Special Interests Behind the Anti-Interest Candidate

MONEY IN POLITICS

By Steve Haner

Welcome to the current state of politics, where an incumbent preens as being free from special interest funding and their sworn enemy, all while the special interests spend millions seeking to tear down the challenger.

House Bill 827, approved by the 2020 General Assembly, did not really provide additional employment protection for Virginia’s pregnant women. It created a new state-level bureaucratic shillelagh to use if they felt aggrieved, backed up by the threat of state lawsuits and punitive damages. 

Seventh District GOP congressional nominee Nick Freitas was among those voting no on the bill as it passed the House of Delegates. Now he is facing a barrage of union-sponsored ads claiming he voted to allow Virginia employers to fire pregnant women at will.

“He voted to let businesses discriminate and fire women for no other reason than their pregnancy,” the union group claims. The video shows a very pregnant woman morose as she leaves her place of employment. To make her more pitiable, it is raining and she’s getting soaked.

The ad is an outrageous lie, but what is new about that? Had House Bill 827 failed, existing federal law already prohibits firing women because they are or might become pregnant. It already dictates various workplace accommodations and provides a path for complaints ending with the possibility of federal lawsuit.

Only a vote to repeal the federal law would have made the union claim credible. But the message is not coming from incumbent Representative Abigail Spanberger, (D), so you cannot tag her with the lie.

Should voters let her hide that way?

Spanberger claims she staunchly opposes special interest money (sometimes she mentions “corporate PACS” but other times “special interests”). This particular attack on Freitas is supposedly an independent effort, one of six groups (below) buying televised ads ($2 million worth so far) allegedly outside her control. She is not disavowing them. We’ve already visited her tortured rationale for taking special interest assistance when it suits her, while refusing (“Get thee behind me, Satan!”) filthy corporate funds.

Here are the “independent” spenders for her so far:

If all the money trails into her campaign were fully transparent, without doubt a significant portion of the money comes from various special interests, some of them corporate. What, the people who build wind and solar don’t work for major corporations? Do none of the Democratic joint committees (three support her) take corporate PAC funds? There is no more entrenched special interest than Big Labor. And that’s all fine, just don’t posture to voters you are running free of special interest cash.

Republicans called Spanberger out for accepting cash from Democratic committees that took corporate PAC funds but PolitiFact gave her claim of purity a “mostly true” because is was such a small percentage of her total. Well, none is supposed to be none. Also, PolitiFact looked only at her direct account. It did not examine these “independent” television campaigns, only part of the dark money activity that swamps both political parties. It was a whitewash.

Spanberger is also bragging “she led the fight to pass the strongest anti-corruption bill in a generation.” Well, HR 1 had unanimous House Democratic support so it wasn’t much of a “fight,” and no freshman member “led” any aspect of passing it. The bill also authorized taxpayer financing of campaigns, a new federal holiday on election day, and several provisions that the GOP saw as tilting toward the Democrats’ own favorite special interests and electoral success.

Reported CBS News about Senator Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s opposition:

The Senate majority leader referred to HR 1 as a “parade of horribles.” In particular, he has attacked the measure for restructuring the Federal Elections Commission from a six-member panel to a five-member panel, allowing one party to have three members, and the minority to have two. He also takes issue with the move toward public financing of elections, like the provision for a 6-to-1 government match for donations to presidential and congressional candidates.

As I’ve written before, this whole “your money is evil but our money is righteous” approach doesn’t stand up. All special interests are bidding for something. Hypocrisy abounds on all sides. Hold every candidate accountable for every dollar spent on their behalf, every message being delivered, because this business of “independent” activity is a fraud.

There are currently no comments highlighted.

87 responses to “Special Interests Behind the Anti-Interest Candidate

  1. “Only a vote to repeal the federal law would have made the union claim credible.”

    Has this never happened? Has a State never been left holding the bag as the sole protector because the Congress changed its mind?

    “Hold every candidate accountable for every dollar spent on their behalf, every message being delivered, because this business of “independent” activity is a fraud.”

