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.

Technology Stocks : LORAL -- Political Discussion -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jlallen who wrote (444)	6/9/1998 6:20:00 PM
From: Bill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 880

Thanks for trying to keep this idiocy in perspective. He cannot prove his statement and got caught red-handed lying to the thread. Gotta go...

To: jlallen who wrote (444)	6/9/1998 7:14:00 PM
From: Dragonfly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 880

If you give DF names, dates, numbers he will then assert you have made it all up. No, actually, if he could do this, it would be easily verifiable. That's why he doesn't. According to the FEC there are three PACS registered that are relevant to this discusion: Lockheed Employee's PAC, Lockheed Martin Employee's PAC and Hughes Electronics Corp. Active Citizenship Fund (Registration codes: C00030783, C00303024, C00002162 respectively) None of these PACs gave to either the Clinton nor Dole campaigns in the 1995-1996 reporting season. You can check the records yourself at: ftp://ftp.fec.gov/FEC/itpas2.zip (2.9 megabytes) Therefore, Lockheed Martin, which was not a donor in the 96 presidential election, is an example of a company that recently got a waiver and launched from China. That proves my point that there are companies that did not donate in the presidential election that got waivers. It also bears noting that Motorola, which does not have a PAC registered, got waivers too. So, that makes three companies. Dragonfly