Unless there is evidence of direct quid pro quo corruption, the state has no compelling interest in regulating these gifts (there could be evidence, I dunno, time will tell). Thus hath spoken the conservatives on our honorable supreme court in the McCutcheon vs FEC ruling.

How is this any worse than Mitt Romney flying to Israel and holding fundraising dinners? Or the evidence we have that the House of Saud contributed millions to Bush related charities (among other suspected "donations").

This shit is totally legal in the US and has been happening for a long time, and its only going to get worse with all of the shit campaign finance court rulings and bills coming out of the system.

4/22/2015 9:26:52 AM

hey i'm the secretary of state... i'm going to conduct official business via a private server i set up myself... and then destroy that server when officials legally want to see my emails.

if this was a republican he would have been... well, nixoned.

4/22/2015 5:57:23 PM

^its basically what Scott Walker did. He's still alive and doing ok.

4/22/2015 6:11:53 PM

right

4/22/2015 6:16:14 PM

It's documented in court proceedings that they set up an outside server in the Milwaukee Mayors office. Atleast 3 to 4 of his closest aides were convicted on felony charges related to the server. We have records of Wal ker sending emails out on the server telling people to stop campaigning on public time and coordinating the city response to some kid dieing due to a crumbling parking deck. I highly recommend people start googling Walker "John Doe" history.

4/22/2015 8:56:37 PM

yeah i dont think smath or any other conservative on this board really gives two shits about walker or wisconsin.

at any rate thats pretty small fucking potatoes next to the secretary of state?

you just proved smaths point however; somehow youve attached equal importance to walker and clinton.

youve also done something all the "liberals" here constantly fault conservatives for; "well this democrat did it so it must be ok!"

pretty lame if you ask me.

4/22/2015 9:17:12 PM

"We don't give two shits about Walker". (We'll just line up to vote for his sorry ass in November 2016). That's close enough to equal importance between the two, IMO.

How is he small potatoes? They are both leading candidates for president. One was a federal official and one was a city official, an obvious difference, but one has convicted felons associated with it and one, atleast currently, is basically accusations (baseless for all purposes currently). Why dismiss one of the candidates and not the other (because it's convenient) ?

At any rate, my original point is we have examples of previous PRESIDENTS and presidential candidates accepting foreign money, so why is it suddenly so risqué that a previous officials SIgnificant other accepted money? (Oh right because it's convenient. )

We have the exact same politicos arguing for no limits on financial contributions suddenly wringing their hands over alleged foreign contributions......because it's convenient.

Sorry if I call out this double standard. It's just so blatant, if you can't see it then, there really is no convincing you. I just don't see how conservatives can approve of no campaign spending reforms, but suddenly a federal official received (supposedly) random contributions to their charity - and it's the end all of corruption.

But I'm the one being lame

[Edited on April 22, 2015 at 10:24 PM. Reason : .]

4/22/2015 10:24:10 PM

I don't really have an issue with foreign contributions, the media likes to stoke people's xenophobic tendencies but I don't see why that's a big deal. The U.S. Government has a major impact on the rest of the world, it makes sense that some foreigners donate.

A bigger problem is that something like 40% of all campaign contributions come from the top .01% of the wealthy people.

It would be concerning if Hillary were selling state secrets or something but I doubt that happened. Regardless, this is what Hillary's opponents are going to pretend this is about. In the absence of any direct evidence of malfeasance, people just point out common things to insinuate that it happened.

This is what the whole birther stuff was about (which Hillary started), it's why people kept associating Romney with Bain capital, it's one of the oldest political trick in the books.

Harping on trivial things in the absence of allegations of wrong doing is exactly what the strategists want, and it's a pointless waste of time.

How about attacking Hillary about something she said, or her platform, or find whatever it is you think she was hiding on those emails.

It's also worth remembering that some of the leaked wikileaks emails were Hillary smack talking other statesmen, some of which required an apology. It seems of anything, this type of thing would be what a secretary of state would defend, and you can't really blame her can you? But I'm sure she must have just been hiding emails detailing how much she hates America, and she really did order a stand down at benghazi.

4/23/2015 12:09:54 AM

What people should be focusing on is not that the contributions were from foreign entities, it is what those entities expect in return.

And it isn't like those contributions went to charity. Calling the Clinton Foundation a charity is like calling Fox News news. Only 15% of the money that goes into the foundation gets passed through. The rest goes to salaries, admin fees, and this "other" category.

4/24/2015 7:15:11 AM

I bet it's a shell for covert intelligence operations.

And I vaguely recall the Clinton Foundation, through the Hunt foundation, being involved in helping get donors to build Hunt Library.

4/24/2015 12:09:22 PM

Forget about her. She's not gonna win.

4/24/2015 12:26:07 PM

shoot, the only thing you are qualified to comment on are her legs.

4/24/2015 6:33:02 PM

I have no interest about that.

4/26/2015 8:44:26 PM

I don't understand why some of my democrat friends prefer Hillary because "she's a sure bet."

At this point can't any democrat nominee beat any republican nominee? Why don't you guys actually pick your FAVORITE and not compromise with the safe choice.

