tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3441020117205433950.post2396104850195583512..comments2023-11-04T23:31:40.392-10:00Comments on got windmills?: SCUMDOG MILLIONAIRESAndy Parxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15398587036690312685noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3441020117205433950.post-39892561691861879762009-03-07T10:36:00.000-10:002009-03-07T10:36:00.000-10:00What I've mentioned to Larry and will mention here...What I've mentioned to Larry and will mention here is that the current law and the proposed law are not limits, they are loopholes. It costs about $100 to incorporate and become a separate legal entity. So, whether its $50,000 on on entity or $1,000 on 50 entities, it's the same thing.<BR/><BR/>The law should pierce the corporate veil and require that corporations who donate (whether there is a limit or not), must also disclose the names of the shareholders and the percentage of ownership. That way, we'll know where the end of the corporate rabbit hole is. If the limit is $50,000 for example and 10 corporations that are wholly owned by John Bigbucks makes $2,000 donations to Rep So-and-So - that $20,000 that Bigbucks has donated to one candidate, through the deployment of the corporate form, frustrating the limit of $2,000 per rep. candidate per cycle.<BR/><BR/>Without this piece of information on shareholders and their relative ownership, it is impossible to properly or adequately assess the amount of disproportionate influence individuals really have over the electoral process through the means of money.<BR/><BR/>I doubt, though, that such a proposal will ever be considered or adopted.LoFhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17790755800889443785noreply@blogger.com