    In an ideal world, the “non-aligned” maker of the negative statement would be forced to make a statement to that effect. But seriously, do you really expect the beneficiary of the ad to spend their valuable resources either defending their opponent, or washing their hands? The latter has a long history of success, no?

    Well, I say, “Citizens Unite!” Oh wait…

    ** on occasion these ads have been so egregious as to elicit a defensive of the opponent, e.g., “He’s… he’s a Muslim…” or words to that effect. The courageous response cost him.

    • “But seriously, do you really expect the beneficiary of the ad to spend their valuable resources either defending their opponent, or washing their hands? The latter has a long history of success, no?”

      Yes, it’s called being ethical. You’re excusing mudslinging (being partisan) because it helps a candidate you support, period. If the shoe were on the other foot you’d take issue and expect that individual to refute it. That is what is wrong with politics.

      • Campaign funds are limited resources.

        This could lead to a really bizarre strategy for a hidden third party, attack one, and force the second to spend resources.

        • So you double down on the excuse, thanks for proving my point.

          Ethics be damned.

          “This could lead to a really bizarre strategy for a hidden third party, attack one, and force the second to spend resources.”

          That already existed, you just currently approve of who’s doing it.

  2. How dare evil labor unions think they have the right to run political ads!

    • I’m still waiting for the GOP to run an ad denying that Democrats and Hollywood elitist Satanic pedophiles don’t like pizzas.

      • well perhaps more like a new rules that outlaws certain special interest money – like unions, pro health care groups, etc, etc…

        • I think Steve meant things like this, “On Thursday, an article from The Daily Signal, the blog of the conservative Heritage Foundation, claimed to show a damning link between an organization started by a Black Lives Matter co-founder, Alicia Garza, and a nonprofit with ties to the Chinese government. The article went viral.”

          • Please explain how that is germane to what Steve said. Most non sequiturs have at least a remote or garbled connection to something being said. I feel to see any connection whatsoever with anything Steve wrote.

          • Conservatives themselves argue pro and con on PAC money and coordination of it. Dems don’t seem to have that problem but whatever the rules are – they will abide by them – then get accused of using special interest PAC money as if only the Dems do it.

            “In a Wall Street Journal op-ed published earlier this month, Keating and Smith criticized the Freedom Caucus for its opposition to the measure and said the lawmakers in the group were objecting to “political free speech.”

            “Scrapping coordination rules will remove an artificial wedge between parties and their candidates and encourage more honesty and transparency in campaign spending,” Keating and Smith said. “It will also benefit some Freedom Caucus members who face tougher general elections. Most important, it will enhance vital First Amendment rights.”

            https://www.dailysignal.com/2015/12/16/campaign-finance-measure-opposed-by-conservatives-kept-out-of-spending-deal/

          • Scurrilous attacks, not based in fact, by a third party — especially one of repute, e.g. The Herritage, that maybe be seen to eventually harm a candidate having nothing to do with the story/ad.

            I meant it as an example.

          • What NN is alluding to I think, is a double standard with regard to the use of special-interest/PAC money where many GOP argue that it’s free speech but when Dems do it – they are accused of “taking special interest/PAC money.

            Which is it? Does the GOP want two sets of rules?

            Some GOP go even further – they advocate removing the rule about coordination between the PAC and the candidate. If that rule went away and the Dems used the removal of that rule just like the GOP would – the GOP would surely accuse them of using special interest money just like they are Spanberger right now because PACs run ads supporting her.

    • No one disputes the right of labor unions to run ads — just lying ads.

    • Was it purchased by the Union as a voted measure or by the Union Leadership with it’s members dues without their input?

  3. Yeah, pretty sure that’s how he WOULD vote – that’s his philosophy and likely for related issues also.

    On the ADS themselves – pretty sure Spanburger would vote to get rid of that kind of money in campaigns and pretty sure her opponent would vote in favor.

