Home / CampaignFinanceRegulation
Showing posts with label CampaignFinanceRegulation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CampaignFinanceRegulation. Show all posts
James Carville says that the Citizens United case has so far benefited Democrats more than Republicans

James Carville says that the Citizens United case has so far benefited Democrats more than Republicans

Well, possibly the Democrats will now calm down their rhetoric a little over the case. The point for allowing free speech isn't that it systematically benefits one side. It is that there is a benefit from allowing speech and competing ideas. From ABC's "This Week":
CARVILLE: The real surprising thing of the campaign is the Democratic super PACs have been more influential thus far, Priorities USA, American Bridge. They have driven the debate in this campaign much more than -- than the Republican super PACs. Now, whether that continues through September and October, I'm not willing to say, but as of July 15th, it's the Democratic super PACs that have basically driven this whole Bain tax return, whatever it is. And for better or for worse, that's what happened.

WILL: It's an old story about advertising. Advertising dollars are just as good as the product they have advertised. The entire Ford Motor Company's marketing genius was put behind the Edsel, didn't help. The Edsel wasn't a good product. . . .

Some worry that this means that this means that David Brock is driving American political debate.
Massive political expenditures by Public Teacher Unions

Massive political expenditures by Public Teacher Unions

My own guess is that education vouchers would not only vastly improve the quality of education (improving it the most for those who are stuck in the worst schools, namely where the poor, minorities live), but it would also reduce unionization of teachers and reduce the political pressure that helps hurt the quality of education for those at the bottom of the economic ladder. This discussion explains why you would be missing much of the public unions' political activity if you only looked at their donations to politicians. From the WSJ:
What do the American Ireland Fund, the Rev. Al Sharpton and the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network have in common?

All have received some of the more than $330 million that America's two largest teachers unions spent in the past five years on outside causes, political campaigns, lobbying and issue education.

The contributions—totaling more than $200 million from the National Education Association and more than $130 million from the American Federation of Teachers—were disclosed in annual reports that unions file with the Labor Department detailing their spending on political activities and advocacy work, as well as separate political-action-committee filings. . . .

Members' dues underwrite much of the unions' "political activities," but not donations to candidates, parties and PACs. Those are funded by voluntary contributions. The NEA, the largest teachers union, with about 3.2 million members, also has a super PAC, which can raise unlimited funds. That super PAC had more than $3 million in cash on hand the end of June. . . .

Obama claims that he was outspent by McCain in 2008 campaign?

Is this serious? How big of whoopers is Obama allowed to get away with? From remarks that Obama gave at Carnegie Mellon University on July 6, 2012.
And you know what, I might be worried about all this money being spent if it wasn’t for my memories of previous campaigns. That first campaign I ran, the last campaign I ran in 2008 -- I’ve been outspent before. I’ve had a lot of money thrown at me before. . . .
Of course, the difference was so small that it is easy for Obama to get confused by this. After all, he only outspent McCain by 4 to 1 after labor day. From Bloomberg:
Arizona Senator McCain, unlike Obama, accepted $84.1 million in public financing for the general election, a decision that barred him from raising money privately. Obama outspent him by a 4-1 margin between Sept. 1 and Nov. 24, FEC records show. . . .
As to the first campaign that Obama ran, he got the incumbent and all the other candidates thrown off the ballot by successfully challenging their petition signatures. He had no opposition in the Democratic primary and in his district there were so few Republicans that winning the primary was the same as winning the general election. If there was no one running against him in the primary, how exactly could have been outspent in the election? From the Chicago Tribune:
There they began the tedious process of challenging hundreds of signatures on the nominating petitions of state Sen. Alice Palmer, the longtime progressive activist from the city's South Side. And they kept challenging petitions until every one of Obama's four Democratic primary rivals was forced off the ballot. . . .
Finally, here is a slightly related example of Obama making up claims about campaign expenditures in another race. The only irony that I would raise is that if you can dismiss Walker's win because he supposedly outspent his opponent, what does that mean about Obama's 2008 win where he really did massively outspend McCain? UPDATE: Obama's campaign has spent $100 million on attack ads in swing states.
President Barack Obama's campaign has spent nearly $100 million on television commercials in selected battleground states so far, unleashing a sustained early barrage designed to create lasting, negative impressions of Republican Mitt Romney before he and his allies ramp up for the fall. In a reflection of campaign strategy, more than one-fifth of the president's ad spending has been in Ohio, a state that looms as a must-win for Romney more so than for Obama. Florida ranks second and Virginia third, according to organizations that track media spending and other sources. About three-quarters of the president's advertising has been critical of Romney as Obama struggles to turn the election into a choice between him and his rival, rather than a referendum on his own handling of the weak economy. Obama's television ad spending dwarfs the Romney campaign's so far by a margin of 4-1 or more. It is at rough parity with the Republican challenger and several outside GOP-led organizations combined. They appear positioned to outspend the president and his allies this fall, perhaps heavily. . . .
Is this donation to the Obama campaign legal?

