Change we don't need:
McCain Campaign Violated McCain-Feingold law with Palin Clothing Purchases
“In what has to be one of the most embarrassing turn of events for the McCain campaign thus far, it appears that in purchasing $150,000 worth of clothes for Sarah Palin and her family, McCain and his campaign and/or the RNC have violated the 2002 McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act.”
When they can't win the race, they try to change the rules or have the game called early in their favor:
By Matthew MoskA lawyer for the Republican National Committee today said the party will ask the Federal Election Commission to look into the source of thousands of small-dollar contributions to the presidential campaign of Sen. Barack Obama.The RNC is alleging that the Obama campaign was so hungry for donations it "looked the other way" as contributions piled up from suspicious, and possibly even illegal foreign donors."We believe that the American people should know first and foremost if foreign money is pouring into a presidential election," said RNC Chief Counsel Sean Cairncross.Cairncross alleged there was mounting evidence of this, and cited a report in the current issue of Newsweek magazine that documents a handful of instances where donors made repeated small donations using fake names, such as "Good Will" and "Doodad Pro."The Newsweek report says that earlier this year the Obama campaign returned $33,000 to two Palestinian brothers in the Gaza Strip who had bought T-shirts in bulk from the campaign's online store -- purchases that count as campaign contributions. The brothers had listed their address as "Ga.," which the campaign took to mean Georgia rather than Gaza."While no organization is completely protected from Internet fraud, we will continue to review our fundraising procedures," Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt told the magazine.At the heart of the RNC complaint is a federal fundraising rule that lets campaigns accept donations under $200 without itemizing the names and addresses of the donors on its campaign finance reports. The rule was intended as a matter of practicality -- it did not seem reasonable to ask a campaign to gather that information from every five-dollar donor.But the Obama campaign has raised more than $200 million this way, a staggering sum for donations that will not be subjected to outside scrutiny.Obama campaign aides said today that a number of steps have been taken to safeguard against foreign or illegal contributions coming in in smaller increments. The measures include: requiring donors to present a passport at fundraising events held for Americans overseas, ending contributions to the Obama Store from contributors with addresses outside the U.S. or its territories, and requiring donors to enter a U.S. passport number when contributing via the Americans Abroad page."When we were made aware of an ad for a Nigerians for Obama fundraiser in a Nigerian paper, our attorneys sent a letter to the paper making it clear the event had nothing to do with our campaign, and that we would not accept contributions from the event," one Obama aide said.And aides note that Sen. John McCain had his own foreign fundraising issues, having been forced to refund about $50,000 in donations solicited by Jordanian Mustafa Abu Naba'a, who was raising money on behalf of one of McCain's top Florida bundlers.
By Matthew MoskA lawyer for the Republican National Committee today said the party will ask the Federal Election Commission to look into the source of thousands of small-dollar contributions to the presidential campaign of Sen. Barack Obama.The RNC is alleging that the Obama campaign was so hungry for donations it "looked the other way" as contributions piled up from suspicious, and possibly even illegal foreign donors.
"We believe that the American people should know first and foremost if foreign money is pouring into a presidential election," said RNC Chief Counsel Sean Cairncross.Cairncross alleged there was mounting evidence of this, and cited a report in the current issue of Newsweek magazine that documents a handful of instances where donors made repeated small donations using fake names, such as "Good Will" and "Doodad Pro."The Newsweek report says that earlier this year the Obama campaign returned $33,000 to two Palestinian brothers in the Gaza Strip who had bought T-shirts in bulk from the campaign's online store -- purchases that count as campaign contributions. The brothers had listed their address as "Ga.," which the campaign took to mean Georgia rather than Gaza."While no organization is completely protected from Internet fraud, we will continue to review our fundraising procedures," Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt told the magazine.