  4. I guess I shouldn’t start these arguments and then leave for the Y….Hey, I am aware both sides play this game, and are happy to let third parties make scurrilous attacks. I just think Spanberger is really pushing it by making her “purity” on campaign money one of her major themes. And I thought Warren Fiske’s PolitiFact softball needed a bit of…..clarification. On your last comment Larry, watch what they DO not what the say. You being “pretty sure” is an admission you driven by your biases. Gee, never seen that in you.. 🙂

    I was looking at a nice photo of the granddaughter in Texas last night on Instagram and up popped one of Spanberger’s ads. Tracking just the TV spending is so last century…And Instagram is getting very obnoxious.

    • re: ” Hey, I am aware both sides play this came, and are happy to let third parties make scurrilous attacks. I just think Spanberger is really pushing it by making her “purity” on campaign money one of her major themes.”

      that’s more honest that what others are saying but then you go into subjective territory like the GOP does by wanting your own rules like “purity”.

      Spanberger says she would support campaign finance reform. She thinks it’s wrong but has to play the game. What does the GOP and her opponent support? My guess is they will continue to say it’s “free speech” and some will argue to remove the coordination rule because it is “artificial” (per the Daily Caller).

      I just don’t understand how we have rules, the Dems follow them … BUT not the way the GOP and supporters like so they should be punished for not following the unwritten GOP rules… geeze

      • Most candidates follow the rules that exist. There are consequences for breaking them. I’m not accusing anybody of breaking a rule. I’m calling somebody out for hypocrisy and posturing. “Your money is evil and our money is righteous!”

        I could have gone after her for the “guilt by association” fallacy that you see in her own ads, not a third party. A big donor who gives money to Freitas also supported Roy Moore, “accused child molester.” (Accused not convicted.) That is just about sneaking that phrase into the copy to leave a sleazy implication Freitas might have the same problem. Very sleazy. I’m glad I now live in that district and get to vote.

        • both sides Steve? Did her GOP opponent accuse her of taking special interest money?

          Is that true?

          “Your money is evil and our money is righteous!”

          even if she said that , and I doubt it, it’s a subjective argument … used all the time by both sides…

          why ding only her for it?

        • “Most candidates follow the rules that exist.”

          I dunno, Steve. That seems like a stretch. Maybe it’s better as “Most constituents believe their candidates follow the rules that exist.”

  5. James Wyatt Whitehead V

    I just noticed something for the first time. Spanberger and George Wythe have something in common. An excessively large hooked nose.

    And about those Plumbers and Pipe Fitters. Where were they on the night of June 17th, 1972?

  6. In general, the GOP folks argue that PAC ads are free speech and most (not all) Dems would vote to stop it.

    But when the Dems have to play the game and follow the rules – the GOP often folks accuse them of bad faith..and bad behavior…

    Remember the uproar in BR when Dem Michael Bills put his own millions in the election… it was sooooooo “wrong”… remember?


    Steve is right – there is hypocrisy – out the wazoo.

    If you want to argue against rules – then don’t be accusing you opponent of violating your own made-up defintiion and not the actual rules.

    Are Corporations, unions, etc – that donate directly to a candidate classified as “spcial interest groups”?

    If you ask the GOP what they are and are not – would they agree that money direct to the candidate is “special interest”.

    See, we’re playing with words here …

    At the end of the day, the majority of the Dems would outlaw most of this money and the GOP would continue to argue that it’s free speech – but they don’t like how the Dems use their free speech.

  7. Larry,

    That is completely false.

    https://www.opensecrets.org/resources/learn/timeline

    “In 1979, as a result of amendments to FECA and actions by the FEC, national, state and local parties began directly funding “party-building” expenses that weren’t, at first, tied to a particular campaign. At the federal level, unlimited donations from corporations and unions — sources of funding that were otherwise prohibited — began to flow in.”

  8. so here is the whole truth on campaign finance:

    ” In 1976, in Buckley v. Valeo, the Supreme Court struck down several key provisions of the 1974 amendments to the Act, including limits on spending by candidate campaigns, limits on the ability of citizens to spend money independently of a campaign, and limits on the amount of money a candidate could donate to his or her own campaign. Buckley v. Valeo also substantially narrowed the category of independent political expenditures subject to mandatory donor disclosure.

