Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Center for Public Integrity)   In a shocking development, a man appears to have created a pro-Hillary Clinton super PAC with the intended purpose of making himself rich, not supporting Clinton   (publicintegrity.org) divider line 62
    More: Obvious, political action committees, California Superior Court, Biz Stone, Cory Booker, Moving Forward, Federal Election Commission, Center for Politics  
•       •       •

1199 clicks; posted to Politics » on 24 Sep 2013 at 10:12 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



62 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-09-24 08:38:13 AM  
redalertpolitics.com

Photo of the suspect
 
2013-09-24 08:48:33 AM  
More proof of Democratic corruption; you would never observe a Conservative-oriented Political Action Committee engaged in shady or corrupt practices.
 
2013-09-24 08:52:01 AM  
Maybe this is why Palin thinks Hillary is "ill-suited" for the Presidency.  She's not personally lining her pockets with that PAC money like Sarah is.
 
2013-09-24 09:16:02 AM  

Dimensio: More proof of Democratic corruption; you would never observe a Conservative-oriented Political Action Committee engaged in shady or corrupt practices.


notsureifserious.jpg
 
2013-09-24 09:18:35 AM  

Diogenes: Maybe this is why Palin thinks Hillary is "ill-suited" for the Presidency.  She's not personally lining her pockets with that PAC money like Sarah is.


Well, I mean, is it really a PAC if the person you're giving money to isn't a politician? It's more like one of those kickstarters for a sick kid who wants to do something that everyone knows he isn't able to that they try to guilt you into donating to.
 
2013-09-24 09:22:49 AM  

Bareefer Obonghit: Well, I mean, is it really a PAC if the person you're giving money to isn't a politician?


The laws and designations regarding those things are so farked up I have no idea anymore.

It's more like one of those kickstarters for a sick kid who wants to do something that everyone knows he isn't able to that they try to guilt you into donating to.

That's what it seems like to me.  Or charities where a penny goes to the represented and $.99 goes to the charity itself.
 
2013-09-24 09:26:59 AM  

Diogenes: Bareefer Obonghit: 

It's more like one of those kickstarters for a sick kid who wants to do something that everyone knows he isn't able to that they try to guilt you into donating to.

That's what it seems like to me.  Or charities where a penny goes to the represented and $.99 goes to the charity itself.


Those plastic jars aren't going to pay for themselves you ignorant slut.
 
2013-09-24 09:46:04 AM  

Diogenes: Bareefer Obonghit: Well, I mean, is it really a PAC if the person you're giving money to isn't a politician?

The laws and designations regarding those things are so farked up I have no idea anymore.

It's more like one of those kickstarters for a sick kid who wants to do something that everyone knows he isn't able to that they try to guilt you into donating to.

That's what it seems like to me.  Or charities where a penny goes to the represented and $.99 goes to the charity itself.


Susan G. Komen asks why you're so generous
 
2013-09-24 10:00:33 AM  
tl;dr

I hope that long boring article provided more solid evidence than "these two black guys look alike."
 
2013-09-24 10:15:43 AM  
I you are stupid enough to give money to any PAC, you should know your money is being wasted.
 
2013-09-24 10:25:52 AM  
HilaryIs44 PAC?
 
2013-09-24 10:26:32 AM  
How is that different from any other SuperPAC?
 
2013-09-24 10:29:29 AM  

Uranus Is Huge!: tl;dr

I hope that long boring article provided more solid evidence than "these two black guys look alike."


This.
 
2013-09-24 10:29:29 AM  
I'm confused. How could someone stupid enough to give money to a SuperPAC get money in the first place?
 
2013-09-24 10:30:31 AM  
You mean people use the political process to enrich themselves?!
I cannot believe it!
 
2013-09-24 10:34:06 AM  
Hillary got Koched?
 
2013-09-24 10:36:55 AM  
I was about to bring up the whole Hillary is 44 thing.  I think it was finally determined that it was being run by two former Ross Perot consultants, who didn't really care about Hillary (or were out to slightly sabotage her)  but were primarily using it to make money.

This is why I still crack up when I see the birthers claim that the original challenge to Obama's citizenship came from the Clintons/Democrats because it showed up first on Hillaryis44.com.   Not being able to distinguish between someone being able to register a domain name using some person's name (without permission) and the person themselves is typical of those idiots.

I don't see how this is that much different than those scam charities which choose a name sure to invite confusion with larger, legitimate charities.  Put up a website, create a few mailers and sure enough you can probably at least ring up a few hundred thousands in tax-free donations.   Just substitute PAC for charity and you get the same result.
 
2013-09-24 10:37:21 AM  
Just going to say that money != speech, since it hasn't been said yet.
 
