PotBSurri

And this was for only as of mid-2006:

From Common Cause:

Since 1997, tobacco interests have given more than $32.8 million in political donations to federal candidates, national parties and non-party political action committees.

http://tobaccofreeaction.org/contributions/september2006/september2006.pdf

Aaron wrote:

ziggy wrote:The Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America (“the
Chamber”) is the world’s largest business federation, with an underlying
membership of more than three million companies and professional
organizations nationwide. It regularly advocates the interests of its members in matters before Congress, the Executive Branch, and the courts.

You have to give them credit for bieng upfront and honest about their objective.

Yes- at least in that particular Federal Court filing.

I posted some of what I found of this to show Stephanie that the WV Chamber of Commerce does not limit its political interests to its own "board", as she had suggested.

And all I'm saying is that the funding Grear received from what you term the crooks at C and C do nothing more then offset the contributions McGraw received from his special insterst, in this case labor and lawyers. And he's had those same special interest for a very long time.

ziggy wrote:And this was for only as of mid-2006:

From Common Cause:

Since 1997, tobacco interests have given more than $32.8 million in political donations to federal candidates, national parties and non-party political action committees.

http://tobaccofreeaction.org/contributions/september2006/september2006.pdf

Well Ziggy, if you knew anything about running a business then you would have made a PROFIT every year.

And if you had been smart enough to earn a PROFIT each year, you would also know that you would have to pay taxes on those profits.

And if you had been a really smart businessperson you would have known that if you had DONATED a percentage of those PROFITS prior to "year end", it would have decreased the amount of taxes you owed, ..... and in effect, .... you would have been giving that money to a worthy cause of your choice instead of giving it to the government.

And if that worthy cause was a political organization ..........

"...And if you had been a really smart businessperson you would have known that if you had DONATED a percentage of those PROFITS prior to "year end", it would have decreased the amount of taxes you owed, ..... and in effect, .... you would have been giving that money to a worthy cause of your choice instead of giving it to the government.

And if that worthy cause was a political organization ..........SamCogar

Well I hope none of you businessmen get your tax advice from Sam..

And all I'm saying is that the funding Grear received from what you term the crooks at C and C do nothing more then offset the contributions McGraw received from his special insterst, ............................................

I would say that five to one is more than "nothing more than offset". It's more like "overkill", and apparently the voters thought so, too.

I don't think it was 5 to 1.

Unless of course you have proof otherwise.

So are those groups opposing frivilous lawsuits and favoring tort reform that donated to Greear, are they just mouthpieces of the tobacco industry too?

I do find it interesting that you don't seem to mind the blatant payoffs McGraw makes to lawyers who finance his campaigns. These lawyers get rich off bogus lawsuits and chasing ambulances and the like, but that doesn't matter. All that matters is that a group that receives funding from the tobacco lobby contributed heavily to McGraw's opponent. That makes Greear a bad guy, have I got that correct?

sodbuster wrote:"...And if you had been a really smart businessperson you would have known that if you had DONATED a percentage of those PROFITS prior to "year end", it would have decreased the amount of taxes you owed, ..... and in effect, .... you would have been giving that money to a worthy cause of your choice instead of giving it to the government.

And if that worthy cause was a political organization ..........SamCogar

Well I hope none of you businessmen get your tax advice from Sam..

Well Sherm, that's why I left that statement "open ended" so you could fill it in as to how one gets their money back if their Candidate wins.

.

Stephanie wrote:So are those groups opposing frivilous lawsuits and favoring tort reform that donated to Greear, are they just mouthpieces of the tobacco industry too?

I do find it interesting that you don't seem to mind the blatant payoffs McGraw makes to lawyers who finance his campaigns. These lawyers get rich off bogus lawsuits and chasing ambulances and the like, but that doesn't matter. All that matters is that a group that receives funding from the tobacco lobby contributed heavily to McGraw's opponent. That makes Greear a bad guy, have I got that correct?

No, not at all.

The four political committees listed did not contribute campaign dollars to Grear. They ran their own separate campaigns against McGraw. They didn't say anything about Grear in their ads.

Aaron wrote:I don't think it was 5 to 1.

Unless of course you have proof otherwise.

The pie chart you linked to showed $146,875 of McGraw funds.

The filings with the WV Secretary of State indicate that the four PAC funds' anti-McGraw expenditures plus Grear's direct campaign funds came up to $780,400 . Do the math, and it becomes a 5.3 to 1 ratio of anti-McGraw expenditures.

Ah, so the charge isn't against Greear personally.

So I'll repeat part of the question and rephrase the rest in hopes you'll answer that.

So are those groups opposing frivilous lawsuits and favoring tort reform that donated to Greear, are they just mouthpieces of the tobacco industry too?

I do find it interesting that you don't seem to mind the blatant payoffs McGraw makes to lawyers who finance his campaigns. These lawyers get rich off bogus lawsuits and chasing ambulances and the like, but that doesn't matter. All that matters is that a group that receives funding from the tobacco lobby campaigned against McGraw. Have I got that correct?

