Wednesday, October 18, 2006
Monday, October 16, 2006
Thursday, September 28, 2006
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
Saturday, September 02, 2006
Our very own soldiers in the US military are victims of recent bankruptcy legislation pushed heavily by financial companies. According to a USA Today article, a Pentagon report shows lenders positioned around military bases typically charge $15 to $25 per $100 loan for two weeks, and most loans are extended for several weeks. The report says the average loan is $350 and has an annual interest rate of 390% to 780%. The average borrower, it says, pays back $834 for a $339 loan. The report cites estimates 13% to 19% of servicemembers — at least 175,000 people — took out high-interest, short-term loans last year. It said nine out of 10 loans go to borrowers who take out five or more over a year.
Thursday, August 31, 2006
Source: Associated Press article
WASHINGTON, August 30, 2006 — Members of Congress and their aides accepted
more than $600,000 in free travel from pharmaceutical interests during a 5½-year
period in which drug company profits climbed, in part due to federal legislation
favorable to the industry.
Dozens of the trips were approved by lawmakers, who had significant
personal interests in the pharmaceutical industry or later worked with
drug-makers. Almost all of those same legislators voted in favor of the 2003
Medicare Prescription Drug Act, which led to a windfall of profits for the
"It's been a highly profitable trade-off" for pharmaceutical
companies, said James Love, a drug industry critic and the director of the
nonprofit Consumer Project on Technology. "They give out some free perks, hand
out some [rides on] private jets, sponsor some trips and give some campaign
donations. And in return, they make billions."
Monday, August 28, 2006
the most ethically-challenged person in her marriage while saving others the trouble of drawing attention to the skeletons in her closet; this of course includes former President Bill Clinton. According to the Corruption Chronicles, a Judical Watch blog, a scandal-ridden billionaire who pays Bill Clinton millions of dollars annually to be an “adviser” is one of Hillary’s major donors and fundraisers although the New York Senator often votes on legislation that affects his massive empire. Ron Burkle, the owner of Los Angeles-based equity firm Yucaipa, contributed millions of dollars to Bill Clinton’s campaigns, the Democratic Party and Bill’s longtime wife, Hillary. Burkle also paid a big chunk of the $11 million in legal bills Bill accrued during his presidential scandals and he is a huge benefactor of the Clinton Library in Little Rock. Look for Mr. Burkle to pull out his big money at times in the future if the past is any indication.
Thursday, August 24, 2006
Wednesday, August 23, 2006
If the FEC carries through with this and ok's the loophole, I will lose a lot of faith in its commitment to enforce this nation's campaign finance laws.
Tuesday, August 22, 2006
just by showing his face. This is from the Washington Times:
"The president isn't going around doing campaign rallies for people," Mr.
Santorum said. "What a president is best at doing for a candidate is one thing:
raising money. When you have the president at an event, people will pay money to
What an easy way to raise money as a candidate: be in the President's political party! Easy money!!
Monday, August 21, 2006
It's Clean Elections Week! Several national reform groups have established this present week, as a time for all constituents to call on their Congresspeople for cleaner financing of public elections, such as publicly-financed elections. More information about this week, and what each one of us can do, is at:
; she chairs the House Financial Services Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee. In her campaign for re-election so far, 54 percent of her contributions, or $766,942, came from political action committees. Most companies want to influence their federal regulator; this is their way of getting that influence. If , however, Congressional elections were publicly financed, committee chairmen wouldn't be overwhelmed with campaign handouts from those they oversee.
