...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* The public can gripe about money in politics all they want - but what does that money buy? Ads. Maybe I'm alone in this, but a TV ad has never convinced me to engage in reckless, stupid behavior, carry radium around in my pants pocket, or eat at Arby's - how are we as a nation allowing these ads to affect our elections? Do people not have DVRs?? Turn the dang ads off, and watch how fast they stop getting purchased.
* No! It also buys plenty of lobbyists who affect how these congressmen all vote. The average guy cannot compete with high paid corporate lobbyists. Most of us are too busy trying to support our families. We don't have either the time of money to go to Washington to lobby. That's why we need to get the money out of politics.
* This poll is interesting in two ways: a clear majority (84%) across party lines recognize that there is too much influence of money in political elections in the US, and yet, only 1% consider the reform of the campaign finance as their priority. Their priority is for jobs, better wages and affordable healthcare. Wake up America, your priorities will not be addressed until we the people change the way we elect our representatives, not the representatives of the special interest whose primary objective is not to address any issues concerning jobs, wages or healthcare cost. It is high time to wake up and have courage to fix the bankrupt system before the it bankrupts you and your loved ones.
* You righties will never admit that there is a HUGE difference between even the big donors on the Democratic side. The Kochs, Adelson and all the rightwing big donors make it very clear that for their money they expect favoritism in the workings of the government. The big donors on the left make no such demands. In other times, these people who are intent on buying the government would be in jail, and the politicians who take their money would be right there with them.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Money has too much of an influence in politics, Americans say
By Aliyah Frumin, June 2, 2015
The 2016 presidential election will be defined by big money more than any other in recent history. Candidates are trying to line up billionaire mega-donors, and independent political groups, which are allowed to accept unlimited donations, are ready to shell out big bucks. In addition, some candidates, like former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, are exploiting a loophole in campaign finance rules — delaying official entry into the race to raise vast sums for a super PAC that’s supposed to be entirely independent of his all-but-certain campaign.
But that doesn’t mean Americans approve.
The vast majority in the U.S. — 84% — believe money has too much influence in political campaigns, according to a New York Times/CBS News poll released Tuesday. The feeling cuts across party lines, with 80% of Republicans, 90% of Democrats and 84% of independents believing campaign cash plays too big a role.
And the general consensus is the current political campaign funding system needs a complete makeover. While only 13% said only minor changes were needed, 39% want to see fundamental changes and 46% want it to be completely rebuilt.
Super PACS, which sprang to life in the wake of the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision, can accept unlimited donations from wealthy individuals and from corporations. And under the current system, groups unaffiliated with a candidate can spend unlimited amounts of money on advertisements to promote that candidate. But according to the poll, 78% of Americans said such ad spending should be limited by the law while just 19% said it should remain the same.
Specifically, Americans want more transparency — 75% said groups not affiliated with a candidate that gives money during political campaigns should be required to publicly disclose their contributors while just 22% said such information should remain private.
Just who benefits the most under the current system? Sixty-six percent believe wealthy Americans have more opportunity to influence the elections, versus 31% who think all Americans have an equal chance. However, there was a bit of a partisan divide, with 55% of Republicans believing the wealthy have more influence as compared to 73% of Democrats, according to the poll.
Pre-Citizens United, candidates had to follow very strict campaign finance rules and accept very limited contributions from donors capable of giving much more. The system punished poor performers, forcing out candidates who compete. But now, a single billionaire can create a candidate-specific super PAC as Sheldon Adelson did for Newt Gingrich or Foster Freiss did for Rick Santorum in 2012 — keeping such candidacies alive longer than they would have under old rules. In this election cycle, Rubio has already bagged support of Florida billionaire Norman Braman while Ken Langone, the billionaire co-founder of Home Depot, has lined up behind New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie.
But just because the vast majority of Americans want to see changes in the campaign finance system doesn’t mean it will happen, at least in the short term. Rick Hasen, a campaign finance regulation expert and professor of law and political science at UC-Irvine School of Law, told msnbc, “You’re not going to get a change before the next election cycle. Any changes to the rules before an election become complicated by its effects on the upcoming election.”
Hasen also noted that there is a difference between Republican voters who want change — and GOP elites, like lawmakers, who don’t. “One of the greatest opponents is Sen. Mitch McConnell. Nothing is going to get out of the Senate that he doesn’t want,” Hasen said.
While Americans feel strongly about getting big money out of politics, it’s not an issue they prioritize. The poll found the economy and jobs are voters’ top concerns, followed by healthcare and immigration. Less than 1% said campaign fundraising is the most important issue the U.S. faces.