You can't honestly be scared of the current republican field...

5/1/2015 9:24:52 PM

I'm really only scared of the amount of money rich people are willing to throw their way. Since elections are about 50% a fundraising competition, at this point, selecting someone capable of raising ungodly amounts of money is about as important as selecting someone whose policies are slightly more closely aligned with your own.

5/2/2015 9:42:07 AM

Yeah, the winner of the Republican's plutocrat primary will be rewarded with a billion dollars. It's hard to write off a candidate with that much cash.

5/2/2015 12:31:34 PM

It amazes me that raising so much money is so instrumental in winning an election. I mean, I have never been swayed by a tv commercial, newspaper ad, bumper sticker, campaign sign, etc.

Then again, this country is full of morons.

5/2/2015 3:17:51 PM

Has anyone done polling on matchups between any Republican and Sanders/Warren/etc?

^ I honestly have no idea, I'm honestly not going to be convinced by a 30 second tv spot either.

5/2/2015 3:57:42 PM

The moron factor is definitely significant for both parties, but I'm also convinced that it is our old folks that are the most susceptible to that type advertising. Our generation has been beat over the head with advertising since the day we were born and we are more likely to yawn or act with a cynical "yea right" toward any type of commercial. Where older folks prob have more experience with trusting cable news, TV commercials, etc. It's the same reason that scams often target old folks, the same reason why my grandfather sends a $25 check to every other cause that happens to send him a mailer for a "free gift w/ your donation" and the same reason that QVC is still a cable channel.

5/2/2015 4:48:58 PM

Quote :

"It amazes me that raising so much money is so instrumental in winning an election."

What should really amaze you is that the Democrat nominee, and likely the Republican, will be selected before the first primary is held.

5/2/2015 5:14:36 PM

Quote :

"It's the same reason that scams often target old folks,"

scams target old folks because they have money. What's the point of targeting the younger generation when the vast majority of them are either broke or in debt?

5/3/2015 3:05:41 PM

hiLOLry

5/3/2015 3:22:36 PM

that's almost as clever as Obummer

5/4/2015 8:46:03 AM

Her top donors are Goldman Sachs and Citigroup. No thanks! I'll go with Bernie!

5/4/2015 10:08:56 AM

You mean the guy whose top donors are all unions?

I guess it's a choice on who you want your candidate to be beholden to. Not really sure that one of those is substantially better than the other.

5/4/2015 4:23:01 PM

Banks brought the economy to its knees and got away with it, unions only wish they had that kind of power, even at their peak (since they are basically shells of their former selves).

I'm ready to see Sanders start ripping Hillary a new asshole, his fundraising has actually been fairly good so far.

5/4/2015 6:03:12 PM

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2015/05/bernie_sanders_on_guns_vermont_independent_voted_against_gun_control_for.html

5/6/2015 1:14:55 PM

She's getting evil, definitely going to the wrong direction.

5/6/2015 1:29:39 PM

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/07/us/politics/hillary-clinton-to-court-donors-for-super-pac.html?_r=0

IF you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

Very ironic, this...

5/6/2015 11:30:41 PM

wouldn't being ironic require her to have not been about big money at some point?

5/7/2015 8:03:16 AM

I meant the existence of SuperPACS is traceable to the Citizens United decision, which was a video made to originally be against Hillary.

5/7/2015 12:09:07 PM

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/hillary-clinton-campaign-uses-rope-corral-media-new-hampshire

7/5/2015 1:48:17 PM

i'm fine with that, these events should be about the supporters and not flooded with national media

7/6/2015 11:02:03 AM

Quote :

"The third of Mrs. Clinton’s three kinds of growth—strong growth, fair growth, and long-term growth—may be the most intriguing. Denouncing what she called "quarterly capitalism," Mrs. Clinton said she wants to change the rules to encourage companies and investors to think about the "next decade" rather than the "next day." She said she’d go into more detail soon about the capital gains plan, but a signal to where she is headed is available in two think tank reports. The first, a June 30, 2015 paper issued by Neera Tanden and Blair Effron of the Center for American Progress, recommends "a sliding-scale capital gains tax that determines the rate charged to investors in accordance with the holding period of the security." They write, "The existing capital gains tax is nominally targeted at rewarding long-term investment, but it falls short in practice. Hold an investment for 364 days, and it is a short-term gain; hold it for one more day, and it instantly becomes long term and qualifies for favorable tax treatment. There is no theory that suggests investments become magically more prudent on day 365, nor is there any reason to believe that one-year investments have the same effect on long-term growth as 10-year investments. Yet once an investor holds a share past the one-year mark, the tax code provides no incentives to maintain the position any longer." The second, a September 2009 paper from an Aspen Institute group that included Warren Buffett, Lester Crown, Peter Peterson, Martin Lipton, and Louis Gerstner, recommended, "Revise capital gains tax provisions or implement an excise tax in ways that are designed to discourage excessive share trading and encourage longer term share ownership. Capital gains tax rates might be set on a descending scale based on the number of years a security is held. An excise tax could be imposed that would also allow for the inclusion of tax-exempt and other investment entities." "

This is probably one of the more sensible approaches to changing capital gains taxes. My first preference would be to eliminate them altogether, but making them lower the longer the a security is held makes a lot of sense. I've often bitched about short term thinking on the part of shareholders leading to horrific decision making by companies. Something that incentivizes long term investment vs. quarterly performance would be a good thing.

