Dinesh D'Souza Indicted

[Tiassa]

Beneath the Radar: D'Souza Indicted

I completely missed that this was going on.

Conservative commentator Dinesh D'Souza has been indicted by a federal grand jury for arranging illegal campaign contributions to a U.S. Senate candidate, according to a report by Reuters.

The government's complaint released Thursday alleges that D'Souza, around August 2012, reimbursed people he had instructed to donate $20,000 to the candidate's effort, according to the published report.

Federal law in 2012 limited primary and general election campaign contributions to $2,500 each, for a total of $5,000, from any one person to any one candidate.

D'Souza, 52, was charged with one count of making illegal contributions in the names of others, and one count of causing false statements to be made, the Reuters report said.

The Senate candidate was not named in the indictment, according to the report.

In 2012 D'Souza campaigned for Wendy Long, a lawyer and Republican who challenged Democratic incumbent Kirsten Gillibrand for the junior Senate seat from New York. Gillibrand won re-election to her first full term by a sizeable margin.

Neither D'Souza, his lawyer nor Long could be reached for comment, according to the report.

(Picard)​

I mean, I might not be a fan of his analyses, but really ... I mean .... Ouch.
____________________

Notes:

Picard, Joe. "D'Souza indicted for illegal campaign contributions". The Hill. January 23, 2014. TheHill.com. January 25, 2014. http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box...a-indicted-for-illegal-campaign-contributions

 

[madanthonywayne]

Beneath the Radar: D'Souza Indicted

I mean, I might not be a fan of his analyses, but really ... I mean .... Ouch.
____________________

Here's Ted Cruz speaking on this subject:

[video=youtube;vEnqCCzmEo4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=UUOTZ-6H1rri1lSsj6IzhUyw&v=vEnqCCzmEo4#t=12[/video]

The producer of Shindler's List also commented on this issue:

Asked by Malzberg if he ever felt threatened or had any feelings they should not have been making the film, Molen answered, “No. This is America. I’ve never had that feeling,” adding, “I’ve never had the occasion to think that I had to fear my government. I never had the thought that I had reason to think I had to look over my shoulder until now.”
http://www.bizpacreview.com/2014/01...-i-never-feared-my-government-until-now-97067

Add to this the continuing IRS scandal:

People for the American Way, founded in 1981 by television producer Norman Lear, makes no secret that it is an advocate of a “wide variety of liberal causes.” The nonprofit’s 501 tax-exempt status has never been challenged by the Internal Revenue Service.
It’s a different story for Friends of Abe, a right-leaning Hollywood group whose membership includes actors Gary Sinise, Jon Voight and Kelsey Grammer. The nonprofit’s application for tax-exempt status has been “under review” by President Obama’s IRS for two years.
The Los Angeles Times reported last week that the federal tax authorities presented Friends of Abe (as in Abraham Lincoln) with a 10-point demand for detailed information about its meetings with various conservative political figures.
That follows a previous IRS demand that Friends of Abe give its enforcers enhanced access to its security-protected website, enabling the feds to identify the group’s members.
The agency’s demands on the Hollywood nonprofit raise renewed suspicion that the IRS continues to target conservative groups for extra scrutiny when they apply for tax-exempt status; continues to hold right-leaning groups like Friends of Abe to a different standard than unabashed liberal groups like People for the American Way.
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/friends-599065-abe-irs.html

Which even the New York Times commented on:

Leaning Right in Hollywood, Under a Lens

In a famously left-leaning Hollywood, where Democratic fund-raisers fill the social calendar, Friends of Abe stands out as a conservative group that bucks the prevailing political winds.

A collection of perhaps 1,500 right-leaning players in the entertainment industry, Friends of Abe keeps a low profile and fiercely protects its membership list, to avoid what it presumes would result in a sort of 21st-century blacklist, albeit on the other side of the partisan spectrum.

Now the Internal Revenue Service is reviewing the group’s activities in connection with its application for tax-exempt status. Last week, federal tax authorities presented the group with a 10-point request for detailed information about its meetings with politicians like Paul D. Ryan, Thaddeus McCotter and Herman Cain, among other matters, according to people briefed on the inquiry.

Those people said that the application had been under review for roughly two years, and had at one point included a demand — which was not met — for enhanced access to the group’s security-protected website, which would have revealed member names. Tax experts said that an organization’s membership list is information that would not typically be required. The I.R.S. already had access to the site’s basic levels, a request it considers routine for applications for 501(c)(3) nonprofit status.