The poll surveyed a random sample of 1,022 adults across the country and has a margin of error of plus or minus three percentage points.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Tuesday, June 2, 2015
"Clinton's brand of cautious center-left politics and her genuine passion for trying to bring people together and make deals more or less reflects what the public wants from a politician."
...................................................................................................................................................................
It's time for the media to admit that Hillary Clinton is popular
By Matthew Yglesias, June 1, 2015
Quinnipiac is out with a new poll that confirms something the national media is loathe to admit, and that essentially never surfaces in their coverage of one of the most-covered people in the world today: Hillary Clinton is the most popular politician in America.
Hillary Clinton is the most popular politician in America
The former Secretary of State versus...
Clinton Republican
It would be genuinely silly to think that her early leads in general election polling tell us anything interesting about what will happen in November 2016. But they tell us a lot about how people feel in May 2015, and the way they feel is pretty good about Hillary Clinton.
According to Gallup, for example, she is the most admired woman in the world. What's more, she has been the most admired woman in the world for 17 out of the past 18 years.
Journalists don't like Hillary Clinton
But the press hates to admit this. For Clinton, good news is never just good news. Instead it's an opportunity to remind the public about the media's negative narratives about Clinton and then to muse on the fact that her ratings somehow manage to hold up despite these narratives.
Here's how the Wall Street Journal wrote up an earlier poll showing Clinton beating all opponents:
The public also hates journalists
Journalists are obviously free to dislike politicians who are uncooperative with the press, and to celebrate those who embrace a more freewheeling, media-friendly style. But reporters all too often confused the conventional wisdom of the journo-pack with the opinions of actual voters.
The reality is that Clinton's disdain for the press is largely shared by the public, which does not think journalists are credible or contribute to society's well-being.
At the same time, most of the "bad" narratives about both Clintons that exist in the media are essentially self-centered. From an impeachment grounded in Bill's effort to keep an extramarital affair out of the newspapers to a scandal about an email server designed to keep the contents of Hillary's messages out of the newspapers, the Clintons have continually run afoul of the press's fervent desire to know everything.
But few regular people evaluate public figures on the basis of their level of cooperation with media inquiries. Clinton's brand of cautious center-left politics and her genuine passion for trying to bring people together and make deals more or less reflects what the public wants from a politician.
...................................................................................................................................................................
It's time for the media to admit that Hillary Clinton is popular
By Matthew Yglesias, June 1, 2015
Quinnipiac is out with a new poll that confirms something the national media is loathe to admit, and that essentially never surfaces in their coverage of one of the most-covered people in the world today: Hillary Clinton is the most popular politician in America.
Hillary Clinton is the most popular politician in America
The former Secretary of State versus...
Clinton Republican
It would be genuinely silly to think that her early leads in general election polling tell us anything interesting about what will happen in November 2016. But they tell us a lot about how people feel in May 2015, and the way they feel is pretty good about Hillary Clinton.
According to Gallup, for example, she is the most admired woman in the world. What's more, she has been the most admired woman in the world for 17 out of the past 18 years.
Journalists don't like Hillary Clinton
But the press hates to admit this. For Clinton, good news is never just good news. Instead it's an opportunity to remind the public about the media's negative narratives about Clinton and then to muse on the fact that her ratings somehow manage to hold up despite these narratives.
Here's how the Wall Street Journal wrote up an earlier poll showing Clinton beating all opponents:
Hillary Clinton's stature has been battered after more than a month of controversy over her fundraising and email practices, but support for her among Democrats remains strong and unshaken, a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll finds.And here's how the New York Times wrote up yet another poll showing Clinton beating all opponents:
Hillary Rodham Clinton appears to have initially weathered a barrage of news about her use of a private email account when she was secretary of state and the practices of her family's foundation, an indication that she is starting her second presidential bid with an unusual durability among Democratic voters.This framing is not surprising, since, among journalists, Clinton is one of the least popular politicians. She is not forthcoming or entertaining with the press. She doesn't offer good quotes. She doesn't like journalists, respect what we do, or care to hide her disdain for the media. She feels that the right-wing press has tried to destroy her for decades, that the mainstream press got played like a cheap fiddle by the conservative press, and that even the liberal press was overwhelmingly hostile to her during her 2008 campaign.
The public also hates journalists
Journalists are obviously free to dislike politicians who are uncooperative with the press, and to celebrate those who embrace a more freewheeling, media-friendly style. But reporters all too often confused the conventional wisdom of the journo-pack with the opinions of actual voters.
