Posted on 09/13/2011 1:59:52 PM PDT by afraidfortherepublic
When Rick Perry joked last night that the $5,000 he had received from Merck wasn’t enough to buy him off, the line failed to charm the audience as he’d expected. Turns out, the line also significantly low-balled how much he’d received from Merck. “Merck PAC—the company’s D.C.-based political action committee—has given Perry $28,500 since 2001, according to Texas Ethics Commission filings. The bulk of that money came prior to 2007,” the Los Angeles Times reports today. Even so, that doesn’t make Merck one of Perry’s top donors: the LA Times notes that he’s received over the years donations totaling more than six figures from over 200 sources.
and I hear he even wears a cowboy hat and you know what that means. It is even rumored that he talks with a Texas accent, most likely a plant from south of the border.
Get real people! Of those running, most are not electable no matter how you try to smear the leaders. I think there was a great debate, however, it was not balanced, nor did the fringe candidates really get alot of input.
imho s/ and you know what they say about opinions...
It was a conflict of interest for Perry to take one penny from Merck while he was pushing their agenda.
Perry says his price is over $5000, knowing he received more than that amount, so this makes an honest skeptic wonder what his price is.
You know, normy, I can’t speak for Sarah Palin. Soooo, I will speak for myself.
Most folks around here know I have been really tough on Palin.
I don’t apologize for being tough on any of them.
But when they are right, I will agree with them. In this case, Palin and Bachmann are right.
Face it, Perry was going to get exposure on this sooner or later. He should be glad it happened now rather than later. Instead we have to hear that Mrs. Kremer is a cow, Michele is a cow, and I guess Palin is too. Shameful.
I don’t really think Bachmann could win the nomination. But I am glad she is a fighter.
Sad thing for conservatives. We would rather make excuses for what we know is not conservative than back a conservative.
Conservatives are called kooks. Fine, call me a kook.
If his price is a mere $2850/year, then what did that other $39,000,000 buy? Maybe nothing, but it is a legit question.
Gee Mr. Edd it sure is tough to see why the people of Texas elected him 3 times. He sure is an a-hole according to some.
Does that mean it would be a conflict of interest for Sarah Palin to take one penny from tea partiers while she pushes our agenda? Or is it only corrupt if it's the other guy?
Your understanding is at best only partially correct.
“While the F.E.C. clearly says campaign committee cash can’t be tapped for personal use, there are no such stipulations for certain political action committees, most controversially “leadership PACs” that elected officials can use to support various political causes other than their own.”
So the first question is whether the money is in an actual campaign account, or if it is in a PAC.
PAC money can be kept, although they keep talking about changing the rules.
Sarah Palin isn’t governor of Texas. In fact, she’s not a government official at all, therefore, no conflict of interest. Besides, none of the politician would be able to accept donations from members of the tea party, since they all claim to be pushing the agenda.
If Palin enacted legislation after receiving a bribe from the Tea Party, and if the Tea Party were a business entity instead of a movement, it would also be Crony Capitalism.
Of course, your analogy to Palin is ridiculous.
Why do you think it is rediculous? The charge wasn’t about Perry, it was about a conflict of interest that would arise simply because he got money from a donor while pushing the donor’s agenda.
But that is by definition what donors do. Donors give money to candidates who push their agenda. Drug companies want to sell drugs, and they give money to candidates who make it easier to sell drugs. Tea Partiers want small government, tax cuts, and spending cuts, and they give money to candidates who will vote for spending cuts, tax cuts, and small government.
By default, Sarah Palin will push legislation after receiving the “bribe” from the tea party “members”, i.e. all the people who say they are part of the tea party, and who will give her their donations to win the nomination and the presidency. When she wins, she will then send down a budget that cuts taxes and spending, she will push a bill to repeal obamacare, she’ll secure the border — all the things we told her to do when we sent her money.
There is NOTHING wrong with this. That is my point — it is absurd to complain about politicians doing what pleases their donors. When we see politicians do what we like, we send them money (Joe Wilson and “you lie” being a particular example). If politicians stop doing what we want, we threaten to stop sending them money, like the RNC “not one thin dime” campaign.
Essentially, we “bribe” candidates to remain faithful to our principles, by offering and witholding campaign contributions.
Here is the cheat sheet. Money given to a politician you don’t like = “pay-off”. Money given to a politician you like = “grass-roots activism”.
Or where 80% of his donations came from. Or should I say whom they came from?
There is a HUGE difference between political donations from citizens who share your political philosophy and donations from a business that expects (and receives) a multi-million-dollar quid pro quo.
There is no way around it, he screwed this up. Dumb ass. He gets too full of himself sometimes.
Amen
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.