When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
The Washington Post just printed an article talking about how Planned Parenthood is planning to spend $50 million (a record) on the midterm elections this year. Which is unsurprising.
But, it occurred to me... how is Planned Parenthood allowed to spend any money at all on electoral campaigns?
A quick dive into their most recent annual report discloses that their largest single source of revenue (at 38% of total) comes in the form of Grants and Reimbursements from government health services (both state and Federal).
While this clearly cannot be illegal (they've been a huge political campaign finance source for years), it's only just now occurred to me how odd it is that tax dollars are being spent on political campaigns. I'm assuming that this is direct spending, rather than campaign contributions, but still...
I would genuinely love to sit down and have a beer with the attorney who figured out how to do that.
Joe Joe Joe.....this is the wash / rinse / repeat cycle. It's made famous by government monopolies (teacher's unions, prison guard unions, power and utility unions) spending PAC money to elect their government lackeys of choice, who then support programs that funnel money to their government monopolies of choice. See the latest legislation that passed for details, and ask yourself how each item added allows the government to either take more in taxes or have more control over corporations and even markets. Central Planning using the funds of the little guy against them...utter perfection.
I see this situation as different.
You're talking about special-interest groups (unions) using their own money to buy politicians, and then expecting those politicians to funnel favors their way once they are in office.
I'm not saying that's fine, but it's different. In this case, the order of operations is quite a bit different. Government money is already flowing into an organization, and that organization is then using that exact money to buy politicians.
I'm guessing maybe this is one of those situation where you don't think the distinction matters, and from a philosophical / moral perspective I happen to agree.
But the courts don't care about philosophy and morality, they care about the law. Campaign finance is a heavily regulated and scrutinized thing.
How much money is Ukraine spending to influence the 2022 US midterm elections?
I remember reading somewhere that Ukraine was the largest foreign donor to the Clinton foundation. Of course googling this, produces every fact check org response. And it's the first items that come up.
I also remember reading weeks ago, that less than 30% of the US aid to Ukraine is actually making it to it's intended target.
Is it too much of a stretch to think some of that missing money isn't coming back in the form of campaign contributions or offshore accounts or 10% for the big guy? We are just raiding the treasury to dump billions of dollars to Ukraine with little oversight.
Most of my family is currently in Ukraine. They haven't seen a single dollar of "help" outside from what my family privately sends them. I'd be thoroughly impressed if even 0.000001% of people (non politicians) there actually saw a single dollar of help. Most of the money doesn't even make it across the pond, let alone through the wallets of the politicians there.
Is it too much of a stretch to think some of that missing money isn't coming back in the form of campaign contributions or offshore accounts or 10% for the big guy?
Hard to say, but I don't find it likely.
As 18psi notes, donations made at large scale rarely reach their intended recipients. I say "intended" meaning the ones which the organization doing the donating publicly stated would receive the donations.
Food aid to African nations largely winds up in the stomachs of warlords and militant gangs. Ditto medical supplies.
Financial aid tends to filter through the pockets of politicians and regulatory officials, and that's just government financial aid. On the private side, it may not even make it out of the bank accounts of the organizations which collected it.
Military assistance (training, weapons, ammunition) often does land in the intended hands, at least initially. It has a habit of then being passed on to arms-brokers, or used against the inhabitants of the countries we sent them to, once the tides of loyalty change.
Technology sent overseas, particularly to eastern and southern Asia, has a weird way of showing up on the market a year or two later with a different label on it.
Bibles... ok, those probably reach the folks who they were intended for.
But money being turned around by a foreign government and then re-gifted to the US politicians who authorized it in the first place? I can't really see the angle on that one. Better for the foreign politicians to just embezzle it outright.
You're talking about special-interest groups (unions) using their own money to buy politicians, and then expecting those politicians to funnel favors their way once they are in office.
I'm not saying that's fine, but it's different. In this case, the order of operations is quite a bit different. Government money is already flowing into an organization, and that organization is then using that exact money to buy politicians.
I'm guessing maybe this is one of those situation where you don't think the distinction matters, and from a philosophical / moral perspective I happen to agree.
But the courts don't care about philosophy and morality, they care about the law. Campaign finance is a heavily regulated and scrutinized thing.
I might agree with you, if they weren't government monopolies.
In other news, is it true that the Inflation Reduction Act has tax incentives for EV's (electric vehicles) of $7,500, or just about the same amount that Ford increased prices for their F150 Lightning and other EV's last week? Hmmm.....wonder if there's a coincidence.
In other news, is it true that the Inflation Reduction Act has tax incentives for EV's (electric vehicles) of $7,500, or just about the same amount that Ford increased prices for their F150 Lightning and other EV's last week? Hmmm.....wonder if there's a coincidence.
I own a house which is either 110 or 114 years old. Official records disagree on this point. None of my neighbors will admit to having personally been around at the time to witness its construction.
It is situated on a lot which is approximately 6 feet wider than every other lot on this street. In the city, that is a huge deal. My lot is 33 feet wide, which is absolutely palatial by local standards. I have a property survey stamped by the city which attests to this fact.
I could choose to believe that some sort of conspiracy or collusion explains the origin of either discrepancy.
In breaking Southern California news, today there is NO low power warning. That's right, the news of the day is that for today only there is no Flex Alert. That is all....
I'd be thoroughly impressed if even 0.000001% of people (non politicians) there actually saw a single dollar of help. Most of the money doesn't even make it across the pond, let alone through the wallets of the politicians there.
0
