In one of his rants on the floor of the Senate in which he accused the Koch brothers of trying to buy the country, Harry Reid also accused them of violating federal law by bribing foreign officials.
“These are the same brothers whose company, according to a Bloomberg investigation, paid bribes and kickbacks to win contracts in Africa, India and the Middle East,” Reid said, calling the brothers “unAmerican.”
The Kochs’ attorney quickly replied that the allegations in the Bloomberg article have been debunked and there have been no charges filed, according to The Hill.
Now, the Washington Examiner reveals that Harry has taken more than half a million dollars over the past four years from companies under investigation for possible violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.
Using campaign records and a blog about probes under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, the newspaper put together this graphic:
The first figure is the total amount for that company’s associates, the second figure is the amount given by individuals at the company, and the third figure is the amount given by the company PACs.
4TH ST8 
Can he be unaware that such records are maintained? He seems to be running neck to neck with Obama on daily sound bites.
Tom, I don’t think the Washington Examiner is on Petey’s Approved List of Media (PALM). Y’know, sometimes I think his whole life revolves around his PALM.
So it is wrong to accept campaign contributions from Disney and Microsoft?
More to the point, Nyp, what makes SOME campaign donations from SOME organizations OK while others are not acceptable?
How can you guys be so discriminatory and still claim to be open and accepting of all speech?
Oh, sorry, at the risk of answering my own question, the word “hypocrisy” just screamed its way into my mind…..
I don’t know to what you are referring. Did Senator Reid state that it was wrong for someone to take donations from the Koch brothers because their companys had been accused of FCPA violations?
Disingenuous, nyp.
In other words, he did not.
There are no other words to describe the depths of your disingenuous nature when you try to twist the statements others make, nyp.
Try “precise”. Or “analytic”. Or ….
Precisely disingenuous.
What you are actually saying is it’s ok for some money to influence elections as long as it influences liberal favor, but whatever money allows conservatives to have a voice must be stopped at all costs!
Not at all.
You wrote that it was wrong for Senator Reid to accept donations from corporations that, at one time or another, had been invesitgated for possible FCPA violations, while criticizing the receipt of campaign donations from the Koch brothers. To wit: “Nyp, what makes SOME campaign donations from SOME organizations OK while others are not acceptable?”
I asked if Senator Reid had ever made such a statement. He obviously has not, so you are reduced to making personal insults about the depths of my depravity.
“Did Senator Reid state that it was wrong for someone to take donations from the Koch brothers because their companys had been accused of FCPA violations?”
By this logic, I guess it would’ve been OK for Senator Reid to keep the money that Harvey Whittemore illegally raised on his behalf.
Come to think of it, I’m not sure it was ever confirmed that Senator Reid returned the money or donated it to charity.
Harry is now blaming the Koch brothers for blocking aid to the Ukraine.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/03/13/harry-reid-accuses-republicans-of-holding-up-ukraine-aid/
“Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) said Thursday that Senate Republican leaders had demanded that the Internal Revenue Service delay new regulations against nonprofit political advocacy groups in exchange for including long-sought reforms at the International Monetary Fund in legislation providing aid to Ukraine. In doing so, Reid said, Republicans were more interested in helping their campaign donors, including the billionaire industrialists Charles and David Koch, who are bankrolling conservative political groups helping GOP congressional candidates. …A senior Republican aide disputed Reid’s account but did not deny that GOP leaders had raised the possibility of delaying the IRS’s implementation of the new regulation targeting nonprofit political groups.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/03/13/harry-reid-accuses-republicans-of-holding-up-ukraine-aid/
Harry Greid is a crook. Why ANYONE would defend him, is beyond me.
When I consider how far we’ve gone, from Richard Nixon, to vermin like Greid, I’m stunned.
“The dispute means that Congress is unlikely to approve a new U.S. aid package to the Ukrainian government and sanctions against Russian authorities before leaving Friday for another week-long recess.”
So this issue is important to Senator Reid, but not important enough to delay the week long recess from their grueling 2 day a week work schedule.
“”To wit: “Nyp, what makes SOME campaign donations from SOME organizations OK while others are not acceptable?””
Where did I write about Reid? I was writing about donations to campaigns….Reid would be included in those but so is every other politician.
