You Don’t Have To Be A Millionaire

You don’t have to be a millionaire to run for office, but according to the Republicans, it doesn’t hurt. In an effort to demonstrate the level of desperation and corruption that our political landscape has become, the Republican’s are recruiting wealthy candidates for the upcoming House races. The Republicans need wealthy candidates because of their anemic fundraising the last few years, thanks in great part to their Party leader and President George W. Bush. Because this administration and its policies have been so unpopular, fundraising for the Republicans has slowed to a trickle and it is affecting all levels of the Party.

WASHINGTON, Nov. 25 — Confronting an enormous fund-raising gap with Democrats, Republican Party officials are aggressively recruiting wealthy candidates who can spend large sums of their own money to finance their Congressional races, party officials say.

At this point, strategists for the National Republican Congressional Committee have enlisted wealthy candidates to run in at least a dozen competitive Congressional districts nationwide, particularly those where Democrats are finishing their first term and are thus considered most vulnerable. They say more are on the way.[1]

The Republican strategy has two major flaws; the first is that just because a candidate has a lot of money it doesn’t guarantee their election to office. In fact in most cases it is just the opposite the candidate spending the most of his own personal wealthy is usually defeated. It seems the voters can usually tell an asshole, no matter how much money he has. The second flaw is that it is immoral; by using this strategy the Republicans are skirting the campaign finance laws. Let me explain, by having these millionaires running for elected office bankrolling their own campaigns they are not subject to any limits on funding. Whereas, if these same “candidates” were just making campaign contributions, their donations would be subject to the current campaign finance laws.

This Republican and others argued that ready access to large sums of money was no substitute for a candidate with the personal qualities and political assets needed to meet the demands of a modern campaign, from an unflappable manner on the trail to an established network of allies and supporters.

In fact, past elections show that candidates who spend large sums of their own money frequently end up losing. In 2006, for example, only 2 of the 10 candidates who spent the most of their own money on their own races for House seats won the elections, according to an analysis of finance records and election results.[2]

The Republicans are well aware of the data concerning the dismal election record of candidates who spend large sums of their own money. Having that information it calls into question this whole strategy except that the goal is not to get these candidates elected. Oh sure if they happen to get elected that would be great, but that is not expected or likely. So then what is the real strategy behind this? It is simply to force the Democrats to spend money on races they normally would not have to spend money on. The goal is to try to take money away from races that are truly competitive to spend on races that are not. Because no candidate can afford to have an opponent spending unlimited amounts of cash without a similar outlay of cash on their part, the Democrats will shift money to the race where the wealthy candidate is recklessly spending away from say a closely contested race.

It is a sad day when you are so desperate that you are not even trying to win, you just want to bloody your opponents. The Republicans have resorted to the scorched earth philosophy, due to their unpopularity and their bankruptcy of new ideas. We can’t win, but we will corrupt the system by dumping enormous amounts of cash for no other reason than we can.

It is precisely this type of strategy that has caused so many Americans to lose faith in our entire political process. Our political landscape is no longer a war of ideas, it has become a war for the sake of war. These two political parties are so entrenched in the warfare mentality, that it is no longer about what is best for the country it is about winning at all costs; give no ground and take no prisoners. If we continue to proceed down this road not only will we have a government that doesn’t function, we will have a society so divided it cannot be governed. It seems that each year we are becoming more and more separate, with each group becoming more defined, isolated, and cut off from debate or diversity. We no longer present our ideas for review in the community square, instead we only present them to those who are likeminded further reinforcing the logic of our argument. If that logic is flawed it never gets to be debated and debunked, at that point it becomes fact.

Today, too many false arguments are being presented as fact on both sides. Rather than investigate and study problems, they have been reduced to sound bites and talk show analysis. Complex problems have been condensed to little more than talking point solutions. Each side fills the crowd with only people who share their worldview, we no longer have the spontaneity of hearing a candidate’s true feelings and values with the give and take of an evenly divided audience. Now we see candidates being spoon fed questions by supporters or even worse “planted questionnaires”, it has all become so choreographed who can tell who truly stands for what. In the absence of debate, we end up with George Bush.

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/26/us/politics/26recruit.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
[2] Ibid.

Read more!

No Honor Among Thieves

Whoever said there was honor among thieves never met anyone in the American Congress or for that matter the American political theater in general. It has gotten to the point where it isn’t even hidden anymore. Have we gotten so callous as a nation that we no longer have the temerity to stand up and say enough.

The latest in the long line of “Quid Pro Quo” involves the senator from West Virginia, Senator John D. Rockefeller IV and the telecommunication companies seeking immunity for giving up customer records without warrants. It seems that coincidently this year these telecommunication giants decided to make large donations to the senator’s campaign and again I am sure coincidently there is a bill before Congress on whether to grant them immunity for their crimes in the name of national security. It just so happens coincidently that the senator is the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee and has been working to broker a deal to get the immunity bill passed.

WASHINGTON, Oct. 22 — Executives at the two biggest phone companies contributed more than $42,000 in political donations to Senator John D. Rockefeller IV this year while seeking his support for legal immunity for businesses participating in National Security Agency eavesdropping.

The surge in contributions came from a Who’s Who of executives at the companies, AT&T and Verizon, starting with the chief executives and including at least 50 executives and lawyers at the two utilities, according to campaign finance reports.

The money came primarily from a fund-raiser that Verizon held for Mr. Rockefeller in March in New York and another that AT&T sponsored for him in May in San Antonio.[1]

I have a simple question. If you didn’t do anything wrong why do you need immunity? If what you did you believed to be right in the name of national security, why would you be worried now? The answer is that they knew what they were doing was wrong while they were doing it. These companies deliberately ignored the Constitution and now when their deeds are about to be exposed, they want cover. I find it hard to believe that with the hundreds of lawyers on their payrolls, no one sought to get a legal opinion on the legality of what they were doing. I don’t think so; they knew exactly what they were doing. To offer them immunity now would be tantamount to condoning their illegal activities and give silent endorsement of future illegal activities in the name of national security.

I don’t understand what we are protecting if the country we live in is not free. Are we so afraid of terrorists that we are willing to give up all rights to the Constitution to be protected from them? If we no longer adhere to the tenets of the Constitution, then are we a nation worth saving? What are we fighting for, if it is not for free speech, freedom from unlawful searches, or the right to be tried by our peers? The American public has lost sight of the larger issues at stake in this war on terror; in an effort to gain some measure of short-term security we have increased the chances for long-term tyranny.

The stage has been set for all future administrations to proceed down a similar path. Oh it may not be about Iraq or terrorists, but the enemy is not the issue. The issue is are we a democracy or are we not? The true test of democracy is not in the boom times, but when you are attacked. Do you recede into a self-imposed isolation based on fear of the unknown or do you stare the terrorists in the face and say we will not be moved. What is important is not the people, but the idea. Are we still willing to die for the idea?

The thing that kills me about the people who would take away our civil liberties is that none of them have ever been willing to die to protect the ideals of this nation. None of them were willing to defend this nation when the call came out. When given the opportunity to protect this land they find so dear, they were nowhere to be found. Yet they have the nerve to question the patriotism of those who did and we allow them to do so. Every time one of these chickenhawks talks about someone who did serve this nation there should be an outcry so loud that they would never even consider doing it again. Could you imagine Ike being elected President if it had come out that he had dodged the war? I guess if you were never willing to die for these ideas then surrendering them for you comes easy. You will never know the sacrifice or the true costs of freedom.

The senator’s office of course put out the usual denials of how the senator would never compromise his values for political cash. How no matter how much money he receives, he stands on principals. I find it interesting though that these principled men who would never compromise their votes for anyone, after receiving these contributions line up behind whatever legislation the contributor wanted. Is this all some freak cosmic alignment that causes this anomaly to happen?

Mr. Rockefeller received little in the way of contributions from AT&T or Verizon executives before this year, reporting $4,050 from 2002 through 2006. From last March to June, he collected a total of $42,850 from executives at the two companies. The increase was first reported by the online journal Wired, using data compiled by the Web site OpenSecrets.org.

Meredith McGehee, policy director for the Campaign Legal Center, a group promoting stricter campaign finance laws, said contributions like those to Mr. Rockefeller created an appearance problem that “corrode public confidence” in the political system.

We have so many examples like this of people on relevant committees receiving these contributions from people who are under their jurisdictions,” Ms. McGehee said. “It’s sad to say, but it is pretty much business as usual in Washington. And it shows why so many Americans just shake their heads over the way Washington works.”[2]

I’ll let you decide.

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/23/washington/23nsa.html
[2] http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/23/washington/23nsa.html

Read more!

Swift Boats To The Rescue

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court loosened political advertising restrictions aimed at corporate- and union-funded television ads Monday, weakening a key provision of a landmark campaign finance law.

The court's 5-4 ruling could become a significant factor in the upcoming presidential primaries, giving interest groups a louder and more influential voice in the closing days before those contests as well as the general election.

The decision upheld an appeals court ruling that an anti-abortion group should have been allowed to air ads during the final two months before the 2004 elections. The law unreasonably limits speech and violates the group's First Amendment rights, the court said.

''Discussion of issues cannot be suppressed simply because the issues may also be pertinent in an election,'' Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority. ''Where the First Amendment is implicated, the tie goes to the speaker, not the censor.''[1]

With this Supreme Court decision, what was already going to be a contentious election has now been ratcheted up a notch. I am dreading the level that some will be willing to stoop to in the name of “fair and balanced” information. This decision has opened the door for distortion and misrepresentation of our political process. The Court had the opportunity to rein in the fringe that has turned our political process into a cantankerous and character assassination tour de force. Rather than strengthening our political reform process they have in effect continued to place politics over the people and allowed political money to overrule not only good law, but good judgment. At a time when we need to reform our political process, these political hacks have chosen to keep the status quo.

The McCain-Feingold bill was not perfect law, but it was atleast the beginning in the process to restrict the effects that money has turned our elections into. Unfortunately, as we try to control the tap of runaway campaigns and special interest money, there are those who still want to have the best government that money can buy. It appears that we can no longer count on the politicians or the judges to shut off this spigot; it has to come from you and I, the people. We should realize that if we continue to let the special interest groups, corporations, and unions have unlimited access to our elected officials through contributions and by intimidation ads, we will continue to get the politics of division and fear.

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, who has been critical of McCain's stance, promptly hailed the court's decision.

''McCain-Feingold was a poorly-crafted bill,'' Romney said in a statement. ''Today's decision restores, in part, to the American people a right critical to their freedom of political participation and expression.''[2]

What has been masqueraded as free speech is no such animal; it is influence peddling and corruption of our political process. I fail to see the harm in limiting the amount of contributions any single person, corporation, or union can give. If our goal is to give equal representation to all of our citizens then this is the place to start. Is there anyone among us who truly believes that these entities give away all this money and they receive nothing for it?

There were four justices who were willing to stand up and pull the curtain open to see what this really is about. They recognized that this is not about free speech, but an outright attempt to influence elections by those with the money to do so with false and misleading ads. These ads don’t help the political discourse and they allow the politicians to rise over the fray and claim ignorance to the misrepresentation that they spew.

'Thus, what is called a 'ban' on speech is a limit on the financing of electioneering broadcasts by entities ... that insist on acting as conduits from the campaign war chests of business corporations,'' Souter said.

Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and John Paul Stevens joined Souter's dissent.

These guys are like roaches, you close one loop hole and they run in through another. Until we begin to put limits on political contributions we will continue to have politicians that ignore our desires and wishes and vote for the special interest. They go where the money is and the money is with special interest lobbies. We need to level the playing field; it’s like anything else you take away the money and the rats run back into their holes. We have to begin to demand an end to this endless money pit and political influence peddling. It is happening on both sides and everyday there is a new indictment of some politician who received campaign contributions and denies any quid pro quo. Yes, these people give hundreds of thousands of dollars just to make the acquaintance of these guys. I know politicians have big egos, but to think that someone is going to give me money just to know me is the height of arrogance or the bottom of foolishness. It is past due time for real campaign reform. It isn’t going to get any better.

---

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/26/washington/26scotus.html?hp

[2] Ibid

Read more!

Can’t Buy Me Love

Is it just me or is there an obscene amount of money being raised? What does all this money mean to the body politic as a whole and to the aspirations of our potential candidates? Whatever happened to our desire to have publicly financed elections?

It appears that publicly financed elections are good as long as it is not an election I’m in. There was much talk about campaign reform when there was no campaign. Now that the architects and sponsors have joined the fray we have lost our zeal for cleaning up the process until the next “swift boat” incident. Does it really take a half billion dollars to be president of the United States? And if it does; what does that say about our process. It seems like every cycle we set new all-time records for money raised and money spent and after each we say we want reform (everyone but Mitch McConnell, but at least he is honest about his dishonesty), only to start the cycle all over again when the dust settles.

It has been stated that you cannot buy the presidency, but money has never hurt. One of these elections it would be nice to have an election based on ideas and plans, not based on how much money you were able to raise. Already the media has proclaimed the front runners and eventual nominees based on the money earned in the first quarter of an election that is two years away. I wish I could be that sure of what was going to happen to me tonight let alone two years from now. The only problem with prognosticators is that they are rarely if ever right. I remember when Howard Dean raised all the money on the internet and made online fundraising viable; he was pronounced a “force to be reckoned with”. The thing is that money does not always translate into voters or true support. If that were in fact the case then instead of having elections we would just have fund raisers and whoever raised the most money wins.

While money is important and helps to get a candidates message out to a wide range of voters, campaigns are more than money. Campaigns are about people, they are about ideas, and who can communicate those ideas most effectively. Campaigns are about meeting people, they are about endurance and sounding fresh after giving the same speech over and over and over. Campaigns are about relationships, relationships between the candidate and his supporters, the candidate and the undecided, and the candidate and the media. This could actually be good for Senator Edwards; both “front runners” have enough money to bludgeon each other before the primaries even begin. Make no mistake when this process gets started the kid gloves will come off, both of these people are serious campaigners and they want this nomination. It may appear to be civil now, but it is going to get ugly and standing above the fray will be Senator Edwards unsullied by the excesses of both those campaigns.

Read more!