Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: combjelly who wrote (682554)	11/2/2012 5:27:00 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1586407

>> How? It isn't like it is a single payer system. Are you kidding? When you force employers to buy health insurance it raises the cost of employment and it makes it that much more difficult to turn a profit. Kind of dumb question, CJ, even for you. When you dump 2700 USC, which translates to tens of thousands of pages of federal regulations, on business, that is anti-business (one of the very points YOU made yourself referring to the Nordic countries, where business regulations are much tamer than in the US). But arguably the worst aspect of Obama and business is his corrupt taking of money from legitimate business and giving it to those who can't make money. See: Solyndra. There has never been a more anti-business president than obama, and there isn't even a distant second.

To: combjelly who wrote (682554)	11/2/2012 5:55:49 PM
From: longnshort	1 Recommendation Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1586407

Wasserman Schultz Violates Yet Another Campaign Finance Law Fresh off of her police altercation this past weekend, Debbie Wasserman Schultz again finds herself surrounded by questions concerning what appear to be clear violations of Federal Election/Campaign Finance law by her campaign for Congress. Congresswoman Wasserman Schultz’s latest mailer yet again overtly exploits her past battle with breast cancer, but it also contains a picture of the congresswoman talking to students in the courtyard of Florida International University’s North Dade Campus. In addition, Wasserman Schultz has released a TV commercial using the same FIU courtyard which was used to film some ‘B-roll’ found in the ad. In both the commercial and the mail piece, ‘DWS’ for Congress staged the shots using college age students wearing apparel which advertises the school, Florida International University. But here’s the rub- in order to use FIU’s taxpayer-funded campus or use their school’s logos/slogans, past congressional campaigns have been charged a ‘usage fee’ of anywhere between two and ten thousand dollars. One south Florida congressional campaign was charged five thousand dollars to use the FIU campus to film a campaign commercial. Upon inspection of Wasserman Schultz’s campaign finance reports, there are no campaign fund distributions directly made out to the school. There is however the possibility that DWS for Congress hired a media company who in turn paid that school the usage fee. We then contacted the FIU’s Media Relations department, and according to the school’s head of Media Relations Maydel Santana-Bravo, and mum’s the word. At first, Ms. Santana-Bravo asked us to send her the TV commercial, which we did. When we followed up with her for comment, Ms. Santana-Bravo stated, “We are doing some research internally to make sure we have our facts. I will get back to you tomorrow.” Now Mrs. Santana-Bravo has responded by saying that,” she will have something for me by the end of today (Friday).” Corporations and non-profit organizations, to include taxpayer funded state schools, are not allowed to donate or ‘in-kind’ any donations or services to congressional candidates. So if, the school allowed ‘DWS’ to use their school to film the commercial without a usage fee, then it clearly violated FEC law, and the ‘DWS’ for Congress campaign did as well by not reporting this disbursement. [iframe allowtransparency="true" frameborder="0" height="60" hspace="0" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" vspace="0" width="468" id="aswift_0" name="aswift_0" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border-width: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; left: 0px; position: absolute; top: 0px; "][/iframe] We called the FEC for clarification on this matter and were told that whether the school in question was either a for-profit or non-profit, and if the facilities were used to film a commercial, the campaign in question needed to “pay rent” to the corporation (FIU). The only exception for not “paying rent” to FIU, who is clearly a corporation, per the Division of Corporations of the state of Florida, was if the commercial was used for a “learning activity” with “no reference to the campaign.” As you can see below, the ‘DWS’ for Congress clearly used the school for campaigning, not for any “learning activity.” Here are a few other possible campaign finance law violations of the ‘DWS’ for Congress campaign: DWS Violates Campaign Finance Laws Wasserman Schultz’s ‘Mile-High’ Dilemma Wasserman Schultz’s Involved in Police Altercation