    Congress made further amendments to the FECA in 1976 to conform the law with the ruling in Buckley v. Valeo.”

    that was more than 45 years ago and MUCH has happened since then, especially after the SCOTUS ruling on Citizens United, and most Dems want to overturn Citizens United but most GOP refuses. It’s deadlocked there right now and, in fact, some GOP want to also get rid of the coordination rule for PACs.

    We got money in the campaigns because the GOP essentially considers it “free speech” and the Dems think it is essentially borders legalized corruption.

    Check the latest votes on campaign finance – who supports it and who does not. That’s where the truth is.

    The GOP is fine with it until the Dems get as good at it that they are then they cry foul.

    • That isn’t he whole truth.

      You just cherry picked, even at that your “data” didn’t arrive at your conclusion (narrative).

      Unions established the first PAC’s in 1979. They almost if not exclusively contribute to individuals who are registered with the Democratic Party.

      The public fund for the General election hasn’t successfully been used in FPOTUS Bush 43, it currently sits with a balance of $350,000,000.

      https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/05/the-price-of-public-money/484223/

    • well, once again, the whole truth:

      ” The political action committee emerged from the labor movement of 1943. The first PAC was the CIO-PAC, formed in July 1943 under CIO president Philip Murray and headed by Sidney Hillman. It was established after the U.S. Congress prohibited unions from giving direct contributions to political candidates.”

      • So you’re agreeing with me that Union’s gave birth to super PAC’s? That’s what is contained in that quotation you just provided (I was already aware, I gave it previously).

        https://www.opensecrets.org/resources/learn/timeline

        “The changing economy after the Great Depression brought some major changes in the political process. For more than a century, most campaign activity was centered around political parties; much depended on their ability to organize and mobilize loyal party members to vote. Money, while important, went to help local party operatives deliver the vote. But as party loyalty declined (though not partisanship) and political communications became more critical to the campaign process, candidates depended more on skilled technicians and the media resources they could muster to persuade more independent voters to vote their way.

        Organizations known as political action committees (PACs) were formed after legislation added labor unions to the earlier, 1907 prohibition on corporate contributions to federal campaigns. When unions, trade organizations, and other special interests could no longer contribute directly to parties and campaigns, they created voluntary associations (PACs) that raised funds from individual members specifically for candidates.”

  9. Thanks, Steve Haner and Matt Adams for exposing some of the many moral midgets who operate in the many dark recesses of the political cesspool called Virginia politics. You’ve done a fine public service by reporting accurately on the political corruption and rampant lying that goes on daily within the state, that the mainstream media ignores.

    • No thanks needed. Everyone just needs to realize that if you’re aligned with a Political Party there is no statement like the following that applies:

      “Well I’m a XXXX they don’t do that sort of thing” or “Well my candidate is better than yours because they are a XXXX and above that.”

      They are all differing levels of filth out for self-enrichment. The only possible way for that to be contained would be reversion back to “part-time”, repeal of the 17th Amendment, outlaw all outside monies (public funding only) and term limits.

      Our Government was established to be a stalemate, to ensure that only the most important and unifying items could be passed. That has been corrupted over the years and needs refreshed.

      • Oh, I think “thanks” are needed. Yes, to a significant degree “everyone does it.” But there are very significant levels of morality in politics as in everything else in life (as you say), and those who know the difference in actual cases, and highlight them by searching for them then speaking the truth (as to what they’ve found) to the public and to corrupt power perform great service (that now is increasingly rare, so increasing precious), and those who don’t share increasing complicity with immoral acts.

        Worst yet are those who fail to investigate false claims and speak the truth as to what is found (i.e. report on it), and who now indeed promote those false claims instead, while claiming to do the exact opposite (as now typically occurs within much of mass media, and government agencies, even special prosecutors, and of course Congress), these are co-conspirators in immoral conduct.