2013-09-24 10:47:56 AM  

Uranus Is Huge!: tl;dr

I hope that long boring article provided more solid evidence than "these two black guys look alike."


Basically this guy and his wife are con-artists, they conned a disabled guy into giving them $10K, the California Supreme Court told them to pay it back but they haven't. Now it appears they are running a bunch of failing businesses and opened up what's supposed to be a pro-Hillary super PAC.

/I actually thought it was an interesting article, and that the author put a lot of work into outing these DBs
 
2013-09-24 10:48:46 AM  
Some people are making money of the easily convinced and enraged? You don't say. That's the whole FOX news/SarahPAC business model. And buy some Gold too. .
 
2013-09-24 10:51:10 AM  

pseudoscience: /I actually thought it was an interesting article, and that the author put a lot of work into outing these DBs


this, but I hope it doesn't get in the way of the vitriol.

/morning started off slow
 
2013-09-24 10:53:35 AM  
Didn't Rush Limbaugh already do this in 2008?
 
2013-09-24 10:55:26 AM  

lawboy87: I was about to bring up the whole Hillary is 44 thing.  I think it was finally determined that it was being run by two former Ross Perot consultants, who didn't really care about Hillary (or were out to slightly sabotage her)  but were primarily using it to make money.

This is why I still crack up when I see the birthers claim that the original challenge to Obama's citizenship came from the Clintons/Democrats because it showed up first on Hillaryis44.com.   Not being able to distinguish between someone being able to register a domain name using some person's name (without permission) and the person themselves is typical of those idiots.

I don't see how this is that much different than those scam charities which choose a name sure to invite confusion with larger, legitimate charities.  Put up a website, create a few mailers and sure enough you can probably at least ring up a few hundred thousands in tax-free donations.   Just substitute PAC for charity and you get the same result.


I don't care what the truth is. Hillary is 44 will forever in my mind be a site run by one lonely woman and her eighty cats.
 
2013-09-24 10:57:20 AM  
In a rational world PACs and similar would be tightly regulated so they to prevent them from being personal enrichment schemes.

However politicians don't want close scrutiny of their dirty laundry and may regard cash-skimming as a deserved reward if it helps win elections. Do you expect their political organizations to work for free out of ideological conviction?
 
2013-09-24 11:01:24 AM  

HairBolus: In a rational world PACs and similar would be tightly regulated so they to prevent them from being personal enrichment schemes.

However politicians don't want close scrutiny of their dirty laundry and may regard cash-skimming as a deserved reward if it helps win elections. Do you expect their political organizations to work for free out of ideological conviction?


I dunno, it seems like the more of these fake PACs you get the less effective PACs will be overall politically since a lot of money will be soaked up to enrich the PAC owners instead of being spent influencing elections. Is that all a bad thing?
 
2013-09-24 11:02:15 AM  

lawboy87: I was about to bring up the whole Hillary is 44 thing.  I think it was finally determined that it was being run by two former Ross Perot consultants, who didn't really care about Hillary (or were out to slightly sabotage her)  but were primarily using it to make money.

This is why I still crack up when I see the birthers claim that the original challenge to Obama's citizenship came from the Clintons/Democrats because it showed up first on Hillaryis44.com.   Not being able to distinguish between someone being able to register a domain name using some person's name (without permission) and the person themselves is typical of those idiots.

I don't see how this is that much different than those scam charities which choose a name sure to invite confusion with larger, legitimate charities.  Put up a website, create a few mailers and sure enough you can probably at least ring up a few hundred thousands in tax-free donations.   Just substitute PAC for charity and you get the same result.


I remember when someone looked at the code of the site a majority of it was just repeating unrelated possible search terms like you would see on one of those phishing or virus sites.
 
2013-09-24 11:02:47 AM  
Karl Rove stole so much money from the rich in the last election cycle that he should be wearing a Robin Hood costume.
 
2013-09-24 11:09:19 AM  

Mentat: Karl Rove stole so much money from the rich in the last election cycle that he should be wearing a Robin Hood costume.


fap

/wait, what??
 
2013-09-24 11:31:09 AM  

Diogenes: Maybe this is why Palin thinks Hillary is "ill-suited" for the Presidency.  She's not personally lining her pockets with that PAC money like Sarah is.


Oh my pockets are lined, well lined.
www.alinskydefeater.com
 
2013-09-24 11:32:26 AM  
Our campaign finance system is beyond broken.
 
2013-09-24 11:33:52 AM  

pseudoscience: Uranus Is Huge!: tl;dr

I hope that long boring article provided more solid evidence than "these two black guys look alike."

