Record-breaking amounts of money were spent this year vying for seats in the mid-terms here in California. Meg Whitman reportedly spent $160 million of her own money--or roughly $42 per vote--to not win the California governorship. Carly Fiorina spent $5.5 million of her own money (along with more than $10 million in donations and $4.8 from the Republicans) to launch an unsuccessful challenge to Barbara Boxer's Senate seat. Add Linda McMahon's unsuccessful run for Chris Dodd's seat in Connecticut and you have an astounding $217 million spent to not win an election. That's a hell of a lot of money . Gail Sheehy looks at what could have been done with that money instead:

Instead of laying out a combined $217 million to run for office, Whitman, Fiorina, and McMahon could have saved America’s commuters some serious cash. They could have footed the toll bill for half of the 52.1 million vehicles that cross the George Washington Bridge yearly, or one-third of the 102.2 million vehicles that cross the Bay Bridge.

Whitman’s spending could have bought full tuition for 23,553 California residents at the University of California-Berkeley, which would almost double current undergraduate enrollment. She could have made 95,764 connections for at-risk youth through Big Brothers Big Sisters of Greater Los Angeles. Or, if she wanted to be known as the Savior of San Jose, she could have wiped out the megalopolis’ budget deficit twice over.
..
Fiorina('s) [..] total campaign spending could have doubled the total assets of Goodwill of Southern California. It could have fully funded Pajaro Valley Unified School District for a year, saving the schools’ sports programs. Or, if Fiorina wanted to befriend folks closer to her mansion in Northern California, she could have increased the budget eight-fold of Raphael House, which provides low-income family services and shelter in San Francisco. Maybe she would have earned more headlines if she’d used her campaign budget to go global and purchase one million bed nets to combat malaria in Africa or provide micro-loans to more than 350,000 small businesses in South Africa, most of them to poor women.

McMahon, who laid out $41 million during her run for senator of Connecticut, and her partner-husband had amassed a net worth estimated at at least $1.1 billion as of 10 years ago. Each of the 498,306 votes cast in her favor cost $84.08. That would have covered a full year’s worth of salary and benefits for 802 state employees facing furloughs because of the state’s budget shortfall. It could have provided heating assistance to Connecticut families in need for seven years. It could have paid for 15 million school lunches across the whole country, or paid for two years of enhanced security for our troops in Iraq.

The numbers we're talking about are hard to wrap your brain around...and its expenditure hardly seems like fiscal responsibility (nor does the spending on the Democratic side). It's clear we need to re-prioritize the way we run elections, especially in a post-Citizens United country, because I promise you these numbers will look like a pittance compared to the amounts spent for 2012's election.

The only real answer is to publicly finance elections. No one can talk about fiscal responsibility or curtailing unnecessary government spending until we do.

• Look for a state where PACs can accept unlimited contributions for campaigns. Michigan is one such state.
• Set up a PAC called RGA Michigan PAC as a conduit to receive and transmit contributions to out-of-state candidates in unlimited amounts.
• Wait until October 1, 2010, and send over $3 million dollars to Texas Governor Rick Perry's campaign as an extra added boost for the final month.

Donors to the RGA-MI PAC include Bob Perry ($1,000,000), contributions from investment and hedge fund managers adding up to over $1,000,000 as well as contributions from companies ranging from Pharma to New Balance shoes. Here's the whole list.

At first blush it seemed to me like another Tom Delay situation, where one committee was laundering contributions from corporations to make them acceptable under Texas law. But as you can see from the list, each contribution comes from an individual rather than a corporation, and those funds were then aggregated and transferred to Rick Perry's campaign and the Michigan Republican Party.

These transactions are on top of $5.4 million received by the Michigan Chamber of Commerce and given to the Republican Governor's Association. Because the Michigan Chamber isn't required to disclose their donations, there's no way to know who pushed so much money into their bank account, but it's unprecedented.

Via the Michigan Campaign Finance Network:

“The Michigan Chamber of Commerce has been aggregating contributions from anonymous donors for candidate-focused electioneering advertisements since the 2000 state election,” said Rich Robinson of the Michigan Campaign Finance Network. “They’ve spent millions of dollars for television advertisements that sought to define political candidates’ suitability for office, and they reported nothing about the sources whose contributions paid for those ads.”

