Hedge Funds Support Hillary

[CuteOldGuy]

Still think she is going to reform the financial industry? $48.5 MILLION to Hillary, $19 THOUSAND to Trump.

http://www.againstcronycapitalism.or...o-trump-video/

[Yssup Rider]

SNICK!

[IIFFOFRDB]

Sociopaths financed by Sociopaths...

[Tiny]

Fascinating, thanks for that COG. COG's statement is correct, that donations to Hillary from hedge funds swamp donations to Trump. It should be noted however that the graph in COG's link shows top hedge fund donors to ALL U.S. political campaigns, not just Hillary's. Some interesting observations,

1. The top contributor, Renaissance Technologies, has no redeeming social value and has to pay off politicians to keep their rackets going. They're a bunch of math and science PhD's who make money with rapid fire trading strategies and arbitrage. Basically, they scalp money that would otherwise be made by pension funds, mutual funds, and individuals who are actually investors in businesses, as opposed to traders. I believe the majority of Renaissance's money is invested for its own employees, and has returned something like 70% per annum. They have another racket going where they got permission from the IRS to roll over their 401K retirement plans to Roth IRA's and then the Roth IRA's can be invested in their fund, so that their 70% per annum returns can grow tax free.

2. The second largest contributor is Elliot Management. Elliot profits mightily buying 3rd world country debt and then playing hardball to collect it, by filing lawsuits, repossessing property like boats, etc. Undoubtedly there are people in places like the Republic of the Congo and Peru who died prematurely because money that was being spent on social welfare was diverted to Elliot.

3. The third largest contributor - Soros Fund Management - What can I say that hasn't already been said here by those on the right. Perhaps that Mr. "Taxes are too low for everyone but me" George Soros was able to avoid paying tax on part of his earnings for many years by an elaborate fund structure where his performance and management fees were kept in a corporation in a tax haven. Soros has historically been a huge supporter of Hillary Clinton and Democrats in general.

This leads me to ask want to ask Yssup a couple of questions, to which I hope he'll have a serious response, but I need to do a little research first.

[Tiny]

Yssup, in another thread, you asked "I'm curious who actually thinks Citizens United was a good idea and why." I came up with a sincere reply that I put a good bit of work into, and it's here:

http://www.eccie.net/showpost.php?p=...85&postcount=8

My question to you, in a similar vein, why do Democrats think the Citizens United decision was bad? Why does Hillary Clinton want an amendment to the Constitution to overturn it?

You might want to scan the Atlantic article I reference in the post. Democrats rely more on soft money, to PAC's, etc., than do Republicans. Thus, the Citizens United decision worked to the benefit of Democrats, and against Republicans. COG's link is a good example, where hedge funds are contributing much more to Clinton than Trump -- both campaign contributions and also donations to Clinton-allied groups that would be effected by the Citizens United ruling.

But more importantly, at least to those of us for whom freedom of speech and freedom of the press are sacrosanct, why does the Democrat Party want to muzzle or eliminate groups that criticize it? While I strongly disagree with much of Soros' agenda, I believe it's important that he have the right to run whatever television advertisements he wants and to promote or oppose whatever issues he wishes to address.

[Yssup Rider]

Actually, Tiny, I'd like you to answer my question first.

Do you think Citizens United was a good idea? If so why?

I think political campaigns should be funded evenly and tightly limited.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Actually, Tiny, I'd like you to answer my question first.

Do you think Citizens United was a good idea? If so why?

I think political campaigns should be funded evenly and limited.

Yssup, I linked to it two posts up, but here's what's in the link -- this is what I wrote earlier in response to your question:

As a former card-carrying member of the American Civil Liberties Union, I think it was a good idea. The Citizens United decision did not allow corporations and unions to contribute to political campaigns. Rather, it allowed them to use the media (television, radio, internet, newspapers, etc.) to support or oppose political candidates. Very significantly, "corporations" includes 501(c)(4) organizations, like Citizens United, and Super PAC's.