At the heart of the RNC complaint is a federal fundraising rule that lets campaigns accept donations under $200 without itemizing the names and addresses of the donors on its campaign finance reports. The rule was intended as a matter of practicality -- it did not seem reasonable to ask a campaign to gather that information from every five-dollar donor.But the Obama campaign has raised more than $200 million this way, a staggering sum for donations that will not be subjected to outside scrutiny.Obama campaign aides said today that a number of steps have been taken to safeguard against foreign or illegal contributions coming in in smaller increments. The measures include: requiring donors to present a passport at fundraising events held for Americans overseas, ending contributions to the Obama Store from contributors with addresses outside the U.S. or its territories, and requiring donors to enter a U.S. passport number when contributing via the Americans Abroad page."When we were made aware of an ad for a Nigerians for Obama fundraiser in a Nigerian paper, our attorneys sent a letter to the paper making it clear the event had nothing to do with our campaign, and that we would not accept contributions from the event," one Obama aide said.And aides note that Sen. John McCain had his own foreign fundraising issues, having been forced to refund about $50,000 in donations solicited by Jordanian Mustafa Abu Naba'a, who was raising money on behalf of one of McCain's top Florida bundlers.
If you liked this message, then please have a look at the rest of my blog, http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/blog/henrymu and please consider donating to the campaign: http://my.barackobama.com/page/outreach/view/main/PListe4Obama
If you've donated to Senator Obama's campaign, consider yourself in good company. Patriotic, flag-waving, self-sacrificing to duty and honor, company, in fact. According to the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics, analysis of records required by law, reveal that political campaign donations from U.S. troops deployed abroad, favor Obama six to one over McCain.
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/08/troops-deployed-abroad-give-61.html
From the DNC:
Washington, DC -The Democratic National Committee today filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in D.C. to compel the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to investigate John McCain's decision to unilaterally withdraw from the FEC's matching funds program despite using the program to financially benefit his campaign - just one of many McCain campaign improprieties.
John McCain talks about setting a new standard for "transparency and accountability" yet when it comes to his campaign, he doesn't seem to think the rules apply to him. First, he used taxpayer dollars to secure a loan to keep his campaign afloat in the primary, a move that's clearly against the law. Then the Wall Street Journal reported that McCain refused to pay for his campaign's use of a corporate jet - again against the law - and last week, his trip to Canada came under question for possible violations of federal law.
"Whether it's using a taxpayer funded loan to keep his campaign afloat, refusing to reimburse for his campaign's use of a corporate jet, or violating federal laws on a foreign campaign trip, John McCain has shown an increasingly troubling pattern of impropriety," said Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean. "John McCain tries to brand himself as a reformer but how can the American people believe he'll change Washington when it's clear he thinks the rules apply to everyone but him? We had enough of that with the Bush Administration. We don't need it again with John McCain."
When I see the "Get Involved" sign up, I always assumed Senator Obama meant if people wanted to get involved with helping him campaign. That is the way it was in the beginning~grassroots efforts and early bloggers were using their blogs to do just that. I wrote an aritcle about the special birthday gift~donating to a Food Bank in his name for his birthday. I used that article with good results. Like me, many of the voters I reached never heard of the Senator and they were impressed~especially the young woman that feeds the homeless once a month.
Today I often hear bloggers telling trolls they are welcome here and this is "an open forum" and so on. This is not Blogger or Live Journal or Word Press. Senator Obama did not advertise: Free Blogs! I often suggest those people who come here to campaign for another candidate to make a donation to pay for the use of our bandwidth. It is as if I have to pay to hear them say those ugly things.
Yesterday someone posted a link to Clinton's campaign donations and that is how I picked up some info about both camps web expenses. This is listed for Obama in April:
CLINTON CREDIBILITY:
A CONTRADICTION IN TERMS
Why are Democrats tolerating Hillary Clinton’s selfish juggernaut to destroy the Democratic Party? You’re sitting around allowing your nomination process to be corrupted, then asking, "Why can’t Obama close the deal?" Open your eyes. The man is fighting Hillary, Bill, the entire Republican Party, plus Rush Limbaugh and the entire FOX news staff.
No wonder Democrats can’t win an election. The Republicans must be falling down backwards laughing at your stupidity. Isn’t there anyone left with enough common sense to see that your acting as accessories to Hillary’s collusion with the Republican Party to sabotage the November election?
1.25 million dollars.
That is the approximate value of Sir Elton John’s performance at Hillary Clinton’s New York fundraiser April 9. I base that on the estimated cost of a private show by the Rocket Man at a Wynn Las Vegas piano bar in late 2005, with an upward adjustment for the British Pound’s subsequent appreciation. So the final bill for this week’s appearance comes to about one-half of the $2.5 million reportedly raised at the event.
