. It is for "political campaigns" and not taxed. So I can;t really give out any names but they do exist. My highschool government teacher is a U.S historiant and has his masters in education. He told me about them and I did my own research about them online.

 

I can tell you my views on them but their biased just google private interest groups or start off with special interest groups and come back to talk about it on this thread.

[Jebus]

OMG no lol, regardless of all that stupid over the top conspiracy stuff.

 

The groups are private because they don't have to give their names or any information out about the money they donated. It is for "political campaigns" and not taxed. So I can;t really give out any names but they do exist. My highschool government teacher is a U.S historiant and has his masters in education. He told me about them and I did my own research about them online.

 

I can tell you my views on them but their biased just google private interest groups or start off with special interest groups and come back to talk about it on this thread.

 

I googled and I found this, http://texaspolitics...edu/5_2_2.html It doesn't seem so bad.

 

My highschool government teacher is a U.S historiant and has his masters in education.

Argumentum ad verecundiam. The fact that your teacher has his masters means absolutely nothing.

Edited August 21, 2012 by Jebus

[too-open-minded]

True I could tell yall all about him but that won't say crap. First hand experiencing this mans teaching in a classroom is the only way for someone to respect his input. I don't expect yall to value my word the way I value his.

 

Anyways that link won't come up for me?

[Jebus]

Hmm, thats weird. Just search, "private interest groups" (with the quotation marks) with google. It's the first link.

[too-open-minded]

Yeah thats exactly what private interest groups are. I'm guessing your republican?

[Iota]

Freemasonry is surrounded by conspiracy theory... that doesn't make it a conspiracy. It is a private group with private interests.

 

Talking of private interest, can you name your objections to private interest groups please?

[Jebus]

Yeah thats exactly what private interest groups are. I'm guessing your republican?

 

No. I have views from both sides.

[ecoli]

A private interest group is any group or individuals that can invest money into a politician without anyone knowing where the money came from. Look it up.

 

The more common term is, I believe, special interest group. Still, I don't believe that any donation to a political campaign can be kept from public knowledge. for example: http://www.opensecrets.org/

[iNow]

Still, I don't believe that any donation to a political campaign can be kept from public knowledge.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/as-disclose-act-stalls-super-pac-reserves-6-million-in-ad-time-for-house-races/2012/07/16/gJQAsAUdpW_story.html

 

One Republican group has reserved $6 million in television advertising time for the fall election season to help more than a dozen House GOP candidates, and about half the money will come from the nonprofit side of the organization that is not required to disclose its donors.

 

<...>

 

On Monday evening, Senate Republicans blocked consideration of a Democratic bill that would require those nonprofits to disclose the donors of every contribution of at least $10,000 that is used for political purposes. The DISCLOSE Act, as the proposal is known, failed on a vote of 51 to 44, falling short of the 60 votes needed to proceed to a full debate.

 

Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) had tried, and failed, earlier to require nonprofits to reveal their donors after a 2010 Supreme Court ruling allowed corporations, unions and other special interests to spend money directly advocating individual candidates in elections.

 

That ruling prompted the creation of super PACs, political action committees that have collected six- and seven-figure checks from the wealthiest donors to push candidates in the presidential and congressional elections. For instance, one super PAC that supported former House speaker Newt Gingrich’s failed bid for the GOP presidential nomination took in $21 million from the Adelson family of Las Vegas.

 

All donations to super PACs must be disclosed. But most of these PACs also have an arm that is formed under the 501c(4) section of the tax code, which allows for a slightly less aggressive political posture and does not require donations to be revealed.

 

 

http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1187%3Aa-guide-to-the-current-rules-for-federal-elections&catid#

 

Both federal tax law and federal campaign finance law govern the disclosure of expenditures to influence federal elections. Both have proven to be inadequate in the 2010 elections. Although these laws were not changed in the 2010 election cycle, the inherent limitations of the tax law and a recent FEC interpretation of federal campaign finance law led to an unprecedented lack of political transparency in the election cycle.

 

As described in further detail below, tax law does not require certain groups organized under Section 501© of the Internal Revenue Code to publicly disclose their donors—even if the group engages in explicit election advocacy. This aspect of the tax law is not new; it has just become more salient in light of the surge in spending by corporations and outside groups in the 2010 election cycle.

 

Federal campaign finance law has been recently weakened by the FEC in terms of the disclosure required in connection to certain election-related advertising. Any person or entity that runs “electioneering communications,” as defined by the law, or advertisements expressly advocating the election or defeat of a federal candidate must file disclosure reports with the FEC. Unfortunately, in 2007, the FEC published a formal explanation of its rules that indicated that groups running these election ads would have to disclose only those contributions that were specifically designated for election ads. This narrow interpretation of the law allows contributors to such groups to avoid disclosure by simply refraining from designating their contributions in this manner. In other words, non-disclosure is the default under the FEC’s interpretation of the law. Further, three members of the six-member Commission have stated publicly that the only circumstance in which they believe disclosure is required is when a donor specifically designates her contribution for a particular advertisement, which is a nearly impossible standard to meet, given that fundraising usually occurs before specific ads are created. The result is that the percentage of disclosure reports filed with the FEC that list the sources of the reporting group’s money has gone from 71 percent in 2004 to only 15 percent in the current election, according to the Washington Post in September of this year. Most 501©(4) groups that ran these types of election ads in 2010 have disclosed no donors to the FEC.

[ecoli]

Ok, I stand corrected. The poster made it sound like the politician didn't have to disclose the name of the organization that gave them money. But the truth is closer to something like organizations don't have to disclose the identity of members who've donated money.

[too-open-minded]

Ecoli, I was wrong actually. You were correcting me in the first place.

 

Well now we all have a better understanding of the subject.

 

Personally I just feel like theirs people with money calling shots and these special interest groups only help an individual have more influence in our government than 1,000 poor people.

I mean you get these groups paying politicians for their campaign, they find out who eachother are and build relationships. Soon enough corporations get to influence a politicians views.