$100 million pledge to defeat obama???

[Master Dan]

Here is the letter I received byEmail today

Sheldon Adelson, the conservative billionaire Las Vegas casino owner, haspledged to give up to $100 million -- whatever it takes -- to defeat BarackObama.

We know it's not out of love for Mitt Romney, so why part with so much money?As President Clinton reminded us last week, sometimes the answer is as simpleas arithmetic.

So let's do the math: According to a new report from the Center for AmericanProgress Action Fund, Adelson could see up to $2 billion in savings under MittRomney's tax plan versus the President's plan. That's how much Romney'spolicies would favor millionaires and billionaires.

If Mitt Romney wins -- $2 billion more for Adelson. If Barack Obama wins,millionaires and billionaires pay their fair share.

It's a highly cynical but straightforward calculation.
Here's how it would work for Adelsonin a Romney-Ryan administration:

-- Romney would keep in place the Bush tax cuts, andcut Adelson's income taxes by an additional 20 percent. Adelson savings: $1.5million per year on income he earns as CEO.
-- Romney's plan eliminates taxes on foreign profitslike the ones Adelson makes on his Asian casinos. Adelson savings: $1.2billion.
-- Romney's plan maintains the current low tax rate ondividends. Adelson savings: $120 million per year.
-- Romney's plan removes the estate tax. Adelson heirssave: $8.9 billion.

I honestly can't think of a more straightforward contrast in this election.

We don't have Sheldon Adelson, and with all due respect, we don't want him.

We're relying on more than 3 million grassroots donors, who are giving anaverage of $58.
David Axelrodinfo@barackobama.com

 

[arnisador]

Is the Adelson thing verified?

 

[billc]

Yeah, a lot of conservatives don't think Romney is the "best" candidate to be President, but he is the guy who is in a position to replace a really bad President. If I had his money, I'd probably do the same thing. Wow, he wants to keep his own money...what a creep. "Everyone" knows it is far better for greedy, corrupt politicians to get their hands on that money so that they can buy more friends and influence to increase their own power, and the great thing is, they'll be using other peoples money to do it.

I would much rather this guy keeps his money than that it go to support more wasteful government and greedy, corrupt politicians who won't use the money for what the people complaining about Adelson, want it used for anyway.

Any e-mail from david axelrod is a waste of computer space anyway.

 

[WC_lun]

If a man wants to put his money behind a canidate, I don't have an issue with it. However, one man having the ability to influence an election to the extent that $100,000,000 can bothers me greatly. I know we aren't a democracy that has 1 person=1 vote, but at the same time, there should be limits.

 

[billc]

Free speech is free speech, any limit on what can be given to a candidate by a free individual only helps the incumbent stay in office. That is why so many of them like campaign finance laws. As long as people know who is giving the money then I don't see a problem with this, it all goes into figuring out who you want to vote for. Also, all those people who want to support "better" candidates, or third party candidates, 100 million dollars from one or more supporters would actually give them a chance at getting their ideas, and their campaign noticed. Everyone supporting what's his name, Gary Johnson, the libertarian guy, if they could get a few billionaires to give up a couple hundred million dollars, he might actually have a chance of getting some attention. If you reduce peoples ability to back a candidate by limiting donations by single individuals, you only serve to help the guy already in office. He already has the network set up, he gets free media coverage because of his office, he has an office and staff paid for by the taxpayers, and already has name recognition, he has backers already to supply man power to get out the vote and get signatures. All those advantages, and they are huge advantages, have to be overcome and the only thing that allows an unknown candidate do that is...money. Money buys T.V. and posters, and workers and staff and consultants and advisors...all of which aren't free and are difficult to get if you are a brand new, first time office seeker who is a teacher a fireman, a local business owner with no initial support or name recognition.

 

[WC_lun]

What a bunch of ..... If we were okay with unlimited money we wouldn't control how much a single individual or corporation can contribute directly to a campaign. We wouldn't limit all those little perks that influence politicians. What you are suggesting would be inviting even more corruption into politics. Is that really what is needed, more corruption? The c-packs are effectivelty skirting all of our campaign finance laws, including knowing where the money came from. Yes, it takes money and financial backing to run for office. Perhaps we should do something about that instead of allowing unlimited funds by anyone with deep enough pockets to buy an election.