Friends of Abe — the name refers to Abraham Lincoln — has strongly discouraged the naming of its members.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/23/us/politics/leaning-right-in-hollywood-under-a-lens.html

And we certainly have at least the appearance of abuse.

 

[spidergoat]

Obviously abuse of power isn't a partisan issue, but I can't help feeling a bit of schadenfreude about D'Souza. Especially in the light of all his arguments about religious morality in his many debates.

 

[joepistole]

Well it couldn't happen to a nicer guy given all the lies and misinformation this man has spread. This is yet another example of the problems money creates in our political system. We badly need significant election reform and we need publically financed elections.

 

[madanthonywayne]

Well it couldn't happen to a nicer guy given all the lies and misinformation this man has spread. This is yet another example of the problems money creates in our political system. We badly need significant election reform and we need publically financed elections.

To hell with that. Who really gives a shit about some guy giving $20,000 to a losing senate campaign. Why is it even illegal? We need fewer laws but more transparency. Repeal all campaign finance laws but require that all contributions be listed on the internet. Let the voters decide if a candidate is compromised by who he accepts money from.

 

[spidergoat]

To hell with that. Who really gives a shit about some guy giving $20,000 to a losing senate campaign. Why is it even illegal? We need fewer laws but more transparency. Repeal all campaign finance laws but require that all contributions be listed on the internet. Let the voters decide if a candidate is compromised by who he accepts money from.

Because corruption.

 

[madanthonywayne]

Because corruption.

I would argue that it is the current Byzantine system that encourages corruption

 

[joepistole]

Well this gets to the core of the issue. It is why Republicans have consistently hated The Fairness Doctrine where the media was required to provide viewers/listeners with both sides of important issues. Republicans by and large have an agenda that benefits the few at the expense of the many and isn’t attractive or beneficial to most Americans.

The bottom line is they cannot win on the issues and with the facts and with a fair airing of the facts and reason. All they have to influence the many is their money. They use their money to spread misinformation and lies, to trick and deceive the American voter. Their influence over government has provided them money in abundance. Republicans, this modern neoconservative party, cannot compete on the issues and the facts. They compete with the one thing they have in abundance, money. And that is why the Republican Party has steadfastly opposed reinstatement of The Fairness Doctrine and efforts to remove the influence money buys in American politics.

 

[spidergoat]

I would argue that it is the current Byzantine system that encourages corruption

It's pretty fucking lax actually. Don't you watch Colbert?

 

[madanthonywayne]

Well this gets to the core of the issue. It is why Republicans have consistently hated The Fairness Doctrine where the media was required to provide viewers/listeners with both sides of important issues.

That's true. We prefer free speech.

. Republicans, this modern neoconservative party, cannot compete on the issues and the facts. To they compete with the one thing they have in abundance, money. And that is why the Republican Party has steadfastly opposed reinstatement of The Fairness Doctrine and efforts to remove the influence money buys in American politics.

You talk about Republicans not being able to compete on the issues, yet it is you who seeks to silence your opposition via the force of law. Not the sign of someone who is confident in their arguments.

It's pretty fucking lax actually. Don't you watch Colbert?

Not that much.

 

[joepistole]

That's true. We prefer free speech.

Well that is only partially true. You prefer free speech for those of your ideology, but for the other guy, not so much. What those of your ideology want is for your side and your side only to be heard.

You talk about Republicans not being able to compete on the issues, yet it is you who seeks to silence your opposition via the force of law. Not the sign of someone who is confident in their arguments.

Oh, how so? Reinstatement of The Fairness Doctrine doesn’t seek to silence anyone. It ensures that all views are heard. It doesn’t silence any speech. People are free to say whatever they want. The Fairness Doctrine just gives the other side a chance to be heard as well.

 

[madanthonywayne]

Well that is only partially true. You prefer free speech for those of your ideology, but for the other guy, not so much. What those of your ideology want is for your side and your side only to be heard.

It's not our side that's trying to stifle free speech.

Oh, how so? Reinstatement of The Fairness Doctrine doesn’t seek to silence anyone. It ensures that all views are heard. It doesn’t silence any speech. People are free to say whatever they want. The Fairness Doctrine just gives the other side a chance to be heard as well.

Please. All the fairness doctrine does is ensure that broadcasters steer away from any such discussions. For instance, in order to broadcast a popular program such as Rush Limbaugh, a station would have to also broadcast 3 hours of some left wing nut job no one wants to listen to. Better to just play music.

