ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2016 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Tuesday, February 17, 2015

93 percent corrupt

Apparently it's very, very profitable running political "non-profits" these days:
Right Wing News hired a researcher who spent more than a month researching 17 conservative PACs so we could do a special report. What we found was shocking.

* The bottom 10 performing PACs we researched spent $54,318,498 overall and yet only paid out $3,621,896 to candidates.

* Did you know that despite the fact that it raised a staggering 13 million dollars, The National Draft Ben Carson for President isn’t affiliated with Ben Carson and the small percentage of money they spent on independent expenditures didn’t go to him? Now you know why Ben Carson’s business manager, Armstrong Williams wouldn’t allow the group’s campaign director to take a picture with Carson and said, “People giving money think it’s going to Dr. Carson and it’s not. …Our hands are tied. We don’t want people exploited.”

* The Republican Mainstreet Partnership is getting an enormous amount of union money.

"Labor unions provided significant funding for the (Republican Main Street Partnership) with Working for Working Americans, the International Union of Operating Engineers, and the Laborers International Union of North America all contributing around $250,000. The United Transportation Union ($30,000), Seafarers International Union ($20,000), were joined by the Teamsters, Air Line Pilots Association, International Association of Firefighters, and various other unions who contributed $10,000.  SEIU contributed $5,000, as did the Laborers Union, the Transport Workers Union and various others."

In conclusion, "One of the things I realized while I was putting this report together is that perhaps the biggest reason grassroots candidates have been having trouble breaking through in recent years is because such a large percentage of the money that was intended for them is being siphoned off to vendors, wasted, and just plain old pocketed by people in these PACs."
I'd like to be able to say that I was shocked, but I'm not even a little bit surprised. The only thing that is remarkable is the percentage of the skimming. That's taking 93.3 percent off the top! They're even worse than their sob-sister cousin charities; apparently fear-mongering is more profitable than tear-jerking.

Labels: ,

28 Comments:

Blogger W.LindsayWheeler February 17, 2015 7:02 AM  

As the Spartans said, "There is no soothfast art in speech". There is a lot of lying going on. One can't even trust "conservative" PACs. And then there is subterfuge where people set up pseudo-conservative PACs to deceive and misdirect money on purpose. It is downright criminal. Most people won't investigate if it is a true conservative PAC or a pseudo-con PAC.

The whole political landscape is full of mines of subterfuge.

The answer. The only answer is the training into Virtue of all men and women at an early age. Only Virtue and Faith combats vice and corruption

Blogger D. Lane February 17, 2015 7:20 AM  

[...] apparently fear-mongering is more profitable than tear-jerking.

They need to diversify. No reason to play only one side when there are plenty of concerned citizens and bleeding hearts.

Anonymous DJF February 17, 2015 7:41 AM  

Fraud and mislabeling of organizations is a much wider problem then just politics

We have charities which are really government contractors or just money makers for the management

We have NGO (Non-Governmental Organizations) who are a revolving door employment with ex-government employees and get all their money from government

We have so-called private corporations which are just arms of the government.

And on and on, its a 1984 world

Anonymous A Visitor February 17, 2015 7:44 AM  

I suppose I'm surprised at the amount taken off the top but not entirely that it is happening.

Blogger The Anti-Gnostic February 17, 2015 7:44 AM  

Where does all this discretionary cash come from?

How do I divert it to me?

This is one strange economy.

Anonymous Old Man in a Villa February 17, 2015 8:07 AM  

We have been told repeatedly that children raised in homes where abuse takes place will in turn become abusers or that hate is a family value, taught on the parent's knee.

When you live in a kleptocracy where the only values respected are power and money what other possible outcome could be expected? I am amazed that anyone is left to actually show up, work hard and tell the truth. Such values are not only anachronistic, they are self destructive.

The reason every depravity and degeneracy is not only accepted but extolled is so that we are all equally involved in the corruption of the spirit, so that the biggest thieves and murderers and perverts are given a collective pass.

