Michele Stays Busy

(Editorial cartoon by Steve Sack and published 4/14/13 by the Minneapolis Star Tribune.  Click on image to enlarge and then be so kind as to return.)

Michele Bachmann, convinced that her constituents are as distracted by shiny keys as she is, continues to lead the wackaloons in the House in pointless exercises.  From the Star Tribune:

For Rep. Michele Bachmann, Thursday hearkened back to the halcyon days of 2009, when her Tea Party supporters flocked to the U.S. Capitol and she led Republican opposition to President Obama’s health care law.

Tea Party rally? Check. House vote to repeal Obamacare? Check.

The Tea Partiers rallied around the Minnesota Republican in the morning to express their outrage over the IRS’s disclosure that it had targeted Tea Party and other conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status.

Hours later, by a vote of 229-195, the GOP-led House passed its 37th attempt to defund all or part of the health care law, a measure championed by Bachmann. “This issue is now revived,” Bachmann said of the repeal bill. “It’s back on the table.” ...

But Bachmann still plans to ride the issue in Minnesota, where she has launched a two-week television ad blitz focusing on the repeal of Obamacare, an issue that helped thrust her into the national spotlight three years ago and that became no small part of her 2012 presidential bid.

The ad campaign, 18 months before voters go to the polls, represents an unusually early start in congressional elections. But Bachmann faces a potentially tough challenge next year in her rematch with DFL businessman Jim Graves, who lost by just 4,296 votes in November in an overwhelmingly Republican Sixth District.

Bachmann also has been battered in recent months by ethics and campaign finance allegations stemming from her presidential campaign. Her ads are running as she is in settlement talks in connection with a politically damaging lawsuit filed by a former staffer who accuses her of covering up the alleged theft of a proprietary database taken by the chairman of her Iowa caucus campaign.   [Emphasis added]

I imagine Michele has been doing a lot of dialing-for-dollars  to cover the costs of those ads and to help pay any settlement she reaches with the former staffer in his law suit.

I also imagine that there are several powerful groups perfectly willing to finance her, just as they did during her presidential bid and her last re-election campaign.  Will it be enough?

That all depends on the House Ethics Committee report.  I think we know what that will look like.

A Billion Here, A Billion There ...

I can't wait for Tuesday to be over, assuming (of course) that the election will be wrapped up late Tuesday night.  I'm sick of an email box stuffed with fund raising requests.  I'm sick of media telling me dozens of times a day how close the race is, what the polls say, what the polls don't say, and what the campaigns say about polls and their candidates. 

I'm sick of popcorn.

And I'm disgusted, primarily by all the money being thrown around in this election from the top of the ticket on down.  How much money?  Even Open Secrets doesn't know exactly, thanks to Citizens United, but at least that group has a pretty good idea.

The 2012 election will not only be the most expensive election in U.S. history, the cost will tower over the next most expensive election by more than $700 million.

Earlier this year, the Center for Responsive Politics estimated that the 2012 election would cost $5.8 billion -- an estimate that already made it the most expensive in history -- but with less than a week to go before the election, CRP is revising the estimate upwards. According to CRP’s new analysis of Federal Election Commission data, this election will likely cost $6 billion. ...

"In the new campaign finance landscape post-Citizens United, we're seeing historic spending levels spurred by outside groups dominated by a small number of individuals and organizations making exceptional contributions," said Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics.

Not only is the total cost of the election record breaking, but the rate at which spending has increased -- and continues to increase -- in the closing weeks of the election is as well. In particular, outside groups are spending furiously.  Spending by these groups, for and against the two main presidential candidates, has grown from $19 million per week in early September to $33 million per week in early October to $70 million during the week beginning October 21.

 $6 BILLION.

That's a huge chunk of change in this economy, especially when just about all the candidates are wedded to the idea that we need to reduce the deficit.  They differ only on whose ox gets gored and how big the scar is going to be.

$6 BILLION.

And we're not even sure who's floating that kind of money, at least some of it.

What remains unknown -- and may never fully be accounted for -- is how much money secretive “shadow money” organizations spent, with some investing massive sums on ads, but also on unreported and purportedly "non-political" activities, as the election neared. It may take years to determine how much they spent. Furthermore, it likely will never be known who provided the vast majority of this money, which includes at least $203 million in the last two months.

"One thing we can say for certain is that the transparency the Supreme Court relied upon to justify this new framework has been sorely lacking," said Krumholz.

In addition to the spending reported by nonprofits, however, at least $100-200 million more has been spent by these groups on "issue advocacy" that identifies a federal candidate, but was not required to be reported to the FEC. This is of concern because a number of these organizations -- particularly those that have organized since the Citizens United ruling, are spending huge sums and have super PAC counterparts -- are primarily political in nature. More disturbing than the secret spending (some of which can be pieced together based on studies of political ads and will eventually be summarized in tax reports to the Internal Revenue Service), is the secret source of this money. With no requirements to disclose where the money is coming from, voters in 2012 have been left with no real means to judge the credibility of the message or consider any hidden agendas leading those donors to give.   [Emphasis added]

Lewis Carroll would have been so proud.