Sunday, August 20, 2006
Saturday, August 19, 2006
Friday, August 18, 2006
Joining in, and enhancing, the Democratic-oriented groups' electoral effort
is a new private firm, Data Warehouse, a Limited Liability Corporation. This
company is directed by Harold Ickes, a former head of the main Democratic 527s
in 2004, ACT and Media Fund, and longtime top Democratic Party strategist. Data
Warehouse receives support from its primary financier, who was the top donor to
527s in 2004, George Soros and other large investors associated with the
"Democracy Alliance," a wealthy donors' cooperative that finances
Democratic-oriented think tanks and advocacy efforts.5 Ickes stated6 that his
firm has a $10 million spending budget for 2006 (and $8.5 million for 2007) to
supply information to a wide range of "progressive" Democratic organizations
from a sophisticated national voter file, including e-mail addresses, historical
voting and commercial data. The company's budgetary costs are to be met by a
combination of its private capital contributions and nonprofit customer "user
fees"; the latter are not projected to be sufficient to enable the organization
to operate at a profit until 2010. Thus large private investment funds are
essential to help pay, on an ongoing basis, for the provision of voter files to
the customers, which include 527s, 501(c)s and PACs. Among the clients
specifically noted by Ickes were SEIU, AFL-CIO, League of Conservation Voters
and Sierra Club. Data Warehouse leases facilities to and is co-located in the
same office suite as America Votes Inc. and America Votes 2006, the two 527
organizations that are coordinating voter mobilization by the main
Democratic-oriented interest groups in 2006. Soros has also donated $1,490,000
to these organizations. America Votes has also paid Data Warehouse $125,000 to
subscribe to its service. This innovative joining together of private
investment, party expertise and the coordinated operations of nonprofit interest
group 527s, 501(c)s and PACs could mark yet another frontier of undisclosed but
effective campaign fundraising.
If this new enterprise is successful, you can bet the Republicans will follow suit in this continual big money race for major party electoral victories.
One of the nation's largest labor unions, joining with other
Democratic-leaning groups, is forming a political committee to raise millions of
dollars for redistricting fights with the GOP. The committee is being
formed by AFSCME along with the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee and
the National Committee for an Effective Congress. It expects to spend
about $17 million over the next five years on redistricting at the state and
federal level, with more than half of that money provided by AFSCME, Scanlon
Thursday, August 17, 2006
Wednesday, August 16, 2006
New York + $1,500,074
California + $904,850
Massachusetts + $287,324
Maryland + $132,875
D.C. + $124,787
New Jersey + $117,410
Connecticut + $96,531
Pennsylvania + $84,376
Virginia + $80,630
Florida + $62,827
So far in 2006, leadership PACs are the 7th most generous “industry” to campaigns, the Center for Responsive Politics has found. They’ve given more than $24 million, according to data available as of July 10. Republicans have received most of the money—72%.
Tuesday, August 15, 2006
A Women's Wear Daily article lists some of the fashion industry's executives and their political contributions:
Donald Fisher, founder and chairman emeritus, Gap Inc.: $61,300Roger Milliken, chairman, Milliken & Co.: $54,100 Leslie H. Wexner, chairman and chief executive officer, Limited Brands Inc.: $45,000 Leonard Lauder, chairman, the Estée Lauder Cos.: $37,100Millard Drexler, chairman and ceo, J. Crew Group: $33,700 Evelyn Lauder, senior corporate vice president, Estée Lauder: $18,500Paul Charron, chairman and ceo, Liz Claiborne Inc.: $17,500Diane von Furstenberg: $13,200 Terry Lundgren, chairman, president and ceo, Federated Department Stores Inc.: $12,100 Myron E. "Mike" Ullman 3rd, chairman and ceo, J.C. Penney Co. Inc.: $10,000Paul Pressler, president and ceo, Gap: $9,500A.G. Lafley, president, chairman and ceo, Procter & Gamble Co.: $8,055Edward Emma, president and chief operating officer, Jockey International: $7,950 Allen Questrom, former chairman and ceo, J.C. Penney: $5,000 Oscar de la Renta: $5,000
Monday, August 14, 2006
Sunday, August 13, 2006
September 8-10, 2006
Holiday Inn on the Hill, Washington, DC
Among its findings (for state races only):
"Overall, candidates reported 5 percent of their receipts as unitemized [small] contributions, compared with 3.4 percent for state political parties and less than 1 percent for committees active on ballot measures."
The report concerns campaigns on the state level, not federal. However, the larger financial costs of larger district campaigns on the federal level would presume that big money contributions are all the more important.
Saturday, August 12, 2006
And according to an August 10, 2006 AP story, the AFSCME, with 1.4 million members, voted this week in Chicago to increase the dues paid by workers and the fees paid by local unions. It will raise $60 million from 2007 to 2009 with the increased fees and $60 million per year after that. It will also encourage a fourth of its members to contribute $100 or more to the union's political action committee.