Basically this guy and his wife are con-artists, they conned a disabled guy into giving them $10K, the California Supreme Court told them to pay it back but they haven't. Now it appears they are running a bunch of failing businesses and opened up what's supposed to be a pro-Hillary super PAC.

/I actually thought it was an interesting article, and that the author put a lot of work into outing these DBs


Same here, and I feel like they'll both end up in jail, eventually.  Just hopefully not until they pay that guy back his $10k.
 
2013-09-24 11:49:53 AM  

vernonFL: I you are stupid enough to give money to any PAC, you should know your money is being wasted.


I read that as being washed. Still works, I guess.
 
2013-09-24 11:51:59 AM  

grumpfuff: Uranus Is Huge!: tl;dr

I hope that long boring article provided more solid evidence than "these two black guys look alike."

This.


It did.
 
2013-09-24 11:56:03 AM  
Leads to an interesting question; there's already been a lot of stories last few elections on right wing PAC scams.   At what point can a party start confirming or attacking PACs as scams?  They're not allowed to coordinate with them, which generally also folows they can't officially suggest people use certain ones.

But are they allowed to tell people NOT to use certain ones?
 
2013-09-24 12:05:12 PM  
cloudtransit.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-09-24 12:05:54 PM  
If you donate money to any PAC, well, you're just dumb.

/except Stephen Colbert's
 
2013-09-24 12:18:10 PM  

Mentat: Karl Rove stole so much money from the rich in the last election cycle that he should be wearing a Robin Hood costume.


Why Robin Hood?  Did he give to the poor?
 
2013-09-24 12:20:02 PM  

Chummer45: Our campaign finance system is beyond broken.


The fact that we have something called a "campaign finance system" is the first sign.  The fact that there's anyone who needs to be payed to talk about their preferred candidates is just a clear sign free speech isn't working as intended.
 
2013-09-24 12:31:49 PM  
Diogenes:   Or charities where a penny goes to the represented and $.99 goes to the charity itself.

trueslant.com
"We have no idea what you are talking about"
 
2013-09-24 12:41:50 PM  
I gave this some thought. Colbert was able to make the money from his super PAC dissapear into another  anonymous super Pac. Could I make a "Furthering Conservative Values" Super PAC. Collect millions and then make it disappear into a "Get jst3ps's children a college education" fund somehow?
 
2013-09-24 12:42:41 PM  
Good work, if you can get it.
 
2013-09-24 12:42:57 PM  
The only Hillary site I'm donating to is the one that releases the secret swinger video they made with the Gores. This image was taken just before the action started...

i.imgur.com
 
2013-09-24 12:45:43 PM  
And this is different than other charities in what way?
 
2013-09-24 12:48:21 PM  

LeoffDaGrate: Mentat: Karl Rove stole so much money from the rich in the last election cycle that he should be wearing a Robin Hood costume.

Why Robin Hood?  Did he give to the poor?


Yeah, Bernie Madoff is a better example.
 
2013-09-24 12:50:24 PM  
Zeb Hesselgresser:
Diogenes: Maybe this is why Palin thinks Hillary is "ill-suited" for the Presidency.  She's not personally lining her pockets with that PAC money like Sarah is.

Oh my pockets are lined, well lined.
[www.alinskydefeater.com image 400x568]


F*ck, my eyes!  Those pants should have been considered treason all by themselves.

That said, in addition to being very bright, young Hillary was not at all bad-looking.  No wonder that dog Bill married her.
 
2013-09-24 12:52:16 PM  
butt, cheesecake, stupid man world.
 
2013-09-24 12:52:49 PM  
I see Citizens United is doing its work.
 
2013-09-24 12:53:22 PM  

jst3p: I gave this some thought. Colbert was able to make the money from his super PAC dissapear into another  anonymous super Pac. Could I make a "Furthering Conservative Values" Super PAC. Collect millions and then make it disappear into a "Get jst3ps's children a college education" fund somehow?


I don't see why you couldn't just use the money for your kids' education and tell anyone who didn't like it to pound sand.
 
2013-09-24 01:07:18 PM  

Grungehamster: lawboy87: I was about to bring up the whole Hillary is 44 thing. I think it was finally determined that it was being run by two former Ross Perot consultants, who didn't really care about Hillary (or were out to slightly sabotage her) but were primarily using it to make money.

This is why I still crack up when I see the birthers claim that the original challenge to Obama's citizenship came from the Clintons/Democrats because it showed up first on Hillaryis44.com. Not being able to distinguish between someone being able to register a domain name using some person's name (without permission) and the person themselves is typical of those idiots.