Since you got so twisty with your spin, how about you answer the actual question, Nyp?
Your question had nothing to do with Senator Reid or Mr. Mitchell’s comments? Just something out of thin air?
Those were the subject, however your post was the impetus.
And you still haven’t answered it.
I’m happy to answer your question.
You asked: “Nyp, what makes SOME campaign donations from SOME organizations OK while others are not acceptable?”
The answer is that some campaign donations are not acceptable because they come from either from bad people or from people who have done bad things, while other campaign donations are OK because the people who have made them are not bad or have not done bad things. For example, a campaign donation from Mother Teresa would probably be OK, while a donation from the Grand Kleagle of the Klu Klux Klan would not be acceptable.
I trust that this answers your question.
This has been another edition of “Simple Answers to Stupid Questions.”
“The answer is that some campaign donations are not acceptable because they come from either from bad people or from people who have done bad things, while other campaign donations are OK because the people who have made them are not bad or have not done bad things. For example, a campaign donation from Mother Teresa would probably be OK, while a donation from the Grand Kleagle of the Klu Klux Klan would not be acceptable.”
So would a political campaign donation from the Koch brothers be OK or not acceptable, Nyp?
It would be more acceptable than a contribution from the Grand Kleagle of the Klu Klux Klan.
“It would be more acceptable than a contribution from the Grand Kleagle of the Klu Klux Klan.”
Hence
NOT a “Simple Answers to Stupid Questions.”
You have not answered it because you are making the decision as to who is defined as “good” and who is “bad”. In a different era you would be the “bad” one in this argument.
I am taking the devils advocate in this era. What would be wrong with KKK money? What happens if the candidate wins then does many things exactly opposite of those the KKK wanted?
Kinda like not going with “single payer” and instead forcing everyone to buy from “private” business. (lots of you guys were upset about that one and still want to shut out the insurance industry) You did not get what you want and lots of “good” money donations came from “good” people in support of a thing they did not get.
Generally in these discussions I see the case as settled in my favor when the opposition goes to the insult, in most cases it begins with the word “stupid”.
In no way was my point stupid and you get the prize for going to the word “stupid” first, Nyp!
Here’s your sign. http://garageart.com/images/prods/9718.jpg
A couple of weeks ago, Senator Reid said, “It’s too bad that they’re trying to buy America, and it’s time that the American people spoke out against this terrible dishonesty of these two brothers who are about as un-American as anyone I can imagine.”
But Nyp asked, “Did Senator Reid state that it was wrong for someone to take donations from the Koch brothers because their companys had been accused of FCPA violations?” In response to Steve’s accusation of disingenuousness, Nyp replied, “In other words, he did not.”
Senator Reid’s statement a couple weeks ago was in the context of Obamacare, and Nyp’s post was in the context of allegations of bribery, but that hardly matters. Senator Reid’s statement that the Koch brothers “are about as un-American as anyone I can imagine” is a pretty all encompassing assessment of what he thinks of them.
So what does this mean? Do Senator Reid and Nyp think it’s OK to accept money from people who are “as un-American as anyone I [Senator Reid] can imagine”?
I can’t make much sense of what either of you are saying, so my answer to your “questions” is “I dunno.” In Milty’s case, I attribute the problem to his getting tripped up in his own snark. In Steve’s case, I don’t think that is what is happening.
Steve: Is “snark” as insulting as “stupid”?
A “snark alert” is nowhere near insult, in fact it is much closer to a war cry than it is to insult.
In my case the question was to show that only “good” donation money may come from people who agree with the current power structure…in this case (for example) Soros money is considered “good” where Koch money is considered the spawn of Satan.
Nyp is simply refusing to question authority,,, as is the case with all modern liberals.
And as for “snark” the mrgreen emoticon is a snark alert or referring to sarcasm.
Now re read my post linked https://4thst8.wordpress.com/2014/03/13/reid-pot-calls-koch-kettle-black/#comment-23815
[…] for Prosperity — funded by Harry Reid’s favorite conservative billionaires Charles and David Koch — sent out mailers in 2012 during the election […]
[…] 501(c)(4) organization associated with the Koch brothers, who have been attacked on the floor of the Senate by Harry Reid as unAmerican, on Monday released an online ad called the “Steyer […]