Friday, August 11, 2006
Congressional candidacy with Joy Padgett, Ohio okayed Padgett; according to the Institute on Money in State Politics, her cash-on-hand after losing her primaries was $94,673. But the Ohio Democratic Party plans on challenging the ruling. Whoever may replace candidate Ney will probably receive at least some of the remaining funds held by his campaign. The Center for Responsive Politics' financial campaign data for Ney, for this election cycle, shows that he had $419,517 cash-on-hand as of June 30, 2006.
There is uncertainty about how many write-in candidates the Republican Party will support in Tom DeLay's
Texas Congressional District 22 race this fall; his June 30, 2006 cash-on-hand balance of $641,273 may still be up for grabs.
Since the replacement candidates in both Congressional races aren't incumbents, they will have to rely mostly on campaign contributions from individuals. It remains to be seen if 527 groups will take either or both races as very important to put their monies on.
Thursday, August 10, 2006
FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll. Aug. 8-9, 2006. N=900 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3.
"Thinking ahead to this November's elections, if the congressional election were held today, would you vote for the Democratic candidate in your district or the Republican candidate in your district?" [7/11-7/12 results in parenthesis]
Democrat: 48 (42) Republican: 30 (34) Unsure: 22 (25)
As corporate and union campaign contributions have historically followed the most likely winning candidates, I predict that a lot of Political Action Committees (PACs) will place their bets on a greater number of Democratic Party Congressional candidates this election season.
Wednesday, August 09, 2006
An eighteen-month tally of nationally oriented Section 527 organizations shows that they have raised $118 million. Those organizations gave more than $61.2 million to Democrat-oriented groups and $56.4 million to Republican-oriented groups.
For national party finances the Democrats have raised $ 289.3 million and the Republicans have raised $405.7 million in the first eighteen months of the 2005-2006 cycle.
Jared Kushner, the new owner of the New York Observer weekly newspaper, has been a regular political donor in federal politics. His donations have been to Democratic party committees and candidates.
In all House and Senate campaigns, PAC contributions totaled $232 million or 26%; PAC contributions increased by 23% over the previous election cycle.
Members of Congress transferred $23 million in excess funds to the Democratic Congressional Committee ($15 million) and the National Republican Congressional Committee ($8 million).
Bloomberg News reported that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce announced they would spend at least $10 million on advertisements this fall for issues and voter registration. Ads will begin today in Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Ohio, and elsewhere, to thank Members of Congress for supporting a prescription drug benefit. Other efforts in the fall will focus on voter registration, especially in the districts of thirty pro-business Members of Congress.
How in the world can the Libertarian, Green, Reform and Constitution Parties possibly break into competitive Congressional races, when they are immediately brushed up against this moneyed system??
, big loans by a candidate to his campaign can be helpful; but if one looks at the history of self-loans to Congressional campaigns, they do not always guarantee success. In the case of Ned Lamont, winner of yesterday's Connecticut Democratic primary for U.S. Senate, his self-loans were large. According to Political Moneyline, Edward (Ned) Lamont contributed $4,001,500 to his own campaign race. His Ned Lamont For Senate pre-primary campaign finance disclosure report covering activity through 7/19 showed he gave $2,501,000 and later contribution notices indicated he gave donations of $500,000 each on 7/21, 7/27, and 8/2. As there were several types of contributons to his campaign, however, we cannot say that self-loan was the only reason Lamont won.
Tuesday, August 08, 2006
Including his recent $80,000 personal loan, Vas's campaign collected a total of $863,323 and spent $825,598, leaving Vas with $37,725 in cash on hand.
Sires, on the other hand, raised $1,383,841. His campaign spent $1,338,707 and had $45,134 on hand as of June 30. Sires ranked 18th in the nation for the amount of money spent as of June 30, according to the FEC.
"Campaigns are very expensive nowadays," Sires said. "We work hard to raise our money. Now, we'll have to raise more for the two elections in November - the regular one and the special election."