The reality is that Clinton's disdain for the press is largely shared by the public, which does not think journalists are credible or contribute to society's well-being.
At the same time, most of the "bad" narratives about both Clintons that exist in the media are essentially self-centered. From an impeachment grounded in Bill's effort to keep an extramarital affair out of the newspapers to a scandal about an email server designed to keep the contents of Hillary's messages out of the newspapers, the Clintons have continually run afoul of the press's fervent desire to know everything.
But few regular people evaluate public figures on the basis of their level of cooperation with media inquiries. Clinton's brand of cautious center-left politics and her genuine passion for trying to bring people together and make deals more or less reflects what the public wants from a politician.
...................................................................................................................................................................
"... religious justifications do not exempt anti-gay ideas from being bigoted any more than when they were offered to justify racism or the subjugation of women." No matter what you say, Rubio, you ARE a bigot!
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* You are a homophobe and a hater, Rubio. No written words anywhere give you the right to supersede morality, what is right, and what is just. And exactly who are you defining as 'mainstream Christians'? The majority of the country believes in the right to marry who you choose to, and that includes Christians. Awful man.
* Religion already has First Amendment protections, and I don't see why bigotry should be given additional protections.
* Hey Rubio - your Catholic Church already preaches hate every day and you morons just brush it off. You are the most un impressive Senator in about 100 years. You'll be a one term Senator and then crawl back under that rock you came from. Good riddance.
* Never underestimate the absolute STUPID that exists in Florida voters. Before the 2014 elections, I thought were would be no way in hell that voters would re-elect that criminal, right-wing GOP thug Rick Scott as governor. Like I said---the STUPID is strong down there. Maybe it's the sun.
* If I replaced gays with Cubans would it be considered bigotry and hate? Yes it would.
* ... If Gay marriage is going to end a religion, based on love and forgiveness of sins, then Senator Rubio must not have much faith in Jesus Christ. He has more faith in Benjamin Franklin and Smith and Wesson.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Rubio: If We Don’t Stop Gay Rights, Soon The Teachings Of The Catholic Church Will Be ‘Hate Speech’
By Zack Ford, May 26, 2015
In a new interview with David Brody of the Christian Broadcasting Network featured on Tuesday’s episode of The 700 Club, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) warned that the momentum of marriage equality and other LGBT equality advances pose a threat to religious freedom. Specifically, he worried about the impact of categorizing opposition to LGBT equality as “hate speech.”
“We are at the water’s edge of the argument that mainstream Christian teaching is hate speech,” he explained, “because today we’ve reached the point in our society where if you do not support same-sex marriage, you are labeled a homophobe and a hater. So what’s the next step after that, after they’re done going after individuals? The next step is to argue that the teachings of mainstream Christianity, the catechism of the Catholic Church, is hate speech. That’s a real and present danger.”
Watch it (via Right Wing Watch):
Rubio has previously tried to counteract the notion that there’s something offensive about opposing marriage equality:
In other words, Rubio has incessantly demanded that he be able to have enjoy his anti-gay cake without consequence. He wants to oppose the expansion of any kind of protections against discrimination for the LGBT community, but not be held accountable for the implications of those positions.
What Rubio is actually asking for is that an exception be made for a certain kind of bigotry. If same-sex families are deprived of equal support and recognition under the law, he doesn’t want that to be considered bigotry. If same-sex couples are accused of being inferior parents, he doesn’t want that to be considered bigotry. If a business owner is motivated by his religious beliefs to fire an employee for marrying a same-sex partner, he doesn’t want that to be considered bigotry. But all of those forms of discrimination are, by definition, bigotry.
It may well be true that some Christians oppose marriage equality for same-sex couples for religious reasons. But religious justifications do not exempt anti-gay ideas from being bigoted any more than when they were offered to justify racism or the subjugation of women. Rubio should not be concerned that his religious beliefs might soon be considered bigotry, but that they already are.
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* You are a homophobe and a hater, Rubio. No written words anywhere give you the right to supersede morality, what is right, and what is just. And exactly who are you defining as 'mainstream Christians'? The majority of the country believes in the right to marry who you choose to, and that includes Christians. Awful man.
* Religion already has First Amendment protections, and I don't see why bigotry should be given additional protections.
* Hey Rubio - your Catholic Church already preaches hate every day and you morons just brush it off. You are the most un impressive Senator in about 100 years. You'll be a one term Senator and then crawl back under that rock you came from. Good riddance.
