NORTON META TAG

Showing posts with label FEC. Show all posts
Showing posts with label FEC. Show all posts

22 May 2018

SIGN AND COMMENT IF YOU AGREE BY FRIDAY 25MAY18: I support disclaimer rules for internet campaign ads 22MAI18



SIGN THE PETITION
It helps if you are able to add comments if you sign the petition, the comment period ends on Friday, 25 MAY 18. I added these comments when I signed, "Transparency will help guarantee free and fair elections, the only reason to not adopt strict disclaimer rules for for internet political messages advertising  would be opposition to free and fair elections and opposition to preventing foreign meddling in our elections." Remember, MIDTERM ELECTIONS ARE ON TUESDAY 6 NOV 18. VOTE!
Bucknackt's Sordid Tawdry Blog

In the 2016 election, Russian trolls undermined our democratic process by running political attack ads online and posing as Americans.

Thanks to exerted public pressure, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) is creating rules on internet campaign ad disclaimers — and this could be our chance to ensure that the names of the people behind internet ads are made public before the 2018 elections.

But the FEC’s proposed rules are not strong enough — and the agency is taking public comments on the rulemaking, so we need to speak out.

Daily Kos is working closely with Public Citizen, Common Cause, and many others to collect as many signatures as possible before the Friday deadline. Add your name and we’ll submit this comment and a list of signers to the FEC.

Sign if you agree: I support disclaimer rules for internet campaign ads.
Our Message to The Federal Election Commission :

To protect our elections, the FEC’s Internet Communication Disclaimers rule should be comprehensive and modern, and take into account the ways that internet advertising is different from other forms of advertising.
Internet campaign ads must be required to include either a full disclaimer or, if size or format makes a full disclaimer impractical, then a shortened disclaimer such as “Paid for by…” with a link that goes directly to a full disclaimer. The funder of an ad must be made explicit because most people do not bother clicking on links.
The disclaimer rules should be in place as soon as possible. Dark money ads and Russian meddling influenced the 2016 election, and without these rules in place, it will happen again in 2018.
Finally, the FEC should make public copies of all paid internet political messages, as well as their funding sources and target audiences. Libraries like this already exist for television advertising under the Communications Act of 1934. Similar rules for internet ads will ensure enforcement of laws against foreign meddling in our elections.

30 January 2018

FBI investigating whether Russian money went to NRA to help Trump & Alleged Link Between NRA And Russia Becomes Fodder For The Left 18&29JAN18

Related image
IF this is true will it change the power the nra has in American politics or has our political system become so dysfunctional the voluntarily ignorant will continue to support the politicians the nra has bought on the local, state and national levels? Or will the revelation the nra colluded with the Russians, an enemy of the U.S., to influence the 2016 Presidential election be the end of the nra as a political powerhouse? We will have to wait for the results of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation. From McClatchy and NPR.....
January 18, 2018 05:00 AM
Updated January 23, 2018 07:43 PM

27 October 2012

Tell the Federal Election Committee: Investigate Romney's Donors from Overseas 27OKT12

mitt robme romney seems to have  violated federal election laws by accepting donations from foreign supporters. He thinks because it is legal to keep his money in offshore bank accounts to avoid paying taxes so why shouldn't he accept money from rich foreigners. Please help in the petition drive to the FEC to hold him accountable, click the link.....


As it turns out, the Republican Presidential nominee may not be eligible to actually run for President.
While he was overseas, Republican Presidential nominee Mitt Romney held numerous fundraisers which were closed to all journalists (except one who did not have access to the donor list). In our campaign laws, it is blatantly illegal for a political candidate to accept money from non-United States citizens.
According to a Veterans Today report, “Mitt Romney has raised millions in foreign cash at fundraising event across Israel and London, those that we know of so far. One table alone gave him a million in cash. None was from American citizens. Fewer than 10% of Romney’s contributors in Israel are estimated to be “dual citizens.” Others may have just flown the money in.” If this is true, we deserve a candidate who understands campaign laws and does not challenge the integrity necessary for an elected official position.
These charges are very serious. Foreign citizens should not be funding our candidates, since our candidates should only have the best interest of the American people – not their foreign allies.
Please, join us in urging the Federal Elections Committee to investigate Romney's donations before the fall election season begins.
FEC: We urge you to investigate Mitt Romney's donations from abroad and ensure his eligibility to run as President for 2012.

Click here to sign -- it just takes a second.


23 October 2010

AFSCME Responds To Critics: Unlike Chamber There's "No Mystery" With Us

ANSWERING charges from right-wing fanatics that labor funding of progressive and Democratic candidates is the same as the u.s. chamber of commerce funding of right-wing tea-baggers and gop candidates.
The public employees union American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), defended itself on Friday from charges that the massive funds it has devoted to the 2010 elections diminish the Democratic Party's argument that conservative donors are overwhelming the system.
On Friday morning, the Wall Street Journal reported that the $87.5 million that AFSCME had spent on election activities (the majority of it on voter contact efforts) made it the biggest dog in the 2010 fight. The union was, with one week to go, outpacing the U.S. Chamber of Commerce ($75 million), American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS, ($65 million) and fellow union, SEIU, ($44 million). Within labor circles the Journal article was initially hailed as a badge of honor. But pundits jumped on the revelation as proof that Democrats had either trampled on their talking points or been crying wolf over conservative mega-donors all along.
Lost in the analysis, AFSCME noted, were important distinctions.
"[T]here's no mystery about who we are or where the money comes from," Chris Policano, a spokesman for AFSCME, told the Huffington Post. "Unlike the Chamber of Commerce, we play by clear rules of transparency -- we report our spending to the Department of Labor and every month we provide the FEC a list of our members who contribute more than $200 for political activities.
"We believe these midterm elections are too important to hand over to rich, right-wing extremists who have declared war on public services and the men and women who provide them. Billions of dollars are going to be spent this election cycle -- clearly, the biggest dollars are not coming from labor. But we have people who care enough about our country to knock on doors, call their neighbors, contact their friends and work their hearts and souls out to protect working families and Main Street, USA."
Perhaps the clearest sign that the Chamber and AFSCME are operating with different mindsets, Policano noted, is that the union was comfortable working with the Journal's reporters.
"The Wall Street Journal asked about spending and we told them -- there's no mystery about who we are or where the money comes from," he said.
Advertisement
By contrast, an article that the New York Times ran Friday morning on the sources of the Chamber's funding seems to have been culled through painstaking research of different tax and filing forms.
There are, in addition, two other points worth noting with respect to the (occasional arcane) analogies between interest-group funding and spending. As Time magazine points out, when it comes to AFSCME, the implication is pretty clear who is supporting the political activity. They're union members whose dues go to the union's account. With respect to the Chamber, the funding sources aren't evident. As the Times reported, different companies have donated various amounts depending on what policy battle it wants to influence.

Finally, as Greg Sargent points out, when it comes to the issue of who is operating off of anonymous donations, the balance is heavily tilted towards conservative organizations.
According to data from the nonpartisan Sunlight Foundation, conservative groups that have spent significant sums have plowed nearly $75 million in undisclosed donations alone into this election.
By contrast, liberal groups have spent under $10 million -- around one eighth that sum. And much of that is coming from groups that weren't set up just to influence elections.