Top Leaderboard, Site wide
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
May 29, 2017 Disclaimer: Please read.

Statements and opinions expressed in articles are those of the authors, not Truthdig. Truthdig takes no responsibility for such statements or opinions.

Rising Star

Truthdig Bazaar


By Gore Vidal

Reality Hunger: A Manifesto

Reality Hunger: A Manifesto

By David Shields

more items

Email this item Print this item

Winning Our Future, Gambling With Democracy

Posted on Jan 27, 2012
AP / Matt Rourke

Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich speaks after receiving an endorsement from national Hispanic leaders at the Doral Golf Resort and Spa in Miami on Friday.

By Bill Boyarsky

With financial and political interests ranging from Las Vegas to Israel to China, Sheldon Adelson, who is bankrolling the super PAC supporting Newt Gingrich, is a powerful illustration of the dangers of unlimited campaign contributions.

Casino magnate Adelson donated $5 million to the super PAC Winning Our Future, which helped Gingrich defeat Mitt Romney in the South Carolina Republican presidential primary. Then Adelson’s wife, Miriam, gave the pro-Gingrich PAC $5 million more for the Florida primary. These gifts provide sweet revenge for Gingrich, beaten in Iowa and New Hampshire with the help of ad campaigns funded by the pro-Romney super PAC, which is now operating in Florida.

Such unlimited contributions are permitted by 2010 federal court decisions. In Citizens United, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that corporations and unions could give unlimited amounts to political action committees supposedly independent of candidates. Following up on that, a federal appeals court in the SpeechNow case extended the privilege to individuals. Because of their ability to sweep up huge amounts so quickly, these political action committees have well earned the name “super PAC.”

Worth $22 billion, according to Forbes, Adelson owns casinos in Las Vegas and the Chinese gambling haven of Macau. He also operates in Singapore. Miriam Adelson is a physician, specializing in substance abuse rehabilitation.

Many of Adelson’s activities are influenced by federal government policy.


Square, Site wide
Connie Bruck detailed their range in a June 2008 New Yorker article. Stories by other journalists have filled out the picture of a man who won’t take no for an answer when it comes to politics and business.

The three main areas to watch for Adelson influence if Gingrich is elected president are Israel, China and unions.

All of the Republican presidential candidates except for Ron Paul are throwing around threats of bombing Iran if it goes nuclear, but Gingrich is particularly hawkish, as is Adelson.

Adelson is a dedicated supporter of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The billionaire also publishes a right wing Israeli newspaper, wants the American embassy in Israel moved to Jerusalem and agrees with Gingrich that the Palestinians are an “invented people.”

Most important, Adelson seems ready for military action against Iran if that nation appears to be building nuclear weapons. I got that impression from Bruck’s report of a conversation between a Jewish-Iranian activist and Adelson about the son of the former shah. Recalling their conversation, the activist observed that Adelson was dismissive of Reza Pahlavi, the son, because, Adelson said, “he doesn’t want to attack Iran.” At another point in the conversation, Adelson said, “I really don’t care what happens to Iran. I am for Israel.”

Gingrich also sounds supportive of action against Iran if he thinks that nation ready to manufacture a nuclear weapon. When he was asked what he would do if Israel told him that it was going to attack Iran, Gingrich said, “If they told me in advance, I would say how can we help you?”

It’s also likely China would have a good friend in a Gingrich White House if Adelson has his way, perhaps bringing a sympathetic view of its police state government and brutally exploitative factories that take away American jobs.


New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

Join the conversation

Load Comments
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, January 31, 2012 at 4:48 pm Link to this comment

In addition to the Republican moronic stand that small government (according to their defining of small) state regulations are tying the hands of the job promoters.

Anyone who believes the GOP is for the 99 percent has their head where the sun don’t shine. The GOP is having fits about the new head of the Consumer Protection Bureau and they believe they feel Consumer Protection should not exist,  banks don’t like having to answer to anyone, which in this case is the American People and what caused the bail out in the first place.

Tell me again how a small government, means big military, the largest in the world 10 times over?