* Never underestimate the absolute STUPID that exists in Florida voters. Before the 2014 elections, I thought were would be no way in hell that voters would re-elect that criminal, right-wing GOP thug Rick Scott as governor. Like I said---the STUPID is strong down there. Maybe it's the sun.
* If I replaced gays with Cubans would it be considered bigotry and hate? Yes it would.
* ... If Gay marriage is going to end a religion, based on love and forgiveness of sins, then Senator Rubio must not have much faith in Jesus Christ. He has more faith in Benjamin Franklin and Smith and Wesson.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Rubio: If We Don’t Stop Gay Rights, Soon The Teachings Of The Catholic Church Will Be ‘Hate Speech’
By Zack Ford, May 26, 2015
In a new interview with David Brody of the Christian Broadcasting Network featured on Tuesday’s episode of The 700 Club, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) warned that the momentum of marriage equality and other LGBT equality advances pose a threat to religious freedom. Specifically, he worried about the impact of categorizing opposition to LGBT equality as “hate speech.”
“We are at the water’s edge of the argument that mainstream Christian teaching is hate speech,” he explained, “because today we’ve reached the point in our society where if you do not support same-sex marriage, you are labeled a homophobe and a hater. So what’s the next step after that, after they’re done going after individuals? The next step is to argue that the teachings of mainstream Christianity, the catechism of the Catholic Church, is hate speech. That’s a real and present danger.”
Watch it (via Right Wing Watch):
Rubio has previously tried to counteract the notion that there’s something offensive about opposing marriage equality:
- He once similarly cited “intolerance” against opponents of marriage equality — labeling them as “a hater, a bigot, or someone who is anti-gay” — asserting, “This intolerance in the name of tolerance is hypocrisy.”
- He insists that people who disagree with him still have to respect him, insisting, “Just because I believe states should have the right to define marriage in a traditional way does not make me a bigot.”
- Even though Rubio believes that homosexuality is a sin, he claims that he does not "pass judgment on people."
- In the same breath that he said that society should not “tolerate” allowing same-sex couples to marry, he claimed that it’s “not a discriminatory thing.”
- He has cosponsored legislation that would allow government employees and business owners to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages for religious reasons with no penalty for the discrimination.
- Rubio specifically told ThinkProgress that he does not favor “special protections” to ensure people are not fired just for their sexual orientation.
In other words, Rubio has incessantly demanded that he be able to have enjoy his anti-gay cake without consequence. He wants to oppose the expansion of any kind of protections against discrimination for the LGBT community, but not be held accountable for the implications of those positions.
What Rubio is actually asking for is that an exception be made for a certain kind of bigotry. If same-sex families are deprived of equal support and recognition under the law, he doesn’t want that to be considered bigotry. If same-sex couples are accused of being inferior parents, he doesn’t want that to be considered bigotry. If a business owner is motivated by his religious beliefs to fire an employee for marrying a same-sex partner, he doesn’t want that to be considered bigotry. But all of those forms of discrimination are, by definition, bigotry.
It may well be true that some Christians oppose marriage equality for same-sex couples for religious reasons. But religious justifications do not exempt anti-gay ideas from being bigoted any more than when they were offered to justify racism or the subjugation of women. Rubio should not be concerned that his religious beliefs might soon be considered bigotry, but that they already are.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Monday, June 1, 2015
"... Cruz finds himself 'in a bind on climate change.'" Simple answer to that, Ted-- just drop out of the race for President.
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* Me thinks that Sen. Cruz is a snake speaking with a forked tongue. When he was shutting down the Federal Government he was creating a National Disaster. Of course he is making these demanding statements AFTER the President has authorized the National Disaster response for Texas. Somehow he thinks that is not Political. What a Dork!!!
* What an evil POS this guy is. Does nothing for anyone but himself and now tap dances to avoid answering the hard questions. Sickening.
* Do you really think anyone that reads Green Eggs and Ham on the floor of Congress and doesn't get the irony of it is going to answer any hard questions?
* “In a time of tragedy, I think it’s wrong to try to politicize a natural disaster", says Ted Cruz, yet even the failed Obamacare website launch was declared "Obama's Katrina" by elected Republicans. Let's not even mention how they yelled "Benghazi" like they were hailing a taxi. In short, Cruz is a skilled, opportunistic, and a tone-deaf liar.
* If you thought it was wrong to politicize a tragedy where were these beliefs when BENGHAZI was being over investigated?!?!?!?!?!?! Funny how Republican beliefs are so Malleable!!!