You start down a slippery slope when you place restrictions on free speech, including political speech. Yssup, you don't like Donald Trump. Would you want to give a Trump administration the power to shut up organizations that oppose him? And I'd ask a similar question of those who hate and fear Hillary. The McCain-Feingold act, part of which was overturned by the Supreme Court in the Citizens United decision, could have been used as a lever by a leader in the mold of a Hugo Chavez and Vladimir Putin. One of the secrets of their "success", in clamping down on democracy and controlling their countries, was cracking down on political speech. If you criticized them or their party, you went to jail.

If, say, the Koch brothers wanted to start producing and paying for television time to run anti-Trump or anti-Clinton movies, I don't think the McCain-Feingold Act would prevent that, as long as they didn't pay for the movies through a "corporation", like a 501(c)(4) organization. Citizens United, which sued the Federal Election Commission, is a 501(c)(4) organization, as is, for example, American Crossroads, the organization run by Karl Rove. Practically, I don't think politicians believe they have a big problem with corporations like Exxon running advertisements. It's the 501(c)(4)'s that they're after, as well as Super PAC's.

One important feature of the 501(c)(4)'s is that they're not required to provide a list of their donors to the government. And, in my opinion (although probably not yours), that's a good thing. To give an example you might relate to, Planned Parenthood has a 501(c)(4). And, without making contributions to campaigns, it supports candidates who favor reproductive rights and opposes those who don't. What if some crazy gets a hold of their donor list and starts assassinating people who contributed to their 501(c)(4)? Some Republicans have similar concerns.

It might surprise you, but the Citizens United decision didn't help Republicans and hurt Democrats. In fact it was the other way around. It's certain that Citizens United favors Hillary, with her access to huge amounts of Super PAC money, while it hurts Trump. See http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/...reform/302758/, which among other things says "Democrats knew that campaign-finance reform would cripple their fundraising ability—but they backed the idea anyway, largely on principle. Republicans knew that it would give their party an even bigger edge than it already had—but they staunchly opposed it, also largely on principle."

[Guest123018-4]

Excellent analysis.

[LexusLover]

The liberal media is "cracking down" on freedom of speech by screening it and paraphrasing it with their own interpretation and spin... and thus censoring it..... with the facilitation and acceptance by the Liberals they support.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by The2Dogs

Excellent analysis.

Thanks 2Dogs. I'd like to get a response out of Yssup, but I guess he either hasn't thought it through or doesn't have strong feelings about the Citizens United decision, one way or the other. There are too many Democrats who use it as a catch phrase to blast the opposition, without realizing that there's a freedom of speech issue and that it helped them more than it helped Republicans.

[IIFFOFRDB]

Originally Posted by Tiny

Thanks 2Dogs. I'd like to get a response out of Yssup, but I guess he either hasn't thought it through or doesn't have strong feelings about the Citizens United decision, one way or the other. There are too many Democrats who use it as a catch phrase to blast the opposition, without realizing that there's a freedom of speech issue and that it helped them more than it helped Republicans.

Not to mention the Koch brothers are Libertarian/Globalists who support HilLIARy Corrupton... can't forget about that!

[DSK]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Still think she is going to reform the financial industry? $48.5 MILLION to Hillary, $19 THOUSAND to Trump.

http://www.againstcronycapitalism.or...o-trump-video/

Amazing how many in the establishment fear Trump!!

[Luke_Wyatt]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Still think she is going to reform the financial industry? $48.5 MILLION to Hillary, $19 THOUSAND to Trump.

http://www.againstcronycapitalism.or...o-trump-video/

And the KKK supports Trump what's your point?

[DSK]

Originally Posted by Luke_Wyatt

And the KKK supports Trump what's your point?

The KKK's support is good for about 2000 votes nationwide, and maybe 50 dollars in donations.

Wall Street will contribute millions above the table and more below.

[CuteOldGuy]

Originally Posted by Luke_Wyatt

And the KKK supports Trump what's your point?

Actually, the KKK came out for Hillary, Lube Myass. And I don't think the KKK has donated millions of dollars to anybody, therefore, there are favors due back to them. Hillary is owned by Wall Street. They have paid for her. She will do what they want.