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, January 31, 2012 at 12:47 am Link to this comment

Lafayette, January 29 at 9:24 am – Your post did not actually address
the comment you quoted of mine.  Nevertheless, I don’t see “it” your
way, where “it” means the ruling class mentality of Republicans.  The
disgraceful and wholly malevolent effort to disenfranchise voters in
every way possible by the Republicans is proof enough of their
antipathy and contempt to trust the common population to vote its
own conscience.  It has been too prominent in the news these past
few months at how far they are maneuvering to eliminate millions of
voters from college students to old folks to definitively cite critical
articles on the subject.  A google search would yield a plethora of
them.  But to the point the 25-page 2004 study of Phillip E. Agre,
(whose home page at
shows an impressive list of his professional work), entitled What Is
Conservatism and What Is Wrong with It?
provides more than a
modicum of enlight- enment in support of my claim. 

I further claim that Republicans engage in voting because and only
because it is the system, not that they like or trust it.  The current
succession of Republicans have eclipsed the compassionate conservatism
of GWB in favor of eliminating a populous government , spotlighted by
Michelle Bachmann’s denunciation of government, but ever expressed
by libertarian Ron Paul, and all the other candidates at one time or
anonther.  Out of the mouth of Gingrich is a grotesque disdain for
the civil rights movement is another tile in the mosaic of anti-
democratic sentiments by Republicans. 

The site:  is a stunning
list of articles about electronic voting and the attempt and fear of
an attempt, as well as successful hacking voting machines.  Chilling
was as recent as Sept. 27, 2011 Salon report on the remote control
ability to affect voting results.  Truthout article, Jan. 20, 2012, “100%
Unverifiable Statewide E-Voting in South Carolina’s 2012 GOP Primary,”
also makes the argument about the most recent infractions, link to the
article here.

When votes are bought or otherwise tainted there is not even a
resemblance of democracy.  Your constant litany is that responsibility
lies in the actions of the people.  Essentially that is true, but if and only
if there is a level playing field and votes of a democratic country is the
fact not the nefarious contamination that commands and dominates
what has modulated into a sham of democracy.

A study of history shows Conservatism on the whole has been a
morally bankrupt authoritarian political philosophy, antithetical to
freedom, in spite of incessant rhetoric to the opposite, extolling the
virtue of freedom but in reality means only that there is freedom to
enjoy a privileged style of life.  It is diametrically opposed to justice,
democracy and civilized society for all.  Conservatism represents an
amoral doctrine of self-interest, special entitlements, and vested
interests, fostering a government of the rich, by the rich and for the
rich. In short, it is an inflexible authoritarian political conviction based
on class, status, possession, greed, power, hierarchy and the sanctity
of private property.  In other words, it is a depraved aristocratic political
prolepsis that, analogous to monarchies, no longer has a place in
societies of the people by the people and for the people.

Report this
oddsox's avatar

By oddsox, January 30, 2012 at 4:31 pm Link to this comment

gerard, which question was answered 2000 years ago?

Report this

By ReadingJones, January 30, 2012 at 4:29 pm Link to this comment

If you add et to Gingrich you get “getting rich.” Guess
who gets rich.
I wish some one could provide an app or widget to
which one could add blatherskates and nut jobs and
argumentative time wasters and have them automatically
deleted. I’d even pay for such a useful tool.

Report this

By NZDoug, January 30, 2012 at 4:11 pm Link to this comment

Stuff like this will help Obama to throw Israel under the bus!
Imagine 67 borders, wtf?

Report this

By gerard, January 30, 2012 at 3:44 pm Link to this comment

oddsox:  I thought that question had been answered a couple thousand years ago, if not before, and quite frequently since.  Am I wrong?
  What we need, I guess, is a few more camels squeezing through the eye of a needle.

Report this

By balkas, January 30, 2012 at 4:34 am Link to this comment

einstein’s got it wrong. it is thinking-feeling which compel us to act,
wage war, exploit people, endure bad govts, deceive, dissemble, cheat,
rob one another of peace/money, etc. thanks

Report this

By Morpheus, January 29, 2012 at 9:37 pm Link to this comment

Memo to America: Stop waiting for Democrats and Republicans to save you. It’s bad
for your health and your future. Can’t you tell? You have another choice - use it!

Read “Common Sense 3.1” at ( )

Report this
oddsox's avatar

By oddsox, January 29, 2012 at 9:02 pm Link to this comment

Looks like the Adelsons will lose their $10M bet.


“The painful reality is that everyone in this year’s field of Republican candidates is a gamble.
And reelecting Barack Obama is an even bigger gamble.”
—Thomas Sowell

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, January 29, 2012 at 6:29 pm Link to this comment

You wouldn’t let a little resentment stop you, balkas, now would you?

