Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Staff Contacts | Affiliates | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS

Bill would end corporate secrecy

September 3, 2013

WASHINGTON — In August, I led a bipartisan group of Senate colleagues in introducing a bill to combat terrorism, money laundering, tax evasion, and other wrongdoing aided by use of U.S....

« Back to Article

sort: oldest | newest




Sep-03-13 10:00 AM

I want to believe you Mr. Levin that this bill or any bill from Washington is really as straight forward as you say.

On face value, I'm good with what you describe but there's a little voice in my head that's wondering what else is attached to this bill or hidden in the small print.

I've had enough attachments and hidden small print in the health care bill you so loved. So yeah, I'm skeptical it's really that simple.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-04-13 1:56 PM

I agree with you Vauchee ...

the rich,

their corporations, and

the republicans

have unprecedented means and ways

and have developed too many loopholes to get around government regulations,

government legislation,

that further bolsters their use of smokescreens for invisible-transparency.

Not only do business types use these secretive ops,

but so do our elected officials.

Nothing, is ever as open and plain as one would want to believe,

or as

the rich,

their corporations and

the republicans would have the gall to present to us to believe.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-06-13 10:14 PM

If the end result of all these activities is money,

are these activities created and used to gain more money,

or is it because some have too little money?

There seems to be so many sources from which all good greed flows.

The rich, the corporations, have been practicing their illicit deal making for eons,

and all know how to manipulate our elected officials;

since most of the rich seem to be republicans,

and most of the poor seem to be democrats, both parties need help to pave the way for more ill-gotten gains than ever before.

I’ll gladly launder your money Tuesday...

for a hamburger today.

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-06-13 10:19 PM

Where does all this fraud, deceit, lying, money laundering, tax evasion, free-enterprise, capitalism come from?

And, why do so many foreigners come to this country to make their illicit practices profitable?

Would anyone care to bet that our government is being gamed by the rich and has been intentionally made weak,

so profits may abound, so profits may be hidden, and the profiteers remain secret?

Is it passed along in the genes, or are these greedy schemes taught in schools, and the users and abusers, MBA’s, lawyers, accountants, politicians, the aristocracy, the plutocracy the oligarchy, the monopolists, the lobbyists, the legislatures, the politicians, the courts,

and does the end result somehow involve money, too little, or too much?

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-09-13 9:02 AM

Well I'm glad we agree on something Whiz.

My only question is why do you put all blame on the republican party? Sure they have their hands in the cookie jar but just as much as any democrat.

The only issue there is the democrats go out and preach how they are all for the poor and unfortuneate yet behind the scenes they do the exact opposite.

I mean the perfect example of democrats scheming is the current administration. I mean nothing coming from them is straight and true and passes the sniff test. It all stinks.

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-09-13 9:13 AM

Bottom line frog is you can't blame business for doing what business is meant to do, make money. Blame politicians and the American people that keep voting for the same dang person term after term, whatever the party.

Your belief that most of the rich are republicans is utterly biased. Based on campaign contributions, primarily 2008, there was significant contributions from sectors of big business to the democratic party.

Add in to this the majority of hollywood types and you'll find a large portion of the "extremely wealthy" favor the democratic ticket. They talk the talk but will never walk the walk.

Further foreigners come here because it is a free market and the land of opprotunity. It's a place where with hard work you can become wealthy.

The problem we have is more foreigners are willing to work hard. Many Americans today just believe they are owed a lifestyle they didn't earn.

2 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-09-13 1:03 PM


most obvious to nearly everyone,

everyone but you, is that by following the money trail,

it leads everyone but you, to the doors of the rich,

the corporations, and of course the majority of them,

just coincidently,

happen to

be republicans.

Obviously, the obvious, is not obvious to you, but is obvious to most everyone, but you...


3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-09-13 7:26 PM

Cheese, step away from the kool-aid a moment and put away your bias.

2008 top Obahma contributors 1)University of California $1,648,685 2)Goldman Sachs $1,013,091 3)Harvard University $878,164 4)Microsoft Corp $852,167 5)Google Inc $814,540 6)JPMorgan Chase & Co $808,799

2008 top McCain contributors 1)Merrill Lynch $375,895 2)JPMorgan Chase & Co $343,505 3)Citigroup Inc $338,202 4)Morgan Stanley $271,902 5)Goldman Sachs $240,295 6)US Government $202,929

Look at the dollars and follow the money you say. Well let's just do that and see where corporate America is putting its money.

Full disclosure: The organizations themselves did not donate , rather the money came from the organizations' PACs, their individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.

1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-09-13 7:44 PM

How about we take a look at some of the filthy rich, celebrities.

Donations in 2012 by celebrities

Candidate Number Celebrities Total Obama, Barack (D) 239 $807,630 Romney, Mitt (R) 24 $76,000

A further 11 gave to other republican candidates for a sum of about $25K.

