Posted on 09/17/2007 9:11:57 PM PDT by Stoat
Here's a pop quiz on money in politics: Who gives more money to federal candidates, the National Rifle Association or MoveOn.org?
Answer: MoveOn.
And it isn't even close.
In the last two election cycles, MoveOn.org Political Action Committee spent more than $58 million in pro-Democrat political advocacy, according to Federal Election Commission records.
In just the 2006 election cycle, MoveOn.org spent $27 million in advocacy to elect a Democratic majority in Congress and used its formidable fund-raising clout to propel numerous Democratic challengers to House and Senate victories. By comparison, the NRA PAC donated $11 million in 2006.
"They give away and raise about three times as much as the National Rifle Association," said Massie Ritsch, communications director for the Center for Responsive Politics. "A tremendous amount of money, especially when you consider how quickly they came on the scene."
Brief History, Lasting Impact
Founded in 1998 by Wes Boyd and Joan Blades, MoveOn.org started as an online petition to stop the impeachment of President Bill Clinton in the aftermath of the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal. Boyd and Blades, software engineers from Berkeley, Calif., posted a petition on the Internet seeking signatures for Congress to censure Clinton and "move on" to other domestic issues.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
From the article:
A quick tally of MoveOn-directed contributions in the 2006 election cycle, according to records compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics, offers a sample of the impressive size of its donations:
— Sen. Robert Byrd, West Virginia = $834,211
— Sen. Claire McCaskill, Missouri = $382,531
— Sen. Jon Tester, Montana = $301,788
— Sen. Sherrod Brown, Ohio = $287,622
— Sen. Bob Casey, Pennsylvania = $160,780
Those contributions helped build a Senate Democratic majority as four of the five entered the Senate for the first time. McCaskill and Tester won razor-thin victories over well-funded GOP incumbents Jim Talent and Conrad Burns.
MOVEON raised an amazing amount of money. They know how motivate fruits, nuts and flakes.
It's astonishing how many Socialist / Marxist hysterics are out there with money to spend and nothing worthwhile to do.
Isn’t there some way to look into who, beside Soros, is actually funding this crap?
My bet is a very large majority is coming from Soros.
I had understood that the Soros connection had been well-established, and I was disappointed that the article didn't touch that aspect of the matter at all.
"..Soros next summoned California software developer Wes Boyd to meet him in New York on September 17. Boyd was best known among computer users for his “Flying Toasters” screen saver. The political world knew him as founder of the radical Web site MoveOn.org, the Internet force behind Howard Dean’s anti-war presidential campaign. Boyd had launched the Web site during the Clinton impeachment trial in 1998, offering a petition to censure the President and “move on” to more important matters. Hundreds of thousands of readers responded, and Boyd quickly began milking his growing membership for political contributions. His Web site raised millions for Democrat candidates in three national elections – two mid-terms and one presidential race. When they met in New York, Soros offered Boyd a deal. He and his associate Peter Lewis would donate $1 to MoveOn.org for every $2 Boyd could raise from his members, up to $5 million total from Soros and Lewis combined. Boyd accepted.[19].."
I don't know if the Soros funding has continued, but it was there.
So it just proves that they are in bed with them.
Which proves that this isn't their money; money they had to sweat, punch a time card, or work a fry-o-lader, to earn. It's either inherited money, trust fund money, allowance-money from mumsy and daddy, and/or MoveOn money. The higher you go in the organization, the more you find this to be true.
The Russians have term for these kinds of people: beloruchk ("white hands")
And, as equally important, who is controlling the disbursements?
And, as equally important, who is controlling the disbursements? That's a lot of power to have all that money to throw around.
What happened to CFR?
The Council on Foreign Relations? Were they supposed to be tied to MoveOn somehow?
Campaign Finance Reform.
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.