7/15/2015 12:46:00 AM

Financial adviser: Clinton won't push Glass-Steagall bank bill

http://thehill.com/policy/finance/247700-adviser-clinton-wont-push-glass-steagall-bank-bill

7/15/2015 10:57:38 AM

she supposedly turned over the email server to the DOJ. i bet she scrubbed the emails about state dept favors for Clinton foundation donations tho

8/11/2015 8:17:51 PM

Without much detail i can't favor one way or the other but I will say I find the idea of a sliding capital gains tax intriguing.

At first glance, I believe I'd be more likely to hold on for additional years if I knew that my tax rate would go down to 10%, 5% or 3%.

8/12/2015 1:35:06 PM

^ If i'm understanding the idea right, that seems like it would encourage individual investors to stay in a position longer, but the big institutional investors already stake out long positions on stocks. That scale, if it applies to corporations, seems like it just gives them yet another loophole to avoid paying taxes. It basically turns any investment account held for a few years into how people would use a Roth IRA, except you don't have to wait until retirement to get the benefit.

That doesn't seem like it would do anything to address the capital gains loopholes, or inequality, or even encourage more investment. Seems like it makes it easier for big investors to cash out profits with lower taxes than they pay now, and harder for smaller investors from building a sizable portfolio.

8/12/2015 1:43:50 PM

Hedge funds and investment banks with out a doubt have a lot of long-term investments, but most of the big ones also have a high-frequency trading arm too. HFT is responsible for like 50+% of all trades on Wall Street, and the average holding time for a stock in the U.S. Is like 30 seconds. Some of the big investment banks are estimated to be making a few $billion per year from their HFT arms.

That's who this type of tax would target the most, I'm ok with that.

8/12/2015 5:52:32 PM

If it turns my investments into a roth-like endeavor, then that would be great. The ability to have tax free or nominally taxed trades would be a huge advantage. I really like having a roth but it sounds like this would not have any caps on investment, such as the current $5500 roth limit, and that I may be able to pull out the investments prior to 40 years out, which would be great for purchasing a home, child's tuition, etc...

8/13/2015 11:13:03 AM

So why has she been given special treatment?

http://observer.com/2015/08/the-countless-crimes-of-hillary-clinton-special-prosecutor-needed-now/

8/14/2015 1:43:04 AM

^same reason her hubby didnt go to prison for obstruction of justice and perjury. the fox is guarding hen house

8/14/2015 6:44:42 AM

I don't know how anyone watches video and news of Hillary and doesn't immediately think of Julia Louis-Dreyfus on Veep. It is hilarious.

8/18/2015 3:25:21 PM

Quote :

"WASHINGTON -- Newly released video of Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's private meeting with Black Lives Matter activists in New Hampshire last week shows a testy exchange between Clinton and the activists. In one of two clips of the meeting posted by Good Magazine on Monday, Clinton suggests that the activists need to have strong policy goals if they want to create real change, using the women's and gay rights movements as a comparison. One of the activists takes issue with her comments. "This is and has always been a white problem of violence. There's not much that we [black people] can do to stop the violence against us," Julius Jones of Black Lives Matter tells Clinton. Clinton pushes back: "Respectfully, if that is your position, then I will only talk to white people about the very real problems.""

haha

that's way worse than romneys 47% comment

8/18/2015 5:59:09 PM

^ did you even watch the video?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-black-lives-matter_55d2ad41e4b055a6dab1453f
Hillary gave a great answer... surprisingly good, I didn't expect it honestly.

Really nothing remotely like Romney's 47% thing.

The person she was talking to did a great job as well. Overall, i find the whole exchange very pleasing. I wish we could see honest dialog like that more often, between informed people.

[Edited on August 18, 2015 at 6:26 PM. Reason : ]

8/18/2015 6:25:27 PM

^yeah i saw the video. she was making some good points but she did get a little snippy with him

8/18/2015 8:09:32 PM

She got snippy, but there's nothing wrong with that, he deserved it really.

8/18/2015 8:21:21 PM

LOL

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/08/18/watch-how-hillary-responds-when-fox-news-reporter-repeatedly-presses-her-on-whether-she-wiped-server-its-a-simple-question

Quote :

"Like with a cloth?"

8/18/2015 11:55:05 PM

^she acts like she is doing you a favor by even letting you ask her a question

she sucks at campaigning so bad she couldn't beat a guy nobody ever heard of with a muslim name last time

8/19/2015 5:28:38 AM

i don't think the surname "obama" is actually a muslim name. it originates in africa, south sudan/ethiopia/kenya, where christianity, judaism and traditional african religions was more prominent.

and "barak" is an israeli name.

"hussein" is an arabic name.

(i don't the complete accuracy of these claims)

8/19/2015 9:41:21 AM