“What is new in 2010 is that the Chamber’s primary financial purpose now appears to be aggregating contributions to give to the Republican Governors Association, an organization whose purpose is to promote the election of candidates for public office. The Chamber’s function as a business association is secondary, financially, to its role as a political fund aggregator.”

Rick Perry is clearly a major beneficiary of the new opaque RGA under Haley Barbour's management. It may all be legal as far as the letter of the law goes, but it's sure as hell not moral.

If it looks like a pig, smells like a pig and oinks like one, chances are, it is a pig.

Since this election will likely be the last time we'll get to see some donors before they buy their candidates' office, I took a closer look at the First Amendment Alliance, an organization that has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to oppose Jack Conway and Michael Bennet, among others. It seems Rand Paul has some powerful buddies across the nation who are willing to spend a lot of money to get him elected, along with his buddy Ken Buck. Here are some of the big names.

From the 9/30/2010 IRS Filing:

• Brian Kimbrough - Pace Data Corporation (FL) $20,000
• Clayton Williams - Clayton Williams Energy (TX) $100,000
• Russel D. Gordy - Self-Employed (TX) $150,000
• Cotulla, LP - (TX) $25,000
• Chisos, Ltd - (NM) $25,000
• Denny Snelson's Pumping Unit Service, LP - (TX) $20,000
• The Anschutz Corporation - (CO) $50,000
• Melange Associates, Inc. - (CO) $25,000
• Cordilera Energy Partners III, LLC - (CO) $20,000
• Robert S. Boswell - Laramie Energy II, LLC (CO) $25,000
• Robert L. Zorich - EnCap Investments, LP (TX) $25,000
• Earl G. Rodman, Jr. - Rodman Petroleum (TX) $100,000
• Thomas A. Petrie - Bank of America Vice Chairman - (CO) $25,000
• Bob J. Perry - Perry Homes (TX) - $50,000
• Pace Data Corporation - (FL) - $20,000

From the Pre-General FEC Report - 10/1/2010 to 10/13/2010:

• Aghorn Energy, Inc. (TX) - $100,000
• William J. Barrett (CO) - $25,000
• Jonathan C. Farber - Lime Rock Partners, Managing Director (CT) - $100,000
• TESSCO Energy Services, Inc. (TX) $20,000

There are numerous other contributions under $20,000 that I didn't list as well. Altogether, the First Amendment Alliance has taken in $1.4 million from January 1st to October 13th. While some of it comes from the large corporations like Bank of America and The Anschutz Corporation (Phil Anschutz of Comcast and numerous other media outlets), it also comes from smaller businesses like Danny Snelson's Pumping Unit Service, but most donors have a common theme: They're either from the energy sector or the financial sector, with Anschutz and Perry as standouts. They're stolid Republicans with an agenda, and that agenda includes installing their puppets into the next Senate.

In 2012, I doubt we'll have access to this kind of information. The First Amendment Alliance has a 501(c)(4) called the First Amendment Alliance Education Fund, so I imagine the next round will funnel money through that instead of the 527. This is the true story of this midterm election. Forget about what you think about Democrats or Obama for a minute, and realize that if these candidates win, there will be no campaign finance reform, no disclosure, and the closing act will belong to Corporations United, Large and Small. We, the people will not matter one whit.

For all the attention paid to the national stage and governors' races, no one has really mentioned the elephant in the room: redistricting. 2011 will be the year when Congressional districts are redrawn based upon the 2010 census, and as usual, it will be ugly.

Rewind to Tom Delay's shameless efforts to redraw Texas right down party lines. You might remember it better if you recall Texas state Democrats fleeing to Oklahoma to keep the state legislature from having a quorum to vote on them.

The documentary featured above was released in October and is currently being screened across the country. Via The WIP.net:

Continue reading »

In Rachel's opening segment last night, she compared and contrasted the Democrats' message of compromise with the Republicans "hell no" stance and took the Dems to task for not noticing that there was no one to compromise with. In her analysis, she missed the true message of the "we'll compromise" message.

In the NYTimes/CBS News Poll released this week, respondents were asked the following question:

Which do you think the Republicans in Congress SHOULD do -- compromise some of their positions in order to get things done, or stick to their positions even if it means not getting as much done?

