I usually don’t take Republican makeovers very seriously, as most have simply tried to re-hash some version of trickle-down, small government, Reaganomics. But the other night I was watching an infomercial by Mike Huckabee on Winning Back the Middle Class that seemed to focus on changing Washington politics as usual.
Isn’t that supposed to be Obama’s line?
Well, with two cabinet picks who have admitted to failing to pay taxes and only admitting to their tax liability “after” the nomination process had begun, and another withdrawing due to pay-to-play type accusations resulting in an indictment, ethics and undue influence in Washington may actually be an opening for the Republicans, particularly if Obama does not get REAL campaign finance done in his first term.
So what exactly is REAL campaign finance reform…the kind that doesn’t create additional loopholes for influence peddlers?
Publicly funded elections for all federal elections, and “reasonable” Supreme-Court-proof limits on the free speech of so-called independent groups like 527s so that they cannot run campaign ads for or against a candidate within 90 days of a primary or general election would be REAL campaign finance reform.
If Obama does not get this done in his first term, much of his change agenda could be thwarted by the handful of special interest groups that have dominated the agenda in Washington for quite some time. And as stated above, he could create an opening for the Republicans to portray him as a “change is only a slogan to drum up votes” type of candidate while Washington continues business as usual.
Such an appeal to ignore empty change rhetoric will resonate with the very swing voter that put Obama over the top in previously red states like CO, NV, NM, IN, OH, VA, FL, and NC. This is therefore a critical issue for Obama to pay close attention to if he wants to hang on to these voters.
With an 80% approval rating, NOW is the time for Obama to push for this kind of reform, as there are enough Democratic and Republican votes, especially if one vote meant they did not have to face reprisals from these same special interest groups in subsequent elections. Obama’s popularity will not always be this high, and if he waits until his popularity slips, it may be too late to get this done.
Let’s take money completely out of politics now!
-Metteyya Brahmana
I really liked Obama's show yesterday, very well done. But why the need for a multi-station 30 minute uninterrupted info-mercial? I guess it is like Sarah Palin likes to say, sometimes you want to speak directly to the people without a "media filter." The need to reach out to the remaining undecided voters with just 5 days before the election is reason enough. Barack's need to get his story and his plans out to voters has been made more important by the constant deluge of negative ads from the McCain/Palin and Republican National Committee slime machines.
McCain has been whining about Obama fund raising advantage that allows Obama to purchase the media time for his video. George Will has an article in the Washington Post, "John the Careless" that commented on public verses tax payer financed elections:
McCain revived a familiar villain -- "huge amounts" of political money -- when Barack Obama announced that he had received contributions of $150 million in September. "The dam is broken," said McCain, whose constitutional carelessness involves wanting to multiply impediments to people who want to participate in politics by contributing to candidates -- people such as the 632,000 first-time givers to Obama in September.
Why is it virtuous to erect a dam of laws to impede the flow of contributions by which citizens exercise their First Amendment right to political expression? "We're now going to see," McCain warned, "huge amounts of money coming into political campaigns, and we know history tells us that always leads to scandal." The supposedly inevitable scandal, which supposedly justifies preemptive government restrictions on Americans' freedom to fund the dissemination of political ideas they favor, presumably is that Obama will be pressured to give favors to his September givers. The contributions by the new givers that month averaged $86.
One excellent result of this election cycle is that public financing of presidential campaigns now seems sillier than ever. The public has always disliked it: Voluntary and cost-free participation, using the check-off on the income tax form, peaked at 28.7 percent in 1980 and has sagged to 9.2 percent. The Post, which is melancholy about the system's parlous condition, says there were three reasons for creating public financing: to free candidates from the demands of fund raising, to level the playing field and "to limit the amount of money pouring into presidential campaigns." The first reason is decreasingly persuasive because fund raising is increasingly easy because of new technologies such as the Internet. The second reason is, the Supreme Court says, constitutionally impermissible. Government may not mandate equality of resources among political competitors who earn different levels of voluntary support. As for the third reason -- "huge amounts" (McCain) of money "pouring into" (The Post) presidential politics -- well:
The Center for Responsive Politics calculates that, by Election Day, $2.4 billion will have been spent on presidential campaigns in the two-year election cycle that began in January 2007, and an additional $2.9 billion will have been spent on 435 House and 35 Senate contests. This $5.3 billion is a billion less than Americans will spend this year on potato chips.
Ms. Brown, not only, as your astute viewer pointed out (and you absolutely know), that Senator Obama pledged to pursue an agreement with the Republicans (which means he might or might not end up agreeing) he wisely realized that sitting down with the Republicans and coming away with a fair agreement would be impossible (so I guess even with pre-conditions he did want to sit down with them, but realized the enemy, once looking into their eyes, was not to be trusted and he was right).
He knew (and you know) that he would have been unfairly “Swift Boated” out of any chance of winning. His only defense was to do what he did, reluctantly not accept federal financing, but go it on his own, which was actually quite brave.
And what is wrong with that anyway? To allow millions of individuals to support a candidate rather then lobbyists and all of the under handed dealings that typically happen, sounds like a good populist thing to do.
You are blaming the victim for defending himself. African American, half-white, an outsider, the underdog, the victim of racism, hate, lies about his religion and character and you want him to trust the Republicans and enter into a mutual federal financing deal? This would have allowed the Republicans to then get every right wing radical, despicable PAC in the world to destroy Obama. You wouldn't want a President that dumb to accept such a lose-lose deal.
So, Ms. Campbell, being honest; consider what you would have done in his shoes. And be honest, really, in his shoes, black shoes - victim of racism shoes. Can you do that? I think you’d modify your commentary.
Ms. Brown’s commentary can be found at:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/28/campbell.brown.obama/index.html
John McCain may claim fame as a campaign finance reformer, but he sure knows how to get around his own reforms. In recent disclosure statements, the McCain campaign revealed that McCain-Palin coffers were boosted by hefty contributions from a married couple named Hassan Alaghband and Farah Asemi. The couple allegedly resides in Colorado (though no evidence of that was turned up in an Internet search) and each contributed $70,100 to the GOP presidential campaign.
Why is are these people contributing over $140,000 to the coffers of campaign finance maverick John McCain and his running mate Sarah “we’re-both-mavericks” Palin? This, in spite of the $2,500-per-person limit of McCain-Feingold?
It is not easy to gather information on the politically philanthropic couple; but Hassan’s father Vahid Alaghband is the well-known Iranian-born businessman and Chair of the Balli Group; and Hassan is a director of the largely-family-run company. According to the company’s web site, Balli is among the world’s largest privately-owned, independent commodity traders. Headquartered in the United Kingdom but running operations out of a global network of offices including some in the US, the Group specializes in the trading of primary industrial and consumer commodities, including steel and other metals, chemicals, and agricultural products. Balli Group enjoys sales exceeding $1billion (US), not including sales from its subsidiaries.
According to Internet sources at www.prnewsnow.com, one subsidiary, Balli Real Estate group operates in the UK and UAE (yes, that’s United Arab Emirates). This company’s $3.5 billion portfolio (http://www.balli-re.com/property-portfolio.htm ) includes major real estate projects in Dubai.
As much as I do not want to participate in the xenophobia follies stirred up by the GOP’s low-road campaign tactics, I would LOVE to attend a Palin town hall meeting just to throw a couple of burning questions at that over-zealous, manipulative-but-charismatic hypocrite, like “When you talk to your base about the “true Americans” you want to “fight” for, are you talking about your campaign’s sugar daddies, Hassan Alaghband and Farah Asemi?
When mega-donors like the Alaghbands are busily protecting their billions in off-shore investments by funnelling large amounts of cash into the campaign chest of John “Country First” McCain, I can't help but conclude that McCain and Palin are a pitiful pair of frauds.
(c) 2008 NationalResetButton - All Rights Reserved
I believe that Barack Obama is "Change We Can Believe In" I have read all of his books. I believe in his integrity, and all that he stands for. He has shown great judgment in troubled times, and his VP pick, Joe Biden is strong support on Foreign Policy. I even respect him suspending his campaign to visit his ailing grandmother. Barack Obama is a good man, and I believe that he is what this nation needs. I have heard all of the cries of foul from Republicans who believe that he is trying to buy this election, so I am suggesting a very strong idea that I hope others will ECHO. I call it "Barack's Give it Back Campaign" I have given money even when it tightened my wallet throughout this campaign, and I know others' have also, but WHAT IF remaining funds left from this campaign were funnelled right back into the U.S. budget? WHAT IF the first time in history a President was lucky enough to be left with tons of money in his account, and he decided to do the right thing for a nation with a broken economy. I think that this website could continue to collect funds, and the American people could even voluntarily help our nation help itself. So many good things have developed out of this campaign. By starting off the Presidency with a "Barack's Give it Back Campaign", I just don't see how any American could criticize our new President or the change that he plans to bring to the table! Yes, we can!
This is Change we Can Believe In!!!
-- Debbie Albert, RN, Ph.D.
John McCain rails against lobbyists and members of Congress tied up in the feeding frenzy for federal dollars that is the budgetary allocation process known as "earmarking". But after killing his own climate bill with an inexplicable, counterproductive and irrelevant demand that the nuclear industry be given federal dollars to make its own business easier, McCain continues to insist on the federal government giving billions in subsidies to an industry he wants to expand in his home state: Arizona.
This is the very definition of earmarking... allocating federal dollars for projects (especially where private business interests are involved) in one's own state. McCain is actively calling for such projects to expand, even as he continues to proclaim himself the arch-enemy of such projects. Why has he not been called on to explain this glaring inconsistency? Why are we not holding him to account? How would he pay for this new plant he wants for Arizona? Would taxpayers from across the US be asked to reward private business interests McCain favors in his home state? Who would pay for the security for the plants and their waste? Does he care?
What about drilling? It turns out that John McCain has received over $740,000 from the oil and gas industries since 1990, and now he is pushing their interests, despite their being either incapable of solving the economic crisis relating to fuel prices or unwilling to do so, and their inaction on diversifying energy production methods or cleaning up their own processes to prevent environmental degradation and public health risks.
All told, John McCain ranks behind only Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas in funds received from the oil, gas, electric utility, automotive manufacturing, chemical and nuclear industries, receiving over $2 million from these interests since 1990. Now in the midst of a campaign against kickbacks and earmarks, his record shows he has called for the very subsidies these industries are asking for in Washington, some of which are traditional "porkbarrel" spending that benefits private interests in his own state. This will sting, if we make it an issue.
Rick MacArthur: “You Can’t Be President: The Outrageous Barriers to Democracy in America”
As the Democratic National Convention begins in Denver, Democracy Now! speaks to Harper’s publisher Rick MacArthur on his new book You Can’t Be President. MacArthur says that the popular notion that any American can become president only reinforces the “destructive national delusion that widespread, up-from-the-ground, truly popular democracy, both political and economic, really exists in America.” To assume that, he says, is equal to believing that Santa Claus exists.
..The barriers to entry to politics in the United States are—the principal one is that you cannot raise money on the level of an incumbent congressman or an incumbent politician....he goes around saying he doesn’t take money from lobbyists. Well, it’s true that he doesn’t take money from registered lobbyists, but only a child or a naïf would think that corporate lawyers or Washington lawyers don’t lobby informally in front regulatory commissions and in front of members of Congress, and Obama has been all over the corporate law community....Howard Dean was, I think, a genuine and authentic independent. He was kind of a centrist or a liberal Republican, if you look at him on the ideological scale, but he was a real threat to the Democratic Party establishment, because he was able to raise so much money on the internet and from small contributors....And the Clintons had to stop this. And so, the faction around the Clintons that wanted Kerry to lose, because Kerry had to lose for Clinton to run in 2008, they organized a 527 group to hit Dean in Iowa, which has never been written enough about, and they raised money from all these Clinton loyalists....And this is something that you have to understand in order to understand why Barack Obama is so cautious. He doesn’t want to take on the central funding apparatus of the Democratic Party. He wants to take it over. He wants to take it away from the Clintons, and the Clintons are very, very unhappy.. ..It’s not an ideological fight, it’s a fight over power. There is very little difference between Obama and Clinton on the big issues of the day. And the Clintons are still running. Hillary Clinton is hoping very much that Obama will lose and that she can present herself in 2012 on the “I told you so” ticket.....There was a meeting up in Westchester just a month ago between Clinton fundraisers and Carly Fiorina, the former Hewlett-Packard chairman who’s working, I think—I don’t know if she’s finance chairman, but she’s very involved in raising money for McCain. Lynn Forester De Rothschild, she’s been quoted in the papers saying that she’s not happy with the Obama fundraising apparatus. It’s like two corporations trying to merge, and one of the corporations doesn’t really want to be taken over. The Clinton corporation is hoping, really, that the Obama corporation will bankrupt itself and fall apart and that they can resume their drive for power in four years..