* Cruz may think that denying aid to other states and aggressively demanding everything for Texas is helping his career, but his actions have only made people aware of the "politicization" of his ethics.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Cruz balks at questions on flooding, climate
By Steve Benen, June 1, 2015
Storms in Texas last week caused deadly flooding, and conditions in some areas grew even worse over the weekend. NBC News has confirmed that at least 24 people have died in Texas in the floods, and the death toll climbs when victims in Oklahoma and Mexico are added to the tally.
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), like many officials in the Lone Star State, has worked on securing federal disaster relief for the affected areas. What the far-right senator has not been willing to do, however, is answer questions about the environmental conditions that may be contributing to the floods themselves.
CNN reported the other day that Cruz finds himself “in a bind on climate change.”
For another, Cruz’s rhetoric makes it sound as if he’d welcome a discussion about the climate crisis and its devastating, real-world effects – just not now. There’s “plenty of time” for this conversation, he said.
But the point is, Cruz has it backwards. As the crisis intensifies, and the disasters become more frequent and severe, there isn’t “plenty of time” for conversations that climate deniers always want to push away.
Over at ThinkProgress, Emily Atkin argued yesterday that “let’s not politicize this” carries with it a distinct “I’m not a scientist” vibe.
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* Me thinks that Sen. Cruz is a snake speaking with a forked tongue. When he was shutting down the Federal Government he was creating a National Disaster. Of course he is making these demanding statements AFTER the President has authorized the National Disaster response for Texas. Somehow he thinks that is not Political. What a Dork!!!
* What an evil POS this guy is. Does nothing for anyone but himself and now tap dances to avoid answering the hard questions. Sickening.
* Do you really think anyone that reads Green Eggs and Ham on the floor of Congress and doesn't get the irony of it is going to answer any hard questions?
* “In a time of tragedy, I think it’s wrong to try to politicize a natural disaster", says Ted Cruz, yet even the failed Obamacare website launch was declared "Obama's Katrina" by elected Republicans. Let's not even mention how they yelled "Benghazi" like they were hailing a taxi. In short, Cruz is a skilled, opportunistic, and a tone-deaf liar.
* If you thought it was wrong to politicize a tragedy where were these beliefs when BENGHAZI was being over investigated?!?!?!?!?!?! Funny how Republican beliefs are so Malleable!!!
* Cruz may think that denying aid to other states and aggressively demanding everything for Texas is helping his career, but his actions have only made people aware of the "politicization" of his ethics.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Cruz balks at questions on flooding, climate
By Steve Benen, June 1, 2015
Storms in Texas last week caused deadly flooding, and conditions in some areas grew even worse over the weekend. NBC News has confirmed that at least 24 people have died in Texas in the floods, and the death toll climbs when victims in Oklahoma and Mexico are added to the tally.
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), like many officials in the Lone Star State, has worked on securing federal disaster relief for the affected areas. What the far-right senator has not been willing to do, however, is answer questions about the environmental conditions that may be contributing to the floods themselves.
CNN reported the other day that Cruz finds himself “in a bind on climate change.”
The Republican presidential contender has held two press conferences over the past two days to address the flooding and the government’s response. At each one, he was asked about the impact of climate change on natural disasters like the Texas flooding, and at each one, he dodged the question.It’s a curious response. For one thing, it’s not entirely clear how Cruz defines “politicize” – to talk about environmental conditions contributing to an environmental disaster is “political”? Are we to believe references to science are inappropriate when Ted Cruz doesn’t like the data?
“In a time of tragedy, I think it’s wrong to try to politicize a natural disaster – and so there’s plenty of time to talk about other issues,” he said in response to a question on his views on climate change during a press conference on Wednesday afternoon.
For another, Cruz’s rhetoric makes it sound as if he’d welcome a discussion about the climate crisis and its devastating, real-world effects – just not now. There’s “plenty of time” for this conversation, he said.
But the point is, Cruz has it backwards. As the crisis intensifies, and the disasters become more frequent and severe, there isn’t “plenty of time” for conversations that climate deniers always want to push away.
Over at ThinkProgress, Emily Atkin argued yesterday that “let’s not politicize this” carries with it a distinct “I’m not a scientist” vibe.
[It’s] a way to avoid talking about the science that says human-made carbon emissions are warming the earth and screwing with natural weather patterns. Cruz, for his part, says he does not accept that science.Katharine Hayhoe, an atmospheric scientist at Texas Tech University, for example, said, “The science isn’t political. It’s the solutions that are political.”