Their answer was pretty emphatic: 78% of respondents said they thought Republicans should compromise, while 15% thought they should stick to their positions. That 78% is up from 74% two weeks earlier. When the same question is asked about Democrats, 76% say they should compromise with 17% saying they should stick to their guns.

This is where Rachel misses the boat. When 78% of poll respondents answer that Republicans should compromise and Republicans respond with "Hell, no!", there's a clear advantage for Democrats to say they're open to compromise.

This seems like Politics 101 to me, and I'm a little surprised Rachel took aim at Democrats for smart messaging. Usually they're dumb about it, but they got this one right.

Andrew Sullivan notes that Rush has given 'no compromise' marching orders, laying out a strategy where President Obama vetoes all of their his initiatives, should Republicans actually win the House and Senate, including balanced budget amendments, repealing 'Obamacare', and all the other teabag goodies we've been hearing over and over.

Of course, even if all these things were desirable, they're wildly implausible. But he knows that: "Obama's gonna veto all this," Limbaugh says. "So be it! Let him veto it! That helps us. We come back for it all again -- and he vetoes it again, and he calls us mean-spirited, extreme."

I wonder if Limbaugh is aware of that the latest NYT poll revealed that massive majorities want the main parties to compromise in the new Congress rather than stick to their positions. But when asked who would be more likely to compromise, 72 percent said that Obama, while only 46 percent said the Republicans. Limbaugh's nihilism and talk-radio conservatism is one sure way to bring independents back to the president. Advantage: Obama.

(I'm not sure where his numbers come from, but the poll numbers I have are the latest).

The DCCC had some choice comments to make about it:

Not only has John Boehner recruited, embraced, and financed a disgraced Nazi enthusiast running for Congress, but now Boehner is pouring gasoline on the fire by throwing a campaign rally for him," said DCCC spokesman Ryan Rudominer. "Thumbing his nose at our nation's veterans, women, and people of the Jewish faith, all the while refusing to stand up for basic American values in order to try and win an election, apparently this is what Boehner meant when he said, 'We're not going to be any different than what we've been.

Taking out the hyperbole that tends to dominate the final week of any election cycle for a minute, I just have to sit back and wonder about how it can be that Republicans are so confident about sewing up the House majority. If they really think they've got it in the bag, why send the future Speaker of the House on the campaign trail with a guy who thinks SS officers were interesting enough that he spent his weekends pretending he was one?

Hmmm. Things to ponder.

You just have to see it to believe it, but yes, that's exactly what she did.

Al Franken, retelling the President's car in the ditch story with a bit more accuracy:

When the President took office, not only had the car gone into a ditch, the car had flipped over and was rolling down a steep embankment. We, the American people, were in the back seat, and the Bush Administration had removed all the seat belts, so we were all flying around the interior of this car as it was rolling and flipping and careening down this steep embankment, headed to a 2,000 foot cliff. And at the bottom of that cliff were jagged rocks. And alligators.

Now, at noon on January 20th, 2009, as the car was careening toward the cliff, George W. Bush jumped out of the car.

President Obama somehow managed to dive in through the window, take the wheel and get control of the thing just inches before it went over the precipice. Then, he and Congress starting pushing this wreck back up the embankment. Now you can’t push a car up an embankment as fast as it careens down the embankment, especially if some people are trying to push against you. But we got it going in the right direction. And slowly we’ve gotten ourselves up the embankment, out of the ditch and onto the shoulder of the road.

There. That’s what happened.

His point? This:

Well, they may have the powerful corporations on their side. But we’ve got you.

If I sound like a broken record, it's because I cannot bear the idea of Joe Lieberman as Senate power broker. So please, go vote.

I can usually sort out the decisions made by "leadership" in different areas to understand the logic behind them. But in the case of the DCCC and Chris Van Hollen, I truly have no clue. Here are some of his recent decisions, via Howie Klein:

The big buys the DCCC made this week were once again mostly for reactionary Blue Dogs and fellow travelers. Keeping him close to the #1 most supported incumbent is Bobby Bright who got an additional $225,000 (bringing his total so far to $1,128,188.33). Another dirt bag Blue Dog they spent big on this week was Chad Causey, a corporate shill looking to replace Marion Berry in AR-1 and whose $315,000 IE has pushed his race's total to $1,175,709.11 from the DCCC-- while having spent exactly zero for tested progressive Joyce Elliott in AR-2.