"Campaigns are getting to be a rich man's game. In the future, you'll have to be wealthy to run for office."
Monday, August 07, 2006
From "Public Servants Enjoying Juicy Contracts" article Aug. 7, 2006 Human Events Online:
The amount of tax revenue coming into government coffers simply isn’t enough to sustain the pay and benefit packages being afforded to not only current government employees, but the army of government retirees, as well. The biggest problem is that most elected officials are scared to death to even talk about this coming budgetary Armageddon, let alone do anything about it. The unions have been very effective at using members’ dues for political extortion...er, action. Meanwhile, most negotiating for government employee contracts is done in secret, so the public has no idea what back-room-deal they’re even agreeing to. Looked at another way, the average taxpayer who is paying the average government employee’s wages is making some $10,000 a year LESS than the government employee.
According to today's Reuters article, Rep. Bob Ney,
first elected in 1994, is under federal investigation but has denied any illegal involvement with Abramoff, who has pleaded guilty to plying lawmakers with Super Bowl tickets, travel junkets and other gifts to win favors for his lobbying clients. Ney is under scrutiny for a golf trip to Scotland with Abramoff in addition to other activities that remain within the five-year statute of limitations. Ney's former chief of staff Neil Volz pleaded guilty in May and agreed to cooperate in the expanding political corruption investigation.
Sunday, August 06, 2006
Congressional campaigns raised a total of $893.6 million in the 18 months of the 2005-2006 election cycle ending June 30, an increase of 12% from the comparable period in the 2003-2004 campaign, according to a compilation by the Federal Election Commission. In all House and Senate campaigns, contributions from individuals totaled $554 million and continue to be the largest source of receipts for Congressional candidates, representing 62% of fundraising as of June 30. PAC contributions totaled $232 million or 26% while candidates themselves contributed or loaned a total of $75.5 million, 8% of all receipts. Contributions from individuals grew by 14% when compared with the same time period in the 2004 campaign, while PAC contributions increased by 23% while contributions and loans from candidates themselves were 22% below comparable 2004 totals. This story originally appeared on CQ's PoliticalMoneyLine.
The Walton family, large stock owners of Wal-Mart, spent $3.2 million on lobbying, conservative causes and candidates for last year's [sic] federal elections. That's more than double what it spent in the previous two elections combined, public documents show. Their largesse isn't limited to the national stage. In 2002-2004, the family gave $879,000 to state campaigns from California to Florida, says the Institute on Money in State Politics. The biggest gift, $250,000, went to the Republican Party of Florida, whose titular head is Bush's brother, Gov. Jeb Bush.
It is in the bitter fight over federal estate taxes that the family and Wal-Mart have the most at stake. The tax, now collected on estates worth more than $1.5 million, could force the Waltons to sell a chunk of Wal-Mart to pay billions in taxes when family members die. The top tax rate this year is 47%. The family made its single biggest political bet last August and October when Alice Walton poured a combined $2.6 million into Progress for America. Progress for America has become a big booster of Bush's drive for tax reform.
Saturday, August 05, 2006
The largest 527s right now are the National Governor's Association at $25.9 million and the Democratic Governor's Association at $17.9 million, for this two-year election cycle. Their totals outpace all other similar fundraising groups, including the $15.6 million raised by the Service Employees International Union and $11.6 million raised by the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees.
Their report recommends publicly financing campaigns as the only real remedy to abuses and scandals. Public funding would pay for itself by saving billions wasted in lobbyist-brokered corporate giveaways.
