Showing posts with label Donors and Haters. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Donors and Haters. Show all posts

October 27, 2016

Surprisingly Christie is given No$Money to Trump’s Campaign



 Christie helped raise more than $100,000 in bundled donations for Bush in 1999. Bush named him U.S. Attorney for New Jersey in 2001. If Bush was Clinton She would be in Jail for a quid pro quo



Donald Trump's biggest New Jersey supporters — including Gov. Chris Christie — aren't putting their money where their mouths are.
Despite becoming the first vanquished presidential candidate to endorse Trumpin February and serving as his transition planning chief since May, Christie has yet to donate to Trump's 2016 campaign, according to the Federal Election Commission filings that cover donations up to Oct. 1. 
In the past, the governor has donated the maximum allowed under law to GOP presidential candidates, including $2,500 to Mitt Romney's 2012 White House bid and $2,000 to George W. Bush's 2004 reelection effort.
Christie also helped raise more than $100,000 in bundled donations for Bush in 1999. Bush named him U.S. Attorney for New Jersey in 2001.
A spokesman for Christie declined to comment on whether the governor has given any money to Trump.
First Lady Mary Pat Christie, who gave the maximum allowable donation to Romney's 2012 bid as well as her husband's 2016 run, hasn't donated to Trump in 2016 either, records show. 
The governor's brother, Todd Christie, a multimillionaire Wall Street investment banker who was named one of  the Trump campaign's 15 New Jersey "victory finance chairs" last July, also appears not to have donated to Trump's campaign, according to the FEC database.
Todd Christie has donated hefty sums to presidential candidates and other Republican campaign committees that have higher donation limits, including $50,000 during Romney's 2012 presidential bid and $75,000 when John McCain ran in 2008.
Calls and emails to Todd Christie were not immediately returned.
William Palatucci, who is general counsel to the Trump transition and a longtime adviser to the to governor, has in the past given the maximum allowed amount to Christie's presidential campaign, Romney's 2012 bid, Rudy Giuliani's 2008 campaign, and Bush's reelection bid in 2004.
But Palatucci hasn't given anything to Trump this cycle, according to the FEC database.
Palatucci did not return a call or an email seeking comment.
A spokeswoman for the FEC, Judy Ingram, noted that donations recorded in the FEC database were current up to Oct. 1, and cautioned that Christie and others may have given Trump a donation of less than $200, which is not legally required to be reported by the presidential campaign.
In August, Christie held a $5,000-a-head fundraiser in Bernards for Trump's transition.
In May, Trump hosted a fundraiser to help Christie retire his 2016 campaign debt.
On Wednesday, Trump told CNN he plans to spend at least an additional $40 million of his own money on his campaign, to which he has given nearly $60 million since the beginning of the 2016 contest.
The Trump campaign did not respond to a request for comment on Wednesday. 
"Our governor did not give any money to Trump?" asked Assemblywoman Holly Schepisi (R-Bergen), who donated $1,000 to Christie and then $250 to John Kasich after the New Jersey governor dropped out. "I find that hard to believe."
In October 2015, State Sen. Mike Doherty (R-Warren) became the first New Jersey lawmaker to endorse Trump. And in July 2016, Doherty gave $1,000 to Trump's campaign.
By the FEC's measure, Doherty's $1,000 check was the largest single donation Trump received from a state official in New Jersey.
State Sen. Joseph Pennacchio (R-Morris), an outspoken Trump supporter, in May gave $850 to the New Jersey State Republican Committee, but said he hasn't written a check for Trump.
His own campaign gave $1,000 to Christie's presidential bid last year, the most it's allowed to give to a federal candidate in an election cycle, and so it can't give to Trump.
Pennacchio isn't barred from giving his own money to Trump, but he noted he's still smarting from debts from his failed U.S. Senate bid in 2008 and a Congressional run in 1994.
"I owe myself an awful lot of money from past federal adventures," Pennachio said.
He also said in this campaign, money isn't everything. 
"There are two things that matter in elections: People and money," he added. "Given my choice, I'd always prefer more people than money."
State Sen. Gerald Cardinale (R-Bergen), who is frequently seen at public events wearing a Trump campaign baseball cap, gave $500 to John McCain's 2008 presidential campaign, and another $500 to the Republican National Committee that same year.
He doesn't show up in the FEC database as a Trump donor in 2016, but he said that's because he's given two $100 donations to the mogul's 2016 White House bid, a donation level that is not required to be listed.  
Cardinale said that Trump's willingness to largely self-finance his campaign in the primaries may be hurting him in the general election, especially since "New Jersey is something of a piggy bank" for presidential campaigns.
Assemblyman Robert Auth (R-Bergen) another Trump supporter, hasn’t donated to Trump so far this year, records show. The way you show support in politics is to help a campaign monetarily but you don’t see this on Trump’s men. All is oral. I mean vocal.

nj.com as source
authors:
Claude Brodesser-Akner cbrodesser@njadvancemedia.com.   