Is this donation to the Obama campaign legal?

There are donation limits, and I think that it is pretty clear that a private citizen can't simply cover what are real campaign costs in an amount that exceeds what he is legally allowed to donate. From Fox News:
An anonymous donor has offered to pay up to $20,000 of the cost of extra security for President Obama's visit to a New Hampshire college town after the town asked the Obama campaign to foot the bill.
CBS Boston reports Jay Gooze, the Town Council Chair in Durham, announced Sunday a local resident has offered to cover the cost of the president's Monday campaign stop.
“We are grateful for this generous offer,” Gooze told CBS Boston.
Gooze says the resident stressed he or she believes the town did the right thing by asking the Obama campaign to pay up, and he or she felt donating the money is the right thing to do.
The town caused a controversy when they asked the Obama campaign to cover the $20,000 to $30,000 cost of extra police, fire and EMS services for his visit to the University of New Hampshire because the city couldn't afford it. The Obama for America campaign refused.
 Durham Town Manager Todd Selig tells CBS Boston residents had mixed reactions to the standoff. . . .
UPDATE: Compare it to Boston picking up Obama's security costs?  Will the city pick up the costs for Romney?  Will they do it for just one fund raiser or as many as Obama wants to make?  The Boston Herald has this discussion:
“It’s an atrocious waste of taxpayer money,” said David Tuerck, a government ethics watchdog with Suffolk University. “There is no taxpayer interest in any of this. It’s all about getting him re-elected, and the campaign should pay for everything.” . . .“(It’s) the president of the United States, and I respect the office he holds,” [Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino] told WBZ-radio. “I’m not gonna let petty politics play any part of what the presidential visit (means) to the city of Boston.” . . . 
This last quote from Mayor Menino makes it sound as if Boston will only pick up Obama's security costs.

Obama asks that people have friends give money to Obama campaign instead of presents to them

I guess that I didn't believe this when I heard it.  But here is the link and a screen shot. 


I assume that this ad is a spoof on the Obama campaign.



Additional only partially related note.
Also Obama is pushing for donors from living abroad.  Politico notes: "Obama is tapping American abroad more than any other presidential campaign."

Another reason why people's donations should be anonymous



From the Weekly Standard:

Businessman Frank Vandersloot, the CEO of Melaleuca, has been targeted by the Obama campaign after donating money to Mitt Romney's presidential campaign. . . . Mr. VanderSloot was one of the eight, smeared particularly as being 'litigious, combative and a bitter foe of the gay rights movement.'"
The attacks are working. Vandersloot revealed in an interview on Fox News that his business practice is being hurt by the attacks from the Obama team.
"Those people that I know well weren't affected by this [attack]," said Vandersloot. "But for people who didn't know me, who are members of our business or customers, and they were reading this, then we got a barrage of phone calls of people cancelling their customer memberships with us."
"Really?," the Fox News host asked. "How many did that?"
"A couple hundred that we can track," Vandersloot replied.
Again, the host asked, "Really? Do you have any grounds to sue?"
"I suppose we do," Vandersloot said. The businessman says he's been accused of being anti-gay, an accusation he says that couldn't be further from the truth. . . .
Is it serious that people who oppose Obama must be doing this because they are anti-gay?
Another reason why donations shouldn't be made public

Another reason why donations shouldn't be made public

From Fox News today:

Sen. Orrin Hatch is calling on the IRS to investigate whether someone on the inside could have leaked the private tax files of a prominent anti-gay marriage group.
Hatch, in a letter Tuesday to IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman, said, "evidence suggests that the IRS may have been the source of the unauthorized disclosure of donor information."
The Republican Utah senator was referring to the recent publication of documents listing 2008 contributors to the National Organization for Marriage. Among those contributors was Mitt Romney.
Both the gay advocacy group the Human Rights Campaign and the Huffington Post posted the documents -- the National Organization for Marriage has claimed it appears someone in the IRS fed the documents to the Human Rights Campaign.
That possibility "is a matter that I take with the utmost seriousness," Hatch wrote, calling the allegation "disturbing."
"Our political history shows the absolute necessity of maintaining the nonpartisan integrity of the IRS," Hatch wrote, calling for an investigation. . . . 
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)