Friday, August 04, 2006
According to the August 4th posting of the Campaign Legal Center Blog, leadership PACs are increasingly used to skirt existing laws on campaign contribution limits. Individuals are limited to contributing $4,200 per election cycle to the authorized campaign committee of a candidate for the House or Senate. However, an individual can separately contribute $5,000 a year ($30,000 over a six-year cycle) to a Senator's leadership PAC, though those funds cannot be used by the candidate for their own reelection. But, put another way, having a leadership PAC allows a Senator to solicit and receive $30,000 more than the Senator could otherwise take for his campaign committee. this evasion scheme could get much worse if the House leaders have their way. Twice already in the 109th Congress, House leaders have threatened to attach a rider to pending legislation that would allow incumbents to bypass existing campaign finance laws and shift around huge amounts of money from leadership PACs to the tightest Congressional races in the country, and even to their own campaigns. Under current law, leadership PACs are limited to donating $15,000 per year to party committees. The proposal would allow Members to make unlimited contributions from their leadership PACs to party committees, which could then turn around and apply those funds to the same Members' campaigns. Outside of politics that practice is generally referred to as "money laundering." With this measure, the campaign contribution limits that have passed U.S. Supreme Court muster would go right out the window. If successful, the proposed loophole would allow a Senator to take the $30,000 an individual gave to his leadership PAC and then by laundering contributions through party committees, effectively transfer those funds to his campaign committee. The $4,200 campaign contribution limit would mushroom to $34,200 ($4,200 individual limit plus $30,000 to the leadership PAC) - an increase of more than 800%.
In the "real world", money laundering would land you in jail. Obviously, leaders in Congress are saying to the people of this great country, "happy days are here again, contrary to your interests! I did not come here to better the lives of our children and grandchildren, but to live it up! And wait until I retire!".
Thursday, August 03, 2006
Wednesday, August 02, 2006
Tuesday, August 01, 2006
Monday, July 31, 2006
Sunday, July 30, 2006
Saturday, July 29, 2006
Let's take campaign finance donations. Every candidate for public office in theory enjoys unlimited free speech. What does that role have anything to do with financial donations to his/her campaign? If a large district's candidates need to use commercial advertising services in order to speak to potential voters in order to be able to reach them, then an extension, e.g. money, is used.
What are the sources of the candidates' money that are valid, is another debate. I believe that since the electoral process is for offices that are public only, then the extension of free speech required to reach every one of the district's potential voters should be financed by government.
Friday, July 28, 2006
Letter to the Editor
July 28, 2006
Here is a good reason to publicly finance Congression-al races - U.S. Rep. Randy Neugebauer.
According to the Center for Responsive Politics, as a candidate for this election cycle so far, ending June 30th, he has raised $451,240 from political action committees - 87.6 percent of those funds from businesses!
Now how can we voters compete with that? If businesses are going to vote for U.S. representative with the rest of us, let them vote!
It is at http://reporternews.com/abil/op_letters_editor/article/0,1874,ABIL_7984_4876288,00.html
Thursday, July 27, 2006
Wednesday, July 26, 2006
eleven of the twelve interest groups had either PAC or 527 campaign financing organizations, but seven used both in federal elections, cumulating financial influence. Nine of the groups also mobilized their 501(c)(4) social welfare, (c)(5) labor union or (c)(6) business league “advocacy” organizations for elections; but only one group consistently reported its political expenditures to the IRS due to inadequate IRS guidance for and monitoring of reports.
In other words, if a public official receives money from a citizen for performing a particular act while on the job a court would deem outside the formal work of the official, it would not be against the law. This is a very weak position to take, especially for Congresspeople, for the loophole would be able to be abused very easily. Why should we allow an easy way to curry favor for an individual act from a public servant while on duty? That public servant is a representative of the people, not a favor for an individual citizen!
Tuesday, July 25, 2006
I support this ban. What kind of leadership qualities for Congressional leadership positions is in giving money to other candidates' campaigns? If a major factor in voting for a leadership post in the House or Senate is how much money is dispersed to fellow party members, then we have a very small concern for personal values in the legislative branch.
Monday, July 24, 2006
Accepting large campaign contributions from businesses and then earmarking federal contracts to those contributors later in Congress, may, however, be more prevalent than even the several officials in the present case. Many large companies and corporations give hundreds of thousands of dollars every election cycle to Political Action Committees (PACs), who turn around and give that money to Congressional and Presidential campaigns. And giving to PACs is just one way businesses directly support campaigns for higher office in this nation of, by and for the people.
