Nonsense. The very purpose of requiring public disclosure on campaign finance forms is to permit the public to obtain them and look for ethically conflicted reciepts and expenditures! Why do you think politicians get hammered in campaign ads (and rightly so) for taking tobacco and trial lawyer money? Cause it's seen as ethically conflicted by the majority of the electorate!
If a single disclosure on page 96 of the government's required form somehow removes the ethical culpability of a contribution, then no contribution or expenditure of any form save those that are undisclosed has anything wrong with it. By your same measure, candidate Joe Schmoe can spend $20,000 from his campaign account on prostitutes and so long as he lists them on the form we can't ethically condemn him. That, of course, is an ethical absurdity and so is your argument about STV.
Apparently you failed to defeat the referendum at the ballot box, so you may as well resort to rat tactics to try and stop it.
First off, I was disenfranchised during that referendum (I was out of town that election day and requested a ballot by mail, which was then stolen and fraudulently filed somewhere en route to me at the post office) and yes - I did make a complaint to the Ethics Commission on that...as well as sending notification to the USDOJ Voting Rights Division. So I never had an opportunity to make my legally entitled attempt to defeat it at the ballot box. Second, the referendum passed on a 1% margin. Considering that its supporters benefitted from $28,000 in ethically suspect money from STV, plus another $50,000 in ethically suspect money from another contractor, Siemens, plus some $500,000-$1,000,000 in illegal political advertising and political collusion by a government entity, it is beyond a shadow of a doubt that their 1% margin of victory was obtained by the advantages they recieved from those aforementioned means.
As a final point I will note that once again your curious appearance on yet another obscure Texas politics thread remains unexplained. Are you considering a move to the state, mac? If you are why not just say so. If you desire I might even arrange for somebody to greet you in the limo line at the airport with a "yankee go home" sign. Or, alternatively, do you simply like reading what I post? If so, I would be more than happy to save you the trouble of digging around FR for obscure Texas threads and/or personal profiles by adding you to my ping list. All you gotta do is say when.
So my contribution to the NRA (who then gives it to campaigns in key races) is ethically conflicted because a majoirty of Americans think so? Thanks for explaining CFR to me professor. I didn't realize you were such a big supporter of restrictions on the first amendment.
...I was disenfranchised during that referendum (I was out of town that election day and requested a ballot by mail, which was then stolen and fraudulently filed somewhere en route to me at the post office) and yes - I did make a complaint to the Ethics Commission on that...as well as sending notification to the USDOJ Voting Rights Division. So I never had an opportunity to make my legally entitled attempt to defeat it at the ballot box.
Waah! my dog at my absentee ballot.
Considering that its supporters benefitted from $28,000 in ethically suspect money from STV, plus another $50,000 in ethically suspect money from another contractor, Siemens, plus some $500,000-$1,000,000 in illegal political advertising and political collusion by a government entity, it is beyond a shadow of a doubt that their 1% margin of victory was obtained by the advantages they recieved from those aforementioned means.
IOW, even though it was a relatively minor contributor to the PAC, and even though you can easily identify much more aggregious, illegal government activity, you chose to focus only on the contactor (STV) who wanted to win the bid should the project move forward. Yet, you make it seem like if it weren't for their support the whole referendum would have been defeated.
As a final point I will note that once again your curious appearance on yet another obscure Texas politics thread remains unexplained.
You seem to think that you're entitled to pick and choose who shows up and comments on threads you either start or participate in. Well you're not. As I've told you before, if you can't backup the words you post here then maybe you don't belong. Are we clear?