The Future President, Donald Trump

Pro-Donald Trump super PAC shutters

Donald Trump has asked the nine super PACs that appear to support his presidential campaign to stop raising money using his name, likeness and slogans and to return any donations they have already received. Trump then challenged his Republican and Democratic opponents to do the same and reject "dark money."

Trump comes away smelling like a rose.

Super PACs, officially known as "independent-expenditure only committees," may not make contributions to candidate campaigns or parties, but may engage in unlimited political spending independently of the campaigns. Unlike traditional PACs, they can raise funds from individuals, corporations, unions, and other groups without any legal limit on donation size.[18]
Super PACs were made possible by two judicial decisions: the aforementioned Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and, two months later, Speechnow.org v. FEC. In Speechnow.org, the federal Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit held that PACs that did not make contributions to candidates, parties, or other PACs could accept unlimited contributions from individuals, unions, and corporations (both for profit and not-for-profit) for the purpose of making independent expenditures.
The result of the Citizens United and SpeechNow.org decisions was the rise of a new type of political action committee in 2010, popularly dubbed the "super PAC".[19] In an open meeting on July 22, 2010, the FEC approved two Advisory Opinions to modify FEC policy in accordance with the legal decisions.[20] These Advisory Opinions were issued in response to requests from two existing PACs, Club for Growth, and Commonsense Ten, which later became Senate Majority PAC. The opinions gave a sample wording letter which all Super PACs must submit to qualify for the deregulated status, and such letters continue to be used by Super PACs up to the present date. FEC Chairman Steven T. Walther dissented on both opinions and issued a statement giving his thoughts. In the statement, Walther stated "There are provisions of the Act and Commission regulations not addressed by the court in SpeechNow that continue to prohibit Commonsense Ten from soliciting or accepting contributions from political committees in excess of $5,000 annually or any contributions from corporations or labor organizations." (emphasis in original)[21]
The term "Super PAC" was coined by reporter Eliza Newlin Carney.[22] According to Politico, Carney, a staff writer covering lobbying and influence for CQ Roll Call, "made the first identifiable, published reference to 'super PAC' as it’s known today while working at National Journal, writing on June 26, 2010, of a group called Workers’ Voices, that it was a kind of '"super PAC" that could become increasingly popular in the post-Citizens United world.'"[23]
According to FEC advisories, Super PACs are not allowed to coordinate directly with candidates or political parties. This restriction is intended to prevent them from operating campaigns that complement or parallel those of the candidates they support or engaging in negotiations that could result in quid pro quo bargaining between donors to the PAC and the candidate or officeholder. However, it is legal for candidates and Super PAC managers to discuss campaign strategy and tactics through the media.[24][25]
201

You'd better read up on your Republican history. Republicans believe in Capitalism, we don't believe in Oligarchy.

Some gibberish about pretending to have ever been a Republican.

Quote:

Pro-Donald Trump super PAC shutters

The PAC is also linked to a 501(c)(4) non-profit organization in the same name, which can raise unlimited contributions from anonymous donors.

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/10/former-white-house-chief-of-staff-nonsense-spewing-sarah-palin-to-blame-for-carnival-like-gop/
I thought this was interesting. I think it has some merit.

When people support people like Carson and Trump, they’re not condemning just the Republicans, you know, Jeb Bush and [Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas]. They’re saying this for the whole damn country,” Rangel explained. “That’s dangerous, because when people give up on the country, to me… I truly believe that being American makes a difference because you believe in your country. I think that makes you work a little harder. It gives you a little more hope.”

Rangel is especially worried about the potential for a Trump victory in the election.

“Now we’re hearing people on television and the pundits saying, I didn’t know it was possible, but mathematically, you know, the guy really could win,” Rangel said. “That’s like a nightmare. It could be the end of the republic as we know it.”

Hawk, McG...

...you guys are clueless!

Love ya both...but you two are clueless.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Hawk, McG...

...you guys are clueless!

Love ya both...but you two are clueless.

Now aren't you helpful, Are you in a particularly lazy mood today Frank?