You'd think that controlling all the major networks, all the major newspapers, public radio, public television, and even the moderators during presidential debates would be enough for you. But no. You can't stand the fact that one cable news network and talk radio doesn't toe the left wing line. You've got to pass a law to shut those bastards up.

 

[joepistole]

It's not our side that's trying to stifle free speech.

Interesting statement, if you count shouting so loudly that no one can hear anyone else, then your side is for stifling free speech. It is what your right wing neocon voice pieces like Hannity do when confronted with a little truth.

Please. All the fairness doctrine does is ensure that broadcasters steer away from any such discussions. For instance, in order to broadcast a popular program such as Rush Limbaugh, a station would have to also broadcast 3 hours of some left wing nut job no one wants to listen to. Better to just play music.

That is not true; I think you are confusing The Fairness Doctrine with The Equal Time Rule. The Fairness Doctrine just provides that all sides of an important public issue will be aired. That means that Limbaugh, Hannity, et al. will be required to broadcast opposing views. It means another voice and different opinions will be heard. So listeners and viewers will have more information upon which to draw conclusions.

“The Fairness Doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows, or editorials. The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine

The Equal Time Rule applies to candidates running for public office – not issues of public concern – and the Equal Time Rule is still the law.

You'd think that controlling all the major networks, all the major newspapers, public radio, public television, and even the moderators during presidential debates would be enough for you. But no. You can't stand the fact that one cable news network and talk radio doesn't toe the left wing line. You've got to pass a law to shut those bastards up.

LOL, my I am always amazed at the breath and scope of right wing fantasy. Just because some public television doesn’t mimic the ideology of right wing media, just because some media outlets do try to be fair and balanced and try to adhere to the Fairness Doctrine, it doesn’t mean they are partisan agencies as is Fox and talk radio. Fox and right wing radio are in leagues of their own. There is now similar media anywhere in The United States. Even so called "liberal" programs like Maddow don't recklessly disregard fact and reason as one finds on Fox and in neoconservative/Republican talk radio.

The Fairness Doctrine wouldn’t shut up Fox or anyone else. But it would require them to air opposing views. I don’t think there is anything wrong with an honest airing of facts and opinions. However the very thought of an honest airing of facts sends shivers down the spines of neoconservative/Republicans everywhere. Because their ideology cannot survive the honesty the Fairness Doctrine would bring to the American media.

Frankly, I think an open honest airing of facts would help the Republican Party as well. Many of the party’s ills can be traced back to the Republican echo chamber (i.e. Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Beck, Bortz, et al.).

 

[Bells]

It's not our side that's trying to stifle free speech.

Please. All the fairness doctrine does is ensure that broadcasters steer away from any such discussions. For instance, in order to broadcast a popular program such as Rush Limbaugh, a station would have to also broadcast 3 hours of some left wing nut job no one wants to listen to. Better to just play music.

I think most would prefer to listen to music than to listen to Rush make obscene comments, such as asking a young woman to film herself having sex and post the video's online so he and others could watch. But that's just me.

To hell with that. Who really gives a shit about some guy giving $20,000 to a losing senate campaign. Why is it even illegal? We need fewer laws but more transparency. Repeal all campaign finance laws but require that all contributions be listed on the internet. Let the voters decide if a candidate is compromised by who he accepts money from.

I think most countries have campaign donation laws of some sort. D'Souza saw fit to donate more than he is legally allowed to donate by committing fraud to do so. It's kind of a no-brainer.

 

[wellwisher]

I think most would prefer to listen to music than to listen to Rush make obscene comments, such as asking a young woman to film herself having sex and post the video's online so he and others could watch. But that's just me.

The context of that statement was a young lawyer gal wanted the government to pay for her birth control. She was pat of the early sales pitch for the unaffordable care act, that was already getting too expensive.

Paying for birth control is usually something the boyfriend or husband pitches in for. If you want to have sex with the wife, you don't normally take a collection from the neighbors. Rush figured if the tax payer has to pay for her to have sex, then since traditionally the payer guy is in on the action, the tax payer should be allowed to get in on the action.

The filming was one suggested way to distribute her services around like the extra tax burden. The amount she thought she needed for birth control was quite high and would require a lot of action in the sack to use up. It was thousands per year. The comment was clever and funny but was used as a weapon against Rush. He lost sponsors in the short term but since he is the most influential radio personality, he came back to life.