Me?  Not so much.

 

Patriot Bucks

Well, the New Year has rolled in, and the New Administration is on the way (fifteen days and counting). Now's a good time to take a good look at what the November elections wound up costing us. According to this Los Angeles Times' op-ed piece, the total contributed to all of the campaigns in the federal election exceeded $6 billion dollars. That, to use the lingo of the article, is a lot of doughnuts.

Written by "recently retired" political fundraisers Pamela Finmark and William D. Chalmers, the column is an interesting look into the activities and motivations of the fundraisers and the donors they obviously prefer. Embedded in the piece is the fact that these fundraisers get 10% of what they bring in, so the motivation is pretty clear. That they don't spend hours chasing $250 donors when they can spend a single hour with a bundler who will bring in thousands certainly makes sense. While the internet facilitated the raising of funds from us lower level donors, the authors point out that all this did was add to the totals, not change the system one bit.

As a result, we and our clients ended up spending a lot of face time with major donors ("Mojo's"): Wall Street investment bankers, real estate developers, CEOs, trial lawyers, union bosses, oil company executives, Hollywood celebrities, PAC board members and K Street lobbyists. America the plutocracy.

Pretty sad, that. It means that the access will still be wider for the "Mojo's" than for the rest of us, even though we elected a lot more Democrats. So, what's the answer? Now that they're retired, Finmark and Chalmers suggest a possible way out of the "buy a politician" system we currently have:

The best solution we have heard of is called the "patriot dollars" plan, put forth by Yale law professors Bruce Ackerman and Ian Ayres. Basically, it eliminates all hard contributions to candidates. Period. Instead, each voter is given a $50 ATM card so that he or she can literally vote with their dollars and contribute their $50, in part or in whole, to their choice of federal candidates. Simple enough. Let's do the math. We spend about $5 billion to $6 billion collectively on all federal elections. If the approximately 131 million who voted in November also had voted with $50 worth of patriot bucks, the donations would have equaled -- surprise -- $6.5 billion! That money would cover presidential, Senate and congressional races.

That would put us political consultants, err, fundraisers, out of a job, and quickly and simply revolutionize the gridlocked political system. Think of it: A level playing field where candidates actually would have to listen to their real voting constituents versus only listening to their wealthy donors, lobbyist friends and corporate givers.

I suspect a lot of howls of protest over such a plan, the loudest having to do with the cost involved. $6.5 billion is, after all, a lot of doughnuts to be coming from the federal budget. I would simply point out that at least that much money, and probably much more, could be saved by cutting out the the money that has flowed from congress critters to their donors in thank-you legislation. Furthermore, if those same congress critters didn't have to spend so much time continuing to dial for dollars after they were elected in anticipation of the next election, a lot more of the people's work might actually get done.

Overall, I think the proposal is a sensible one, and one that ought to be seriously considered. It just has to be superior to the system we currently have.

Answers to Marcus Answers

Below this post, I have printed Ruth Marcus' answers to questions about her ignoring McCain's claiming he was going to take public funds for his campaign, and then not doing it.

She says she doesn't consider this a flip-flop. To wit: But whether or not you consider Sen. McCain's loan having been impermissably been based on the collateral of expected matching funds, I don't think that fits into the flip-flop category.

There is no reason given why saying one thing and doing another is not a flip-flop.

I can only see that the WaPo op-editorialist is in a corner and cannot admit that she cannot write correctly as she is a member of the editorial staff that Hiatt controls, and therefore has to support some one who has nothing to offer. Lies are treated as truths when they come from the right wing.

Read the whole post below this, and tell me. Does any rebuttal include any facts, or bases, that you can see that support this refusal to admit McCain's flip-flop happened, is a flip-flop, and should have been referenced in her original article?

Thank you.

Answers from Ruth Marcus at WaPo

Those of you who read my article on the WaPo op-ed by Ruth Marcus that talked about Obama's 'flip-flop' on campaign financing will be interested to see the answer I got, and a few followup questions from other readers, along with her answers.
\
First, my question along with Marcus' answer:

Sherman, Texas: In your op-ed on "flip-flops" by the presidential candidates, how did you manage to ignore that McCain violated the law by taking a loan on the basis of the McCain-Feingold campaign financing plan, then not doing as he said he would in order to gain that loan?

washingtonpost.com: When a Flip Isn't a Flop (Post, July 2)

Ruth Marcus: Fair question. We have editorialized about Sen. McCain and the primary matching funds, and I'm glad that we now have a Federal Election Commission that has confirmed commissioners and can look at this issue. But whether or not you consider Sen. McCain's loan having been impermissably been based on the collateral of expected matching funds, I don't think that fits into the flip-flop category.