So no, no surpise here. I'm stunned that they pass even a small percentage forward.

Blogger Salt February 17, 2015 8:10 AM  

Only 93%? I'm disappointed. What keeps them legal? The Seven Percent Solution?

Anonymous Mike M. February 17, 2015 8:21 AM  

I wish I could say I'm surprised, but many of these "non-profit" groups are straightforward money-laundering operations. An easy way to work around inheritance taxes.

And fleece donors.

Blogger S1AL February 17, 2015 8:48 AM  

My dad always told me to check into the financials of a charitable group before donating to them... This is why. There are a number of Christian charities, and a few medical ones, that have good rates of use; but they're rare.

Blogger S1AL February 17, 2015 8:48 AM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Anonymous Stilicho February 17, 2015 8:57 AM  

Shall we start the "Clinton Coalition PAC" or the "Warren Renewal PAC"? All we need is an email list of leftists....

Anonymous ThirdMonkey February 17, 2015 9:07 AM  

This is no different than the typical "church" in the US. Before government welfare, healthcare, and social security, church budgets were spent on taking care of the sick, orphaned, widowed, and poor. Since we have rendered unto Caesar what was our original calling, 90% of church budgets are spent on salaries, facilities with stadium seating, and sound and light equipment for superfunjesusrockband.

Anonymous not your father's PAC February 17, 2015 9:07 AM  

If it were Republicans scamming Black people to give to "Barack Obama for President Again" you can be certain Eric Holder, the IRS and every media outlet would be all over it. If it's Democrats scamming Conservatives, we'll be lucky to hear crickets.

Anonymous Will Best February 17, 2015 9:25 AM  

I am not going to say there isn't a good amount of skim by unscrupulous people. But these numbers seem like BS to me.

The whole reason to give to a PAC is because you can't give to a candidate anymore. The PAC itself is limited by what it can give to a particular person the same as the rest of us. So its whole point is to spend money you give to further its stated objective without being allowed to coordinate with any particular candidate.

My dad always told me to check into the financials of a charitable group before donating to them... This is why. There are a number of Christian charities, and a few medical ones, that have good rates of use; but they're rare.

Good charities end up with more money than they know what to do with and the result is mission creep. So they tend to be the victim of their own success.

Anonymous Anubis February 17, 2015 9:27 AM  

7% that's almost as bad as 5% UNICEF the largest poisoner of children in the world thanks to its incompetence. Lets be charitable and assume some of the 93% does some general message support that the candidates themselves don't support like Border Security. This is why I made the switch to local charities, at least if it is misspent, it is misspent in my community.

Anonymous Stilicho February 17, 2015 9:59 AM  

I read a report recently that estimated that non-profits (charities, leftist foundations (Ford, Rockefeller, Tides, etc.), not for profit business, and so forth) account for about 10% of GDP and growing. Just on the charity side, the tax advantages over a traditional business is obvious, it is fairly simple to come up with an ostensible "charitable purpose" that will satisfy the IRS and sound good to donors, profits can be used to surreptitiously support political candidates/issues and to line the pockets of the managers of the organization (who are also members of a self-perpetuating board)...e.g. a get-out-the-vote organization that only tries to get out the reliably leftist vote or a feed-the-poor charity that mostly feeds it own executives. There may be some taxes due on "unrelated business income" but that can often be reduced by attributing offsetting expenses to such enterprises. Even a non-exempt not-for-profit that pays taxes can be used as a feel-good marketing tool against the unwary. e.g. "Support Sad Puppy Enterprises because no one wants puppies to be sad..."

In the final analysis, all our good intentions and laws re: non-profits and tax exempt orgs has accomplished is too create yet another "special" class that isn't subject to the same requirements as normal people. These PACs appear to be just another variation on a theme...