  Twitter @ClaudeBrodesser.

Input for this posting adamfoxie

May 23, 2015

In Elite GOP Fundraiser Rubio Questioned by Gay Donor



       

In public and behind closed doors, 2016 Republican presidential candidates are being put on the spot on an increasingly tricky issue: same-sex marriage. 
The issue has become a source of friction within the Republican Party, as more socially liberal donors and corporations clash with conservative activists and other opponents of same-sex marriage. Marco Rubio was the latest GOP candidate to field this question at a private fundraiser with party elites in Washington on Wednesday night.
One donor identified herself as gay(Tx.GOP Rep.Sara Davis) and asked the Florida senator to state his position on same-sex marriage during a question-and-answer session, two attendees who were in the room told CNN. 
 GOP-Rep.Sara Davis (photo FB)

   Rubio stuck to his conservative position: He said he 
believes marriage should be between a man and a woman, though he said individual states can choose their own policies related to same-sex marriage.
Rubio spokesman Alex Conant declined to comment. 
‪The interaction highlights the complicated balancing act Republican presidential candidates now face, as they must defend their social views to political donors while avoiding inconsistency in their public statements.‬
Republican officials have struggled to adapt to the country's changing views on same-sex marriage. Just this year, contentious debates over the so-called "religious freedom" laws in several states also exposed a growing rift between socially conservative Republicans and big business, which has historically backed the GOP.‬
    Some of Rubio's fellow presidential aspirants have run into some trouble on the issue. 
    Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, an outspoken opponent of same-sex marriage, was forced to reaffirm his position last month after it was reported that the presidential candidate seemed to have softened his view in a private gathering of donors. (Cruz had told supporters that he would love his daughters just the same if he learned that any one of them was gay, The New York Times first reported.) 
    Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush has also been scrutinized for his statements on same-sex marriage. In one recent interview, Bush, who has not yet officially launched his presidential campaign, stood by his opposition to same-sex marriage, stating that he doesn't consider it a constitutional right.

    If GOP candidates are feeling pressure from Christian conservatives to demonstrate their unequivocal opposition to same-sex marriage, some donors have landed in hot water for the opposite reason. 
    A gay businessman who hosted the New York City fundraiser for Cruz faced fierce backlash from the gay community and ultimately issued an apology for holding the event for the Texas senator, calling it a “terrible mistake.”
    NOTE: This type of rich donors fundraisers is done by all political parties.That is why the rich is so powerful because they give and latter when the need arises the phone call is put through and on the other end it will be expected that there would be a listening, sympathetic ear. If elections were funded by the public then the rich donors will loose power in theory and it will go to the public. There would be no need for an election to last two years for candidates running and getting enough money for commercials and expenses. 
    If the public funded the elections we could take the sample of England again and limit the amount to running the election to months instead of years.This would be a more democratic structure than what we have now. But nothing will happen if the voters don’t put a stop to it. If the public will spent less time complaining about everything to do with too many trees to not enough bike lanes this time and effort could be invested into a democratic political system, then we would have one. If you want to make a difference this would be a good endeavor to take on.


    West Coast FB Distributor: Jeremy Hale

    September 16, 2014

    The Export of Hate


                                                                            