        This latter conduct has grown by leaps and bounds. Now, even special law prosecutors create false crimes, and destroy public records, including those within their own government issued mobile phones, and are likely to get away with it, given the collapse of morality in much of America, not least in the press. Hence the term cesspools of modern politics. And hence my thanks to those exposing truth.

        With the rest of your comment, I agree.

        • Should a campaign then not air images that shows a falsehood, or edit such out? For example, a candidate funded campaign video with big “Q” signs one week after the FBI determined QAnon to be a domestic terrorist threat is/is not okay?

  10. If “special interest” is, in fact, a legal term that applies to campaign money – how is it laid out in law? Does it categorize money from corporations or other institutions or individuals as “special interest” ?

    Or is it a term used by some folks to describe ANY money received by a candidate from ANY corporation and others as not?

    Is the use of the phrase “special interest” actually used in a consistent way to mean the same thing?

  11. Wasn’t this one of the Virginia seats that Michael Bloomberg boasted about “buying” in 2018? IMHO, Spanberger seemed like the candidate from central casting. An attractive woman with an interesting resume with children etc. ticked all of the boxes that targeted voter groups wanted in a candidate.

  12. So when the unions were already giving money direct to candidates – like businesses were also doing – Congress changed the rules so that businesses could but unions could no longer so then Unions DID form PACs.

    that’s the whole story – all the facts .

    I don’t think that unions nor corporations (nor so-called c3s) should donate but I do want one set of rules not two – one for the GOP and another for the DEMS.

    and if you want to actually legally define “special interests”, yes, but again one rule for both sides –

    • No, the genesis is very simple to follow if you don’t have pre-conceived notions.

      1907 Contributions were banned from Corporations (Tillman Act).

      1910 Corrupt Practices Act is passed.

      1935 Contributions were banned from Utilities.

      1943 “Organizations known as political action committees (PACs) were formed after legislation added labor unions to the earlier, 1907 prohibition on corporate contributions to federal campaigns. When unions, trade organizations, and other special interests could no longer contribute directly to parties and campaigns, they created voluntary associations (PACs) that raised funds from individual members specifically for candidates.”

      There are not two sets of rules, either you do not want “soft money’s” used (banning Union and Corporations contributions) or you don’t. They are one in the same.

      • Who can forget the liberal uproar over the US Supreme Court’s “Citizen United” decision? Corporations are people!?! Those damnable Koch Brothers were at it again. Nancy Pelosi and other lefties peered out through their multi-lensed insect eyes and swore they would fight the Citizen’s United ruling. If a Constitutional amendment was needed then a Constitutional amendment it would be! Then they waited. Their little insect antennae on top of their little insect heads waved from side to side trying to detect any traction from liberal voters about actually limiting dark money. No traction. “Thank God”, the leftist arachnids quietly proclaimed. “We don’t have to give up our Soros money or our union money or any of the other special interest funding we love.”

  13. No, Larry, corporate donations are also illegal in federal elections. Business entities can form PACS to collect and disburse money from individual employees, as the unions do with member dollars. The money must flow through a PAC and none can be company dollars.

    Yes, it is a GOP district basically, likely to vote for Trump. So a Democrat needs to find something other than traditional liberal-conservative policy issues to campaign on.

  14. Some of the committees which have given her money got some of that money from corporate PACS. That is into her direct campaign account. How much corporate money is behind these various “independent” groups is harder to trace sometimes. But the Open Secret link is interesting, as it identifies some of her individual donors by their place of employment. I don’t see how you are all that free of corporate money if you are taking funds from partners at Berkshire Hathaway, Capitol One, big real estate firms….

    • To true, if it’s funneled through a PAC. The odds it’s from a corporate entity are very high, but it’s untraceable at that point.

      I think it totaled here PAC contributions to $375,000. While that is only ~8% of her fundraising it’s still a rather large number than the zero she professed.

      I also have to agree with Warwick above, I believe she was flush with cash the first go around thanks to Bloomberg.

  15. so what does this mean: ” although an estimated $111,000 of corporate money has come in indirectly through other PAC contributions”

    who figures that and how?

    mostly true?

    this is the big bad thing that justifies the claim that “special interest” money was taken?

    how did they “estimate” again?

