The NRCC is scamming voters out of their money

[Adam Griffin]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Marokai Backbeat]

If the FEC doesn't come down hard on this, we need a new and more effective electoral watchdog agency.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

If this is true, than Reince Preibus's head should roll. This is disgusting.

[krazen1211]

The only exception is when the site makes it unambiguously clear it is opposed to the candidate.

Defeat - win a victory over (someone) in a battle or other contest; overcome or beat.



A stupid fool and his money are soon parted.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

The only exception is when the site makes it unambiguously clear it is opposed to the candidate.

Defeat - win a victory over (someone) in a battle or other contest; overcome or beat.



A stupid fool and his money are soon parted.

I'm happy to know you support fraud.

[Cory]

Good God the Republicans are so dishonest. I'm sorry but in modern times you just don't see this type of behavior in such frequency on the other side.

[Adam Griffin]

Good God the Republicans are so dishonest. I'm sorry but in modern times you just don't see this type of behavior in such frequency on the other side.

Of course not. The best example of false equivalence and fraud perpetuated by the Republican Party over the past thirty years was the convincing of a large segment of the American public that the Democratic Party is just as sh*tty as they are. It's also probably their biggest moral victory.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Okay, it's not exactly the most uplifting of strategies, but those images show that the fact that these are anti-candidate ads rather than pro-candidate ads is not being buried in fine print.  Anyone idiotic enough to be thinking they are sending money to support the named candidate is not bothering to read normal sized text before they click.

[pbrower2a]

If I were a federal judge I would be prepared to issue a cease-and-desist order and a demand that money collected be returned to donors.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

If this is true, than Reince Preibus's head should roll. This is disgusting.

Preibus doesn't run the NRCC (in fact, I think it might be illegal if they coordinated with the RNC). So no, Preibus shouldn't be held responsible in any way whatsoever.

That being said, whoever approved the ad should be fired, and Walden should probably step down from the committee. This was a pretty despicable, stupid thing to do.

[badgate]

They shouldn't be forced to return the money.


They should be forced to donate it to the Democrats the money was raised for.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Defeat - win a victory over (someone) in a battle or other contest; overcome or beat.

Why is the definition of 'to defeat' relevant to this news story about weirdly obvious campaign fraud, krazen?

[Landslide Lyndon]

Hey look, krazey is out of the doghouse.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

Okay, it's not exactly the most uplifting of strategies, but those images show that the fact that these are anti-candidate ads rather than pro-candidate ads is not being buried in fine print.  Anyone idiotic enough to be thinking they are sending money to support the named candidate is not bothering to read normal sized text before they click.

What is the point of this post? Am I supposed to condone this criminal behavior because someone who contributes made a minor error and act like both sides are at fault?

[Vosem]

It says 'defeat' in pretty big letters, guys. No reasonably literate person is going to be tricked into donating money by the Democratic candidate's picture. It's an insult even to a Democrat to think they would donate to this by mistake.

[pbrower2a]

It says 'defeat' in pretty big letters, guys. No reasonably literate person is going to be tricked into donating money by the Democratic candidate's picture. It's an insult even to a Democrat to think they would donate to this by mistake.

Someone with poor eyesight or who has misplaced spectacles? "Defeat" is not particularly bold or in a distinctive color. Showing the politician's image crossed out or upside down might make the point.

Deceit in fundraising is FRAUD. There could be violations of mail fraud and wire fraud statutes. 

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

As probably the worst-sighted member of the forum, I do have to take multiple looks to see "Defeat" below the giant "ALEX SINK CONGRESS" thing.

[Marokai Backbeat]

The entire point of this effort is to deceive people. I know many right-wingers in America are deeply cynical and hostile toward honest democratic process, but the idea that a single word, that can be very easily missed, makes this the fault of stupid people who fall for it, and not the people who have specifically designed this to be as deceitful as possible without being a complete lie, is offensive to me.

[Flake]

Dammit they're so stupid. 

[IceSpear]

Good God the Republicans are so dishonest. I'm sorry but in modern times you just don't see this type of behavior in such frequency on the other side.

Of course not. The best example of false equivalence and fraud perpetuated by the Republican Party over the past thirty years was the convincing of a large segment of the American public that the Democratic Party is just as sh*tty as they are. It's also probably their biggest moral victory.

It's not the Republican Party that accomplished that victory. It's their shills in the media.

[Cassius]

This is not a scam, so all I can say is these cats have got style.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Okay, it's not exactly the most uplifting of strategies, but those images show that the fact that these are anti-candidate ads rather than pro-candidate ads is not being buried in fine print.  Anyone idiotic enough to be thinking they are sending money to support the named candidate is not bothering to read normal sized text before they click.

What is the point of this post? Am I supposed to condone this criminal behavior because someone who contributes made a minor error and act like both sides are at fault?

I don't know that it rises to the level of criminal behavior; it's a close one.

[pbrower2a]

Okay, it's not exactly the most uplifting of strategies, but those images show that the fact that these are anti-candidate ads rather than pro-candidate ads is not being buried in fine print.  Anyone idiotic enough to be thinking they are sending money to support the named candidate is not bothering to read normal sized text before they click.

What is the point of this post? Am I supposed to condone this criminal behavior because someone who contributes made a minor error and act like both sides are at fault?

I don't know that it rises to the level of criminal behavior; it's a close one.

At the least it is a severe civil tort, one that a judge might address with a cease-and-desist order. Maybe there would be no consequences if the funds are returned to donors. At the least there would be the potential for contempt of court.

This is about in the same league as selling advertising in "professional directories" never published. The scam so works: the scammers call such professionals as physicians, attorneys, dentists, tax preparers, and optometrists selling advertising in the "(insert name of labor union)  Professional Directory" without getting permission from the labor union in question. 

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Okay, it's not exactly the most uplifting of strategies, but those images show that the fact that these are anti-candidate ads rather than pro-candidate ads is not being buried in fine print.  Anyone idiotic enough to be thinking they are sending money to support the named candidate is not bothering to read normal sized text before they click.

What is the point of this post? Am I supposed to condone this criminal behavior because someone who contributes made a minor error and act like both sides are at fault?

I don't know that it rises to the level of criminal behavior; it's a close one.

At the least it is a severe civil tort, one that a judge might address with a cease-and-desist order. Maybe there would be no consequences if the funds are returned to donors. At the least there would be the potential for contempt of court.

This is about in the same league as selling advertising in "professional directories" never published. The scam so works: the scammers call such professionals as physicians, attorneys, dentists, tax preparers, and optometrists selling advertising in the "(insert name of labor union)  Professional Directory" without getting permission from the labor union in question. 

There hasn't been a court order yet for there to even be contempt of court.  Whether or not it rises to the level of fraud would be a close one.  I could see a court going either way.  As for your analogy, it's nothing like that, because the pages said "Make a contribution to help defeat _______ ...".  Nothing like that exists in your analogy.  You can argue that the picture outweighs that disclaimer, but the NRCC wasn't just passing this off as the candidates' banners without any disclaimer whatsoever.

If they were to get nailed for it, it'd probably be the URL that would do it.

[badgate]

It says 'defeat' in pretty big letters, guys.

No it does not.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes they are.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nice deflection from the insult to Democrats by the NRCC for their disgusting fundraising dishonesty.