Hmm, the numbers don't seem to be playing out like you would have us believe.

So yeah the republicans have the Koch brothers but the democrats/liberals have Soros both of considerable wealth. But the numbers show a vast chunk of the wealthy tilt to the democratic party.

Also to be fair a larger chunk of corporate donations did go to republicans in 2012 vs. 2008. That couldn't possibly have anything to do with the anti-business climate Obahma created in his first term and the continued economic duldrums we still face could it?

1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-09-13 7:45 PM

Who the bloody heck disagreed with the statistics?

Fool, they aren't my numbers. Check opensecrets****.

0 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-10-13 9:04 PM


"Simple and Skeptical."

Tha'ts what you call yourself, It's the that simple!

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-10-13 11:07 PM

Come on Cheese, you attack the person again when you can't make your argument fit the facts? Did you giggle when you came up with that reply you clever little devil you?

If you are going to attack me personally with snide remarks please make sure you comprehend what I said.

Now how about those numbers, you have anything to say about those? How obvious is it really that the money trail leads to the republicans?

1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-11-13 11:19 AM


Asking for figures, you keep asking for rebuttal and endlessly repeating yourself....

the facts and figures were presented to you in numerous rants, and speak for themselves,

you suffer from inability to connect the dots, an ebarrasment you should recognize from your supposedly prized ‘intellectual’response, as, rather an intellectual short coming.

you on the other hand are apparently too young, or too daft, more likely both, to assess the significance of their import and portent.

Academics have been writing and chronicling what has been said and repeated by many who post here.

You need only avail yourself of their writings, to improve your lack of knowledge. We should not have to be the messenger to illustrate your misguided education, comprehension and reading abilities.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-11-13 11:23 AM

Here are two numbers that should Significantly Simplify your lack of embarrassment from 'it's that simple', things.

Figures released by our government summarizing political spending for the last election cycle in 2010 report the following:

1) the u.s. chamber of commerce, (comprising members of the rich, their corporations, republicans, the plutocracy and oligarchy, aristocracy,)

were able to collect, launder or otherwise spend on elections the sum of just over:

$800 MILLION Dollars

2) unions, mostly comprising democrats,

were able to collect, launder or otherwise spend on elections and influence pedaling,

the sum of:

$80 million dollars.

The u.s. chamber of commerce by contrast,

was able to outclass democrat unions by over ten (10) times to use mountains of money by contrast, to put in place their elected minions, supposedly our 'representatives'.

Are you able to inhale that smoke?

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-11-13 1:02 PM

Cheesy, this should simplify your thought process: the public-sector union AFSCME spent more in 2010 than you say all unions spent. From the Wall Street Journal: “The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees is now the biggest outside spender of the 2010 elections, thanks to an 11th-hour effort to boost Democrats that has vaulted the public-sector union ahead of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the AFL-CIO and a flock of new Republican groups in campaign spending.” “AFSCME, the public-employees union, has vaulted ahead of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to become the largest campaign spender of 2010. The 1.6 million-member AFSCME is spending a total of $87.5 million on the elections after tapping into a $16 million emergency account to help fortify the Democrats' hold on Congress.” "We're the big dog," said Larry Scanlon, the head of AFSCME's political operations. "But we don't like to brag."

1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-11-13 1:18 PM

No Cheese, facts and figures were not put up in other posts. Opinions and suppositions based on your and others bias was put up in other "rants".

I put up numbers, refute them if you can.

I keep repeating myself because you have yet to answer intelligently on the topic. I am not the topic and if I am so stupid it should not be hard to refute the facts and figures I put forth.

As for you numbers in your second post, what of them? You fail to mention how the money was divided but of course that is irrelavant isn't it.

I should just take your word that all $800M went to republican candidates, is that it?

1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-11-13 1:32 PM

So let's give the readers some more facts or the whole picture so we need not just have to trust master Cheese.

All Contributions (2009-2010) 1)Business Total- $1,358,140,207 D - $654,567,824 R - $632,149,651 Split - 51%(D)/ 49% (R)

2)Labor Total - $86,138,166 D - $65,714,733 R - $4,613,012 Split - 93%(D)/ 7%(R)

3) Ideological (no clarification) Total - $97,717,987 D - $46,190,854 R - $40,048,122 Split - 54%(D)/ 46%(R)

4) Other (No clarification who) Total -$231,097,775 D - $116,437,666 R - $107,245,941 Split - 52%(D)/ 48%(R)

Hmmm, interesting when you look beyond your bias. Well on face your numbers are close, breaking them down shows who can't or doesn't want to connect the dots. They just don't fit your premise Cheese.

1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-11-13 1:42 PM

These things translate like garbage on here. However for Cheese I will continue to tear your opinon down.