Report this

By balkas, January 29, 2012 at 3:58 pm Link to this comment

ok shenon, let’s try this explanation? all wars [even one for helen] start with a hunch or an idea; affecting our feelings and
these act as another effect for words we use.
but previous learnings also affects our hunches. take now the proposed war against iran? many americans are raring to
go. [is it mostly onepercent?]. and the cause for that fervor is solely, i aver, their feelings
which have no connection whatever with whatever is going on in iran. so the present hunch to attack iran is the second
cause for wanting to attack it; the first being the preparation H, so to speak.
and the hunch is getting stronger and stronger; it also never takes a rest until it is fulfilled.
so, my advice to men who want to hit their wives is: watch out for that rising, maddening feeling, and bite yourself if you
have to.
on the other hand, hunch is too short to notice, but can be elated that it must have existed, else you would not feel
anger—it too has to be caused, but the wife is not the it.
and poverty is caused. the FIRST CAUSE for it IS THE IDEA. it causes feelings of entitlements, supremacy, greater
worthiness, hubris, and the like and expressed in bill of rights, ‘laws’ [diktats by worthier, constitution. thanks

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, January 29, 2012 at 3:09 pm Link to this comment

Stereotyping seems so important in making points, except it is what it is, a generalization of nothing more than a moronic opinion, like when I say all Repulcians are Ass Holes, expect I know when I am stereotyping and most idiots believe their stereotyping is fact!

All poor people are not the same as all rich people are not the same and as I hate to say it not all Repulcians are the same!

Utilizing stereotyping as some sort of opinionated absolutism is protracted like bliss sponsored by ignoramuses and I am an expert on ignorance like Newt Gangrape my mind is going to the moon!

Report this

By balkas, January 29, 2012 at 3:03 pm Link to this comment

shenon, dear,
it seems, you haven’t read all of my post. i actually posited the cause for
poverty and riches: the idea that one person has the right to own
we can now, if you wish, talk about degree of people ownership in
norway, canada, venezuela. but i do not expect you’d cherish that.

Report this

By balkas, January 29, 2012 at 2:43 pm Link to this comment

it is educational telling people what the first cause for poverty and fantastic
wealth. but i do expect that both Dems and Repubs would resent such an
it is like informing people of the cause for cancer; that, to me, is not
patronization but education.
sorry i hurt your feelings.

Report this
drbhelthi's avatar

By drbhelthi, January 29, 2012 at 2:30 pm Link to this comment

Speaking of money in politics, the recent publication of the GAO report of the audit of the private bank that was created almost one hundred years ago, as the “U.S. Federal
Reserve,” is revealing.

The list of institutions that received the most money from the Federal Reserve can be
found on page 131 of the GAO Audit and are as follows..
Citigroup: $2.5 trillion ($2,500,000,000,000)
Morgan Stanley: $2.04 trillion ($2,040,000,000,000)
Merrill Lynch: $1.949 trillion ($1,949,000,000,000)
Bank of America: $1.344 trillion ($1,344,000,000,000)
Barclays PLC (United Kingdom): $868 billion ($868,000,000,000)
Bear Sterns: $853 billion ($853,000,000,000)
Goldman Sachs: $814 billion ($814,000,000,000)
Royal Bank of Scotland (UK): $541 billion ($541,000,000,000)
JP Morgan Chase: $391 billion ($391,000,000,000)
Deutsche Bank (Germany): $354 billion ($354,000,000,000)
UBS (Switzerland): $287 billion ($287,000,000,000)
Credit Suisse (Switzerland): $262 billion ($262,000,000,000)
Lehman Brothers: $183 billion ($183,000,000,000)
Bank of Scotland (United Kingdom): $181 billion ($181,000,000,000)
BNP Paribas (France): $175 billion ($175,000,000,000)
and many more including banks in Belgium of all places.

$16,000,000,000,000.00 (sixteen trillion) had been secretly given out to US banks and
corporations and foreign banks everywhere from France to Scotland.  The American
public would have been outraged to find out that the Federal Reserve bailed out foreign banks while Americans were struggling to find jobs that Obama had not stripped from the U.S.A. and exiled to 3rd world countries.