We’ll leave it to the FEC to set the final valuation of necessary campaign reimbursement to avoid what would otherwise be an in-kind donation by a foreign national, which is strictly verboten. Of course, if it moves at its usual speed, the regulatory body should take at least 2-3 years to sort this one out. It is much easier, however, to figure out the absurdity of Elton John’s provocative critique of Americans who dislike Hillary Clinton when he said:
“I never cease to be amazed at the misogynistic attitude of some people in this country.And I say to hell with them."
“I never cease to be amazed at the misogynistic attitude of some people in this country.
And I say to hell with them."
It is doubtful that Sir Elton read Kevin Drum’s article in the April 9 Washington Monthly. Drum reports on a blind test poll that found, while 26% of voters were “angry or upset” at the idea of a female US President, the response was virtually identical among men and women. And this poll was conducted in March 2006, long before Hillary declared her intention to run for President. So it is not obvious that widespread disapproval of Hillary is due to a hatred of women per se.
Also cross-posted on DailyKos (be sure to rec!)
As we all know, the Clinton campaign has had some financial difficulties. I did some reading today to get a better overall picture of the Clinton finances, and I am sharing my findings in this diary.
While I didn't uncover much new information, I did get a better overall picture of the Clinton campaign finances, and I came to the realization that the Clinton campaign's financial standing is worse than it appears. The Clinton campaign lost its edge in fundraising much earlier than it should have, mismanaged the funds on hand, and operated consistently in the red for all of 2008 and in part of 2007. This is a case where the whole is greater than the sum of its parts -- when you look at each of the financial problems individually, it looks bad, but when considering all of the financial problems combined, the big picture is devastating.
Join me below the fold for a comprehensive review of Hillary's primary campaign finances...
This stuff makes me want to scream!
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/004661.php
When I first heard about the loan, I was shocked. How did Ms. Solis-Doyle blow through so much in so little time? Bad management on Hillary's behalf. She did not know how much she had in the bank. Wonder if Barack would be so Naïve?
Now, the FEC is saying that Hillary did not pay back her loan (why would the campaign borrow $5 million from Hillary and pay it back in a couple of weeks? This didn't make sense).
Read the Sun-Times article.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/855525,fund032108.article
The Hillary campaign reported to the FEC that the loan was still outstanding. Read Hillary's comments in Februrary.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/11/112150/610/105/454504
Hillary is also charging her Campaign a finance charge...Mitt Romney didn't charge a fee.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0208/Hillarys_loan_with_interest.html
Hillary's lies are scaring me more and more. She shouldn't be running for president, she should be running from the law. What else is she not telling the truth about?
If Hillary's managerial skills are so poor that she can't even manage her campaign without going into the Red, leaving vendors unpaid or her Campaign Manager (Solis Doyle) won't or can't be honest and tell the boss that they're out of money.
Now, we find out from the FEC she is not totally telling the truth. Her campaign said in February she lent the campaign $5 million and then they said it would be paid off in Feb. Today, I find out that she still hasn't paid the loan off and her campaign is running out of donors who haven't given their maximum $2300 for the nomination process. The Clinton campaign is now taking in donations from old party money, who have maxed out on primary money and now giving the maximum for the general election...why?
Hillary wants to create an aire of popularity and support. She needed to convince the superdelegates that she's getting $1 million per day. She did not say this is coming from more NEW people, just the same old supporters. Obama raised $55 million, most from new supporters and from real Americans, not the wealthy types who are FOBs (Friends of Bill).
Read more about Feb's FEC report on Talking Points Memo.
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/03/hillary_campaign_in_the_red.php
The Federal Electional Commission web site (fec.gov) shows the break-down of campaign financing by state and by candidate.
Among the interesting numbers, they show the amount of money raised from donations $200 and under, vs. donations $2,000 and over.