In the meantime, climate scientists across the country have been speaking out about the climate implications of the Texas floods. And on Friday, ThinkProgress asked several of those scientists to weigh in on Cruz’s comments.
The overwhelming response: Talking about climate change after a weather tragedy is not political. In fact, it’s necessary.
...................................................................................................................................................................
"... most groups backed by billionaires had less success swaying election outcomes than groups controlled by trade organizations or professional political strategists."
...................................................................................................................................................................
Why U.S. billionaires may not be able to buy the 2016 election
By Emily Flitter, June 1, 2015
Florida Senator Marco Rubio has one; Texas Senator Ted Cruz has one; even former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, considered a longshot for the Republican presidential nomination in 2016, has a billionaire in his corner. Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker has two.
Campaign finance watchdog groups fear heavy spending by these ultra-rich Americans will warp the election - already expected to be the most money-soaked in history. The idea that billionaires can buy elections has taken root in the public imagination.
Those billionaires are now seeing small, early signs of a pushback. Whether these are the beginning of a new trend is far too soon to say, but polls show there is wider discontent about the perceived influence of big money in U.S. politics and a growing gulf between the country's very rich and very poor.
These nascent rumblings - along with evidence that the super-rich are inefficient political spenders - raise questions about how effective billionaires will be in the 2016 elections.
Some voters in Philadelphia, for example, were turned off by the billionaires backing a top candidate in the city's May 19 mayoral race. And a Silicon Valley startup, Crowdpac, is hoping to bank on public ire against big political spenders to attract small donations to its new for-profit election campaign crowdfunding platform.
"There's growing public awareness about rich people trying to buy elections and that makes the task of winning all the more difficult," said Darrell West, the author of "Billionaires: Reflections on the Upper Crust," and the director of governance studies at the Brookings Institution think tank.
Potential big donors dispute the notion they are trying to buy elections and say they are simply using their positions to try to influence the future of the country in a positive way.
"I do believe – and I’ve told my kids this - that I can do more for them by giving money to the right presidential candidate in 2016 than by leaving them double that amount in my will," said David Walsh, a retired investor living in Jackson, Wyoming, who would not disclose his net worth but has given several multi-million dollar gifts to charitable causes and said he planned to donate heavily to candidates in 2016.
Miami car dealership mogul Norman Braman has been outspoken about backing his longtime protege Rubio; financial investor Foster Friess was in the audience cheering Santorum on when he announced his presidential bid two weeks ago; and Bob Mercer, the founder of a New York hedge fund, has been identified as supporting Cruz. The billionaire industrialists Charles and David Koch have publicly vowed to spend nearly $900 million influencing races in 2016.
PHILADELPHIA STORY
Amid the populist outcry against CEO pay and income inequality there may be some risks in candidates being so publicly linked to the extremely rich.
In Philadelphia, Anthony Hardy Williams was considered the favorite for the city's next mayor. He won support from three billionaires, Joel Greenberg, Jeff Yass and Arthur Dantchik, founders of the Susquehanna International Group, a global financial firm headquartered in a Philadelphia suburb. The three backed Williams, encouraging voters to support his views on a hot-button education policy issue.
They spent nearly $7 million on television ads promoting Williams. In response, unions and other community groups, who opposed Williams's education platform, coalesced around another candidate, Jim Kenney. One of the groups, Action United, organized a march in front of SIG's offices with placards that said, "Stop billionaires from buying our next mayor!"
"I would have looked seriously at Williams if not for the money," said JoAnn Seaver, 85, a retired teacher who voted for Kenney. She was one of several Philadelphia voters Reuters interviewed on election day who said Williams' billionaire backers were a turnoff. "You don't think that money should govern people who are elected, but what do you do, just let the billionaires take over?"
A spokesman for Williams declined to comment. Through a spokesman, the three billionaires declined to comment.
FIGHTING BACK
Crowdpac, an online political fundraising platform that works like Kickstarter - an online tool that lets entrepreneurs gather funding for new projects through small donations - sees fighting billionaires as part of its business model. Mason Harrison, the site's political director, says Crowdpac wants to get more middle-class people involved in politics by hosting smaller donation drives for candidates.
"We have a lack of money from small donors in American politics, and if we have more people involved in the political process we can make great strides in terms of diluting the influence from special interests," he said.
A veteran of Republican Mitt Romney's 2012 presidential campaign, Harrison is not the typical liberal voice decrying money in politics. But Crowdpac's Twitter tagline sounds very similar to the calls from non-profit watchdog groups to level the political playing field. It reads: "Together we can beat the big donors."