Blogger Bobo February 17, 2015 10:33 AM  

Right up there with "MPAI" is "EFS", Everything's a Scam.
I don't know how that F keeps slipping in there...

Anonymous Susan February 17, 2015 10:40 AM  

I believe it was this very blog and comments by the ilk that enforced the idea for me of giving local instead of national. What is surprising to me is that so many people are still giving nationally. That has to stop. The corruption must be starved.

Anonymous Give $ February 17, 2015 11:07 AM  

Working as a retail cashier. Part of the job is to badger every customer into giving to the currently promoted national charity.

Gotta make that quota otherwise working hours start dwindling.

Anonymous Will Best February 17, 2015 11:51 AM  

I believe it was this very blog and comments by the ilk that enforced the idea for me of giving local instead of national. What is surprising to me is that so many people are still giving nationally. That has to stop. The corruption must be starved.

Because these days most people aren't tied in enough to their local community to know anything about what they do. And then there is the issue in my particular area where finding a charity that doesn't make life easier for illegals is few and far between.

Blogger JCclimber February 17, 2015 12:40 PM  

I won't give to any charity unless I personally have investigated it.
Focused on international aid? I've visited some of their sites. And have personally known a number of their employees (including execs) who are making lousy wages because it is a mission oriented service.
Most are local to me, including a couple that I've served on their board, and others I've volunteered for from time to time.

You MUST know to whom and where and why your money is, otherwise you are abusing the Stewardship of the money that God has brought to your temporary control. And He sees through every excuse.
"Oh, they seemed so honest"
"My friend at work said they were good"
"This celebrity did an endorsement for them without getting paid, so they must be okay"
"Who has time to check out everything? Be reasonable"

One advantage to never donating to any political cause is that I rarely get any solicitations anymore. Although it took 15 years for the Republican party to realize that I'm not a member anymore.....

Anonymous WaterBoy February 17, 2015 2:18 PM  

Colbert had a long-running series on the corruptability of PACs and SuperPACs, and this report is yet more proof.

Al Qaeda, ISIL, et al need not set up elaborate money-laundering operations in the US; they only need to create a PAC and funnel everything through it.

Anonymous Discard February 17, 2015 2:18 PM  

Will Best: I save my old clothes and things for trips to National Parks, and give them to little storefront local charities in small towns along the way. Otherwise the stuff goes straight to the Vibrants.

Anonymous Anubis February 17, 2015 3:24 PM  

"I believe it was this very blog and comments by the ilk that enforced the idea for me of giving local instead of national"

On a day off during the week I saw a long line of white women outside on a block in the Whitopia I lived in so I stopped to ask what the line was for. It turned out it was for the local food pantry. That my taxes support La-a (the dash don't be silent) and her 25 crack babies while there are white people that still go hungry but are too honest to scam the system is what made the change for me.

Anonymous p-dawg February 17, 2015 3:42 PM  

Right on par with the payout rate of welfare. Working as designed.

Anonymous Rhys February 17, 2015 4:37 PM  

Donate blood instead. Donate canned food to food drives. Donate your time to helping out in your community.

Donates clothes but realize a lot of street donation bins are not for charities but are scams too - at least in Australia.

Anonymous tiredofitall February 17, 2015 4:44 PM  

"I am amazed that anyone is left to actually show up, work hard and tell the truth." - Old Man in a Villa

I don't know, in my experience it's more like; show up late, work...kinda, and tell the truth (as it suits you THAT moment).

Anonymous Jack Amok February 17, 2015 10:41 PM  

Stilicho:

Shall we start the "Clinton Coalition PAC" or the "Warren Renewal PAC"? All we need is an email list of leftists....

Well, considering,

The National Draft Ben Carson for President isn’t affiliated with Ben Carson and the small percentage of money they spent on independent expenditures didn’t go to him<

it seems like a potential political attack would be to set up a bogus group to try and siphon off contributions for your target.

For bonus points, you can insult people who don't want to give...

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts