The NRCC is scamming voters out of their money

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

If this is true, than Reince Preibus's head should roll. This is disgusting.

Preibus doesn't run the NRCC (in fact, I think it might be illegal if they coordinated with the RNC). So no, Preibus shouldn't be held responsible in any way whatsoever.

That being said, whoever approved the ad should be fired, and Walden should probably step down from the committee. This was a pretty despicable, stupid thing to do.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Okay, it's not exactly the most uplifting of strategies, but those images show that the fact that these are anti-candidate ads rather than pro-candidate ads is not being buried in fine print.  Anyone idiotic enough to be thinking they are sending money to support the named candidate is not bothering to read normal sized text before they click.

What is the point of this post? Am I supposed to condone this criminal behavior because someone who contributes made a minor error and act like both sides are at fault?

I don't know that it rises to the level of criminal behavior; it's a close one.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Okay, it's not exactly the most uplifting of strategies, but those images show that the fact that these are anti-candidate ads rather than pro-candidate ads is not being buried in fine print.  Anyone idiotic enough to be thinking they are sending money to support the named candidate is not bothering to read normal sized text before they click.

What is the point of this post? Am I supposed to condone this criminal behavior because someone who contributes made a minor error and act like both sides are at fault?

I don't know that it rises to the level of criminal behavior; it's a close one.

At the least it is a severe civil tort, one that a judge might address with a cease-and-desist order. Maybe there would be no consequences if the funds are returned to donors. At the least there would be the potential for contempt of court.

This is about in the same league as selling advertising in "professional directories" never published. The scam so works: the scammers call such professionals as physicians, attorneys, dentists, tax preparers, and optometrists selling advertising in the "(insert name of labor union)  Professional Directory" without getting permission from the labor union in question. 

There hasn't been a court order yet for there to even be contempt of court.  Whether or not it rises to the level of fraud would be a close one.  I could see a court going either way.  As for your analogy, it's nothing like that, because the pages said "Make a contribution to help defeat _______ ...".  Nothing like that exists in your analogy.  You can argue that the picture outweighs that disclaimer, but the NRCC wasn't just passing this off as the candidates' banners without any disclaimer whatsoever.

If they were to get nailed for it, it'd probably be the URL that would do it.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

It says 'defeat' in pretty big letters, guys. No reasonably literate person is going to be tricked into donating money by the Democratic candidate's picture. It's an insult even to a Democrat to think they would donate to this by mistake.

The address is "contribute.sinemaforcongress.com," for crying out loud.

But sinemaforcongress.com is clearly an opposition site. How does one get to the contribute page?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

It says 'defeat' in pretty big letters, guys. No reasonably literate person is going to be tricked into donating money by the Democratic candidate's picture. It's an insult even to a Democrat to think they would donate to this by mistake.

The address is "contribute.sinemaforcongress.com," for crying out loud.

But sinemaforcongress.com is clearly an opposition site. How does one get to the contribute page?

That doesn't mean it isn't misleading. They have formatted all of it to appear as if these pages are supporting her, something that you must read in-depth on the page to see it is false.

It is likely illegal on the basis of using candidate name, and is certainly immoral regardless.

I never said it wasn't misleading or immoral.  I'm just not sure it's risen to the level of being illegal.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

It's so pathetic and typical of the forums Republicans to "defend" this. The only way you can defend this is to be knowingly dishonest.

You act like a majority of the forum's Republicans have defended this...

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I was able to get to it from Chrome fine just now.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Apparently they got the idea from the liberals. Fight fire with fire!

No; that kind of stuff has been going on for years (although I don't like that either) on both sides, but there's no misleading contribution page.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Apparently they got the idea from the liberals. Fight fire with fire!

No; that kind of stuff has been going on for years (although I don't like that either) on both sides, but there's no misleading contribution page.

It might not be particularly new, no. Things that work are often copied.

Thank you for confirming what everybody already knew, but you ignored the actual important part of my post.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Apparently they got the idea from the liberals. Fight fire with fire!

No; that kind of stuff has been going on for years (although I don't like that either) on both sides, but there's no misleading contribution page.

It might not be particularly new, no. Things that work are often copied.

I like how he noted a significant difference between the examples you were giving and this thread, and you replied like you were agreeing with him, except you completely ignored the significant difference he's observing.

Does this work for you in actual human conversations, or is it just something you think works in text?  It doesn't.

Of course, there is an explicit contribution link right at the bottom. Those observational powers seem be quite selective.

The goalposts will soon shift again. Carry on.

1. The "Donate" button is as big as the text making it clear it's an anti-Romney page.
2. When taken to the donation page, the text "HELP DEMOCRATS TODAY" appear in big font at the top, and there is a picture of Barack Obama.

I said "misleading contribution page", and you gave an example of a non-misleading contribution page.  The only goalpost shifting has come from you.