A followup question from a reader:
Re: Flip-Flops: You write "But whether or not you consider Sen. McCain's loan having been impermissably been based on the collateral of expected matching funds, I don't think that fits into the flip-flop category." So you're saying that breaking a law that McCain himself wrote is not "flip-flopping"?

Ruth Marcus: Sorry, Sen. McCain didn't write that law, but leaving that aside: I'm saying the issue of whether he was or was not permitted to withdraw from the matching funds system is different from the question of whether he flip-flopped.

Ruth Marcus took a further question about campaign financing:

Re: Campaign Financing: Leaving aside the question of legality, how is it not a flip-flop for McCain to opt out of public financing for the primary, given that he is probably the most visible proponent of public financing in the entire country? Forgive me for saying this, but I think you're just as easy on McCain as Chris Matthews and the rest.

Ruth Marcus: Well, let me quote myself, if you don't mind, in my own defense to the Ruth=Chris Matthews charge.

This is from last week's column. Of all the flip-flops of campaign 2008, McCain's reversal on taxes may be the most disturbing, because it represents a stark turnabout on a key issue. But the important aspect is not that McCain changed his position -- it's that his "no new taxes" incarnation is so recklessly wrong. Still, it's a lot simpler to yell "flip-flop" in a crowded blogosphere than to hunker down with a set of distribution tables.

In addition, here's a link to our editorial about Sen. McCain and the matching funds:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/09/AR2008030901440.html

The most relevant part:
Second, and more problematic, is the question of whether Mr. McCain used his eligibility for matching funds as collateral for a $4 million loan; if so, Mr. McCain would be deemed to have used the matching fund program to his financial advantage, even without having received any money, and so would be bound by the spending limits. Mr. McCain didn't directly pledge the expected matching funds as security, but he did promise that if his campaign went badly, he would stay in the race and seek matching funds in order to be able to repay the bank. The McCain campaign and the bank say that this does not rise to the level of using the FEC certification as collateral for the loan and that they were careful to avoid that trap. The DNC has filed a complaint with the FEC asserting that it does rise to such a level and that Mr. McCain is therefore stuck in the matching funds system. However the loan terms are understood, this is not Mr. McCain's proudest moment as a reformer: He derived some benefit from the matching funds system and then abandoned it when that was to his advantage.


Another reader from the homestate;

Bellingham, Wash.: On the subject of "flip-flopping": I've just finished an article about Rush Limbaugh in an um, rival Sunday newspaper's magazine, and thank God Obama "flip-flopped" on accepting public financing. The reporting I've seen on the subject often mentions that Obama was overreacting because Republican 527's were not organizing a coordinated attack on his campaign, but I've always thought the real threat was from the free attacks offered by Limbaugh et al on cable and AM radio. Obama will need all the help and money he can get to counter the three to six hours a day of free, high-wattage AM radio Republican attack ads that Limbaugh will be offering from now until November.

Ruth Marcus: Except that Sen. Obama probably knew about Rush Limbaugh when he originally said he'd try to take public financing.

(Incidentally, he was still running against Hillary Clinton when he made the commitment, and most of the vitriol was aimed at her. Also, McCain had not yet retreated from his own commitment, as I recall.)

From February 15, MyDD: see http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/2/15/193936/719

"Senator John McCain has already pledged to accept this fundraising pledge. If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election."

Devouring the Rule of Law

Tomorrow at 1 ET, I see that Ruth Marcus will have a call-in discussion. She has been so consistently blind that I thought I would give her latest column a read for the laughs, knowing it would give lots of misinformation. As usual, truth has a liberal bias. She wrote on flip floops.

Marcus began by totally ignoring McCain's refusal to follow his own campaign financing law, and taking a loan based on the contention that he would - the contention was later reversed. She did make Obama's reversal on campaign financing a major focus.

McCain's early opposition to tax cuts was regretted, his new position supporting them praised as ultimate wisdom.

Of all the flip-flops of campaign 2008, McCain's reversal on taxes may be the most disturbing, because it represents a stark turnabout on a key issue. But the important aspect is not that McCain changed his position -- it's that his "no new taxes" incarnation is so recklessly wrong. Still, it's a lot simpler to yell "flip-flop" in a crowded blogosphere than to hunker down with a set of distribution tables.

By contrast, Obama's biggest flip-flop, on accepting public financing, is disappointing not so much for the substance as for the execution. Had Obama been straightforward -- "I made a rash pledge. Circumstances look different now. I'm changing my mind." -- his about-face would have been easier to take than his pretense that he is doing us all a big favor.