Friday, July 21, 2006
Thursday, July 20, 2006
"The Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee reported raising $1,294,257 and spending $1,107,226. Major donors were Deborah Rappaport (CA) $100,000; Peter Lewis $65,000; SEIU $50,000; Jon Stryker $50,000; Harrah’s Entertainment $50,000; Int’l Union of Painters $50,000. "
I'll be since the Democrats have a fundraising committee for state legislative candidates, that the Republicans have one too! The game is to be the first one to find a loophole in our swiss cheese campaign finance laws, regulations and opinions among the states.
Wednesday, July 19, 2006
Of all the political "stuff" being thrown at the voters today, the most worthless are the polls. Today's polls, a mere snapshot of a moment, have no relevancy to the voter. The hourly and daily polls create media frenzy, but they are truly meaningless to the voter. ...
I agree-- the only poll on people's minds is several months in the future-- the general election in November, if they haven't had their primaries yet.
Tuesday, July 18, 2006
Monday, July 17, 2006
Just when our Congress passes the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law and some Congresspeople introduce new ethics legislation, word comes that an alliance of millionnaires and billionnaires wants to secretly financially contribute to left-leaning think tanks and activist organizations. I believe this is just another build up of the Democratic/Republican two-party system already seeped in the media, activist and governmental sectors of our nation. Most Americans are near the center of the political grid, and that grid is not just left and right, but upper and lower (authoritarian/libertarian). It scares me to think that this already red/blue nation as the two major parties see it becomes even more separate.
Sunday, July 16, 2006
[For an unspecified period] The College Republican National Committee, a 527 organization, reported raising $359,708 and spending $1,248,855. The committee paid Infocision Management Corp (OH) $821,634 for fundraising.
They're floating in money not because of a performance or unit of work, but because they can rely on their party's recognition status.
Saturday, July 15, 2006
When the president repeats his mantra "cut the deficit in half by 2009", one could reasonably assume that the downward trend in deficits would continue past 2009 - as if "half in 2009" was a milestone of sorts. But, au contraire! The "half in 2009" is not a just a milestone but a turning point - the point where deficits start growing again. It’s right there in black and white in the president’s FY2007 budget, but it’s starkly absent in his speech.
Especially when it comes to statistics, it pays to be honest about the numbers!
Friday, July 14, 2006
Thursday, July 13, 2006
Issues such as the presidential primary race in the states and campaign finance reform can be considered nationally and debated with the certainty and continuity of a national constitution in mind.
Wednesday, July 12, 2006
Georgia's primary is six days away and Ralph Reed just loaned his campaign $500,000 from his personal accounts. Reed became wealthy from contracts he got through convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff.
Reed is pulling out all the stops, and so are we. Tomorrow we will air a new television ad that uses Ralph Reed's own words against him to expose who he really is.
Please consider helping us with a contribution today.
Reed spun his relationships with Christian organizations into personal gold by using them as fronts for Abramoff's sleazy clients. Now he's taking that money to try to buy an election. Let's not forget that his money came from lobbying for casinos and for the Northern Marianas Islands where employers forced their female workers to have abortions and to become prostitutes.
And that's exactly the message we will deliver to Republican voters in the TV ad that begins tomorrow. We've purchased 633 individual 30-second cable television spots in some of the most Republican counties in the state. Every $50 helps us buy another.
Please fund this effort to expose the real Ralph Reed.
Polls show many Republican voters are still undecided about their pick for the Lieutenant Governor nomination. Ralph Reed has sidestepped the tough questions all through his campaign, and he's hoping voters don't care. It's time to lay the facts bare.
Please give what you can to keep our ad on the air through primary election day.
Thanks in advance for your help.
David DonnellyNational Campaigns Director
P.S. If you'd prefer to send a check in the mail, send it to Campaign Money Watch, 1320 19th Street, NW, Suite M-1, Washington, DC 20036. Contributions are not tax deductible, and please include your employer and occupation with donations of $200 and above. Campaign Money Watch cannot accept anonymous contributions.
P.P.S. Mac users may have trouble accessing the links in this email. To make a donation please copy and paste the link into your browser window: https://secure.ga3.org/03/ralphreed
Recently, as Jonathan Weisman and Jeffrey Birnbaum report in the Washington Post, Congressman John Doolittle has paid his wife some $170,000 from his federal political committees over the last several years for fundraising. Julie Doolittle performs fundraising services for him; she gets paid for every single donation received by Doolittle's PAC. An analysis by TheRestofUs, a reform org., shows that nearly 60% of the donations for which Julie Doolittle received a commission in 2004-5 came from people or groups who were already Doolittle donors. More than half the battle in fundraising is finding donors.