    There is a network of American extremists who work tirelessly to undercut LGBT people around the world at every turn.  They spew venomous rhetoric, outrageous theories, and discredited science. Some claim that LGBT people are responsible for the Holocaust, the Rwandan genocide, and the spread of HIV/AIDS. Others argue that LGBT people are luring away children, and that acceptance of LGBT people will lead to the destruction of families around the world. Some even suggest that the death penalty could be an appropriate punishment for simply being LGBT.
    In a groundbreaking new report titled The Export of Hate, HRC Foundation exposes some of the most vitriolic American activists promoting anti-LGBT bigotry abroad.
    “Hate is not an American value, and we must expose and fight these individuals and their extremist allies,” said Ty Cobb, HRC Foundation’s director of Global Engagement.  “This is a destructive group of activists spreading anti-LGBT rhetoric, promoting laws that criminalize LGBT people, and seeking to restrict their speech and those who support them.  Although their views may find little traction in the United States, public opinion in many other nations makes their words and global advocacy fundamentally dangerous.”
    Active in multiple nations across five continents, the individuals profiled in the report are only some of the Americans dedicated to this shared global mission.  The report details their connections and associations, nations in which they’re active, publicly available information about their resources, and examples of their hateful rhetoric.
    This includes Scott Lively, who is known the world over for his notorious work successfully advocating for anti-LGBT laws in Uganda that could send LGBT people to prison for life. The report also profiles the National Organization for Marriage’s Brian Brown, who is now reportedly launching an “International Organization for Marriage.” He joined three other leaders profiled in the report at an event hosted at the Kremlin in Moscow last week. The event concluded with a resolution calling for the passage of more Russian-style anti-LGBT “propaganda” laws around the world.  Representatives of the World Congress of Families, which gathers thousands of activists from the U.S. and around the world at annual summits, participated in and served on the event’s organizing committee.  Their next major summit is planned for Salt Lake City in October 2015, which will be the first Congress ever hosted on American soil.
    Many of these organizations secure audiences with heads of government and their spouses, testify before parliaments and gatherings of lawmakers, and build relationships with community leaders and other prominent citizens.  Their groups lobby United Nations delegates, get involved in the drafting of national constitutions, and intervene in international court cases that affect the lives and rights of LGBT people.
    "It’s said that sunlight is the best disinfectant, and more must be done to expose this work and the people doing it," said Cobb. "Their harmful impact is being felt in nearly every corner of the globe, and we urge all fair-minded people to stand up and reject the American exportation of hate."
    The Export of Hate follows two additional comprehensive reports on the topic released by HRC Foundation earlier this year, Exposed: The World Congress of Families and Scott Lively.
    by HRC 

    July 12, 2014

    Blood Drive Protesting Ban on Gay Donors






    Outside of the New York Blood Center near Grand Central Station, Sam Gavzy, 26, is wearing a name tag that reads: “Hello, my name is Sam. Ask me why I can’t donate.”
    Gavzy, who is a research biologist at NYU Langone Medical Center, believes in the benefits of donating blood since his father had two kidney transplants. But gay and bisexual men cannot donate blood in the U.S. due to a ban imposed by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1983, when there was no effective and simple test to detect HIV in blood. Men who have sex with men (MSN) at any time since 1977 cannot donate.
     So Gavzy joined the National Gay Blood Drive, a nationwide donation and protest effort occurring in 61 cities July 11 to raise awareness about the ban they feel is outdated. “I wouldn’t be alive today if it wasn’t for donation,” says Gavzy referring to his fathers’ reliance on donors. “The simplest way I could contribute and pay it forward is to donate blood, and I can’t.”
    This is the second year of the National Gay Blood Drive, which drew about 1,000 participants last year. Gay men come to the blood drive locations with an ally or proxy — a straight friend or family member — who donates blood in their place. Gavzy has two friends donating for him. “There’s a such a need for blood, to have restrictions like this is a shame,” says Kian Bichoupan, 25, one of Gavzy’s proxies. Some of the gay men can fill out the paperwork only to be denied, so that the organizers can send the paperwork, along with postcards written by the men on why they want to donate blood, to the FDA to show the number of gay men willing to donate if they could.

    Sam Gavsky cannot donate blood due to an FDA ban that prohibits gay and bisexual men from donating.Courtesy of Alexandra Sifferlin

    The group also launched a White House Petition on July 1 calling on the FDA to change its policy. If the petition gets 100,000 signatures by July 30, the Obama administration will issue a response.
    The National Gay Blood Drive began when gay rights activist Ryan James Yezak felt humiliated at work when he was one of the only people who could not donate blood to tornado victims three years ago. “It completely alienated me from the rest of my coworkers, and I felt like a different species,” says Yeznak, who has created a documentary on the topic. “We have enough [gay and bisexual men] to contribute to the offset of blood shortages.”
    Last year, the American Medical Association (AMA) voted to end the ban, recognizing the new techniques available to detect HIV in donated blood. “The lifetime ban on blood donation for men who have sex with men is discriminatory and not based on sound science,” said Dr. William Kobler, AMA board member in a statement. “This new policy urges a federal policy change to ensure blood donation bans or deferrals are applied to donors according to their individual level of risk and are not based on sexual orientation alone.”
    When asked why the ban is still in place, and whether the FDA is in the process of considering a change, an FDA spokesperson told TIME that the agency is willing to consider changing its policy, but only if available data showed that lifting the ban provided no additional risk to people receiving donated blood.
    “Although scientific evidence has not yet demonstrated that blood donated by MSM or a subgroup of these potential donors does not have a substantially increased rate of HIV infection compared to currently accepted blood donors, the FDA remains willing to consider new approaches to donor screening and testing,” the FDA responded in an email.
    One issue involves when potential donors would get tested for HIV; although testing has now become relatively simple (there are even at-home tests), HIV-positive people may still test negative if their blood is drawn in the first 11 days after infection.
    The FDA is the keeper of the deferral policy, but other health groups have also voted to keep it, or at least not change it for now. In 2010, the Health and Human Services’ (HHS) Advisory Committee on Blood Safety and Availability (ACBSA) discussedthe FDA policy and concluded that while the current policy isn’t ideal, it was necessary to protect the blood supply while they identified necessary areas for research. In 2013, they met again to hear updates on the research they requested; when there are enough results, the HHS plans to bring the issue into a public forum. Last year, members of senate–spearheaded by Senator Elizabeth Warren–wrote an open later to HHS holding them accountable to take action, based on the data.
    “We have a lot of support from blood donation centers. They want our blood,” says Yeznak. “”We want to show the FDA that the gay community, can and wants to contribute.”