When it comes to flip-flops, one candidate's outrageous reversal can be another's welcome pragmatism. Liberal bloggers are flaying Obama for a "craven" flip-flop because he once vowed to filibuster any wiretapping bill providing immunity for telecommunications providers. Now he plans to vote for one.

Smart politics, yes, but also sensible as a matter of substance. Whatever your position on immunity, crafting a workable wiretapping regime for the future, not punishing companies for past transgressions, should be the central issue in the debate over the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. If Obama is edging toward the center on this, or on free trade, we should praise the flip, not hate the flopper.

Indeed, some flip-flops might even be evidence of open-mindedness -- not a bad attribute in a president, as the past eight years have taught. The downside to flip-flop politics is making politicians reluctant to change course lest they be exposed to accusations of spinelessness. (Emphasis added.)

The invitation to come chat about this piece of propaganda is yet another instance of the right wing using the FISA legislation to work against the Dem candidate. Wingers know that it would provide no check on the war criminals, who have shown time and again that they are not going to follow the former Rule of Law. On the other hand, it is the Democrats' working with the law that they have always been able to count on. For this reason, I expect that the questions Marcus will be happy to feature tomorrow will contain lots of invective against Obama. This seems to be the purpose of her discussion project. After all, unless Obama wins, there will be no rule of law in any case.

I am calling FISA the Potemkin bill. It is all for show. The wingers are quite sure that wiretapping of us, the terraists, will continue to be conducted - no matter what laws are enacted - if they retain the executive branch. In bringing it on, they insure that the down side exists only for Obama's candidacy. He can oppose it strongly and end all chance of including anyone but the left wing in his constituency. The right would vote for McCain, for sure, if Obama came out swinging against FISA. That is not a certainty now, as so much of the right has deep resentment toward McCain for his resistance to their deep seated troglodytism.

The independents would see Obama's candidacy as irreconcilably taking sides against the executive - an inability to see issues through the other foot, oh, I mean, walk in that other fella's shoes. Let's face it, being an independent in the wake of the unconstitutional White House we've suffered through - that means you just can't accept that we have criminals in the highest offices.

I would love it if the rational thinkers were in the majority, and could vote a president into office. Not going to happen.

I'm working on my question.

Let's see: "How did you manage to ignore that McCain violated the law by taking a loan on the basis of the McCain-Feingold campaign financing plan, then not doing as he said he would in order to gain that loan?" Somehow I don't think that would make it to the discussion format.

How's this: "Since the occupied White House has acted unconstitutionally throughout its terms, what use is FISA when it will not be followed anyway?" Do we think Marcus will take this up? No, I don't think so either.

Got any other suggestion?

Atrios had a good basis for a question today:

McCain in 2004:

Question: "What would or should we do if, in the post-June 30th period, a so-called sovereign Iraqi government asks us to leave, even if we are unhappy about the security situation there?"

McCain's Answer: "Well, if that scenario evolves than I think it's obvious that we would have to leave because -- if it was an elected government of Iraq, and we've been asked to leave other places in the world. If it were an extremist government then I think we would have other challenges, but I don't see how we could stay when our whole emphasis and policy has been based on turning the Iraqi government over to the Iraqi people."

Does the John McCain of 2008 agree with this assessment?

Maybe I'll send it in and see if it appears. Want to give me the odds of that?

How Sausage Is Made

The energy bill passed by Congress is on its way to the president for signature, and it's beginning to look like he will sign it. A brief comment on the bill with some very nice analysis was published in yesterday's Boston Globe as part of the "Short Fuse" section.

The energy bill passed by the US Senate last week could have been stronger had it not been for the votes of New Hampshire Senators John Sununu and Judd Gregg. The two voted against extending tax breaks for wind and solar, which would have been paid for by ending $13 billion in tax breaks to the oil and gas industries. Supporters of the stronger energy bill needed 60 votes to shut off debate, but got just 59. So either senator could have been a profile in courage, and the better bill would have passed. Sununu said he voted as he did to avoid a Bush veto and continued standstill on energy reform. According to the watchdog website opensecrets.org, Sununu has received $210,000 in campaign contributions from the oil and gas industry, and Gregg $84,000. Apparently neither man has much in common with constituents who want relief from Big Oil's chokehold. [Emphasis added]

Now, this kind of information is certainly not surprising, given the way campaigns are currently financed. What is interesting about this little blurb, however, is that the editorial writer did a little fact checking. The reference to "the watchdog website opensecrets.org" was a timely reminder that information on who is contributing to candidates and how much they're giving is a matter of public record. The website (located here) is produced by The Center For Responsive Politics and is one of the most easily navigable sites of its kind. You can check on how much each industry contributes during an election cycle and to which party, or you can zero in on a particular candidate and find out just where the dollars came from. If the candidate is not fully reporting that information, that too is noted.

The site is invaluable for giving a tidy snapshot of how business is done in Washington, DC.