A summary is available at
View the 266-page GAO audit of the Federal Reserve(July 21st, 2011) at this link:

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, January 29, 2012 at 12:31 pm Link to this comment

It’s elementary what cause and effect are balkas, you needn’t be
patronizing.  The richmen noted were not held as causes, they are
not effects either, but are facilitators towards effects hoping to
facilitate causes. Your theory is only half born, not stating what
events you see as causes and exactly why the bitterness of the 1%. 
Bring your own argument to birth please.  Bringing in a supernatural
cause is obfuscating, unnecessary, chasing mental windmills.  Try to
stay in this world, sil vous plait.  Regarding the smart quotient of the
rich is of course debatable, as much of their regenerative wealth is from
investments that are controlled by brokers and money managers and
nobility like supernatural intervention is a negligible factor.  No need to
prove or disprove unless specific examples are given then each would
have to be dealt with in terms of evidence for proof. Otherwise it is
supererogatory and really a useless possible premise. 

The rest of your post sinks into babble.  You might be onto something
but it is difficult to sort it out.  Try tightening up your reasoning.  Put
your thoughts into a structure of deductive logic.  Avoid repetition, and
good rational work, BTW and FYI, does not need capital letters for

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, January 29, 2012 at 12:08 pm Link to this comment

FYI: Money has a strong say in politics and the outcome is said to be, 94 percent of the candidates with the most money win an election!

Report this

By balkas, January 29, 2012 at 11:52 am Link to this comment

kochs, buffet, gates, soros appear as symptoms and effects and not just as cause[s].
in other words, we first have a cause causing another event we may call “an effect” and this effect generating another effect; and on
endlessly. this simplicity, tho, would always be complexified. this truth is just too bitter for the onepercent.
one of these effects is the fact that we see in US super rich and super poor. one could draw all kinds of conclusions from this fact, but the
fact itself cannot be denied or not seen.
one conclusion is: that’s the will of god. who can prove this assertion right/wrong? another conclusion is that the rich people get rich
because they are smarter, abler, nobler, more diligent, etc. [here, too, a bit of god’s hand]. and who can prove this wrong/right?
but even Republicans and Dems are but a mere effects or symptoms of the FIRST CAUSE.
but i do not think that the FIRST CAUSE tolerates to representatives.
and the FISRT CAUSE is US ideology. it avers, sanctifies [tho tacitly; what else, eh] that a person has the right to own another.
and the first cause generates the bill of rights, constitution, laws. and they do not ever allow to be represented by two agents.
its a myth that even one congressperson had ever disagreed on meanings of the bill of rights and US constitution.
thus, the root causes for extreme riches and poverty, never ending US hatred for some peoples, their way of life/ideology is the US
ideology, bill of rights, constitution, congress/w.h/judiciary.
and as long as the root cause remains, expect only worsenings for ‘aliens’ and some domestics.
as for differences between the two parties, there are differences also between any two Dems or two Repubs. there also lots of agreements
between Dems and Repubs.
but generally speaking, differences between the two parties, as far as know, are usually of minor nature. thanks

Report this
Lafayette's avatar

By Lafayette, January 29, 2012 at 10:58 am Link to this comment

Goldmann Sachs owns Obama and the Democrats.

Proof please. Otherwise this is just crass defamation as seen too often throughout the Internet presently.

Who thinks a person can run today a presidential election on $5 donations ...

Just because a bank gave money to a political candidate does not mean “possession”. It can mean significant influence, however. So, try to argue how that influence has been manifested politically.

(And for a whiff of how such influence can be obtained, read this bit about how Adelson managed to get a gambling license from the Chinese for a casino in Macao.)

It is insufficient to say that “all politicians are crooks”. That’s just useless invective. What concretely - in terms of electoral legislation - can be done to stop the cronyism?

One solution is:
* Reform electoral campaign legislation that limits personal donations to any specific candidate to some reasonable amount of money that an average wage ($50K) could afford - which is then matched by Federal election funding, then
* Un-limits all donations to “get out the vote”, which is non-partisan, and
* All such candidate-specific donations - made tax deductible - be recorded and scrutinized by some independent body (say, the IRS), and
* That politicians not know who the donors were neither the amounts donated.

What would really help is if Obama were to change the texture of this Supreme Court by nominating a Center-Left judge next time around.

This one has lost any pretense of being unbiased.

Report this

By Lafayette, January 29, 2012 at 10:24 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

She: It must be understood, and understood clearly that the Republican
conservatives and all its permutations such as the Tea Party, do not
regard democracy as a desirable principle of government.