    May 29, 2014

    Maine Fine’s National Anti Gay Marriage Group Demanding Donor’s Lisst


                                                                 
                    

    Maine's ethics panel fined a national anti-gay marriage group more than $50,000 on Wednesday and ordered it to reveal the donors who backed its efforts to repeal the state's gay marriage law.
    The Maine Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices found that the National Organization for Marriage violated campaign finance laws by failing to properly register as a ballot question committee and file financial reports in the 2009 referendum that struck down gay marriage. Same-sex unions were legalized by voters in 2012.
    The commission also ruled that the organization must file a campaign finance report, which would force it to disclose the names of its donors. The National Organization for Marriage has fought for years to keep its donor list secret, saying doing so would put its contributors at risk for harassment and intimidation.
    A lawyer for the organization vowed to appeal the ethic commission's decision in state court, and members of the panel said they expect litigation to continue for at least a year.
    Under Maine law, groups must register if they raise or spend more than $5,000 to influence a statewide ballot question.
    The National Organization for Marriage gave nearly $2 million to Stand for Marriage Maine for the 2009 referendum, or more than 60 percent of the political action committee's expenditures, ethics investigators said in a report released earlier this month.
    Investigators found that the national group "intentionally set up its fundraising strategy to avoid disclosure laws" by not allowing donors to mark that the funds were to be used to defeat same-sex marriage in Maine. Investigators say emails soliciting donations and the group's finances clearly show that more than $5,000 was raised with the purpose of assisting the Maine campaign.
    Walt McKee, chairman of the ethics panel, said not fining the group would amount to "accepting a mockery" of Maine's disclosure laws. It's thought to be the largest campaign finance penalty in the state's history.
    The organization argues that by not raising money specifically earmarked to influence the Maine gay marriage question, it was explicitly working to stay within the bounds of the state's law. It says that disclosing names will chill future donations.
    "We didn't create a scheme, we tried to follow the law," Brian Brown, president of the Washington, D.C.-based organization, told the four-member panel on Wednesday.
    Brown, who served as executive director of the National Organization for Marriage in 2009, was one of three members of the committee that led the Stand for Marriage Maine PAC.
    Commissioners said his dual role and the fact that the national group controlled a majority of the PAC's funds was problematic for its argument that the funds weren't raised to influence the Maine campaign.
    The group says that it's being targeted because of its stance on gay marriage and that groups on the other side of the issue — such as the Human Rights Campaign — followed the same guidelines.
    State investigators said that its examination of the National Organization for Marriage actions was brought by a specific complaint and that the organization could have sought a similar investigation into the Human Rights Campaign.
    John Eastman, a National Organization for Marriage lawyer, said that it intends to file a complaint against HRC in addition to filing an appeal.
    Fred Karger, who leads the gay-rights group Rights Equal Rights and filed the complaint in 2009, praised the panel's decision and said he's confident that Maine would continue to fight the group in court.
    ———
    Follow Alanna Durkin on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/aedurkin

    SEARCH This BLOG

    Loading...

    Amazon SearchBox Use it for All Meerchandise

    The Forest Needs help

    Summer Athlete

    The Gay Man in You♥ or Him

    ONE (Look for Green PREVIOUS PAGE)

    ONE (Look for Green PREVIOUS PAGE)
    Relief World Hunger

    Taylor Made 2016 Family Clubs

    Click Here To Get Anything by Amazon- That will keep US Going

    Amazon EcHo

    Blog Archive/White No# Stories per Month/year

    Popular Posts

    Everyday at the Movies

    Orangutans ARE Part of the Forest