BIG MONEY, NOT SMART MONEY
Inefficiency could also dampen the effects of billionaires' political spending. (Graphic: reut.rs/1Rw4GHF)
"When you have political amateurs or novices with a strong issue or ideological position in which they have intense belief and are willing to put their money behind it, the money itself is no guarantee of victory," said Michael Traugott, a political science professor at the University of Michigan who studies the influence of money on political races.
Studies of the 2012 and 2014 elections by the Sunlight Foundation, a Washington-based non-profit that tracks political spending, show most groups backed by billionaires had less success swaying election outcomes than groups controlled by trade organizations or professional political strategists. The Sunlight study does not offer any explanation for this difference.
Former hedge fund founder Tom Steyer, who backed Democrats through his Nextgen Climate Action Committee, spent $79 million in the 2014 congressional elections, $17.9 million of which was directed toward influencing specific races. Sunlight found Steyer had a 32 percent success rate on the $17.9 million spent.
For some, failure was total. Evidence from news reports shows that casino magnate Sheldon Adelson spent more than $100 million in 2012 in donations to trade groups, political action committees and candidates, only to watch virtually all his chosen candidates – including presidential hopefuls Newt Gingrich and Romney – lose.
Other groups have seen more success. The Kochs' Americans for Prosperity saw a 95 percent success rate in 2014.
But its string of victories isn't flawless. It ran negative TV ads against Ethan Berkowitz, a candidate in this year's mayoral race in Anchorage, Alaska. Local strategists said the ads only increased Berkowitz's name recognition.
Jeremy Price, the state director for Americans for Prosperity in Alaska, said the ads were meant to show Berkowitz's record on spending, highlighting an issue rather than a candidate.
Berkowitz won the race.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Why U.S. billionaires may not be able to buy the 2016 election
By Emily Flitter, June 1, 2015
Florida Senator Marco Rubio has one; Texas Senator Ted Cruz has one; even former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, considered a longshot for the Republican presidential nomination in 2016, has a billionaire in his corner. Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker has two.
Campaign finance watchdog groups fear heavy spending by these ultra-rich Americans will warp the election - already expected to be the most money-soaked in history. The idea that billionaires can buy elections has taken root in the public imagination.
Those billionaires are now seeing small, early signs of a pushback. Whether these are the beginning of a new trend is far too soon to say, but polls show there is wider discontent about the perceived influence of big money in U.S. politics and a growing gulf between the country's very rich and very poor.
These nascent rumblings - along with evidence that the super-rich are inefficient political spenders - raise questions about how effective billionaires will be in the 2016 elections.
Some voters in Philadelphia, for example, were turned off by the billionaires backing a top candidate in the city's May 19 mayoral race. And a Silicon Valley startup, Crowdpac, is hoping to bank on public ire against big political spenders to attract small donations to its new for-profit election campaign crowdfunding platform.
"There's growing public awareness about rich people trying to buy elections and that makes the task of winning all the more difficult," said Darrell West, the author of "Billionaires: Reflections on the Upper Crust," and the director of governance studies at the Brookings Institution think tank.
Potential big donors dispute the notion they are trying to buy elections and say they are simply using their positions to try to influence the future of the country in a positive way.
"I do believe – and I’ve told my kids this - that I can do more for them by giving money to the right presidential candidate in 2016 than by leaving them double that amount in my will," said David Walsh, a retired investor living in Jackson, Wyoming, who would not disclose his net worth but has given several multi-million dollar gifts to charitable causes and said he planned to donate heavily to candidates in 2016.
Miami car dealership mogul Norman Braman has been outspoken about backing his longtime protege Rubio; financial investor Foster Friess was in the audience cheering Santorum on when he announced his presidential bid two weeks ago; and Bob Mercer, the founder of a New York hedge fund, has been identified as supporting Cruz. The billionaire industrialists Charles and David Koch have publicly vowed to spend nearly $900 million influencing races in 2016.
PHILADELPHIA STORY
Amid the populist outcry against CEO pay and income inequality there may be some risks in candidates being so publicly linked to the extremely rich.
In Philadelphia, Anthony Hardy Williams was considered the favorite for the city's next mayor. He won support from three billionaires, Joel Greenberg, Jeff Yass and Arthur Dantchik, founders of the Susquehanna International Group, a global financial firm headquartered in a Philadelphia suburb. The three backed Williams, encouraging voters to support his views on a hot-button education policy issue.
