Liberal Groups Pouring in Uncapped and Undocumented Funds to Seat Liberals in Top Election Posts

I am not implying that Republicans don't do the same thing, although it likely looks different. Uncapped donations from any individual, corporation, union, etc are a threat to our representative democracy. I say the same thing about this activity on both sides...

I find it absurd that people ignore it when it benefits their cause...

Wow, you're a gem. Is your first reaction always name-calling? I didn't insult anyone, simply said that corruption wasn't uniquely Republican. If you honestly can't see that, then I feel sorry for you.

The groups do exist, even if the Washington Times made a mish-mash of it all. It doesn't change the fact that there are groups trying to buy the election process. I find that unacceptable from either side. It would only make sense to have a bipartisan panel responsible for determining "which votes count," not one self-seeking party, whether that party is Republican or Democratic.

We should place caps on the amount of money any one person, corporation, or union is allowed to pour into them.

and why do you think all democrats were so up in arms about the citizens united ruling? You know what that is, right? the SCOTUS ruling last year that said corporations can give unlimited funds to candidates. The SCOTUS ruling the all the Republicans cheered about

I am aware, yes. And if you are assuming I am a Republican, then I'm sorry to disappoint you because I am not. I think many Republicans are just as hypocritical as many of those responding to me on this site. I never said Republicans don't do the exact same thing, in fact I directly implied that this type of behavior occurs on both sides in my original post and stated that outright in subsequent responses. I just think if liberals/democrats are going to get all up in arms about the ruling you referenced, then they ought to be just as upset when that type of behavior occurs within their ranks. Problem is, too many apparently feel that the ends justify the means. Because this specific example serves your interests (no, I am not addressing you specifically), then it is an acceptable practice. That's hypocrisy.

And I mentioned Soros because I found it odd that you mentioned him by name when I purposefully did not. I thought that perhaps you were under the impression that I was making claims about him that I had not made. There's no need for you to get bent out of shape about it, because I wasn't accusing you of anything. Please refrain from "raising your voice" through the repeated use of caps lock. If you're not capable of communicating in a civil manner, I'd prefer to end our discussion here.

As you pointed out, the groups do exist and contributions are uncapped. That's why I posted it. That's newsworthy. That's worth discussion. If all you're going to do is focus of the fact that it came from the Washington Times and your annoyance with how the article was written, then take that up with the editor. Better yet, get one of your liberal news outlets to publish this information. Problem is, they won't because they're not about truth and transparency either. I've said it multiple times now, but it bears repeating that every news outlet, no matter how unbiased and truthful they may claim to be, has some sort of slant or outright agenda. People, even journalists (I should say especially journalists) have emotions and opinions that are going to show through the black and white details of the who, what, when, and where.

So, you're saying these groups do exist. They do receive unlimited funding (when attempts to limit them failed). Soros and unions made large donations (I didn't mention him by the way because I didn't find a tie to SOSP - Washington Times made that claim).

I don't see how valid information should be pushed aside because of the source. The ploy to try and buy elections by either side is a threat to our country. No it's not uniquely Republican, nor is it uniquely Democratic - which is what my original post stated.

Whoever lies once is not to be trusted twice.

Are you serious? It's a news publication. They're all filled with "lies," half-truths, omissions, and skewed information. The manner in which events or even our history is perceived is dependent upon the slant put on it. Even those with the best of intentions are likely to taint a story with their personal opinions in some way - usually the wording. It requires an intelligent person to navigate through the crap without throwing out the truths. I thought I would find some people on here capable of thinking for themselves. As for those pieces of truth, they shouldn't be ignored. Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.

I posted it because I knew such groups existed but weren't reported by more liberal outlets. I thought there might be some liberals concerned about such practices. I know it matters to you when the shoe is on the other foot. But you guys seem to be just as bad as hardcore conservatives if you're going to pick and choose which facts you care to listen to and filter out anything that you perceive to be a threat to your ideals. Corruption on the left should be at the top of your list, but you apparently only see it for the benefits it brings...

no, I'm claiming the moon is made of cheese
and where exactly in my comment do you see me accusing YOU, personally, of stating G Soros made donations to Sec. of St. Proj.? oh, that's right, i DON'T. WaTimes is merely trying to smear Mr. Soros specifically and Democrats in general with this sensationalistic headline. Yellow journalism at it's finest. The fact that you are the purveyor of this yellow journalism says a WHOLE lot about you

B.S.
Both sides have been doing this for a LOOOONG time.

Only now is the the MSM willing to talk about it.

The MSM has been talking about it since it started.

Thanks for acknowledging what any rational person should be able to figure out instead of deflecting to tear apart the Washington Times. Both sides do this same crap.

"we know the truth is not among the words they use."

nice one

While you may not agree with Op-Ed articles on more conservative publications, it's asinine to completely disregard news articles posted there. Just as more liberal publications expose corruption or scandal on the Republican side, traditionally conservative publications serve that same role when it comes to exposing questionable behaviors among democrats or progressives.

To truly get a balanced perspective, you ought to read both of them. I always do and I can assure you that there are stories to be read outside of your precious MSNBC and Huffington Post.

Liberal publications only print what furthers their agenda. Conservative publications do the exact same thing. But that doesn't make what either side is reporting a lie. Obviously, those Op-Eds are mostly just garbage on both sides.

Here are some other links about this same info. Hopefully you can get past your liberal filters and actually read something before writing it off.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-08-16-secretary-state-democrats_x.h...
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/15105.html

I doubt you'll find this on MSNBC, I tried looking, but I wouldn't expect anything different from them. Just like you don't expect much from Hannity, who I abhor by the way. I could say the same for Limbaugh...

but if it is a inaccurate story, then what is to be taken from it, you could also research a little, do a little bit more than post an op-ed piece and then claim to be persucuted for being openminded.

yes but i'd perfer my facts from reputable sources not op-ed pieces.