You're comparing money spent by the C of C to what McGraw spent himself. You're not accounting for ads paid for by PAC's, including unions and the trial lawyers association that either supported McGraw or opposed Grear.

As I said, the C of C money OFFSET that spent on behalf of McGraw.

Your statement is misleading.

Stephanie wrote:So are those groups ...................., are they just mouthpieces of the tobacco industry too?

They are the mouthpieces of the tobacco and other industries who don't want state Attormeys General suing corporate liars, crooks and thieves.

I do find it interesting that you don't seem to mind the blatant payoffs McGraw makes to lawyers who finance his campaigns. These lawyers get rich off bogus lawsuits and chasing ambulances and the like, but that doesn't matter.

What "bogus lawsuits" has McGraw's Attorney General office filed?

Aaron wrote:You're comparing money spent by the C of C to what McGraw spent himself. You're not accounting for ads paid for by PAC's, including unions and the trial lawyers association that either supported McGraw or opposed Grear.

As I said, the C of C money OFFSET that spent on behalf of McGraw.

Your statement is misleading.

Show us, if you can.

And the PAC money spent on behalf of McGraw doesn't even begin to take into account the taxpayer money he spent on trinkets and campaigning he did from his office. It aslo doesn't take into account the money spent by the DNC and the state democratic party.

This is a perfect example of just why the Dan Grear's of West Virginia need the C of C just to stand a fighting chance.

I didn't say McGraw files bogus lawsuits. That isn't what I said. You're twisting my words instead of responding to my statements and replying to my questions.

OK. I'll try again.

Stephanie wrote:Ah, so the charge isn't against Greear personally.

That's correct; I never even suggested that it was.

So are those groups opposing frivilous lawsuits and favoring tort reform that donated to Greear, are they just mouthpieces of the tobacco industry too?

They are the mouthpieces of the credit card industry, the tobacco industry, the pharmateutical industry, the credit card industry, the "payday" loan sharks, and other industries who don't want state Attormeys General suing corporations accused of wrongdoing.

I do find it interesting that you don't seem to mind the blatant payoffs McGraw makes to lawyers who finance his campaigns.

I told Jimmy a couple months ago here that I wish that McGraw weren't so compromised by his campaign's financial supporters. And I have said repeatedly here that virtually all politicians are compromised by their campaign contributors. So if you and others want to change the way election campaigns are financed, I would likely join you in working for such changes. But saying that it's OK for campaign contributors to support politicians we agree with but not those we disagree with is to be only selectively outraged by certain campaign contributions, while not by others.

These lawyers get rich off bogus lawsuits and chasing ambulances and the like, but that doesn't matter. All that matters is that a group that receives funding from the tobacco lobby campaigned against McGraw. Have I got that correct?

No, you don't have that at all correct. I pointed out the associations between tobacco companies and the U.S. C of C only because you suggested that the WV C of C would not be concerned about McGraw's tobacco lawsuits because no tobacco executives sit on it "board". Local, state and national Chambers of Commerce have many common political agendas- and which include ridding their constituencies of pesky regulators who endeavor to enforce consumer protection laws.

ziggy wrote:I told Jimmy a couple months ago here that I wish that McGraw weren't so compromised by his campaign's financial supporters. And I have said repeatedly here that virtually all politicians are compromised by their campaign contributors. So if you and others want to change the way election campaigns are financed, I would likely join you in working for such changes. But saying that it's OK for campaign contributors to support politicians we agree with but not those we disagree with is to be only selectively outraged by certain campaign contributions, while not by others.

But that's exactly what you're doing here with the C of C, in your words crooks, money spent to oust McGraw just as you did with Don Blankenship's spending to outs his brother.

Seems to me you don't share the notion that what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Seems to me you don't share the notion that what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

I have said consistently here that I favor changing the way ALL political campaigns are financed- for both gooses and ganders.

You may favor changing the way all campaigns are financed but in the meantime, you certainly don't have a problem showing your liberal bias as you call the C of C crooks in their support of Grear but you excuse the Labor Pac’s and trial lawyers in their support of McGraw.

If business organizations don't want to be known as crooks, then they should not be crooks and financial and political enablers of crooks.

If they are crooks, then why haven't the been arrested, charged and tried?

Aaron wrote:You may favor changing the way all campaigns are financed but in the meantime, you certainly don't have a problem showing your liberal bias as you call the C of C crooks in their support of Grear but you excuse the Labor Pac’s and trial lawyers in their support of McGraw.

I showed you that the C of C and its political allies spent more than 5 times as much on anti-McGraw ads as did McGraw and his contributors to his campaign did. If you have infornation to the contrary, then bring it on.

I brought it on when I proved you wrong on the 5 times number. Just because you ignore it doesn't make the truth any less the truth.