Mitt Romney's overseas tour

BenBurch said:
I thought it also struck down the mandatory disclosure of donations?
Click to expand...

Donations to whom?

In fact, it upheld the disclosure law section that pertained to the case (which again, was not a case about candidate campaigns at all).

Here is the FEC database on Romney's contributors:

http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/can_ind/2011_P80003353

(this is a search result link, so I'm not sure if it will work. ETA: and when I did it, it was quite slow, so give it some time)
 
Last edited:
BenBurch said:
Ah! I was seriously misled by a discussion on a local talk show.
Click to expand...

I'm surprised you haven't long since been set straight by the many discussions on the Citizens United decision in this forum.

The case was about a third party organization (Citizen United) trying to show an anti-Hillary movie. Under provisions of McCain-Feingold, they would have not been allowed to do so. The court ruled that those provisions of McCain-Feingold violate the First Amendment. The court upheld the disclosure requirements that applied to that organization and even hinted that Congress could make even more stringent disclosure rules on these third party campaigns.

The case said nothing whatsoever about rules pertaining to candidates themselves.
 
Last edited:
JoeTheJuggler said:
I'm surprised you haven't long since been set straight by the many discussions on the Citizens United decision in this forum.

The case was about a third party organization (Citizen United) trying to show an anti-Hillary movie. Under provisions of McCain-Feingold, they would have not been allowed to do so. The court ruled that those provisions of McCain-Feingold violate the First Amendment. The court upheld the disclosure requirements that applied to that organization and even hinted that Congress could make even more stringent disclosure rules on these third party campaigns.

The case said nothing whatsoever about rules pertaining to candidates themselves.
Click to expand...

I was so depressed by that that I have avoided discussions on it, in fact.
 
Romney managed to make himself look a complete wally when he was here in London
 
Multivac said:
That is a very good point. Chamberlain is often badly thought of for "appeasing Hitler", but if you dig a bit deeper you realise that the time he bought us had a huge effect on the outcome of the war. Without this delay to increase armanents and planes, we would probably have been invaded and the world would be a very different place.
Click to expand...


In regards to the bolded, it seems unlikely. As it actually happened the chances of Germany successfully pulling of Sea Lion were very remote. Germany wouldn't have been any better equipped or prepared to conduct a cross-channel invasion in 1938-39 than it was in 1940. It may have been better able to gain air superiority, but that alone wouldn't be enough. I would expect whatever the cost the RN would sail to sink the German invasion force at sea, where it was most vulnerable.
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
I think that question would depend on whether or not Adelson is acting only as an agent of the super PAC or is also connected with and coordinating with the Romney campaign in any way.
Click to expand...

Well, that's why I was wondering given that he was sitting right next to Romney. He certainly looks connected.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom