I'd think that the fact that I'm willing to spend money in the public square rather than buying myself a toy would be considered a good thing.
Out of the 2.2 million registered voters in Oregon, 48.80 percent, or 1,068,889, have returned ballots so far.
During the last midterm general election, in November 2010, turnout statewide reached 70.9 percent.
The most effective form of voter suppression is to convince people that the franchise is out of their reach.
[W]hat we are seeing, over and over again, is what happens when you combine the inebriate effect of American Exceptionalism in the philosophy of the law. Race does not exist as an issue in our country anymore because we have overcome it, because we are America and, therefore, Exceptional. Our elections are clean and honest, no matter how much money is sluicing through them, because we are America and, therefore, Exceptional. And if the people of a state wish to vote through a policy that deliberately harms racial minorities, they cannot be acting out of racial bigotry, because we are America, and race does not exist as an issue in our country any more because we are Execptional. And if the success of this policy at the polls is guaranteed because of the money that powers its passage, then the money cannot have been a factor because our elections are clean and honest because we are America and, therefore, Exceptional.- Charlie Pierce, leading a tour of the various amusement rides at the theme park inside Justice Anthony Kennedy's head.
Money doesn't seem like power, just omnipresent influence, the way the moon looks weak and pale above the sea while it's always still driving the tides.Charlie Pierce, on the glaringly obvious thing no one must mention: The power of money in even the most pristine corners of American politics.
It moves forward now. A staggered frontrunner who has shown himself to be the best one of them at fighting on this new terrain, and an outright Papist nutter who thinks the states can and should ban birth control, and who loves all human life, except those lived happily by his fellow citizens who are gay, who he believes need to remain second-class citizens. Both of them confronting each other in a system that has become so sodden with anonymous corporate money that it would make liars out of the most sincere politicians who ever lived, which these two guys certainly are not. There is nothing to stop it. There are no sensible politicians who willingly would disarm themselves first. The election of the next president does not belong to the country any more. But we will pretend that it does. We are very good at that.(Emphasis added.)
Charles Pierce on the latest chapter of the the GOP's systematic voter disenfranchisement efforts for 2012:
Answer without thinking: What's your opinion of your local DMV? (Really, young lady, such language.) Now realize that those are the people who will determine whether you get to vote.As all fans of the lamented “Reaper” remember, the Gates of Hell are just as close as your nearest DMV Branch. Say hi to Gladys.
Here's Robert Reich on Clarence Thomas selling out (the early years):Back in 1991 when Thomas was nominated to the Supreme Court, Citizens United spent $100,000 to support his nomination. The in-kind contribution presumably should have been disclosed by Thomas.
Government is chipping away at our rights
Debt
Out of Control Spending
Government Intervention
Now they’re chipping away at our freedom
[Animation: The words "2nd Amendment," apparently carved from stone, begin to crumble and slide]
You can stop them!
Vote Freedom First! Vote Chris Dudley for Oregon Governor
THE NRA POLITICAL VICTORY FUND IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CONTENT OF THIS ADVERTISING. PAID FOR BY THE NRA POLITICAL VICTORY FUND (WWW.NARAPVF.ORG) AND NOT AUTHORIZED BY ANY CANDIDATE OR CANDIDATE'S COMMITTEE.
1. Does he agree with the NRA that our 2nd Amendment freedoms are in danger?
2. How? By whom? (Blaming "Government” doesn't quite nail it down, I’m afraid.)
3. If he's elected governor of Oregon, what would he do about that?
Regarding the consequences for the American election system of the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision, it turns out the genius of corporate America just needs the proper motivation:The billionaire corporation officers couldn't come up with serious reductions in automotive fuel consumption for 40 years. Corporate bigwigs have yet to figure out how to make banks profitable without creating periodic worldwide economic disasters, and have failed over almost 40 years to make any progress whatever in preventing and/or cleaning up major oil spills. People who pay themselves well upward of a million dollars a year say they simply can't find a way to seriously reduce their pollution of our environment.
But it took only about four months to design and set up an efficient system for taking over the American electoral system at all levels, from municipal to national.
There is, of course, a prevent-graft-and-corruption angle to this, but the primary arguments are cost and participation. Publicly financed elections will limit the huge campaign advantage --through fundraising--that incumbents enjoy. It will also increase the pool of qualified people who might consider running, no longer limiting it just to people who can afford to take six months off to raise money. It will end the massive transfer of wealth to local TV stations, which is where much of the campaign money ends up going. And finally, just as a thought experiment, run your eye over the Portland cityscape and ask yourself how many expensive projects the City would not have undertaken if elected candidates weren't beholden to big donors.
O'Connor, appointed by Ronald Reagan in 1981, was a moderate conservative who often brokered compromises among justices and across ideological lines.
Since she retired in 2006, the court has become more conservative and retreated from some rulings in which she crafted consensus, including on abortion rights, campaign finance and government race-based policies.
Asked how she felt about the fact that the current court had undone some of her rulings, the nation's first woman justice responded, "What would you feel? I'd be a little bit disappointed. If you think you've been helpful, and then it's dismantled, you think, 'Oh, dear.' But life goes on.
Without fail, these solicitations note the importance that the press and political analysts ascribe to the second-quarter campaign finance reports, which candidates have to file by July 15. The fundraising implorations often are couched in apocalyptic and urgent tones, warning of the political consequences of the opposition winning the upcoming election.
"[My campaign needs] the strongest showing possible to show President Obama and Washington's liberal politicians that our conservative voices will not be silenced." (LA)
Tomorrow, June 30th concludes our 2nd financial filing period with the Federal Elections Committee. This report is extremely important, as my possible opponents will look at this report to find any potential weakness in our re-election efforts. (VA)
"We need your help to raise $1 million before June 30th to show the world how committed we are to standing with President Obama and against those who are rooting for him - and America - to fail."
Dear ________,
We underestimate them at our peril.
Forget what you've heard about a Republican Party in disarray.
It's raising money at an astonishing rate - $14.5 million in a single night. It has history on its side - the president's party nearly always loses congressional seats in off-year elections.
Standing in as the party's de facto leader, Gingrich was filling a speaking role that Bush held in recent years and that was initially offered to Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, the 2008 Republican nominee for vice president, this year. He headlined a series of speakers who gave the crowd a blistering review of President Barack Obama and Democratic leaders on Capitol Hill.
Despite the rallying cry, the GOP faithful still weren't opening their wallets as they have in recent past. The event took in a relatively small fundraising haul of $14.5 million, the lowest total in at least five years. Last year, it raised $21.5 million, compared with $15.4 million in 2007 and $27 million in 2006.
The dinner for weeks was clouded by a will-she-or-won't-she mystery about whether Palin would make an appearance.
The party's 2008 vice presidential nominee left frustrated organizers hanging as late as Monday afternoon after she was told she would not have a speaking role at the event.
It was the latest twist in an unusual public flap between the potential 2012 presidential candidate and the Republican congressional leaders who run the fundraising committees.
In March, organizers replaced Palin as the keynote speaker with Gingrich after she wavered over accepting the invitation. Although the committees issued a press release announcing her as the headliner, Palin said she never confirmed that she would speak and wanted to make sure the event did not interfere with state business.
She hadn't been expected to attend until last week, when her advisers approached organizers saying she would be near Washington and would like to come.
Palin, who attended with her husband, Todd, was introduced to the crowd but did not speak.
Don't believe what you've heard about a GOP in disarray. They're mad, they're organized, and they're determined to return to what they see as their rightful place: ruling the halls of Congress.
How do I know? $14.4 million.
That's how much Newt Gingrich raised during a fundraising dinner last week for Republican House and Senate committees. One speech. $14.4 million.
They not only have cash, but also history on their side. There are only a handful of times in our nation's past when the party that won the White House hasn't lost big the following midterm election. That would spell disaster for President Obama's agenda.
After sending out a bazillion lizard-brained fearmongering direct mail flyers and raising heaps of cash, NARAL proceeded to sit on their hands for the Alito fight. After the Gang of 14 cleared the way for his confirmation, they announced that they didn't consider cloture votes "significant," and had their members thank Lieberman and Chafee for their subsequent "no" votes on the floor.
Many liberals at the time refused to act like suckers and called them out for manipulating people and using them like ATMs. I wonder if anyone on the right will have that kind of clarity this time around.
Republican political consultant Tim Clark has some advice for national campaign strategists: recruit self-funders.
Clark, vice president of JohnsonClark Associates in Sacramento, suggested in a recent interview that if he worked for either party’s national House campaign organization this cycle, he would actively seek out candidates who possess the means to finance their own campaigns.
“Because of the difficult economy and the difficulty that everyone is seeing raising money . . . I think that’s made self-funded candidates all the more important to find,” Clark said. “They come with their own bank account.”
In the previous election cycle, at least 18 House and eight Senate candidates loaned their campaigns more than $1 million in personal funds, according to CQ Moneyline.
Another 60 candidates loaned their campaigns $350,000 or more. In addition, numerous self-funding candidates identified their personal funds as contributions instead of loans to be repaid.
New York Republican congressional candidate Jim Tedisco declared in a televised debate last night that he is not a millionaire.
"I've lived, I've worked, I've represented upstate New York as a leader for many years," Tedisco said. "I'm not a millionaire, and I'm never gonna be a millionaire. When I get to the floor of Washington, I'll probably be the poorest person there in Congress."