The general public looks up to leaders in Congress; it is expected that those leaders look to their consciences from time to time in their daily public duties.
Tuesday, July 11, 2006
On the contrary, the Republican and Democratic parties are taking bids for their 2008 respective national conventions, which will be only campaign advertisements during that presidential election year.
Awaiting their choices are six cities bidding to host and the corporations that will sponsor what will be a multi-day campaign advertisement. Private contributions for these political party conventions have increased from $1.1 million in 1980, to an estimated $103.5 million in 2004.
Now tell me, which party's candidates would you vote for-- those whose parties conduct business using their own internal funds, or those whose parties conduct only political rallies for their candidate nominees paid mostly by outside sources?
Monday, July 10, 2006
Do any of the of the names of the organizations listed below sound familiar from the political news we get every day at home? The reason they do is because of the very large amount of money they spend influencing your representatives in Washington, DC.
According to the 7/10/2006 report from www.politicalmoneyline.com:
Federal lobbying of the legislative and executive branches totaled $1.2 billion ($1,201,255,222) during the last six months of 2005. This is the first period lobbying expenditures have averaged over $200 million a month. For all of 2005 the total spent was $2,363,102,190.
Top Industry Sectors:
Health Care $183,324,757
Top Organizations Spending:
Chamber of Commerce of the US $10,540,000
General Electric $10,360,000
AT&T Inc & SBC $10,360,000
US Chamber of Commerce Inst. For Legal Reform $10,250,000
American Medical Assn $9,720,000
Northrop Grumman $7,507,000
American Hospital Assn $7,080,000
Southern Co $7,020,000
Saturday, July 08, 2006
At the Third Party Watch blog recently, Chris Rouhier interviewed a Reform Party USA National Committee Chairman Charles Foster. An ex- TCU man as myself, Charles follows the general ethics in the world mentality; that is why he is so passionately political right now. He has what I believe is, presently, an insurmountable task of returning the Reform Party to a leading third party. I served in the party locally, statewide and nationally for six years before leaving in 2005 due to major fracturing of the party nationally. I do see hope, however, for the Reform Party, but it will take some time before it speeds ahead. I believe having reachable goals against the current two-party system, and keeping the party's eyes on those goals without strong individualism, can rebuild that party. But it must come from a stable organization to start with-- Mr. Foster must work with his party members to establish that foundation.
Friday, July 07, 2006
Most states are behind in their fair campaign laws; states as diverse politically as Maine, Arizona and Nebraska say that levelling the playing field among candidates financially is possible in most states.
Thursday, June 29, 2006
Wednesday, June 28, 2006
Letter to the Editor
June 21, 2006
We need more ideas represented in government to reflect the already present broad political spectrum of the general public.
For instance, many countries around the world engage in various forms of an electoral system called ''proportional representation.'' One includes a legislature in which political parties holding seats are proportioned by the votes cast for their candidates on Election Day. If Libertarian candidates receive five percent of the vote on Election Day, Libertarian representatives will hold five percent of the seats in the legislature. That way, bills up for a vote in Congress receive the consideration of the representatives of a broad segment of the people.
For more information on proportional representation, please go to ''Program for Representative Government,'' at www.fairvote.org.
All stops are pulled again this year for big money contributions by the corporations and wealthy, both in state races and federal. Unless you want war in money-raising by using FEC opinions, be prepared to be outflooded with mass media advertising by your opponents (and their supporters) this fall, especially close to election day; and look for dirtier stuff as November closes in (questionable campaign financial activity). Even if you decide to play the game, look for the big money to follow the most probable winner in the race revealed by this fall, so they can boost their candidates to the finish line first. The winners will thank their grassroots supporters, and turn around and reward their big money contributors with legislation. This will start a vicious cycle of pay-to-play full-time campaign financing activities by the officeholders to stay in power.