Election Funding Corruption

Posted on by

Big Red Car here. Happy that #5 North Carolina Tarheels prevailed over NC State — huge Heels fan is the Big Red Car.

One thing the Big Red Car is not a fan of is election funding corruption.

Big Red Car, what are you talking about?

So here it is, dear reader.

Planned Parenthood gets more than half a billion dollars from the government.

These numbers come from Planned Parenthood itself.

What irritates the Big Red Car is that Planned Parenthood is giving the Hillary Clinton campaign $20,000,000. Yes, that is correct. This government funded operation (an arm of the DNC?) is donating to a political campaign.

Hillary Clinton Accepts $20,000,000 Donation from Planned Parenthood

What this smacks of is election campaign corruption. Let the Big Red Car mansplain it to y’all.

1. The government gives Planned Parenthood more than $500,000,000.

2. Planned Parenthood gives Hillary Clinton $20,000,000 to support her election efforts.

3. In effect, taxpayers are being used to fund the Clinton campaign.

In addition, let me be very blunt — this is a leftist, liberal cause which depends on leftist liberals to fund it. Planned Parenthood performed more than a million abortions in the last three years and more than 325,000 in 2015. There is no good reason why Planned Parenthood should be participating in elections and not with taxpayer money under any circumstances.

I will spare you the ugliness of their body parts retail operation because this is really about campaign funding. Leave that ghoulish behavior for another day.

What would the public say if the government funded $500,000,000 to, say, the National Rifle Association and the NRA decided to rent a candidate for $20,000,000?

The talking heads would explode.

This is simply not right not because Planned Parenthood is an abortion mull but because the money they are giving to the Clinton campaign is taxpayer money.

Just. Not. Right.

[Disclosure: The president of Planned Parenthood is one Cecile Richards who is the daughter of the late Texas Governor Anne Richards. Back in the day, The Boss used to coach Cecile’s daughter, Lilly, in basketball at the YMCA. She had a distinct tendency to dribble to the left which The Boss pointed out to the Governor when she would attend her games. The Governor thought this was very funny.]

But, hey, what the Hell do I really know anyway? I’m just a Big Red Car, y’all.

 

7 thoughts on “Election Funding Corruption”

  1. Is this any different than green interests or public employee unions? Are you making a point about PP, in particular, or using it as an example of how the DNC machine works? If the latter, Figure 3 (page 26) in this paper [http://matthewg.org/papers/policyredblue3.pdf], offers “just a taste” of the results of analysis published in a subscriber-only journal here: http://apr.sagepub.com/content/37/5/767.full.pdf+html

    When this issue is surfaced, my left-leaning friends will say something along the lines of “Big Oil Subsidies!” and “Aerospace!” and “You guys do it too!”. Without going down the rabbit hole of whether capital depreciation schedules for capital-intensive industries should really count as “subsidies to big oil” (they shouldn’t), I would ask: what about Boeing and Lockheed? I know that they (like Wall street) try to show love to all of the top-tier candidates (because you want whoever wins to like you right back), and I know that the Citizens United decision gives them (and the unions) the right to this mode of political speech — but, how would you articulate a “bright line” policy? That this is OK – but that is not OK?

    • .
      The instances you note do not involve the government “donating” money to the target company. If it did, the Big Red Car’s view of things would be consistent.

      The Big Red Car does not like the idea of government contractors picking their government counterparts with whom to deal. This is not quite what you are saying but let’s be clear — the Big Red Car would object to that also on a simple conflict of interest basis.

      The Big Red Car understands the Citizens United case and understands who can do what.

      This is not a “bright line” argument, this is a circle argument. If you are an entity who is using a tin cup to access government funds — taxpayer dollars — because of the sanctity of your core mission, then those funds should not be diverted to a purely, non-core political purpose.

      If the gov’t knows that a charity is going to use core mission focused dollars on politics — not the core mission — then the gov’t either shouldn’t give them the money or demand it back.

      The US Congress and the public purse is not an arm of the DNC though this provides ample evidence to the contrary.

      This is hardly an unreasonable argument.

      The magnitude of the contribution is obscene. Who gives $20MM in one contribution without expecting something in return or not paying off a prior act?

      The Big Red Car certainly would not. If the Big Red Car gives you a ride downtown? No big deal.

      If the Big Red Car hands you $20MM, there will strings attached, friend. Lots of them.

      Just for the record, the unions were already allowed to do what they wanted with their members’ dues. Citizens United had nothing to do with them. CU impacted corporations only. The Democrats long ago took care of their union buddies — why? Cause most union funds come to Democrats even though a majority of union members may be Republicans.

      Thank you.

      BRC
      https://www.themusingsofthebigredcar.com

      • > If you are an entity who is using a tin cup to access government funds — taxpayer dollars — because of the sanctity of your core mission

        So, you are saying that proceeds from contracts (income) can be used for political purposes (such as with Boeing or even Caterpillar), and that taxpayer-funded public-employee union-membership fees can be used for political purposes, but that grants and aid can not? Where would that put the green interests, who are given loans that are then not repaid? Could some portion of that be used, or not be used for political purposes? If I am reading you correctly, those funds would be able to be used. Is that right?

        > The US Congress and the public purse is not an arm of the DNC though this provides ample evidence to the contrary.

        Where have you been hiding out my entire life? Raiding the fisc is machine politics 101.

        > the unions were already allowed to do what they wanted with their members’ dues.

        All the more reason that unions should be incorporated. Sauce for the goose and all that.

        > Who gives $20MM in one contribution without expecting something in return or not paying off a prior act?

        You know the Clintons. By the time she is in power (if she gets there), that $20M will be last week’s news. And the stipulations might not be that hard: “Here. Now, don’t be Ted Cruz” 🙂

    • .
      Further to what I just wrote. Big Oil Subsidy is limited to the oil depletion allowance. The ODA is an accounting distinction, just like depreciation, which recognizes the expense of a depreciating asset which is consumed in the business itself just like depreciation applies to real estate.

      It was originally enacted as a paen to additional drilling but its basis was clearly GAAP (generally accepted accounting principles) and nothing more.

      I have no problem with either real estate depreciation or the oil depletion allowance as being fair expenses.

      BRC
      https://www.themusingsofthebigredcar.com

Comments are closed.