The Boehner v. The Weiner

By GottaLaff

Re: The title. I couldn't help myself. Bygones.

Moving on...

I got a little curious about Maplight.org, and went over to explore. Look what I found!

John Boehner Republican (Elected 1991), OH House district 8

Total Campaign Contributions Received: $3,430,213

Top 10 Interests Funding

Interest	Contributions
Insurance	$224,720
Securities & Investment	$163,000
Electric Utilities	$156,950
Banks and Credit	$154,250
Health Professionals	$139,500
Pharmaceuticals/Health Products	$136,900
Real Estate	$127,550
Lawyers/Law Firms	$127,250
Hospitals/Nursing Homes	$99,025
Misc Manufacturing & Distributing	$95,000

Contributions from political parties and from other candidates are not included in top 10 lists.

Contributions shown for the last two years of available data, Jan 1, 2008 - Dec 31, 2009.

Anthony Weiner Democrat (Elected 1999), NY House district 9

Total Campaign Contributions Received: $569,799

Top 10 Interests Funding

Interest	Contributions
Real Estate	$128,900
Health Professionals	$44,300
Securities & Investment	$28,875
Lawyers/Law Firms	$25,100
Building Trade Unions	$20,200
Public Sector Unions	$18,450
Pro-Israel	$16,600
Transportation Unions	$15,500
Agricultural Services/Products	$15,200
Industrial Unions	$11,000

Contributions from political parties and from other candidates are not included in top 10 lists.

Contributions shown for the last two years of available data, Jan 1, 2008 - Dec 31, 2009.

Quite a contrast, isn't it?

Three stories here:

1. Who influences whom.

2. We need real campaign finance reform.

3. We need real SCOTUS reform.

For some excellent Weiner (bygones), watch these videos of him smack down a couple of health care weenies (bygones).

Obey Announces Partial Ban on Earmarks

By GottaLaff

Is this another one of those "compromises"?

In an effort to hold off a total moratorium on earmarks, House appropriators announced Wednesday morning that they would reject all earmark requests that benefit for-profit companies.

Obey claims it will mean “1,000 fewer earmarks.” Nancy Pelosi has floated the idea of a total ban on earmarks. The GOP went for a yearlong ban.

Obey said he would hope that the policy would break the appearance of a link between campaign contributions and earmarks.

Here's the money line:

But, he said, “You will never break totally the appearance of a possibility of a nexus as long as the Congress doesn’t pass campaign finance reform legislation.”

Yeah, good luck with that.

Without effective campaign finance reform, true democracy is about as realistic as a birthday wish.

Get filled in on the details here.

Top congressional Dems unveil legislation to counter SCOTUS campaign finance ruling

By GottaLaff

They can mitigate their hineys off, but corporations still have truckloads of cash, they're not people, and yet, they'll have a huge impact on elections.

Freedom of speech should not be confused with freedom to spend money:

Among other things, the bill introduced by Schumer and Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland would require:

– The names of the top five contributors to any organization created for political purposes that purchases advertising to be listed at the end of the ad;

– The top funder of any political advertisement to record a separate "stand-by-your-ad" disclaimer;

– Certain business and unions to establish "political activities" accounts - monitored by the Federal Election Commission - for the purpose of receiving and spending political funds;

– Any political expenditure made by a company to be disclosed within 24 hours on the company's Web site;

– Any political expenditure made by a company to be disclosed to shareholders on a regular basis;

– A ban on corporations and unions coordinating election ads with federal campaigns if those ads promote or oppose a specific candidate.

Foreign companies would be defined in the bill as those with a foreign ownership of 20 percent or more, or those in which a majority of the board of directors is composed of non-U.S. citizens.

In addition, a company would be defined as foreign if its U.S. operations, or its decision-making regarding political activities, is directed by a foreign entity, including a foreign government.

I am Exxon and I approve, and bought, this message and the majority of messages you'll now see.

John Ensign Accused of Violating Campaign Finance Laws

By GottaLaff

Via Taegan via ABC News via via via:

The bombshell: "Hampton told McFadden that the money Ensign's parents paid him in the aftermath of the affair was severance -- not a gift -- as Ensign had claimed, which could constitute a violation of campaign finance laws."

Gee, ya think?

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

FEC: No Law Violated by Obama’s Oprah Appearance

By GottaLaff

Roll Call is a subscription only site, so here is all I could grab:

President Barack Obama’s appearance on “The Oprah Winfrey Show” during last year’s Democratic presidential primary did not violate campaign finance laws, according to a Federal Election Commission decision made public on Monday.

Now back to the racist tea parties already in progress...

VIDEO-- Michael Steele: WaPo should be ashamed + government jobs aren't jobs

By GottaLaff



Remember when Paddy posted about Mikey Steele's questionable campaign spending? He went into denial mode on "This Week":

Michael Steele, the newly elected chairman of the Republican National Committee, defended himself from allegations of campaign finance improprieties on Sunday, saying the Washington Post should be "ashamed of itself" for running a story highlighting irregularities from his 2006 Senate campaign in Maryland.

The (now convicted) former finance chair of Steele's own Senate campaign made the allegations in question. Here's some more info:

In March 2006 or thereabouts Turner filed the necessary paperwork to have her company disbanded but supposedly her ghost company did work for the Steele Senate campaign in October of 2006 and July 2007. Sounds very Chicago, though it happened in Maryland. [...]

[W]hat obviously raises red flags here is the timing of her business dissolution paperwork and the supposed work she did for campaign which was followed by the payments.

The WaPo contains other allegations by Fabian against Steele but the other allegations about campaign funds beings shifted between a state campaign fund to a federal one frankly aren't as sexy as the payment to his sister's dead company.