..The barriers to entry to politics in the United States are—the principal one is that you cannot raise money on the level of an incumbent congressman or an incumbent politician..
..he goes around saying he doesn’t take money from lobbyists. Well, it’s true that he doesn’t take money from registered lobbyists, but only a child or a naïf would think that corporate lawyers or Washington lawyers don’t lobby informally in front regulatory commissions and in front of members of Congress, and Obama has been all over the corporate law community..
..Howard Dean was, I think, a genuine and authentic independent. He was kind of a centrist or a liberal Republican, if you look at him on the ideological scale, but he was a real threat to the Democratic Party establishment, because he was able to raise so much money on the internet and from small contributors..
..And the Clintons had to stop this. And so, the faction around the Clintons that wanted Kerry to lose, because Kerry had to lose for Clinton to run in 2008, they organized a 527 group to hit Dean in Iowa, which has never been written enough about, and they raised money from all these Clinton loyalists..
..And this is something that you have to understand in order to understand why Barack Obama is so cautious. He doesn’t want to take on the central funding apparatus of the Democratic Party. He wants to take it over. He wants to take it away from the Clintons, and the Clintons are very, very unhappy..
..It’s not an ideological fight, it’s a fight over power. There is very little difference between Obama and Clinton on the big issues of the day. And the Clintons are still running. Hillary Clinton is hoping very much that Obama will lose and that she can present herself in 2012 on the “I told you so” ticket...
..There was a meeting up in Westchester just a month ago between Clinton fundraisers and Carly Fiorina, the former Hewlett-Packard chairman who’s working, I think—I don’t know if she’s finance chairman, but she’s very involved in raising money for McCain. Lynn Forester De Rothschild, she’s been quoted in the papers saying that she’s not happy with the Obama fundraising apparatus. It’s like two corporations trying to merge, and one of the corporations doesn’t really want to be taken over. The Clinton corporation is hoping, really, that the Obama corporation will bankrupt itself and fall apart and that they can resume their drive for power in four years..
While I am not an American, I have an idea that Mr. Obama might consider . . .
What if?
Mr. Obama takes public financing for the campaign.
Then
Directs supporters to direct their "campaign donations" to fund 1 public project on the ground in each state to help those most in need on a local basis - now.
Thus you demonstrate real doing while campaigning - different!
Everyone including the press would love it and the coverage would more than compensate for any restriction in campaign fund raising.
Doing while talking - the power of real change.
Be really interested in everyone's comments or even better ideas :)
Good luck!
from a Canadian well-wisher.
He’s using public funds AND private contributions, thereby cutting our fundraising lead. How long can he get away with this? As long as Republicans in Congress hold up the nominations to the FEC—right now they don’t have a quorum (so they can’t do anything) and Republicans intend to keep it that way.
We need to raise a big stink on this with the media.
From JedReport:
According to FEC reports filed on July 15, through June 30, John McCain had raised at $62.5 million in private funds that can be used for his general election campaign -- even though he's already committed to accepting public funding for the general.
Moreover, based on my own analysis, of that $62.5 million, three-quarters -- $46.3 million -- comes from a total of 1,803 wealthy individuals who made five figure contributions averaging $25,664 each.