No, I don’t see it that way.

They are “gaming” a system that a democratic nation constructed for itself. Such gaming is both shrewd and highly effective.

And if those are NOT by which we want politics to play, then we, the sheeple, should do something about it.

And for as long as we sit on our collective duffs doing nothing but spectating, absolutely nothing will change.

As the plutocrats continue to play their games unabated.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, January 29, 2012 at 10:19 am Link to this comment

Michael Cavlan RN, what makes you believe or feel anyone is not available or would become a whore to the highest bidder?

Lets face it, our county is and can be taken over by Super Packs sponsored by anyone and I include China or any other entity which happens to have more money than I or you, from the homeland or not, (using the word homeland tongue in cheek).

Not until we get the money out will the populous even have a chance of of ever regaining if it has ever even existed a real Representative Democracy and the Elephant in the room appears to be making a lot more dung then the Ass!

The president is not the problem it appears to be the whole corrupt bought and sold system, get the money out!

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, January 29, 2012 at 9:41 am Link to this comment

It must be understood, and understood clearly that the Republican
conservatives and all its permutations such as the Tea Party, do not
regard democracy as a desirable principle of government.  There is
no doubt in the least they want a plutocracy, rule by the power of
wealth.  This is not even arguable as it is illustrated in every single
piece of legislation that they will support will favor the wealthy
segment of American culture. 

If they have a care about this country, as is claimed by conservative
pundits, it is to make it an entire country responsive to the plutocracy.

The fact that rich and hence powerful individuals such as Aldelson
and the Koch Brothers, even the wealthy friend of the liberals, Soros,
Warren Buffet,and now Bill Gates, or corporations and organizations,
including unions which I have always supported as a necessary entity
to be a buffer between employees and employers to make sure
employees have recourse-protection against explotiation, have the
force to purchase legislation is a testimony to the destruction of
democracy and it is known in the visceral gut is wrong. 

It is this that underlies the Occupiers protest, who feels impotent to
affect and effect protection by their own government. After holding
unshakable, standing strong, for democracy, the very next imperative
that Americans must do with every ounce of their energy hat is
absolutely crucial to the survival of democracy is to get the money,
all of the money, out of our politics so that whatever has force on its
own, whatever is the will of the people, has a fighting chance against
the wealthy to become the law.  It is the same problem people have faced
since feudal times and this time we must swim…or sink!

Our question, we the people’s question, is how shall we guarantee to
ourselves, to make sure, absolutely sure, that we have a democracy we
thought we had?  It will need a well thought out plan and then carried

Report this

By balkas, January 29, 2012 at 8:34 am Link to this comment

who owns gingrich, obama, romney, paul, et al; or who owned truman, jefferson, nixon,
clinton is not, to me, a totally useless question; however, as i see it [rightly or wrongly]
the THEY, the ogrish THEM owned bill of rights, constitution, all US laws, foreign and
domestic policies, army, schooling, media, banks/bankers and what was left over
owned the 99%.
such as ‘free’ speech but with no opportunity, fearlessness, or will to speak.
and of course, you always had the right to pursue happiness, but only while digging in
the leftovers.
and you always more than equal chance to bleed in far away lands you never ever even
heard of for the glory of the onepercent—oops, the best country in the world.
indeed it had been and is today.

Report this

By Little Joe..., January 29, 2012 at 7:30 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Many people are deeply discouraged at the state of affairs in America. They look at goings-on in Washington and see graft, power grabs, senseless regulations and spending and a government completely out of control, having grown far beyond the size and scope that a free people should ever permit. They’re confused about ongoing wars around the world. They are puzzled by the dampening of economic opportunity. People are worried about the future…

These people are right! Some are active in politics and trying to make a change. Others are discouraged to the point of utter cynicism. There’s a third path here that I highly recommend and that is the path of winning hearts and minds through education, first of the individual, and then of others through every way possible…

We must recapture what it means to be free. By this we need not all become policy wonks or waste our time studying the details of this or that political initiative or sector of life. We need to form a new approach to thinking about society and government, one that imagines that we can get along without such central management…

We need to become more tolerant of the imperfections that come with freedom and we need to give up the illusion that somehow putting government in charge of anything is going to improve its workings, much less bring on utopia…