This is obviously not the way any party chairman wants to start his term in office, especially a Republican chair at this point in history where all of his efforts need to be aimed at rebuilding the party following two unsuccessful national elections,

Maybe this will turn out to be nothing more than Fabian's unproven allegations. If that's the case it will soon be forgotten. That has to be the prayer of Steele and fellow Republican officials right now.

If there's one thing the Republicans like to quack about, it's their predilection for prayer.

One more noteworthy item:

But in his interview on This Week with George Stephanopoulos on Sunday, Michael Steele seemed to suggest, as he did back in January, that government jobs are not, in fact, really jobs.

Rather, Steele said, government jobs are "just work." (Is work not a job?) The newly-minted RNC Chairman added that when it comes to the private sector, job loss is never permanent.

"They come back though, George," said Steele. "That's the point. They've gone away before and they come back."

Stephanopolous did his best to sift through the logic, pointing out that millions of private sector jobs have been lost in just this past year.

There he is, folks: The RNC Chair. This is the man who represents the Republican party's collective-- and embarrassingly stunted-- mindset. Show him your appreciation by donating to the Democratic party.

H/t: Ellen for that last part

One in Four Campaigns Ended with Debt

There has got to be a better way. Via Taegan.

Analysis from the Center for Responsive Politics found that 665 out of 2,339 candidates for public office don't have enough cash on hand to pay off campaign debts -- for a total debt of about $144 million.

Caveat: $125 million of that total debt is money the candidates actually lent their own campaigns.

Poll Shows Obama's Focus on Small Donors Could Help Him

By Paddy


Nice that it's a two tiered help.

Barack Obama's strategy of abandoning public funds in favor of unlimited contributions from private donors might be a good financial decision for the presumptive Democratic nominee, but it also could be a good strategy for appealing to voters. Obama, who says his campaign is funded 90 percent by small donors, could be turning skeptical voters into supporters with his dependence on small-time contributors.

A new BYU/Harris Poll shows that Americans are more likely to respond positively to a candidate who raises funds from small donors (contributions of $200 or less) rather than large donors (contributions of $2,000 or more). According to the poll, relying on small donors gives the impression that the "corrupting influence" of corporations, lobbyists, and PACs is lessened, making voters view the candidate more positively.

Obama Asks NBC to Draw Up Olympics Ad Packages

Oh yeah. This is why he gave up public financing.

WASHINGTON (AdAge.com) -- Those tuning in to NBC Sports' Olympics coverage this year will see spots from General Motors, McDonald's, Budweiser, Nike and -- just maybe -- Sen. Barack Obama.

Though the Obama campaign is keeping mum about whether it will definitely run spots, it has asked NBC Universal about Olympics advertising including $500,000, $2 million and $4 million packages of ads. (NBC presented those along with a $10 million package.) It's not only a sign that the Obama camp has faith it can continue its stellar fundraising achievements but a signal that a widening field of battleground states has the candidate contemplating national broadcast buys. An Olympics buy could also allow Mr. Obama to reach out to a large swath of women.

John Sidney McPublicFinancing

By GottaLaff

But why? Because. Why because? Just because:

From NBC/NJ's Adam Aigner-Treworgy and NBC's Mark Murray
Aboard the Straight Talk Express from the airport to the hotel in Minneapolis, McCain said that his campaign has decided that it will accept public financing for the general election. “We will take public financing,” Asked what his thinking was, he said, “Because we decided to take public financing.”

That will enable McCain to spend $84 million after the GOP convention.

Obama could end up with three times that amount. And he can weather any criticism about rejecting public financing just fine, thank you.

McCain team: Obama's team is lying

By GottaLaff

Apparently, John Sidney McBroke's team is a little worried about their ability to raise money. And who can blame them? Now they're pointing fingers at the Obama campaign:

John McCain’s campaign is denying an account by staffers on Barack Obama’s team that the rival campaigns had been involved in discussions over whether or not they would accept public funds.

Obama counsel Bob Bauer said Thursday he had met with Trevor Potter, his counterpart on the McCain team, on June 6 to discuss a possible joint town hall appearance later in the month, and that the two discussed the public funding issue for 45 minutes.

Now that's not just a mere mention, some minor remark that one might gloss over while scouring their defective memory bank. That's a full-blown discussion. Kinda hard to miss.

“I asked him to address a [series] of issues of concern to the Obama campaign–the McCain campaign's active raising and spending of private money since February for a general election campaign, including for media, while we were still in the middle of a primary contest,” said Bauer in a statement. “He gave me his perspectives–the best arguments he could offer for an agreement on both sides to accept public financing–and it was clear to me that these offered no basis for any further exchange.”

What a liar! Pants on fire! His nose is longer than an NSA-tapped wire!

McCain spokeswoman Jill Hazelbaker flatly said Thursday that Bauer “never negotiated with Potter about public financing.”

Others in the McCain camp said that Obama’s staffers are “libeling” their attorney, and lying about the discussion – that the two counsels were meeting on a separate topic entirely, and that there were no negotiations on public finance.

Think, think, think: What could motivate them to make such harsh claims? Who has the most to lose here? Uh-huh.

Obama could raise $100 million in June, fundraisers say

By Paddy


Reason #1 not to take public financing.

Leading Democratic fundraisers predict that Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) will raise hundreds of millions of dollars over the next few months if he opts out of public financing and begins raising money for the general election.

Specifically, they say Obama could raise $100 million in June and could attract 2.5 million to 3 million new donors to his campaign.

These fundraisers say Obama could increase his fundraising dramatically because of three factors: a boost of enthusiasm among Obama donors following his clinching of the nomination; the migration of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s (D-N.Y.) donors to his camp; and the mobilization of big Democratic donors who have given little so far this year.