How many liberals who hate Rush ever listen to one of his three hour programs? How many liberal simply read or repeat the liberal talking points about him? I found him to be one of the most informed persons and backs up his ideas and perceptions with data. But he also realizes he needs to entertain and not be all work, so he also comes up with clever stuff like the above. He was recently voted one of the top ten most influential people.

 

[billvon]

How many liberals who hate Rush ever listen to one of his three hour programs?

How many conservatives who worship Rush have ever read his books? I know conservatives don't like to read (they feel it's elitist and ivory towerish) but I highly recommend it. You might learn something about your messiah.

 

[Tiassa]

Yes, Informed

The context of that statement was a young lawyer gal wanted the government to pay for her birth control.

On that point, we should simply note that the statement was made by a guy who had no damn clue what he was talking about.

How many liberals who hate Rush ever listen to one of his three hour programs?

Only the ones who are willing to torture themselves in order to find out what he's saying, so the rest of us don't have to.

I found him to be one of the most informed persons and backs up his ideas and perceptions with data.

It's too early in 2014 to declare that the line of the year, but ...

Fluke, who was prevented from testifying at Rep. Darrell Issa's nearly all-male hearing on contraception, has been the target of a barrage of sexist invective from Limbaugh over her view that Georgetown's health plan should include birth control. Wednesday Limbaugh called Fluke a "slut" and a "prostitute", declared that "she's having so much sex she can't afford the contraception," and asserted that covering contraception was tantamount to paying her for sex. On Thursday he blurted out: "If we are going to pay for your contraceptives, and thus pay for you to have sex, we want something for it, and I'll tell you what it is. We want you to post the videos online so we can all watch."

Once you wade through the bile and the realization that the country's most popular conservative radio host has devoted hours on his show to attempting to bully a woman into silence for her views on birth control, it becomes clear that Limbaugh, a man over 60 who is now on his fourth marriage, does not seem to understand how birth control pills work. On Wednesday and Thursday, Limbaugh repeatedly suggested that the amount of sex a woman has is related to the amount of birth control she needs to take, as though women took birth control pills every day they had sex. This is how, say, Viagra, the erectile dysfunction medication, works. Aside from the morning-after pill, when and how much sex you have is unrelated to the amount of birth control you need.

(Serwer; boldface accent added)​

... wow, really? "I found him to be one of the most informed persons and backs up his ideas and perceptions with data."

Okay.

By the way, where's that data of his? I mean, given that his whole appeal to birth control-for-pornography exchange proposition is based on incorrect presuppositions, how, exactly, is this one of the most informed persons going to back up his ideas and perceptions with data?
____________________

Notes:

Serwer, Adam. "Dear Rush Limbaugh: Birth Control Doesn't Work Like Viagra". Mother Jones. March 2, 2012. MotherJones.com. January 31, 2014. http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/03/rush-limbaugh-does-not-understand-how-birth-control-works

See Also:

Media Matters Staff. "Limbaugh's Misogynistic Attack On Georgetown Law Student Continues With Increased Vitriol". Media Matters for America. March 1, 2014. MediaMatters.org. January 31, 2014. http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/03/01/updated-limbaughs-misogynistic-attack-on-george/184248

 

[madanthonywayne]

I think most would prefer to listen to music than to listen to Rush make obscene comments, such as asking a young woman to film herself having sex and post the video's online so he and others could watch. But that's just me.

The fact that he has one of the most popular radio programs in the country would suggest otherwise. As would the push by certain reactionary elements in the Democratic party to censor him and and Fox News via the re-imposition of the "fairness doctrine". Were they not popular, there would be no need to censor them.

 

[Tiassa]

Functional Problems

The fact that he has one of the most popular radio programs in the country would suggest otherwise. As would the push by certain reactionary elements in the Democratic party to censor him and and Fox News via the re-imposition of the "fairness doctrine". Were they not popular, there would be no need to censor them.

To the one, we might be pedantic and wait for the relevance of your argument to be established when you dig up the Ditto demographics. But there is, I think, a more important issue.

There are three general practices in American culture that encourage dishonesty: sales, juristics, and politics. While I still hold the position that there is an observable, functional difference between acknowledging and wilfully exploiting human frailty, this is not a point I'm going to win anytime soon in practice.

