Tag: Campaign Finance

Where does this end?

Taxpayer $  –> TBTF $ –> campaign finance…

Where does this end?  They will own every milliliter of your blood, every angstrom of DNA.

They own the law.

Welcome to reality, Democrats.

Training Tuesday with the DFA: Fun Budget Tips

originally posted by Will Urquhart at Sum of Change

Last week, we covered the basics of managing and organizing a campaign budget. If you know little-to-nothing about campaign finance but would like to, or if you are just about to start putting together the budget for a campaign, you should definitely check out last week’s Training Tuesday. Today is not for the basics. Instead, we are using this Training Tuesday to share with you four very important tips that will help you out along the way:

Training Tuesday with the DFA: The Big Scary Budget

Originally posted by Will Urquhart (Rusty5329) at Sum of Change. Please check out the new comment widget from Ameritocracy that we just recently installed at the bottom of every page at Sum of Change

Every political campaign and organization must spend money to maintain serious levels of activity. Increasingly, campaigns must raise significant amounts of money to become and remain competitive. Although we can protest the growing costs of campaigning, the reality for any campaign is that without these funds, there can be no staff, no office, no phones, no computers, no signs, no media coverage – no campaign.

-From the Democracy for America Campaign Academy Training Manual

Friday: Schubert Flint & Prop 8 Money Goes to Maine

(This started out as a reply comment in a recommended diary over at GOS by Bill in Portland, Maine, to somebody who said the Veto 1 sure looked like Prop 8, and it sort of took on a life of its own as I started putting in the links.)

The PR on “Yes on People’s Veto # 1” in Maine- It’s being run by Schubert Flint,  http://www.schubertpa.com/who_…  the exact same Sacramento- based Republican PR firm that ran the Prop 8 campaign here in CA last year, to drag Republicans across the finish line, with laundered tax free donation money.

This is just another job for people like this, altho they won’t put it up on their Schubert Flint website under the “past successes” category.

There is still LOTS of out of state money going east towards Maine-  as I have said in several other comments, it’s just not going to be obvious unless one knows where to look.

Let’s take a peek:

Two Years since SiCKO: Have Americans seen any Progress?

This is really long diary that was posted at DailyKos two days ago. It pays respect where respect is due and looks at the history of the elected officials we are expecting healthcare reform from at the same time. This is a tribute to some good Americans and tragic story of murder and corruption that ends with a question.

On this day two years ago Michael Moore’s SiCKO was released in American movie theaters. In the two years since SiCKO a majority of the American people now want what all Americans need. Somewhere between 59 and 65 percent of Americans want a single payer system that is financed by taxpayers.

For the first time since a now six year old bill called H.R. 676 that was never meant to pass in the first place, someone was working to raise awareness on the issue Americans face from the merchants of death. So this seems like a good time to remember one the few loud voices in this nation that is not influenced by free market of death and praise a few others who are taking it to the streets. Some people who believe our good health is a priority.

There is still the problem of the U.S. Government that will not represent the will of the people and can not look at the devastation that Americans must face each day. The falsehood of the present healthcare debate prevents anything but false reform. In the transition from Bush to Obama will honest hardworking Americans see justice or just campaign donation based propaganda?

Follow the money … into McCain’s pockets

Recall Deep Throat (All the President’s Men), that basic piece of advice: “Follow the Money.”  As we listen to the George W. Bush’s, John McCain’s, the Republican Party’s, and the RWSM’s response to what George W. Bush described as America’s “addiction to oil”, remember those words.

In face of addiction, is the Republican Party fighting to get us (the US) to a treatment center? Struggling to help us (the US) get off the addiction? Preparing us (the US) for going cold turkey?  No, they are struggling for ways to feed the addiction and keep us hooked.  Hooked, that is, as the problem worsens even more such that the inevitable crash truly will be a crash and burn of our nation.

John McCain went to Houston Oilers’ territory for his first major energy speech. Totally apropos, because the best he could come up with was to argue for putting drills everywhere one can imagine.

It’s $hameful To Me

Cross-Posted at Daily Kos but originally conceived at EENR BLOG:



I hope you come visit at EENR BLOG!

Barack Obama’s campaign spent at the rate of nearly $1.5 million a day in February as he racked up the victories that pushed him ahead of rival Hillary Rodham Clinton in their chase for Democratic nomination delegates.

Clinton spent about $1 million a day, picking her states and her advertising markets more selectively.

It was a fierce duel fueled by extraordinary fundraising. Obama, the junior senator for Illinois, raised $55.4 million in the month and still had about $30 million in the bank for the primaries going into March, according to his report to the Federal Election Commission on Thursday.


It’s not that complicated

E.J. Dionne is one of the better columnists in the corporate media, but he asks a silly question:

So how did the contest for the Democratic presidential nomination come down to a choice between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton? We have become so accustomed to their pounding each other relentlessly that we’ve forgotten that this is a remarkable endgame.