To embrace the idea of Liberty is not a natural condition of mankind. In fact, we’re disposed to tolerate far more impositions on Liberty than we should. To love Liberty requires an act of the intellect. It involves coming to understand how all the things we love in this world were given to us under conditions of Liberty…

We need to come to see government as it is, not as we wish it to be and not as the civics books describe it. And we need to surrender our attachments to government in every aspect of life. This goes for the right and the left. We need to give up our dependencies on the state, materially and spiritually. We should not look to the state to provide for us financially or psychologically…

Let us give up our longing for welfares, our love of wars, and our desire to see the government control and shape our fellow citizens. Let us understand that; it’s far better to live in an imperfect world than it is to live in a despotic world ruled by people who lord it over us through force and intimidation…

We need a new understanding of what it means to be a great nation; it should mean, as George Washington said, that our nation is a beacon unto the world, not that we conquer the world militarily, impose our will on everyone, or even remain number one in the GDP rankings…

Our sense of what it means to be great must be defined first by Morality…

We must come to imagine Liberty again and believe that it can be a reality. In order to do this, we don’t need songs, slogans, rallies, programs or even a political party. All we need is access to good ideas, some degree of idealism and the courage to embrace the Liberty so many great people of the past have embraced…

Liberty built civilization. It can rebuild civilization. And when the tides turn and the culture again celebrates what it means to be free, our battle has been won. It could happen in our time. It might happen after we’re gone from this earth. But it will happen. Our job in this generation is to prepare the way…

Report this

By Michael Cavlan RN, January 28, 2012 at 7:00 pm Link to this comment

Oh for the love of God.

Goldmann Sachs owns Obama and the Democrats.

Bain Mutual owns Gingrich-Romney and the Republicans.

Stop pretending that it is ONLY the Republicans that are for sale.

So who the hell is Rocky Anderson?

This non-corporate friendly message was brought to you free from what George Carlin called “The Real Owners.”

Report this

By omygodnotagain, January 28, 2012 at 6:21 pm Link to this comment

Why don’t the moderators of these TV debates ask questions about these backers. Adelson is quoted as saying he wished he had fought with the IDF instead of the US military. They repeatedly bring up newsletters published by Ron Paul twenty years ago. But fail to address the politics and views of the candidates backers. Bill thanks for addressing this issue

Report this
oddsox's avatar

By oddsox, January 28, 2012 at 5:44 pm Link to this comment

Payson, you write:
“democracy is not for sale to the highest bidder.” 

Quite right, it isn’t.
I suppose one could sell his/her vote (a promise to vote a certain way for $$—but who would pay?).
But the RIGHT to vote is non-negotiable.
You and I and Adelson have one vote each.
So our representative democratic republic isn’t threatened.
you also write:
“Adelson’s worldview and goals, regardless of their effects on the U.S., should not be given greater consideration because he writes checks for millions of dollars.”

You’re free to have that opinion and Adelson’s free to spend his money as he pleases. 
The fact that we KNOW who he’s supporting and why is very important in my view. 
Maybe George Soros or Barbra Streisand will donate to a cause or candidate you like, and that’s their right.  Koch Bros, too. 
As I’ve written before, if they all want to outbid eachother and go bankrupt doing it, it’s fine with me.
Just let us know who’s doing what.
I’m for having all the cards on the table face up.

What I DON’T favor is owning stock in the Venetian knowing MY investment money is going to a political candidate.  Or, belonging to a Union, having my dues go to someone whom I may not support.

Report this

By felicity, January 28, 2012 at 12:57 pm Link to this comment

Really, there should be a giant banner hung behind the
Republican candidates for nomination every time they
hold a debate. FOR SALE.

Who can doubt Gingrich’s odd, somewhere out-of-left-
field remark that the Palestinians are not really a
‘people’ except for the fact that Adelson - a sworn
enemy of the Palestinian peoples - would pour millions
into Newt’s PAC.

Report this

By Charles, January 28, 2012 at 10:06 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I am no fan of PACs and the wave of attack ads that they help bankroll, but I would love to
see someone address and propose a solution to the real problem.  The elephant in the
room is the vast waves of voters that base their votes on demonizing ads as opposed to
any research at all.  If any voters paid attention the millions of dollars of brainless ads
wouldn’t be the potent weapons they are.