    • Ask Polifact VA and NPR, you know those super biased sources.

      That means she’s received of what they can track $111,000 in corporate PAC funneled donations.

      “Statement: “When I ran for Congress, I promised to refuse money from corporate PACs. I’ve kept that promise.”
      Date: Aug. 4”

      That was her statement on August 4th, $111,000 says that’s not true. Merely because the amount appears insignificant they rule it as mostly true.

      The Center for Responsive Politics did it, things you’d know if you’d bother to read the articles and citations you’re provided.

      “Spanberger has received $651,000 from PACs since the start of 2019. About $111,000 of that money filtered down from corporate PACs, according to the Center for Responsive Politics – a Washington nonprofit that tracks political money. The Center made its estimate by converting the percentage of money each Spanberger PAC donor received from corporations to a fraction of money it gave to her campaign.”

  16. This reminds me of the Democrats in the Virginia General Assembly who take “The Dominion Pledge”. They swear they won’t take money from Dominion. Then they gorge on funds from their own party that were donated to Dick Saslaw by Dominion and then bundled and re-bundled into funds that go to Dominion Pledge taking politicians.

    Kathy Tran is a classic example. A signer of the Dominion pledge, Tran’s biggest contributor was The Democratic Party of Virginia. Meanwhile, the biggest donor to “Dominion Dick” Saslaw is Dominion. And who does Saslaw contribute to? The Democratic Party of Virginia and Tran for Delegate.

  17. “Corporate funds cannot be contributed to the PAC.”

    Unless, the CEO is DeJoy… oops, maybe not.

    A defense contractor, who shall remain nameless (TExas Instruments), created a PAC in the mid-90s and sent an email informing certain of its employees that “now you, too, can participate in the American political system”, and “as a highly compensated employee, we suggest a donation of $$$”.

    The email that came out the next day retracting the “previous draft email that was accidently sent without approval of management” was priceless.

    • If the accusations against DeJoy concerning the use of bonuses to compensate employees proves true, then that is one, albeit illegal, way that corporate funds get through.

      The rest was an amusing anecdote of how PACs have even corrupted the simple act of making a living.

      • What does DoJoy have to do with Spanberger?

        I realize that everything go back to Trump for you, and that’s your point of deflection for every single item.

        That has nothing to do with this article and is again a non sequitur.

        So the overall content of your comments on the day are ad hom and non sequiturs.

        • Subject, PACs and campaign money, Spanberger in specific, but then there were suggestions of political ethics, etc., etc.
          So, what is a non sequitur in such a conglomeration?

          Ad hominems:
          “Are you unable to read, do I need to quote the entire article for you?”
          “I assume you can use your “excel” to do the math for you?”

          and as to spread…
          “And you were licensed to teach in a public university. Remarkable? Or the norm? No wonder they riot in the streets, and so often after graduation live with mom.”

          If you would care to list any such personal attacks made by me, go for it.

          • No, I brought up it was her ethical duty to set the record straight, to which you replied that would waste precious money. When in fact, it wouldn’t waste a dime. You clearly tolerate this behavior because she is of the political ideology you espouse.

            That doesn’t make what DeJoy did right, however my comment wasn’t about him nor was it about Trump (which is what your implications were, as I stated before your deflection de-jour). Rag on Trump till the cows come home, it matters not to me, as I didn’t vote for him.

            “Ad hominems:
            “Are you unable to read, do I need to quote the entire article for you?”
            “I assume you can use your “excel” to do the math for you?””

            ROTFL… those are not now nor will they ever be “ad hom” attacks.

            Here is my suggestion to remedy your misunderstanding of fallacy definitions, feel free to share it with your bosom buddy.

            https://www.rainbowresource.com/product/065462/Adorable-Fallacies-Student-Flashcards.html

            “and as to spread…
            “And you were licensed to teach in a public university. Remarkable? Or the norm? No wonder they riot in the streets, and so often after graduation live with mom.””