And he then gives a long, well-considered answer about tactics and strategy and other irrelevancies.

You really want to know how it came down to this? Money. As I noted when John Edwards dropped out, this was the breakdown:

Hillary Clinton: Spent $40,472,775 On hand $50,463,013

Barack Obama: Spent $44,167,993 On hand $36,087,190

John Edwards: Spent $18,028,752 On hand $12,397,048

Here are the latest numbers:

Barack Obama: Spent $85,176,289 On hand $18,626,248

Hillary Clinton: Spent $80,353,785 On hand $37,947,874

Nothing at all remarkable, actually. Get it?

The Principle of Campaign Finance Reform

Big Ten Democrat, whom I greatly like and respect, says Barack Obama should opt out of public financing, and that he should do it now, while it is still early. Strategically, Big Tent is absolutely right. As he says, should Obama opt out now, while his opponent is Hillary Clinton, the corporate media won’t question it. Should he win the nomination, and only opt out once his opponent is John McCain, the corporate media will eviscerate him. The free pass they give him against Hillary Clinton, whom they have always despised, and cherish the thought of defeating, if not destroying, will not transfer to a runoff against St. Maverick; and it won’t matter that the Saint is utterly and completely full of shit. But I strongly disagree with the fundamental premise of Big Tent’s argument:

Unlike most good government types, I believe that until there is full public financing of political campaigns, the Democratic Party should NEVER give away an advantage when it has one.

If John McCain accepts public financing for his general election campaign, and the Democratic nominee does not, the Democratic Party will lose the moral high ground, and much credibility, on campaign finance reform. That McCain is a liar and a hypocrite won’t matter. What will matter is that the Democratic nominee will be opting out, while the Republican nominee won’t be. Many are saying we should not cede the financial lead, now that the internet and a cratering Republican Party have handed it to us, but accepting that argument would only prove that campaign finance reform was always about the politics of being financially behind, rather than about the principle of creating a politics of people. Big Tent’s ideal of full public financing will never come to be because campaign finance reform will be, effectively, dead.

As I’ve previously pointed out, John Edwards had less than half as much campaign money as did Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama; and the rest of the candidates had much much less. Similarly, it’s no coincidence that Obama’s emergence as the clear Democratic frontrunner came as he vastly outspent Clinton, after Super Tuesday; and as they court the increasingly important Superdelegates, he has given more than three times as much money as has Clinton to those Superdelegates who are elected officials. Forget debates, speeches, policy statements, and stands on the issues, the Democratic nomination is being determined by nothing other than money.

How Dare Brown People Participate In Politics?

If the point is that money corrupts politics, well duh. But the choice of example by the Washington Post bothers me a great deal:

Clinton's success in this unlikely setting is based almost entirely on her friendship with one man, McAllen developer Alonzo Cantu. A self-made millionaire who once picked grapes on the migratory farm labor circuit, Cantu persuaded more than 300 people in Hidalgo County, where the median household income in 2006 was $28,660, to write checks ranging from $500 to $2,300 to the senator from New York.

Cantu offers a simple explanation for what he's doing for Clinton. “To me, there's two things that will keep us from being ignored,” he said. “Money and votes. I think we've shown we can raise money. That will get us attention, or at least get us a seat at the table, get us in the room.”

Gawd forbid a self made Latino, an American citizen, involve himself in the political process by raising money. Does the Washington Post think this is a unique or even an unflattering story? In a way it is, to them.

Look, I am for complete public financing of political campaigns myself. But until that is even remotely a reality, Latinos, just like everyone else, will and MUST participate in the political system as it exists. To single Cantu out, as the WaPo does, is patronizing at best, racist at worst.

For comparison, consider how the same WaPo reporter covered white people bundling money for Obama:

They had a second dinner a few weeks later. This time Obama, Smoot and a small group of New Yorkers joined them to talk about how they would tap Manhattan for campaign funds. Wolf was on board and was on his way to becoming one of the senator's most prolific fundraisers.

As Obama's announcement neared, his outreach intensified.

. . .  By early February, Obama had recruited billionaire hotel heiress Penny Pritzker to head his national finance team. The two had met when Michelle Obama's brother was coaching her children's basketball team, and they became friendly before Obama launched his political career.

. . . Obama also landed several Kerry bundlers, including Silicon Valley venture capitalist Mark Gorenberg, and lured two former fundraisers of Bill Clinton's, Boston financier Alan Solomont and New York investment manager Orin Kramer. Solomont said he was surprised by the notice his decision received. “I wasn't looking to make a statement about the Clintons,” he said. “My decision wasn't in any way based on less affection or respect for her. [Obama] just had this energy. I could tell this was going to be something different.”

I am sure access had nothing to do with white man Solomont's decision to bundle for Obama. Riiiiight.

Let's be clear, Cantu operates entirely within the law. Does not even come close to skirting it. But yet, this is supposed to be an unflattering piece. Shame on the Washington Post.

Load more