Meanwhile, they abandon Alan Grayson (FL), Mary Jo Kilroy (OH), Suzanne Kosmas (FL), Steve Kagen (WI) and a couple of blue dogs. I'll let them have the BlueDogs, but Grayson? Kilroy? Really? What are they thinking?

These decisions make no sense. Take Alan Grayson. Here's a guy who has raised more money without any "party faithful" help than most of the ones they are helping together. Meanwhile, Mary Jo Kilroy has worked tirelessly for her district and jobs. Yet even as I write, her opponent is putting up ads that are such blatant lies they should be sued for false advertising. Check this one out, claiming the stimulus created jobs in China:

Oh how rich it is to have a Republican attack a jobs-committed Democrat over jobs in China. Mr. US Chamber-of-Commerce Stivers must be suffering whiplash to twist his neck that hard. Of course, it's all about ringing a bell that can't be unrung. He knows it's a lie, but once it's out there, it's fact to some voters.

This is where one would expect a national organization to come to the rescue, and yet, they've written off Mary Jo Kilroy as a lost cause. In this election cycle, I made the decision not to contribute to DCCC but to direct my contributions to candidates who needed my support and were fighting for the real values Democrats have always stood for via Blue America.

We really need your help to help these candidates hold onto their hard-won seats. When I finish writing this post, I'm going to make another donation, because I don't want teabaggers to take over Congress. It's really that simple. Join me? Alan Grayson's page is here, and Mary Jo Kilroy's page is here, or you can get a list of all the Blue America candidates here.

Continue reading »

Russ Feingold has been in an inexplicably tough race with Ron Johnson for the Wisconsin junior Senate seat. But the more Ron Johnson opens his mouth, the clearer it is that Johnson's campaign is built on a single idea and it isn't benefiting most Wisconsin citizens.

Wisconsin residents are exceptionally lucky that the statewide unemployment rate is lower than the national average, so perhaps it wasn't as high a priority for Republican challenger Ron Johnson to form a coherent jobs plan. In this meeting with the editorial board of the Green Bay Press Gazette, Johnson was asked about his plan to bring more jobs to Wisconsin and he shifted to the standard talking points of cutting spending. When it was pointed out to him that he had yet to speak to jobs specifically, Johnson's response was to merely shrug it off, an ironic gesture from a man whose self-styled campaign was to insist as a successful business man, he knew how to create jobs.

As Steve Benen says, Johnson is extremely lucky he's being overshadowed by other extremist candidates. That's why his casual dismissal of his lack of jobs and his rather frightening plans for America don't get noticed.

In a typical year, Johnson's bizarre, misguided worldview would be a pretty major national story. The chattering class would marvel at questions like, "Would Wisconsin really elect a far-right radical to the U.S. Senate?" But this isn't a typical year, and unhinged candidates like Angle, Paul, O'Donnell, Miller, and Buck have garnered enough attention that Johnson can run in relative anonymity outside his home state.

This week, Politico's Jim VandeHei reported from Wisconsin on the significance of the Senate race pitting Johnson against Sen. Russ Feingold (D), and the GOP candidate reflected a bit on his future plans.

[...][H]e watches his words, ignoring the fact that he's already making the trade-offs conventional politicians make to win office. It will be different once and if he wins, he promises. Then, his true feelings can take voice. [emphasis added]

Is that so. Vote for Johnson in November and then voters will get to see what he's all about. Call me old fashioned, but that sounds backwards.

Elsewhere in the Politico piece, VandeHei asked what kind of innovative ideas Johnson might pursue as a U.S. senator. Johnson skipped right past substantive issues, and committed himself to a "re-education of America."

Are you kidding me? Can you even imagine what the response would be if a liberal Democrat vowed to pursue a "re-education of America" if elected to the U.S. Senate?

After trailing the big money-backed Johnson for much of the race, Feingold has tied it up recently. Russ is too good a progressive candidate to lose to such an empty suit. You can still donate and help his campaign in these last two critical weeks and keep the momentum going.