PDA

View Full Version : NFL Owners Love Them Some Mitt!



overworkedirish
10-03-2012, 03:18 AM
Vote for wins:
Dolphins owner Stephen Ross isn't shy about where he spends his money -- on and off the field.

Ross has donated more money to the Presidential campaign of candidate Mitt Romney than any other NFL owner, according to a report by The Washington Examiner (http://washingtonexaminer.com/nfl-political-donations-favor-republicans-three-to-one/article/2509575#.UGtrTU3R7mj).
Ross has donated $100,000 to the pro-Romney super PAC, Restore Our Future, $20,800 to the Republican National Committee, $5,000 to Romney's Free and Strong America PAC and $2,500 to Mitt Romney. Owners of the Cowboys, Browns, Chiefs, Jaguars, Jets, Dolphins, Texans, Chargers, Redskins, Bengals and Cardinals also have contributed to Romney.
Overall, NFL political donations favor Republicans over Democrats three-to-one.

(at the bottom): http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/blog/nfl-rapidreports/20436535/dolphins-notebook-team-cuts-wr-legedu-naanee-signs-wr-jabar-gaffney

Billionaires protecting their bulging wallets. I love how everyone talks about how greedy the NFL owners are in all kind of situations - vs. NFLPA, vs. NFLRA - but I'm interested to see how right-leaning football fans apply their logic here, when owners continue to show the same behavior via campaign donations to the party that will give them tax cuts.

None of it really surprising to me in the least.

TheWalrus
10-03-2012, 10:16 AM
He could donate a lot more and it'd still be less than he stands to gain financially if Mitt is elected.

Sound investment.

Dolphins9954
10-03-2012, 08:09 PM
Both Obama and Romney cash the same checks.

TheWalrus
10-03-2012, 08:13 PM
Both Obama and Romney cash the same checks.

You appear to have missed this sentence:


Overall, NFL political donations favor Republicans over Democrats three-to-one.

Most business interests -- especially Wall Street interests -- donate to both political parties. But the NFL and especially Ross haven't. He held a big fundraiser Romney appeared at a few months back.

Dolphins9954
10-03-2012, 08:16 PM
You appear to have missed this sentence:



Most business interests -- especially Wall Street interests -- donate to both political parties. But the NFL and especially Ross haven't. He held a big fundraiser Romney appeared at a few months back.
[/FONT][/COLOR]


I'm talking overall. Both Obama and Romney love that Wall Street and Bank money. In fact they're the top 2 candidates of all time getting money from them.

TheWalrus
10-03-2012, 08:24 PM
No kidding. If I could change just one thing about this country, it would be to ensure that all elections were fully publicly funded.

phins_4_ever
10-03-2012, 08:53 PM
(at the bottom): http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/blog/nfl-rapidreports/20436535/dolphins-notebook-team-cuts-wr-legedu-naanee-signs-wr-jabar-gaffney

Billionaires protecting their bulging wallets. I love how everyone talks about how greedy the NFL owners are in all kind of situations - vs. NFLPA, vs. NFLRA - but I'm interested to see how right-leaning football fans apply their logic here, when owners continue to show the same behavior via campaign donations to the party that will give them tax cuts.

None of it really surprising to me in the least.

Yeah right wingers being football fans and supported one of the organizations which represents socialism at its closest: centralized merchandising, revenue sharing, unions...

phins_4_ever
10-03-2012, 08:55 PM
No kidding. If I could change just one thing about this country, it would be to ensure that all elections were fully publicly funded.

I totally stand behind you on that one. Take private money, campaign contributions etc out and give candidates (also Congressional elections) a certain public fund.
Make it illegal to ever accept a dime from a private corporation or private person as long as you serve the public.

But won't happen.

Dolphins9954
10-03-2012, 09:05 PM
I totally stand behind you on that one. Take private money, campaign contributions etc out and give candidates (also Congressional elections) a certain public fund.
Make it illegal to ever accept a dime from a private corporation or private person as long as you serve the public.

But won't happen.


The problem I have with that is you have to rely on an "honest" government giving those funds to candidates they deem "acceptable". Can you imagine a partisan R or D in charge of those funds??? Plus it takes away the grassroots efforts of Private People donating directly to their candidates. I think the problem is much bigger than that.

WVDolphan
10-03-2012, 11:36 PM
No kidding. If I could change just one thing about this country, it would be to ensure that all elections were fully publicly funded.

Thats one of the most foolish ideas Ive ever heard.

TheWalrus
10-03-2012, 11:42 PM
Thats one of the most foolish ideas Ive ever heard.

If you agreed with it, then I'd be worried.

WVDolphan
10-03-2012, 11:46 PM
If you agreed with it, then I'd be worried.

Just right off the bat, explain how that idea is even practical. You honestly believe that people wouldnt fund campaigns illegally?

Also, why make the American taxpayers float the bill. You realize who pays the taxes in this country dont you? It certainly isnt Obama supporters. Completely unfair to make campaigns be publicly funded. Ridiculous idea on so many levels.

trojanma
10-03-2012, 11:47 PM
They don't need to be publicly funded. Why don't we just cap it. Cap it for real not the loose thing we have now.

I cannot see how anyone here believes that the unlimited money that we have now is a good. things.

This essentially starts a very dangerous arms race and big corporations will always win. Don't big corporations influence our government enough?

TheWalrus
10-04-2012, 12:18 AM
Just right off the bat, explain how that idea is even practical. You honestly believe that people wouldnt fund campaigns illegally?

Also, why make the American taxpayers float the bill. You realize who pays the taxes in this country dont you? It certainly isnt Obama supporters. Completely unfair to make campaigns be publicly funded. Ridiculous idea on so many levels.

Fraud's always a problem. It's a problem now. It's going to be a problem no matter what system you have. The fact that people are always going to find a way to skirt the rules isn't an argument for not having any rules.

The American people pay taxes? Really? Tell me more.

It would be a savings in the long run. The system right now is fundamentally corrupt, I think we'd all agree. Big contributors get special tax exemptions, win bids on public contracts, get rules rewritten in their favor and escape condemnation and prosecution from both parties because that's what contributions are designed to buy. It's a widespread and fully legal system of transparent kickbacks, and it's that way because at the end of the day people aren't elected by the voters, they're elected by contributors. And the corruption and waste is fully evident in the way laws are written and government is run at every level.

Congressmen have to raise about $20,000 a week to be reelected. With that burden and all the strings that come attached to that money gone, they might, you know, actually have to appeal to their electorate and try to address their concerns. That's the idea, anyway, and I think it's worth a try. 9954 makes a good point about the selection process of who's actually gets federal funding. That's a thorny issue, obviously. Plus, the whole thing is unconstitutional. But it's got to be better than the system we have.