it makes me feel good to be vindicated of past writings that might sound incredulous tosome but made much sense to me. this one i've said "we don't know who is purchasing or presidency it could be Ahmadinejad and i'm sure those who opposed had a good laugh. those are the one's concentrated on and underestimate the nefariousness of their chosen party.
Foreign money and American elections are like fire and water, orange juice and toothpaste, Yankees fans and Red Sox fans: The two don't mix. At least they haven't for nearly 50 years, when the federal government banned foreigners from giving or spending any money on local, state, and federal elections.
But for the secretive nonprofit groups pumping hundreds of millions of dollars into the 2012 elections, the rules are different. These outfits, organized under the 501(c) section of the US tax code, can take money from foreign citizens, foreign labor unions, and foreign corporations, and they don't have to tell voters about it because they don't publicly disclose their donors. What's more, with a savvy attorney and a clean paper trail, a foreign donor could pump millions into a nonprofit without even the nonprofit knowing the money's true origin.
Anyone, American or not, can give any amount—$1 or $10 million—to politically active nonprofits like the Sierra Club or Americans for Prosperity, the national free-market organization cofounded by billionaire industrialist David Koch. Federal law prohibits a penny of that foreign money from being spent on politics. But it's not hard to dodge that ban, says Marcus Owens, a tax law attorney who ran the IRS division that oversees tax-exempt groups.Owens offered this hypothetical scenario: Say a Chinese businessman wants to funnel $10 million to a nonprofit that runs anti-Obama ads. For a few hundred dollars, that donor—or his attorney—can create a Delaware shell corporation that can funnel the $10 million to the nonprofit. And when the nonprofit discloses its donors to the IRS (as the law requires), all the taxman sees on the donor line is the shell corporation. Owens says it's not IRS policy to figure out who's behind a particular shell corporation. What's more, the IRS' audit rate for tax-exempt nonprofits is less than 1 percent. "There are a lot of ways that IRS filings can avoid disclosure of the actual source of funds," he says.
does that not conjure up shades of deceit, when the first rule of donations is you don't talk about the donators. those who find nothing wrong with that are republicans, "we the people" see that as clandestine effort to sell America to the highest paying foreigner, enemy or not, a bucks a buck. wake up American's, denying advancement in education just one of the things designed to keep you dumb so as not to know your butt is on the auction block, and majority of you aren't even BLACK.
or 501(c)(4) nonprofits, also known as "social welfare" organizations, which include some of the biggest 2012 spenders, there's a big upside to banking foreign money that's not for pure politics, according to Owens. Tax law says 501(c)(4)s can't make politics their primary purpose, and so these groups carefully track their spending so that more goes toward ostensibly nonpolitical activities than toward politics. An injection of nonpolitical foreign cash, Owens says, frees up other American money for overtly political ads or mailers. "US donors are going to be incentivized to give money to defeat Obama or elect Obama or elect Romney or defeat Romney," he says. "They're not going to give money about why you should defend 20-ounce sodas in New York." Friendly foreign donors might.
does this not seem futile we pass laws like ACA 30,000,000 more Americans get healthcare, while those who oppose state if elected they will kill it day one. their base votes for them anyway with no regret while sitting in the ER waiting to be treated for stage 3 cancer, when they could have been upstairs in a bed with a Dr and Nurse attending them. why is it so hard for them to see their choice only benefits those they vote for, not them. recognize
