Thanks to the cunning skills of the hunters, they have found the perfect weapon; they have hidden the true smell of politicians with wild animal Super-PAC urine. We no longer can determine where money is coming from, how much of it is coming, or more importantly, you and I pay the bill at every step of our commercial lives.
Hunter behind blind number 1 – Mitt Romney:
Romney’s ammunition is a paltry $86,631,381.00 as of March 31 2012, but make no mistake; Romney can easily support his own campaign without the aid of his targets, You and I. But he really dislikes taking money from his prey -
Presidential candidate Romney stated in August 2011 that his ability to benefit from large contributions via PACs from individual donors helps him to equalize the influence of corporations and unions that can pool small contributions from many employees or union members. Romney stated “My own view is; I don’t like all the influence of money in politics, but I don’t have a solution that’s a lot better than saying let people contribute what they will, then report it, and let people know who gave what to whom.”
This bears repetition; “in order to equalize the influence of corporations and unions… I don’t like all the influence of money in politics.” What??? Isn't this a bit analogous to Bernie Madoff decrying; “I really hate ponzi schemes, but what choices have I in order to equalize the financial equilibrium of the planet Earth for us poor folk?”
Yah; OK Mittster, you shining beacon of anti-corporate influence-peddling; thank you so very much for keeping an eye out for us average Joe’s. What would we ever do without you??
Hunter behind blind number 2 - Barack Obama:
Obama’s ammunition is a whopping $191,671,860 as of March 231, 2012. Unlike Romney, Obama is truly dependent upon donations to run his campaign, for he has no ultra-rich family background to draw from; he is quite literally the son of a goat herder and could be one of us.
And if you believe that, perhaps you should run for President of the United States; if you’re extraordinarily lucky, you’ll raise a powerful bankroll of $163,367.00 like Randall Terry, the; now wait for the drum-roll …. anti-abortionist Democrat? Well hell! No wonder he raised pocket change; with hunting credentials like that I’m surprised he didn’t shoot himself in the head on his first hunt like Ricky Pinky.
The President and 2012 candidate Obama, who stated in 2007: "I don’t take PAC money and I don’t take lobbyists’ money," came out with an endorsement of super PACs via his campaign manager Jim Messina in his statement: "With so much at stake, we can't allow for two sets of rules in this election whereby the Republican nominee is the beneficiary of unlimited spending and Democrats unilaterally disarm.” According to press reports, in asking his top fundraisers to steer money to the main super PAC backing his reelection, Obama embraced a campaign vehicle he previously denounced.
"I don’t take PAC money and I don’t take lobbyists’ money." Now, I have to give him credit here, it’s all a big misunderstanding; there is a difference between PACs and Super PACs, so it was simply our fault, our lack of understanding of his statement that’s created the woefully errant shift in perception and besides, they weren’t “registered lobbyists” It’s all in the ears of the listender, right?
Didn’t I read somewhere in this post something about ponzi schemes?
As of March 31, 2012, all the hunters have raised a total of $419,359,521.00. 4.2 million dollars! That’s almost a half Billion dollars, for campaigns and the hunting season has just begun (officially) and already Barack Obama alone has raised 20% of the entire 2008 campaign of ALL candidates combined.
Now, if you’re not blind, deaf, or a reclusive moonshine distiller in my one-time neighborhood, the foothills of the Ozarks, you would already know where the Republican hunter, Romney gets his money (but wait, there’s more), but where does an ordinary Joe like Obama come up with enough money to outright support 12,090.5 families in the state with the lowest per capita income of the 50 United States, Mississippi?
(You shoulda voted Obama, Mississippi. Pay back is one bad-ass mother f ^*&$#.)
Just as he is in the details, the Devil is also hidden in the ammunition itself.
PAC – Political Action Committee, a committee (such a wonderfully benign word; “committee”) organized for the sole purpose of directing pooled campaign donations towards efforts, either for or against political elections in accordance with the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECAL er uhm, FECA).
Ironically enough, this “act” was passed as part of the Taft-Hartley Act designed to, get this; "eliminate influence-peddling by labor unions and/or corporations," this in turn lead to a series of other acts, designed to control the volume of and methods in which political donations are managed. In essence, donations were limited to $5,000.00 per year by individuals and corporate or union donations were FECALLY prohibited to contribute to the campaigns.
In a Super simplified version of events; in 2010, a few things occurred that created life oh so much the better for the hunters, allowing PACs to morph into “Super PACs” who could now spend what they wish, as much as they wish and for whom they wish as long as they claimed to be independent of the campaigner. They could coordinate efforts through inactive participants such as the media. Wait! What? They can unofficially send each other secre codes through the inactive participants, like the media? (Oh yah, that works! Perhaps al Zawahiri shoulda thought of that and sent hidden codes on the front page of the New York Times to bin Laden in English).
As of February 2012, according to Center for ResponsivePolitics, 313 groups organized as Super PACs had received $98,650,993 and spent $46,191,479. This means early in the 2012 election cycle, PACs had already greatly exceeded total receipts of 2008. The leading Super PAC on its own raised more money than the combined total spent by the top 9 PACS in the 2008 cycle. We're really rollin now foks.
The 2012 figures don't include funds raised by State level PACs nor funds raised by national level non-profit groups that pool "soft-funds". Spending by non-profits, also called 527 organizations, exceeded $500 million in the 2010 election cycle with the two largest organizations being the Republican Governors Association $131,873,954 and the Democratic Governors Association $64,708,253 Spending by the 527 organizations for the 2012 is expected to be double and much will be derived from donors kept hidden from voters.
Why is it that every time the government tries to control things, they make it worse for the hunted and better for the hunters????
I think you know the answer to that one.
So! It comes down to this; if you want to continue voting the party line, that’s your call; Republican or Democrat, that’s what it’s about. Like rooting (but don’t use that term when supporting an Australian sport; use “barracking” instead, or they’re likely to think you’re inviting them to bed with you) for the home team, it’ll get you what you want. Maybe; if you're a Super PAC Chairperson.
So as you seek sanctuary in the woods this season, remember these two things:
1. Every time you participate in our economy, you are donating money to a candidate; the candidate may or may not be of your choosing, but rest assured, you are donating SUPER time.
2. If you want to piss up a rope, don’t hope for it to come back down onto you smelling like red fox urine, for the hunters already have that too.
Happy Season All!
And if you want to read a bit more about the hunters in order to prepare you for the season, here are a few links of interest.