McCain: $21.6 million in $2000+ donations, $12.2 million in $200 and under donations -- almost twice as much money comes from the biggest donations as from the smallest
Clinton: $69.7 million in $2000+ donations, $18.6 million in $200 and under donations -- over three times as much money comes from the biggest donations as from the smallest
Obama: $49 million in $2000+ donations, and $47.3 million in $200 and under donations -- pretty remarkable: nearly the same amount of money comes from all the smallest donations put together as from the biggest
There's a ton of useful-looking information there. For more information, here's Obama (a/k/a candidate #80003338):
http://www.fec.gov/DisclosureSearch/mapApp.do?drillLevel=US&stateName=&cand_id=P80003338
and Clinton:
http://www.fec.gov/DisclosureSearch/mapApp.do?drillLevel=US&stateName=&cand_id=P00003392
and McCain:
http://www.fec.gov/DisclosureSearch/mapApp.do?drillLevel=US&stateName=&cand_id=P80002801
The McCain campaign applied for and spent Federal Election Commission (FEC) campaign funds for the primary. The law stipulates that a candidate limit their primary spending to $54mil till the nomination at their parties convention in September. The McCain campaign has all ready spent $49mil and used the FEC commitment as collateral for a million dollar campaign loan. Now that McCain is the presumptive Republican nominee he wants out of his FEC agreement so he can raise and spend unlimited amounts prior to the Republican Convention.
While all of this is going on behind the scenes, McCain is attacking Obama for backing out on his pledge to accept FEC funds and limits for the General Election in November! What HYPOCRISY! Obama has not yet won his parties nomination and has not yet decided what to do about General Election finance. This is just one more example of Republican subterfuge. Click the link below for the complete Washington Post story.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/21/AR2008022103141.html?hpid=topnews
Now the Senate is about to confirm him for a six-year post to enforce election law.
Please tell your senators to vote NO on Hans von Spakovsky's confirmation:
For far too long, the Republican party has suppressed the votes of Black folks and other minorities, while the Democratic party has stood by and done nothing. Now, President Bush and his allies in the Senate want to give Hans von Spakovsky -- the architect of some of the worst voter-suppression schemes in the last decade -- a six-year appointment to the Federal Election Commission (FEC) . It's a slap in the face to Black voters and anyone who cares about democracy.
Please contact your senators and tell them to reject von Spakovsky's nomination.
Republicans have been fighting for months to get von Spakovsky confirmed, and, last week, Democrats in the Senate caved. They made a deal with the Republicans that would allow von Spakovsky's confirmation to be voted on as a part of a "package" with three other nominees, essentially guaranting his appointment. Thankfully, Senators Barack Obama and Russ Feingold stepped up and blocked it. 1,2 Now they need our support to convince their colleagues to do the right thing and take a stand against voter suppression.
Given von Spakovsky's history, it's sad they need any convincing at all.
A long history of undermining our vote
During his first term, Bush installed von Spakovsky in the Justice Department's (DOJ) voting rights section, which enforces the Voting Rights Act. There, von Spakovsky undermined the DOJ's historic mission of protecting minority voting rights and actually transformed the department into a tool to suppress the vote. Here are just a few examples:
When long-term, career attorneys at the Justice Department unanimously recommended rejecting Tom Delay's infamous Texas redistricting plan because it discriminated against minority voters, von Spakovsky led the charge to overrule these voting rights experts, and approved the plan. 3 The Supreme Court later ruled that the plan violated the Voting Rights Act.
Similarly, when career attorneys recommended rejecting a discriminatory Georgia voter ID law -- a law that even the Republican Governor said would disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of Georgians -- von Spakovsky overruled them to approve the law. 4 Again, the law was later struck down by the courts, with the ruling judge likening it to a Jim Crow-era poll tax.5
This summer, seven of von Spakovsky's former colleagues at the DOJ said that he blocked career attorneys from filing at least three lawsuits against local governments that had violated the voting rights of Black people and other minorities, and that he derailed at least two DOJ investigations into discriminatory election laws. 6
Von Spakovsky's career in suppression didn't start at the DOJ. In 1997, he set the stage for Florida's 2000 voter purge when he wrote an article that called for purging felons from voter rolls. Serving on the board of the "Voter Integrity Project" (VIP) he quickly put his ideas into action -- VIP met with the company that designed Florida's purge to disenfranchise thousands of eligible voters, most of whom were Black. 7,8 During the recount, von Spakovsky was in Florida as a volunteer for the Bush/Cheney campaign.