But the problem is clear. To the one, people vote according to sincere beliefs. To the other, there is an industry within the conservative political movement intended to foster sincere beliefs in things that are not true or demonstrable. But it's politics, and apparently unconnected to the processes of legislating and enforcing, so wilful deception is apparently laudable.

For instance, Limbaugh. If he is right, then why the deception? Like the birth control issue; Limbaugh's misogynistic propaganda is one thing, but as our neighbor Wellwisher reminds, there are people who believe this stuff, and even go on to pronounce the lying radio host "one of the most informed persons" who "backs up his ideas and perceptions with data".

I would love to see Limbaugh's data for this one.

Meanwhile, let us strip away all party labels because despite the fact I've noted that this is part of our political discourse, I can certainly imagine you going out of your way to remind me that some Democrats have exploited human frailty before, and that's fine except that's not really the whole of the issue and, as a response, would evade the core issue.

Thus: Is wilfully deceiving someone in order to win their support at the ballot box praiseworthy? Is it merely acceptable? Is it problematic?

There comes a point when it's no longer a turn of phrase, but open lying. While many will argue about where that line occurs under what circumstances, there are also those who would suggest it doesn't really matter, because ... er ... whatever reason.

Limbaugh and birth control actually provide a pretty good illustration.

Take a look at your staff at work and ask yourself: "Do I have the right to require their practice of my religion?"

Now, maybe you're not a dittohead, but there are lawsuits going on about this question. (And talk about frivolous? The Little Sisters of the Poor? There was no consequence for them to claim tort, so they invented the notion that signing a piece of paper was offensive to God. You know, like they never had a problem with before when filing their tax status.)

But let's say you're one of these poor souls who believes Limbaugh among the most informed people, and praises how he backs up his ideas and perceptions with data.

Consider the Hobby Lobby suit.

Consider the employee who may take the pill to reduce symptoms of her menstrual cycle, as many women do.

Do you have the right to ...

... demand that she stop taking the pill because it offends your morals?

... especially because there's no reason you should have to support her slutty behavior by contributing to an insurance pool for more pills every time she has sex—a specifically untrue notion that some people apparently sincerely believe true?​

Why stop there? It's one thing to say nobody can wear their religious icons visibly in the workplace, because some employers and co-workers apparently have a problem with non-Christians displaying symbols of their faith, but do you think you should be able to prescribe a workplace uniform for your office that includes the obligation to wear Christian religious symbols?

We can always have that dispute about whether one's right to free religion is violated if they are not granted some sort of authority over other people's religious freedom, but how does that sort of question change when proposition in question depends on accepting inaccurate information as truth?

You know, like IUDs and hormonal birth control as abortifacients? Or the idea that a woman needs to take more birth control pills because she is sexually active compared to when she is not?

If the question is at what point we draw the line between persuasive rhetoric and outright lying, is the answer really that there is no difference between the two? That there is no difference between overstating how good this or that salad shooter is, compared to making stuff up about the dangers of just using a knife in order to scare people into not wanting to make salad the old way?

Is there really no difference?

 

[iceaura]

For instance, in order to broadcast a popular program such as Rush Limbaugh, a station would have to also broadcast 3 hours of some left wing nut job no one wants to listen to.

The more I read that, the more revealing it gets. These guys do, at some level, recognize what Limbaugh and his ilk are up to (their mirror image is a "nut job").

They just don't - like this:

You'd think that controlling all the major networks, all the major newspapers, public radio, public television, and even the moderators during presidential debates would be enough for you. But no

- have any idea what's going on in the real world.

They know what Limbaugh is doing, they do, at some level of awareness: and they simply imagine or project a mirror world of Limbaugh opponents on "the other side" doing the mirror image thing. It's as if they were watching a charade basketball game where they could only see one team's players cheating and fouling and so forth, and didn't know it was a charade - they simply imagine another team must be there, doing the things that would justify the actions of the players they can see.

And that fantasy becomes their world. They end up actually believing what they saw starting out as lying and slander and dishonest propaganda from their own.

And that may be how these guys like D'Souza or Christie's folks end up committing crimes that seem so bizarrely clueless in their flagrancy, in their spotlit obviousness and consequences - they know there haven't been any arrests of scandals like that of people on "the other side", they know the cops etc are at least half on their side, and their fantasy world has replaced what everyone else sees when looking around; everybody must be acting like this because they themselves are, nobody else is getting busted, so they develop a sense of invulnerability or normality about literally anything they do.

And like sunrise, they will surely feel unjustly picked on and targeted when the law shows up at their door.