Ted Cruz Ping! If you want on/off this ping list, please let me know.
Please beware, this is a high-volume ping list!
CRUZ or LOSE!
Posted on 08/05/2015 2:12:39 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Republican presidential candidate and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz has made clear he’s not afraid to lose friends and alienate people. There is one man, however, who’s unlikely to find himself on Cruz’s bad side anytime soon: An enigmatic hedge funder by the name of Robert Mercer, one of only a handful of billionaires who together have lifted Cruz out of the typically out-financed “base-candidate” category into his current status as a top-tier competitor.
Federal Election Commission filings released last week showed that the 68-year-old Mercer, who earns his fortune as co-CEO of the hedge fund Renaissance Technologies, donated more than $11 million to Cruz-affiliated super PACs — or outside groups empowered by the 2010 Citizens United decision to accept unlimited sums of money from individuals and corporations to support a candidate, so long as those groups technically work independently of the candidate’s campaign. While the filings released at the end of July revealed that a number of GOP presidential hopefuls have been filling their campaign war chests with such million-dollar donations, no one has benefited more from this type of giving than Cruz. That’s largely because no individual donor has pumped more money into the presidential election this year than Mercer.
Cruz is currently in second place behind former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush in the 2016 Republican money race. Though he often likes to boast that he’s raised more “hard money” through his actual campaign — $14.3 million — than anyone else in the crowded GOP field, Cruz also enjoys the support of four wealthy super PACs that together have raised approximately $38 million. Nearly all of that money came from just three families, according to a New York Times analysis.
Both Cruz and Mercer are notoriously tight-lipped about each other; neither agreed to speak with msnbc for this story....
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.com ...
Walker is a non-lawyer/non-Ivy League.
That’s appealing to me.
Trump gets deductions for Wharton.
Cruz has great positions but I’m only voting for a lawyer if there’s no way out.
The dynamics of the Texas state Senate race and the GOP Nomination are very different.
Cruz was running as a long serving state-wide AG vs. the Lt. Gov. It seemed likely that whoever won the primary would win the Senate, so Texas GOP voters concentrated on getting the best person they could nominated.
Those dynamics are very different in this race.
Sarah Palin
He's not doing nearly as well in the endorsement game in his run for POTUS, which historically is important in winning the nomination.
Ted Cruz Ping! So then that makes Mercer a good guy, right? Cause, you know, every time R's want to inject some sanity by limiting litigation, the [lawyer-funded] left screams about not wanting to deny anyone their "day in court". Or does being litigious suddenly become a problem when you're conservative?
...which would be why Won dissed it from the podium during SOTU and Ho-llary wants to amend it away, right?
He wasn’t the Attorney General of Texas, Mr. Abbott was. He was the Solicitor General.
Look Freepers. Just because Dems object to something and Republicans support it does not mean conservatives have to support it. Citizens is a horrible Robert’s court piece of pro-corporation power over government. It may be Republican, but it is not pro government by and for the people.
Thanks for the correction.
Well had the court ruled the other way the group that had made a movie unfavorable to Hillary Clinton would have been unable to show or promote it. That doesn't sound like a victory of the people over government, to me.
Wikipedia:
The United States Supreme Court held that the First Amendment prohibited the government from restricting independent political expenditures by a nonprofit corporation. The principles articulated by the Supreme Court in the case have also been extended to for-profit corporations, labor unions and other associations.The essence of the opinion:
Justice Kennedy's majority opinion found that the BCRA §203 prohibition of all independent expenditures by corporations and unions violated the First Amendment's protection of free speech. The majority wrote, "If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech."I find this hard to argue with logically. The court had previously found that individuals had a right to spend their own money providing their opinion on issues and candidates, without Citizens United (a great name to remember) a single rich guy like Bloomberg would be free to oppose candidates supporting the Second Ammendment, while the NRA would be unable to unable to announce counter arguments.
Their is a big difference between expressing an opinion and donating to a political campaign and calling it speech.
Well that system will continue to deliver Lib and Democratic majorities indefinitely.
What alternative to you suggest. Surely you are not suggesting the pre Citizens status quo was a good one. Tards all love that system, and would like it reinstated.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.