Posted on 02/17/2015 7:51:04 AM PST by xzins
The late, great Eric Hoffer once said that, “Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket.”
Some people have started to wonder whether that’s happened to groups in the conservative movement – and that’s understandable. Reports about sleazy activities by conservative groups have not exactly been in short supply over the last couple of years. Damaging stories have popped up on the Daily Beast, Mother Jones, Washington Post, the Politico and at the Daily Caller among other outlets. Additionally, for those of us who have a lot of friends in the Tea Party and among grassroots conservatives, stories of abuse have become rampant. That may be why you’ve heard people like Ann Coulter and Dana Loesch publicly suggesting that there are groups out there ripping people off. However, the problem with the articles that have come out so far is that most of them have come from liberal outlets and have only discussed limited aspects of a few organizations. That naturally led people to wonder if they were reading hit pieces. As to the rumors, there are always two sides to every story and it’s difficult to know how much weight to place on anecdotal stories.
(Excerpt) Read more at rightwingnews.com ...
Bill and Hillary’s speaking fees, both.
Donating to one of these “funds” never made sense to me. By necessity, every org that money flows through is going to take a cut - even if just to cover their operating costs. Consider the best of the best with the highest percentage of fund flowing through to candidates: They still take a cut, albeit a *fair & reasonable* cut.
So, why would I want my money watered down when I can give it directly to the candidate and he can get full use of it? I mean, it’s just as easy to donate direct to a candidate than it is to a PAC or whatever, so why give a dime to a PAC? Maybe I’m missing something...
It;s so sad to see some of the ‘leaders’ of these groups spouting off in the papers and TV like they are actually the head of a organization that means anything.
It has always puzzled me how the super rich like the Koch Brothers have been able to persuade so many modest income people to vote against some of their own interests.
bfl
It went into people’s pockets, of course.
sadly I thought the Madison Project was a solid one...not so it appears....
pretty much only give to candidates now....
I think that’s the only thing you can do.
Give directly to the man and women you support. No “foundations”, no PACs. Don’t feed the cynical crooks like Palin and the Tea Party Express.
“It has always puzzled me how the super rich like the Koch Brothers have been able to persuade so many modest income people to vote against some of their own interests”
While socialists would agree with you, the Koch brothers “interests” are personal liberty, small government and the free market system. Those are common interests for conservatives no matter what income bracket we are in.
I don’t think that is relevent at all to this article. Bill Clinton is selling something and people, right or wrong, are buying it. Bravo to the fact that he can actually make half a million dollars by speaking.
These PAC’s are under the guise of a political fund raising group and most of them are spending money going on trips, new cars, and whatever they deem fit to spend our hard earned cash on. Not at all the same thing.
I disagree. No one pays half a million for one speech.
I did a simple Google search. Turns out you are wrong. A fact is a fact. Many Colleges, public and private organizations gladly paid him between $140,000 to $500,000 to speak.
I personally wouldn’t pay twelve cents to see him but it turns out, you can make a butt-ton of cash speaking and people will gladly pay.
I stand by what I said earlier. His speeches are not relevant to the post. He takes cash to give a two hour speech. And he gives a two hour speech.
These PAC’s are taking money under the pretense of financing a conservative candidate and instead are spending it on personal luxuries. It is disgusting how they have taken advantage of people who believed they were doing this for a greater good. Each one should personally have to answer for their deceiving ways.
I’m not wrong. They pay him for political reasons, not because some speaker commands half a million per speech. Since you saw my original comment at 39, then you know I was referring to political corruption and not to whether or not he was actually getting that much cash.
I can’t find another 500,000 speaker on google. Were you able to?
I suppose Obama during a campaign, but that only makes the political corruption point.
We can argue this until the cows come home.
He was indeed paid $500,000 for a speech. Not for every speech but for one in particular. There are many listings of speakers getting paid $250,000 and above just to talk.
My point is, he is offering a service which he does in fact give. Many entertainers (which I consider this type of thing) do the same thing. They sell seats at $300 - $500 per. If 1,000 people see them, it’s $500,000. Usually they are seating much more than 1,000 people. That’s a hefty salary but they give what the people want. Not all people... just the ones willing to pay.
Again, these PAC’s unfortunately, are not giving much if anything in return for what they claim are the true intentions. They are utilizing money people are donating toward what they believe is a good cause to go on vacations, dinners, cars, salary, etc. It’s very crooked.
til the cows. :>)
It’s a political donation.
Give to whomever you wish, but don't continue to make false accusations.
This whole "research" project is skewed to make orgs like Rove's look like they are the only good ones.
170 pages and this is all the better they can do?
It's mostly a sham skewed for political purposes.
I watched the writers "partner" (mentioned in the article) in this try to be politically astute, but ending spinning out of what ever tea party group she was involved in. Probably joined with this guy to get even.
Are you telling me the numbers are wrong? Because if they’re right, I stand by my characterization. Palin’s little better than Rove.
I hope you can show where the author is wrong on the facts, because if not there’s no other way to spin it.
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.