If this isn't an Attempt Against the 1st Amendment......

sye Loc: The Old Dominion Near DC

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/11/26/obama-administration-proposes-new-rule-curtailing-political-activities-by-nonprofit-groups/

This is from the pro-Obama Washington Post

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

sye wrote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/11/26/obama-administration-proposes-new-rule-curtailing-political-activities-by-nonprofit-groups/

This is from the pro-Obama Washington Post

This might have something to do with the decision: " a major loophole in the campaign finance system."

Political financing is an area that needs better regulation.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

sye wrote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/11/26/obama-administration-proposes-new-rule-curtailing-political-activities-by-nonprofit-groups/

This is from the pro-Obama Washington Post

This might have something to do with the decision: " a major loophole in the campaign finance system."

Political financing is an area that needs better regulation.

Sailor man Loc: Forest, VA

It is only an attempt against the 1st amendment if you believe the 1st amendment confers the right to make huge contributions to politicians while keeping your identity secret. Is that really the American Way?

WereWolf1967 Loc: Knoxville, TN

Jerry,

Not better regulation, just plain regulation.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

WereWolf1967 wrote:

Jerry,

Not better regulation, just plain regulation.

And all we have to do is get the politicians to vote in favor of limiting the money they can receive and what their donors can do. That shouldn't be hard, right? Then we can get them to reduce the wonderful medical care they have for themselves and their families. After that, they can limit their excellent retirement plan.

WereWolf1967 Loc: Knoxville, TN

Jerry,

Remember the old adage, about as good a chance as a snowball in Hell.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

WereWolf1967 wrote:

Jerry,

Remember the old adage, about as good a chance as a snowball in Hell.

I'm afraid that's the perfect analogy. Although, in this case, the snowball wouldn't even be able to make an appearance and try to survive. When the inmates are running the asylum, you can't expect much.

WereWolf1967 Loc: Knoxville, TN

AMEN

boberic Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander

The system (on both sides of the aisle) is basically corrupt. Lobbyists and their money wield much too much power. Politicians are judged by their constituents by how much money they can bring back from DC. So in effect every one is to blame, The only solution is some sort of curbs on this kind of activity and a president that will veto any bill with pork. This of course will never happen.

WereWolf1967 Loc: Knoxville, TN

Boberic,

You're preaching to the choir here.

I agree wholeheartedly.

daddybear Loc: Brunswick, NY

sorry, mis-matched reply

daddybear Loc: Brunswick, NY

dual post

JBTaylor Loc: In hiding again

boberic wrote:

The system (on both sides of the aisle) is basically corrupt. Lobbyists and their money wield much too much power. Politicians are judged by their constituents by how much money they can bring back from DC. So in effect every one is to blame, The only solution is some sort of curbs on this kind of activity and a president that will veto any bill with pork. This of course will never happen.

Which implies that the new rules are not motivated by a desire to reform politics but to silence opposition. Disclosure of donors is needed so the adminstration knows who to have the IRS audit. It also helps organizations that use intimidation to know where send "protesters".

Marc-Wi Loc: Oshkosh Wi

Sailor man wrote:

It is only an attempt against the 1st amendment if you believe the 1st amendment confers the right to make huge contributions to politicians while keeping your identity secret. Is that really the American Way?

Works for obummer.