But according to personal financial disclosure forms (PDF), Tedisco isn't exactly a working-class stiff. The sum of the minimum value of the assets Tedisco reported -- including two addresses in Saratoga Springs -- totals at least $1,426,000. The maximum value is over $3 million.
According to her past research, a majority of self-funded candidates overall lose their elections.
"Most of them are politically inexperienced,” Steen said. “They can run on promises, but they don’t have any credentials to point to." She also said self-funders may hire expensive consultants, but their lack of political knowledge means they may not have the tools to evaluate the advice they’re given.
Brian Smoot, partner at Democratic consulting firm 4C Partners LLC and former political director at the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, acknowledged that self-funders don’t have a strong electoral record, but said they still hold advantages for the party committees.
"It’s hard to resist sometimes — a good self-funder — because in scarce resources, if they’ve got the ability to fund their own campaign, it just provides more resources for other campaigns," Smoot said.
[A]nother 2008 self-funder, Republican Mike Erickson of Oregon, is actively considering a 2010 campaign.
Erickson, president of a transportation consulting firm, spent a total of $3.7 million on two unsuccessful campaigns for Oregon’s 5th district-, in 2006 and in 2008.
He contends that the economy will not play into his decision regarding a 2010 campaign, but speculated that it may be a factor for other self-funders.
"A lot of people have to think twice about spending money — personal money — in an election," Erickson said. "Do they have the resources to really commit to a tough, competitive congressional race? Now it’s probably a little tougher decision for some."
Because the McCain-Palin Campaign is participating in the presidential public funding system, it may not receive contributions for any candidate's election. However, federal law allows the McCain-Palin CampaignÃs [sic] Compliance Fund to defray legal and accounting compliance costs and preserve the Campaign's public grant for media, mail, phones, and get-out-the-vote programs. Contributions to McCain-Palin Victory 2008 will go to the Compliance Fund, and to participating party committees for Victory 2008 programs.
The joint fund-raising committees have been utilized far more heavily this presidential election than in the past. Mr. Obama’s campaign has leaned on wealthy benefactors to contribute up to $33,100 at a time to complement his army of small donors over the Internet as he bypassed public financing for the general election. More than 600 donors contributed $25,000 or more to him in September alone, roughly three times the number who did the same for Senator John McCain.
And Mr. McCain’s campaign, which had not disclosed most of these donors until last week, has taken the concept to new levels, encouraging deep-pocketed supporters to write checks of more than $70,000, by adding state parties as beneficiaries of his fund-raising.
When he accepted $84.1 million in public funding for his campaign, Sen. McCain agreed to not raise or spend any other money. But the law allows him to create what's called a "compliance fund" to pay for legal fees associated with complying with campaign finance rules.
Both President George W. Bush and John Kerry created similar funds in 2004. But Sen. McCain is using his to an unprecedented degree. In 2004, Messrs. Bush and Kerry each spent about $2 million from their funds before Election Day.
On Monday night, Sen. McCain reported spending $2.4 million in September alone. In September 2004, both candidates spent less than $500,000.
The bulk of Sen. McCain's expenditures were to pick up part of the tab for television and radio ads -- the first time a candidate has been allowed to do that before an election.
All told, each candidate has had about 2,000 people give $25,000 or more to his various joint fund-raising committees through September.
“What we’re seeing is an emphasis on the high-end check that we have not seen since the days of soft money,” said Anthony J. Corrado Jr., a campaign finance expert at Colby College in Maine.
The Times examination of donors who wrote checks of $25,000 or more through September found some notable differences in the industries from which Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain drew their largest contributions.
Compared with Mr. Obama, Mr. McCain drew a slightly larger percentage of his big-donor money from the financial industry, about a fifth of his total. The next biggest amount in large checks for Mr. McCain came from real estate and then donors who identified themselves as retired. With his emphasis on offshore drilling, Mr. McCain has also enjoyed heavy support from generous benefactors in the oil and gas industry, a group Mr. Obama drew relatively little from.
After the financial arena, Mr. Obama drew the most in checks of $25,000 or more from retirees and lawyers — Mr. McCain collected significantly less in large donations from lawyers — followed by those in real estate.
Mr. Obama also drew a significant amount from big givers in the entertainment industry, who contributed relatively little to Mr. McCain. In contrast, donations from the private equity and hedge fund industries accounted for a significantly greater amount of the giving from Mr. McCain’s largest donors, compared with Mr. Obama’s.
Certain companies were especially generous to a particular candidate. Three top executives of Merrill Lynch, for example, wrote checks of $28,500 each to Mr. McCain; among them was the chief executive, John A. Thain. A dozen employees at Goldman Sachs wrote checks of $25,000 or more to Mr. Obama.