I don't see how this is that much different than those scam charities which choose a name sure to invite confusion with larger, legitimate charities. Put up a website, create a few mailers and sure enough you can probably at least ring up a few hundred thousands in tax-free donations. Just substitute PAC for charity and you get the same result.

I remember when someone looked at the code of the site a majority of it was just repeating unrelated possible search terms like you would see on one of those phishing or virus sites.


Actually, that's not even where Birtherism originated. From an older FARK post of mine:

The Birthers like to trot out the lame claim that "PUMAs" (rabid Hillary supporters) started Birtherism, and it is true that Democrat and self-proclaimed Hillary supporter attorney Philip J. Berg (who had absolutely no actual connection to Hillary nor her campaign in any way, shape, form, nor fashion ― and who I personally ripped to shreds [along with his second pet "computer graphics expert," the pseudonymous "Dr. Ron J. Polarik" neé Ronald Polland] on his own blog years ago) did file the very first Birther lawsuit on August 21, 2008, those individuals had alreadyhad the idea of Birtherism. Where did the idea itself originate?

Here's what really happened. Note that all of this happened about ½ of a year before Philip J. Berg filed his first Birther lawsuit:

• On February 28, 2008, UCLA Law Professor Eugene Volokh, of the famous eponymous blog The Volokh Conspiracy, posted a short rebuttal to then-circulating rumors that John McCain was ineligible to be President. In a comment to that blog entry, a commenter named "Dave N." posted a comment in which, as an analogy, he suggested a hypothetical scenario involving Barack Obama instead. His exact words:
Let's change the hypothetical (just for grins and giggles).

Barack Obama's father was a citizen of Kenya. What would Senator Obama's citizenship status (and Presidential eligibility) be if:

1) He had been born in Kenya, but taken by his mother to the United States immediately after birth and then spent the rest of his life as he has subsequently lived it?

2) He was born in a third country, and like my first hypothetical, immediately taken to the United States? Does that change the analysis?

3) Would these results change if Senator Obama had been raised in a foreign country for any length of time before his mother returned with him to the United States?

• Almost exactly 24 hours after "Dave N." posted that comment consisting of hypothetical scenarios used as analogies on The Volokh Conspiracy, FreeRepublic.com user "FARS" posted this off-topic comment as Comment #319 on the Freeper thread, "Pin the Middle Name on the Obama" (about suggesting humorous alternative middle names for the then-new Democratic Party Primary candidate for President):
I was told today that Obama swore in on a Koran for his Senate seat. I do not believe he did. Can someone clarify this for me? I am under the impression only a Congressman has so far sworn in on a Koran.

Also that Obama's mother gave birth to him overseas and then immediately flew into Hawaii and registered his birth as having taken place in Hawaii.

Again, any clarifications on this? Defintely [sic] disqualifies him for Prez. There must be some trace of an airticket [sic]. While small babies are not charged air fare they do have a ticket issued for them.

Long time ago but there may be some residual information somewhere. Good ammo (if available and true) BEST USED AFTER he becomes PREZ (if that occurs) and it's too late for Dems ― except accept the VP.
Immediately (as in, starting in the very next post!), other FreeRepublic posters lambasted FARS for posting such wild rumors based on nothing more than, "I was told today that..." Note that he used wording somewhat similar to what "Dave N." had used in his hypothetical scenario analogy the previous day! Maybe he personally didn't read Dave N.'s comment, but someone else did and told him the very next day, making his "I was told today that..." technically true.

• Just four days later, vehement anti-Muslim fantasist "Alan Peters" (a pseudonym) posted this entry on his eponymous Alan Peters's Ruthless Roundup blog. In it, he lifts the concepts expressed in FARS's Freeper post from four days previously, worded very similarly, without credit. It was from here that the Birther movement really took off, and nearly all subsequent early Birther blogs, books, etc. can be traced back to Alan Peters's Ruthless Roundup blog post of March 5, 2008.

The entire Birther movement can be traced to this Ruthless Roundup blog post, which in turn plagiarized an off-topic Freeper comment posted as a rumor, itself plagiarized and twisted from a hypothetical scenario posted as an analogy to a Volokh Conspiracy blog post about John McCain's Natural Born Citizenship!
 
2013-09-24 01:11:49 PM  

thurstonxhowell: jst3p: I gave this some thought. Colbert was able to make the money from his super PAC dissapear into another  anonymous super Pac. Could I make a "Furthering Conservative Values" Super PAC. Collect millions and then make it disappear into a "Get jst3ps's children a college education" fund somehow?

I don't see why you couldn't just use the money for your kids' education and tell anyone who didn't like it to pound sand.


Seems pretty brilliant then, getting conservatives to part with their money without doing much diligence is pretty simple.
 
Displayed 50 of 62 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report