Report this

By balkas, January 28, 2012 at 9:11 am Link to this comment

according to bill of rights, constitution, and law, adelson has the right to bar
unionization of his money making venture and to pay his employees a
minimum wage. bill of rights, constitution, all US laws were always and will
always remain street-wise.[my wife is very good at that—lot better than me]
change the laws, that’s all you have to do. but first of all change the congress,
w.h., judiciary, generals, et al.
for if you don’t, it’ll be street life for most and mansion life for a few. capone,
bugs moran, luciano, segel, always knew that and behaved just like congress,
w.h., judiciary. thanks

Report this
Payson's avatar

By Payson, January 28, 2012 at 8:29 am Link to this comment

@oddsox:  No matter how “transparent” an individual’s contribution may be, true
democracy is not for sale to the highest bidder.  Adelson’s worldview and goals,
regardless of their effects on the U.S., should not be given greater consideration
because he writes checks for millions of dollars.
What some may consider upright transparency just seems like outright arrogance
on the part of someone who believes the U.S. should be prostrate to Israel’s
government.  If Sheldon Adelson wants to dictate our foreign policy and refuse to
take no for answer when it comes to governing his fellow citizens, let him run for
office with his millions instead of trying to buy power.

Report this

By Drakula, January 28, 2012 at 2:55 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I think the United States and Britain could do well to
mind their own business.

Israel is in the wrong over the Palestinians and I am
not too sure about the theocratic fascism of Iran.

Report this
oddsox's avatar

By oddsox, January 27, 2012 at 7:01 pm Link to this comment

PACs should be outlawed.
Along with political donations from corporations and unions.

But I do like that Adelsons Sheldon and Marion made their donations as individuals and with full transparency.  Whether or not you like Gingrich or Adelsons, that’s how we need to fund our elections.  By individuals with full transparency.

So Boyarsky can write his article and we can know who’s behind Gingrich in this case.
You can bet he’ll do as much when the Koch Bros. make their play.
Hope he will when George Soros does, too.

Donations by natural, legal, US Citizens only.
With full disclosure.
No corporations.
No unions.
No PACs.

Report this
oddsox's avatar

By oddsox, January 27, 2012 at 6:57 pm Link to this comment

I don’t like PACs & think they should be outlawed.
Along with political donations from corporations and unions.

But I do like that Adelsons Sheldon and Marion made their donations as individuals and with full transparency.

So Boyarsky can write his article and we can know who’s behind Gingrich in this case.
You can bet he’ll do as much when the Koch Bros. make their play.
Hope he will when George Soros does, too.

Donations by natural, legal, US Citizens only.
With full disclosure.
No corporations.
No unions.
No PACs.

Report this
oddsox's avatar

By oddsox, January 27, 2012 at 6:56 pm Link to this comment

I don’t like PACs & think they should be outlawed.
Along with political donations from corporations and unions.

But I do like that Adelsons Sheldon and Marion made their donations as individuals and with full transparency.

So Boyarsky can write his article and we can know who’s behind Gingrich in this case.
You can bet he’ll do as much when the Koch Bros. make their play.
Hope he will when George Soros does, too.

Donations by natural, legal, US Citizens only.
With full disclosure.
No corporations.
No unions.
No PACs.

Report this
oddsox's avatar

By oddsox, January 27, 2012 at 6:48 pm Link to this comment

“$22 Billion is more money than any one person should have.”

You’re welcome to your opinion, but who are you to decide that JimBob?

Report this
JimBob's avatar

By JimBob, January 27, 2012 at 6:03 pm Link to this comment

$22 Billion is more money than any one person should have. 
Especially if, in order to have it, he can’t make room in
his business for unions that want a fair wage and other
benefits for the people who make him rich.

It’s really disgusting.  The American Dream is for
everyone, not just a few.

Report this

By christian96, January 27, 2012 at 5:38 pm Link to this comment

If Sheldon Adelson is so concerned about Israel
why doesn’t he try to do something about the
slippery slide of Israel into sexual debauchery?
When I was there 12 years ago I noticed porn shops
in Jerusalem.  A few weeks ago I read about a
homosexually owned porn film company recruiting
males from Israel to star in their film which would be shot entirely in Israel.  I believe the name of
the porn film is “The Men of Israel.” Many years
ago I read in Revelation 11:8 about Jerusalem being
called “spiritual sodom” in the last days.  I didn’t
understand that prophecy then but I do now!

Report this
Right Top, Site wide - Care2
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
Right Internal Skyscraper, Site wide

Like Truthdig on Facebook