A key part of what has allowed von Spakovsky to push his suppression agenda is the myth that "voter fraud" -- individuals voting illegally, or voting twice -- is a real problem. Republican politicians invoke these concerns to justify stronger restrictions on voting and voter registration (like voter ID laws), as well as voter roll purges. But the problem simply doesn't exist. When the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) researched voter fraud, they found that it wasn't a problem. 9 But before the EAC went public with its report, von Spakovsky pressured them to change it.10 The final report said that there was "a great deal of debate on the pervasiveness of [voter] fraud." 11
Does the Senate support voter suppression?
As shocking as these examples are, they only scratch the surface. Hans von Spakovsky has built a career solidifying Republican control by disenfranchising untold thousands and subverting our most fundamental democratic right.
Bush gave von Spakovsky a recess appointment to the FEC in 2005 (which doesn't require Senate confirmation). Now he has nominated him for a six-year term. It's been clear since von Spakovsky's arrival at the FEC that he is playing the same role he did at the DOJ -- scoffing at the spirit of campaign finance laws, thumbing his nose at the law as he seeks to help create routes of circumvention." 12
Republicans want von Spakovsky on the FEC so much that they threatened to block all FEC nominees unless the Democrats let von Spakovsky through.13 But last week, instead of fighting back, the Democratic leadership agreed to give the Republicans what they wanted -- a vote on all four FEC nominees as a package, which would have guaranteed von Spakovsky's appointment. By blocking that vote, Senators Obama and Feingold went against the leadership and thwarted its compromise with Republicans. 14 That gave us the fighting chance we need to defeat his nomination.
It's hard to know exactly why Senate Democrats have come so close to letting von Spakovsky through. Some say it's because Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is afraid that if he blocks von Spakovsky, Republicans will retaliate by blocking another FEC nominee who's a friend of Reid's. 15 Some senators may just not care enough about protecting voting rights to make a real effort. Whatever the reason, it's part of a pattern that has existed for far too long -- Republicans trashing our right to vote and Democrats looking the other way.
A vote for von Spakovsky is a vote for voter suppression. Anything less than the strongest condemnation of his nomination sends the message that the Senate will turn a blind eye to Republican attacks on our voting rights. Let's demand that our senators send the opposite message -- that they will fight tooth and nail to defend the right to vote, and that their rejection of von Spakovsky's nomination is only the beginning of a much needed reckoning for his assault on voting rights over the last six and a half years.
References:
1. "Obama, Others Nix Deal on Voter Fraud Guru," TPMMuckraker, October 4, 2007 http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004381.php
2. "Obama, Feingold: We Oppose von Spakovsky Nomination," October 4, 2007 http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004389.php
3. "So exactly where were you, Hans von Spakovsky, on the nights in question?," Campaign Legal Center Blog, Feb. 20, 2007 http://www.clcblog.org/blog_item-109.html
4. Ibid 5. "Efforts to stop 'voter fraud' may have curbed legitimate voting," McClatchy Newspapers, May 20, 2007 http://www.mcclatchydc.com/staff/greg_gordon/story/16347.html
6. "Justice official accused of blocking suits into alleged violations of minorities' voting rights," McClatchy Newspapers, Jun. 18, 2007 http://www.mcclatchydc.com/reports/usattorneys/story/17102.html
7. "Poll position: Is the Justice Department poised to stop voter fraud-or to keep voters from voting?" New Yorker, September 20, 2004 http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2004/09/20/040920fa_fact
8. Video: "American Blackout: Cynthia McKinney Confronts Choicepoint" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPOmOTyDm1w
9. "The EAC's Buried Report on 'Voter Fraud'," Brad Blog, Oct. 13, 2006 http://www.bradblog.com/?p=3611
10. See reference 5
11. "Panel Said to Alter Finding on Voter Fraud," New York Times, April 11, 2007 http://www.ceimn.org/news/panel_said_alter_finding_voter_fraud
12. See reference 3
13. "Senate panel advances controversial FEC appointee," The Hill, September 27, 2007 http://tinyurl.com/2stwz4
14. See references 1 and 2.
15. "Back-Scratching Across the Aisle," New York Times, October 3, 2007 http://tinyurl.com/2xgs3x
Additional sources:
"Hans Across America," Digby's Hullabaloo, April 9, 2007 http://tinyurl.com/368jbt "Keep Yer Vote Thievin' Hans Off the Federal Election Commission: Action Alert!" DailyKos, May 29, 2007 http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/5/29/11751/0476