How about PAC money for 2009-2010

1) Business : Total - $310,250,315, D - $152,792,384, R -$155,590,603, Split - 50%(D)/ 50%(R)

2)Labor : Total - $69,707,250, D - $64,891,028, R - $4,576,172, Split -93%(D)/ 7%(R)

3)Ideological : Total - $70,263,984, D - $35,451,655, R - $34,303,687, Split - 51%(D)/ 49%(R)

4) Other : Total - $1,563,861, D - $1,040,261, R - $520,100, Split - 67%(D)/ 33%(R)

Again, not fitting your bias Cheese.

1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-11-13 1:59 PM

Oh, there's more too.

Individuals 2009-2010

1) Business : Total - $987,309,704, D - $499,112,250, R - $474,319,062, Split - 51%(D)/ 49%(R)

2) Labor : Total - $558,745, D - $517,205, R - $36,840, Split - 93%(D)/ 7%(R)

3) Ideological: Total - $16,880,757, D - $10,721,199, R - $5,739,435, Split - 65%(D)/ 35%(R)

4) Other : Total - $224,694,561, D - $115,181,669, R - $106,530,841, Split - 52%(D)/ 48%(R)

Yet again, not showing what you are claiming Cheese. Please, explain the discrepancy. Or is asking you to refute this too much and me not connecting dots?

All numbers from Center for Responsive Politics

1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-12-13 3:00 PM

Vauchee = Gauchee = Bravesrock = bozo's...

try and dispute those statistics, just let them try to refute the non-sense they put in print.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-12-13 3:08 PM

CPPR has not yet filed its tax forms covering 2012 with the IRS,

so it's not yet known what groups it provided funds to last year

-- or how much of its total revenue was covered by the $115 million from Freedom Partners.

Until now, CPPR and TC4 Trust -- which were both uncovered last year

by OpenSecrets Blog

-- were believed to be the main "shadow money mailboxes"

(having no activities of their own other than giving grants) on the right.

As of last year, Freedom Partners, the only significant group in the network that is not a 501(c)(4), has taken the lead.

But the fact that it's heavily funding CPPR means that the latter group continues playing a major role in the network

-- with an additional curtain of secrecy hiding its donors.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-12-13 3:10 PM

CPPR has given grants to some of the same groups that,

according to Politico,

Freedom Partners gave funds to last year, such as the conservative

seniors' group 60 Plus Association,

which also has Koch connections.

CPPR gave 60 Plus $14 million over three years.

Freedom Partners sent $15.7 million to 60 Plus in 2012 alone.

And 60 Plus -- which has also received donations from the American Petroleum Institute,

the Karl Rove-affiliated Crossroads GPS,

and another Koch-connected group that does nothing but give out grants, TC4 Trust

-- reported spending more than $4.6 million in the 2012 federal elections,

much of it to support GOP

presidential nominee Mitt Romney.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-12-13 3:12 PM

Stick this piece from Open Secrets

in your delirium smoked head.

Much of the funding for some of the largest

conservative dark money groups

in 2012 came from a previously

little-known group that was started by and is to some degree bankrolled

by the billionaire

Koch brothers, according to a story

on Politico's website today.

Freedom Partners, a 501(c)(6) business partnership,

made grants totaling $236 million since it was founded in



Almost half of that

-- $115 million

-- went to the Center to Protect Patient Rights,

a group that has NO activities of its own,

other than giving grants to other

politically active

tax-exempt organizations.

That's more than CPPR's budget in

all years combined since it was established in 2009.

It's run by Sean Noble,

a political consultant and

Koch operative.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-12-13 4:17 PM

Frog, I think I hear your mommy calling you.

Cheese, FINALLY, something intelligent not personal!

Remember I didn't once say that the republicans didn't get any money from the rich or corporations. In fact the stats I put up flat out prove they do. I believe I even mentioned that contributions from some sectors swung towards republicans in the last election.

My whole point was your statement:

" is that by following the money trail, it leads everyone but you, to the doors of the rich, the corporations, and of course the majority of them, just coincidently happen to be republicans."

is flat out false.

My statment, which I'm sure you disagreed with (because I said it):

"My only question is why do you put all blame on the republican party? Sure they have their hands in the cookie jar but just as much as any democrat."

shows you exactly what I believe about political spending. Each side has their rich, their corporations pushing their agenda.

1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-12-13 5:00 PM

back in the day when I was teaching in a one-room school house, we called the intellectually challenged dunces...

but, modern times call for more politically expedient words,

some of which defy any ability to convey a truthful sense of definition...

not wanting to be as politically incorrect,

(heaven knows, politicians are usually incorrect, but we should keep calling them truthful names, like liars)

i chose the name bozo, and like it or not,

if you were in my classroom today, i'd let you know how, exactly you fit the profile.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 40 comments Show More Comments

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
Remember my email address.


I am looking for:
News, Blogs & Events Web