So let me get this straight – Joe Scarborough can contribute to Republicans (noted above), and that’s OK. However, Keith contributes to Democrats…and that’s a problem???!!!
I called (212) 664-4444 a few minutes ago and asked to speak to Phil Griffin, and I was directed to the voice mail box for “Countdown,” where I communicated what I thought of this stupid joke of a decision (if you go this route, be brief, and though the temptation to swear is huge at this moment, it’s self-defeating to do that, even though I did so above, I know).
And Griffin can be reached by Email from here.
Pathetic (and don’t get me started on how corporations can do whatever they want because of Citizens United, but apparently people can’t...and yes, I respect the fact that the station is allowed to have its own policy, but something is seriously wrong when Bill Kristol, of all people, sides with K.O. here; shocking to see him do absolutely the right thing on this).
(Oh, and silly me to forget about this guy also.)
And that is the news that Nancy Pelosi is running for House Minority Leader.
Good.
That’s the way to respond to all of the stupid right-wing caterwauling that we’ve endured since she took over in 2006 (which basically is sexism disguised as a difference in ideology – one of the “Clinton rules” is that, the more a Democrat is successful, the more that person will engender right wing animus).
So if you’re disposed to sign a petition in support of Pelosi, feel free to do so at Daily Kos from the link above (I’ll add my name momentarily).
After being eroded for years, the McCain-Feingold Act was gutted this year by the Supreme Court, helping to pave the way for millions of dollars to gush into campaigns from outside groups, most of whom do not have to reveal their donors — including at least $4 million in Wisconsin this year, virtually all of it against Mr. Feingold, 57, or for his opponent, Ron Johnson, 55, a wealthy Republican businessman.Two things: first, this confirms my belief that many, but by no means all, independent voters are utterly clueless.
Mr. Feingold rejected such money, as he had his entire career, but analysts said that probably had little to do with his loss.
“Independents deserted Democrats, period,” said Ken Goldstein, a political scientist at the University of Wisconsin at Madison. “This was not about Feingold’s record or the money or the advertising. It was about the anger of independents at the status quo.”
Still, others saw the flow of unregulated money as an added dimension to the narrative, in which Mr. Feingold was “hoist on his own petard,” said Mordecai Lee, who was first elected to the State Senate with Mr. Feingold in 1982 and is now a political scientist at the University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee.
“Because his good-government streak and his push for changes in the campaign finance system had no political constituency,” Mr. Lee said, “they led to the lawsuit that opened up the floodgates.”
Second, this tells us the following (from May 2001, soon after McCain-Feingold passed)…
"I think we have a better chance this time around because the corrupting influence of money has gotten worse and the success of McCain-Feingold has at least awakened the consciousness of people to the problem," (Wisconsin State Senator Mike) Ellis said.Gee, for an issue that supposedly “had no political constituency,” I would say that it resonated pretty well with voters across the country, back in 2001 anyway (and maybe a "fund-raising scandal" like a bogus Supreme Court decision also, with the response noted here).
At least two states - Connecticut and Alaska - have already gone where no state or the federal government has gone before. They have banned soft money contributions to the parties and have set tougher rules governing special interest fund-raising activities.
In March, a legislative committee in Connecticut also approved another bill authorizing taxpayer financing of statewide campaigns. A similar measure passed last year but was vetoed by Gov. John G. Rowland. He has threatened the same fate this year for the revived measure.
But like Ellis, the Connecticut bill's sponsors feel the reform winds blowing in their direction given the momentum of the McCain-Feingold measure and public opinion polls showing Americans believe special interest contributions are a corrupting influence.
A poll of New Yorkers conducted in April by the Marist Institute for Public Opinion found that 71 percent of those surveyed support taxpayer funding of campaigns if it's coupled with spending and fund-raising limitations. The poll followed the unveiling of a proposal by state Democratic lawmakers that would provide $2 in public funds for every $1 raised by statewide candidates.
A recent public opinion survey of Oklahomans by the Daily Oklahoman and the University of Oklahoma also confirmed what most national surveys show - that Americans in general believe special interest contributions buy access to politicians that average constituents don't have.
Another poll released this spring by the North Carolina Center for Voter Education offered up the same cynical view of the campaign finance system. Nearly 75 percent of the 600 North Carolina voters surveyed said politicians spend more time raising money than solving problems. And 91 percent of the those polled said campaign contributions do influence how politicians legislate either "a great deal" or at least "a moderate amount." The survey found as well that a majority of those questioned - 60 percent - favor some form of public campaign financing, although 49 percent of the respondents expressed concern that using tax dollars might result in funding cuts for vital programs.
"What our poll shows is that people are getting to the point where they feel that the government - government being the results of the campaign finance system - is just not representative," says Jesse Rutledge, the center's communications director.
Rutledge added, however, that it would probably take "something like a fund-raising scandal" to get people angry enough to insist on change even though 62 percent in the poll said the issue ought to be addressed before the 2002 election.
And in terms of keeping foreign money out of politics, I give you this from the present day to show how much voters oppose this (though, to be honest, the only way to clean this up once and for all is to have public-only financing of political campaigns, and unfortunately, I don’t see enough of a genuine political constituency for that).
No comments:
Post a Comment