So not only is John McCain blatantly violating his public financing pledge, but he's doing it in grand style, raising money in increments of up to $70,000 per donor -- more than thirty times the amount a donor can give to Barack Obama's general election campaign.
How is this all possible? How has most of the media missed the story? Allow me to explain.
In response to Ann Coulter's Investment Crap and HumanEvents.com, as posted by MyBO blogger Gerald from Seattle, WA I hope that my fellow Obama campaign family is not being fooled, swayed, or lead to doubt by more of Ann Coulter's crap. Fortunately, there are two excellent NON-partisian web sites where you can do your own research and find campaign donor and fundraising information on ALL candidates. Please, please, please don't let right wingers think for you - visit:Federal Election Commission = http://www.fec.gov/DisclosureSearch/mapApp.do OROpen Secrets = http://www.OpenSecrets.org You should also read ScottyG's blog post at: http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/ScottyG/gG5h49 Liars and Smear-mongerers Beware - We can see you too!Keep Barackin' Your Vote!
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."
I'm a little disappointed that Barack didn't keep his earlier pledge to use public campaign money and to actively crack down on the peripheral campaigning that goes on - the source of much of the dirty tactics that poison the process. It flies in the face of what I percieve him to be about, and weakens one of my most potent arguments in his favor: that he's not a standard-issue pol.
I know that keeping out of public financing creates a large money advantage for the campaign - but that's the kind of thinking I'd expect from a standard-issue guy who was just watching our for himself at all costs, not the man I take Barack to be. He'll win, if he does, on ideas and the force of his character - otherwise, I'd prefer to see him fail. Who needs one more power-hungry, self-serving politician? Barack Obama is not one, and I want him (as my candidate) to stay true to what he is really about - and what is right. I don't believe this decision is a step in that direction.
As regards the Town Hall Meetings - as much as I appreciate that these are considered McCain's forte, I think Obama would shine there, too - and the idea of the two of them on the same stage together answering questions from ordinary voters would in my view put Obama in a very favorable light. Any time he and McCain are together I believe McCain will come up short; and the Town Hall Meetings would be great people-pleasers and a wonderful change from the over-structured, set-piece "debates" we're usually treated to. But what the Obama campaign has proposed sounds just like business as usual, and typical behavior from the leading candidate: sit on the TV ads your money can buy and shun any real discussion. Barack's better than that and I want to see a campaign from him that reflects those better values.
The Old White Guy will check in from time to time with other pearls of wisdom - I fully support you, Barack, and any criticism you read here (will you read it?) is motivated purely from my own excitement to see a candidate like you arise in these cynical times, and my urgent desire for you to realize the potential you seem to represent - for yourself and for us all. Good luck going forward and you can count on my support!
Reid
McCain has once again reversed himself on a major issue. Not only has he flip-flopped, but he blasted Barack Obama for the mere perception of doing the same.
From Media Matters:
(After the jump)
Inside Fundraising for the 2008 Party Conventions: Party Surrogates Gather Soft Money While Federal Regulators Turn a Blind Eye
6/3/08 - Campaign finance institute
A new CFI analysis finds that both Democrats and Republicans are using local “host committees” in Denver and Minneapolis-St. Paul as vehicles for unlimited soft money contributions to their respective 2008 party conventions. This analysis is largely based on documents received from freedom of information requests to Governors and Mayors in Colorado and Minnesota which are excerpted extensively in the report and its appendices. Host committees are expected to pay for as much as 80% of the expenses for the conventions, which produce the biggest and longest political ads of the presidential campaign. (Click here to download the full report and appendix, or see attached pdf.) The Federal Election Commission and Internal Revenue Service have permitted a vast expansion of host committee fundraising on the grounds that since these organizations are nonpartisan “charities” or “business leagues,” contributing to them does not present an issue of potential political corruption or appearance of corruption. But CFI’s investigation has established that basically Republican federal and other elected officials, their financiers and party operatives, are asking for largely corporate money to fund the Republican convention in Minneapolis-St. Paul. And their Democratic equivalents are doing the same for their Denver conclave.
