NationStates Jolt Archive

Campaign donations != earned money.

Next question.

But both seem to have no problem "dealing" with Murdoch's money. Even if Edwards gives the money to charity, I still see that as "dealing" with Murdoch - and he has yet to prove that he's given the money to charity.
Yeah, he would totally fake that out so he doesn't get a tax reduction.
I see the wheels turning, but they arn't connected to anything.

EDIT: Your OP is mine. All too easy.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/08032007/news/nationalnews/edwards_in_a_biz_hate__witch_nationalnews_charles_hurt__bureau_chief.htm

August 3, 2007 -- WASHINGTON - John Edwards, who yesterday demanded Democratic candidates return any campaign donations from Rupert Murdoch and News Corp., himself earned at least $800,000 for a book published by one of the media mogul's companies.

The Edwards campaign said the multimillionaire trial lawyer would not return the hefty payout from Murdoch for the book titled "Home: The Blueprints of Our Lives."

The campaign didn't respond to a question from The Post about whether it was hypocritical for Edwards to take money from News Corp. while calling for other candidates not to.

In addition to a $500,000 advance from HarperCollins, which is owned by News Corp., Edwards also was cut a check for $300,000 for expenses.

Edwards claimed $333,334 in royalties from last year's release of the book, according to media accounts. The campaign said last night that those funds were part of the advance.

He says he gave that amount to charity, which would also provide tax benefits for Edwards. "We're more than happy to give even more of Murdoch's money to Habitat for Humanity and other good causes," spokesman Eric Schultz told The Post yesterday.

He declined to show proof, however, that Edwards had donated the $500,000 advance or $300,000 expense checks to charity.

I find it interesting that both Edwards and Clinton don't want to deal with Murdoch's news outlets, on the premise that they are "biased" to the right. Well, that's true of Fox - but if the candidates are all Democrat at a Democratic debate, I hardly see how this would affect anything - it would make a difference if they were appearing in a Democrat-Republican debate.

But both seem to have no problem "dealing" with Murdoch's money. Even if Edwards gives the money to charity, I still see that as "dealing" with Murdoch - and he has yet to prove that he's given the money to charity.

Clinton, on the other hand, appears to have taken direct donations from Murdoch's organization - which makes her reluctance to "deal" with Murdoch's news organization appear completely hypocritical.

It probably won't matter in the long run - Clinton appears to be well on the way to crushing the other candidates (since Obama stepped on his dick with the "I won't use nukes, ever - wait a minute..." statement - that was his "YAAAARRRRR!' moment), and Edwards' percentages are far below Clinton's.

It's still hilarious.

The beauty of your system: large corps give to all major candidates...

I find it interesting that both Edwards and Clinton don't want to deal with Murdoch's news outlets, on the premise that they are "biased" to the right. Well, that's true of Fox - but if the candidates are all Democrat at a Democratic debate, I hardly see how this would affect anything - it would make a difference if they were appearing in a Democrat-Republican debate.

1/10 for trolling. Gee whiz, I wonder how Faux News will handle a Democratic debate? I'm sure their commentary will be Fair And Balanced!


But both seem to have no problem "dealing" with Murdoch's money. Even if Edwards gives the money to charity, I still see that as "dealing" with Murdoch - and he has yet to prove that he's given the money to charity.

Clinton, on the other hand, appears to have taken direct donations from Murdoch's organization - which makes her reluctance to "deal" with Murdoch's news organization appear completely hypocritical.

Hey, I'm more than willing to take money from Murdoch while also thumbing my nose at him. I'd love it if the Democratic candidates would openly say something like, "Thanks Rupe! We're happy to take your money and use it to fund our efforts to accomplish everything you oppose!"

What's the worst he could do? Give his money to right-wing nutters? Build a media empire on right-wing propaganda and tabloid "journalism"? Oh noes!

Am I the only one that realizes earnings are not a campaign donation...

Am I the only one that realizes earnings are not a campaign donation...
I didn't so much "realize" that point, as simply assume that whatever RO posts is the precise opposite of reality. :P

The beauty of your system: large corps give to all major candidates...

Generally speaking, large corporations give to both sides at the same time. That way, no matter who wins, they have access to the winner.

so what is the problem with edwards?

that he did business with a company owned by someone he wont take campaign donations from?

that he did business with them but refuses to be OWNED by them?

what? did it suddenly become wrong to write and publish a book with harper collins?

Am I the only one that realizes earnings are not a campaign donation...

It's hypocritical to deal with someone you say you're not going to deal with, whether it's a campaign donation, a debate, or earnings.

Would you work for Bush on his ranch? I think not.

As for taking his money and thumbing your nose at him, Bottle, I think that Murdoch is buying access - and he'll get it.

It's hypocritical to deal with someone you say you're not going to deal with, whether it's a campaign donation, a debate, or earnings.
Irrelevant. This is your general idiotic trolling without a sensible purpose or intellectual follow through.

As for taking his money and thumbing your nose at him, Bottle, I think that Murdoch is buying access - and he'll get it.
Re-read my post.

I described what I wish would happen. I am not stupid enough to think that Democrats actually have spines or principles any more. They're the pathetic morons who are actually managing to lose elections to the Party Of Bush, for crying out loud. I just try to cheer myself with hopeful fantasies.