Quote:
Originally Posted by Mavdog
interesting, the above commentary laments the possibility that there could be representitives who "have an advisory role on regulating the very financial institutions from which they receive millions of dollars annually in direct corporate contributions".
so do you believe that the group making this an issue (that's the republican party btw) will support a ban on ANY representitive being in an "advisory role" (which is of course not a regulator) if they receive any monies from the financial industry?
that would of course exclude any lobbying firm/lobbyist, any trade organization or a member of that organization speaking on their behalf, anyone employed by a financial institution and any member of the two major political parties from serving in an "advisory role".
the answer of course is no, the republican party would not suppor such a ban. they only see a problem when it's not THEIR advisor having a "role on regulating the very financial institutions from which they receive millions of dollars annually in direct corporate contributions".
so if it's someone echoing their party line, it's ok. otherwise it's not.
no contradiction there.....
|
It is shocking that you are entirely ignoring that we are talking about ACORN here. Do you not read the news and know the scandals with ACORN?
Backing off to a generic discussion about special interest groups is a strategy to entirely ignore the issue. The issue is that we have a group widely known to be as fraudulent and corrupt as any entity crossing the American political spectrum in a very long time (a group so obviously egregious that a Democrat Congress voted to de-fund them, albeit only for a month as they are again funded now). This is almost as bad as asking the Ku Klux Klan to advise on financial institutes. Not as bad as that (I am exagerating), but still very bad.