            Not my comment, you’ll have to take that up with Reed. Although you did misrepresent what the FBI Phoenix field office wrote and never distributed. That’s not the point, and I think Q is a detriment to our processes but has risen because of how totally corrupt or Officials are.

            “Nancy_Naive | September 21, 2020 at 1:43 pm |
            Madam’s disease is contagious.

            LarrytheG | September 21, 2020 at 2:05 pm |
            re: ” Madam’s disease is contagious”

            long standing, ergo, do not engage –”

            I could go on, but clearly you define your various insults not as “ad hom” but in stead as cheeky whit.

          • Steve, not you, raised the issue, “This particular attack on Freitas is supposedly an independent effort, one of six groups (below) buying televised ads ($2 million worth so far) allegedly outside her control. She is not disavowing them. ”

            You suggested the corrupting influence of PACs from the Union money/members has on the Union. Thus, DeJoy and the pressure in the TI letter, but that’s okay

            But I can see how in an ego-centric world…

          • Nancy_Naive | September 21, 2020 at 2:25 pm |
            Steve, not you, raised the issue, “This particular attack on Freitas is supposedly an independent effort, one of six groups (below) buying televised ads ($2 million worth so far) allegedly outside her control. She is not disavowing them. ”

            But I can see how in an ego-centric world…

            Look at that, complains about “ad hom” attacks then proceeds to use one?

            Nothing noting ego in my comments, just pointing out facts NN.

          • You need moderation powers. That way you can simply erase comments you determine to be off topice rather than calling them non sequitur. No ego there.

    • I don’t require moderation powers, I don’t desire and echo chamber. I just desire people who are actually informed and not partisan sycophants. You neither want to discuss the matters earnestly nor without disdain for those who don’t agree with you.

      You however seem to silence those who disagree with you, ahem why I called you a fascist. Also, you’re ego knows no bounds, but that’s a byproduct of the phrase ” those who can’t do teach”.

      Again, purchase those flash cards, you might learn that logical fallacies have very little to do with your emotions or feelings in matters.

  18. what are the corporations that have donated directly to her?

    • Are you unable to read, do I need to quote the entire article for you?

      “One of the pipelines is formed by leadership PACs, which are set up by most members of Congress to help candidates from their party. For example, Spanberger has received a maximum $10,000 from the Forward Together PAC, associated with Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va. Forward Together has accepted contributions from a list of corporations, including Merck, Citigroup, Honeywell, Lockheed Martin, General Electric and Altria. We counted 60 leadership PACs that have contributed to Spanberger’s campaign.

      The second conduit is formed by ideological PACs, which are established by groups focusing on special causes, such as regulation, defense or health care.”

    • That…..is…..illegal. You don’t actually read the responses, do you

      • Well no, I’m looking at the links that have been provided.

        If it actually is illegal why do some of the links talk about corporatate donations?

        We playing games here – semantic games and disengenuous games.

        I strongly suspect that Spanbergers claim is largely true – if technical and, yes, she’s playing the game but I’d trust her to vote to restrict such money – any day over the GOP critters…who actually promise more special interest money if they can prevail.

        And will contnue to not engage anyone here who traffics in personal attacks even if Jim can’t bring himself to do what needs to be done without impugning those who “provoke”.

        • You obviously have not looked at the links or you have and decided to ignore them.

          If it comes through a PAC it’s legal, Unions use affiliates. Corps use other means to funnel their money (their voice) to their candidate of choice.

          It’s not semantics, it’s reality.

          Rep. Spanberger who is currently taking special interest and PAC money isn’t going to vote to shut off that flow.

          ROTFL

  19. What does that have to do with Rep. Spanberger?

    Racking up non sequitur’s for the day.

  20. re; ” You need moderation powers. That way you can simply erase comments you determine to be off topice rather than calling them non sequitur.”

    MAN, what an IDEA! 😉

    • I really do have to stop drinking. Or start!

      ***
      I’m right, you’re wrong, here are my googled links, your sources are bogus, you can’t read, I started this the discussion, non sequitur, non sequitur….
      ***

Leave a Reply