They spent nearly $7 million on television ads promoting Williams. In response, unions and other community groups, who opposed Williams's education platform, coalesced around another candidate, Jim Kenney. One of the groups, Action United, organized a march in front of SIG's offices with placards that said, "Stop billionaires from buying our next mayor!"
"I would have looked seriously at Williams if not for the money," said JoAnn Seaver, 85, a retired teacher who voted for Kenney. She was one of several Philadelphia voters Reuters interviewed on election day who said Williams' billionaire backers were a turnoff. "You don't think that money should govern people who are elected, but what do you do, just let the billionaires take over?"
A spokesman for Williams declined to comment. Through a spokesman, the three billionaires declined to comment.
FIGHTING BACK
Crowdpac, an online political fundraising platform that works like Kickstarter - an online tool that lets entrepreneurs gather funding for new projects through small donations - sees fighting billionaires as part of its business model. Mason Harrison, the site's political director, says Crowdpac wants to get more middle-class people involved in politics by hosting smaller donation drives for candidates.
"We have a lack of money from small donors in American politics, and if we have more people involved in the political process we can make great strides in terms of diluting the influence from special interests," he said.
A veteran of Republican Mitt Romney's 2012 presidential campaign, Harrison is not the typical liberal voice decrying money in politics. But Crowdpac's Twitter tagline sounds very similar to the calls from non-profit watchdog groups to level the political playing field. It reads: "Together we can beat the big donors."
BIG MONEY, NOT SMART MONEY
Inefficiency could also dampen the effects of billionaires' political spending. (Graphic: reut.rs/1Rw4GHF)
"When you have political amateurs or novices with a strong issue or ideological position in which they have intense belief and are willing to put their money behind it, the money itself is no guarantee of victory," said Michael Traugott, a political science professor at the University of Michigan who studies the influence of money on political races.
Studies of the 2012 and 2014 elections by the Sunlight Foundation, a Washington-based non-profit that tracks political spending, show most groups backed by billionaires had less success swaying election outcomes than groups controlled by trade organizations or professional political strategists. The Sunlight study does not offer any explanation for this difference.
Former hedge fund founder Tom Steyer, who backed Democrats through his Nextgen Climate Action Committee, spent $79 million in the 2014 congressional elections, $17.9 million of which was directed toward influencing specific races. Sunlight found Steyer had a 32 percent success rate on the $17.9 million spent.
For some, failure was total. Evidence from news reports shows that casino magnate Sheldon Adelson spent more than $100 million in 2012 in donations to trade groups, political action committees and candidates, only to watch virtually all his chosen candidates – including presidential hopefuls Newt Gingrich and Romney – lose.
Other groups have seen more success. The Kochs' Americans for Prosperity saw a 95 percent success rate in 2014.
But its string of victories isn't flawless. It ran negative TV ads against Ethan Berkowitz, a candidate in this year's mayoral race in Anchorage, Alaska. Local strategists said the ads only increased Berkowitz's name recognition.
Jeremy Price, the state director for Americans for Prosperity in Alaska, said the ads were meant to show Berkowitz's record on spending, highlighting an issue rather than a candidate.
Berkowitz won the race.
...................................................................................................................................................................
"Those people over there are the cause of all your troubles." Sorry, GOP, but we're on to your "con job".
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS: Nothing benefits a nation as much as good government! I remind us that good government is a product of the wide spread of trusted information, which was lost when we once again allowed titans of industry to also own large media.
...................................................................................................................................................................
‘Us vs. Them’ attitude losing appeal
By Leonard Pitts Jr., May 26, 2015
For all the decades of its existence, American social conservatism has been rooted in a premise simple enough to be fully expressed in just three words:
Us versus them.
As in, an implicit promise to defend the former against the latter. This was its mission when it pushed for immigration quotas in the 1920s, when it animated the Red Scare of the 1950s, when it defined civil rights as a clear and present danger in the 1960s, when hardhats rioted against hippies in 1970. It is its organizing principle even today, as red states pass legislation to protect themselves from Sharia law and some of us define religious persecution as baking a cake for a same-sex couple.
Us versus them.
Always, social conservatism defined “them” as something faceless and frightening against which the rest of “us” must struggle with everything we had, or else be overrun. It is an ideology that has contributed virtually nothing of value to the life of the nation — unless you count mindless panic as a good thing.
So one is gladdened by signs of its decline.
There have been many such signs in recent years, but one of the most compelling is found in a new Gallup survey. According to the venerable polling company, just 31 percent of all Americans now identify themselves as social conservatives. That’s the lowest number in the 16 years Gallup has been tracking that question. It also marks the first time social liberalism has pulled even: 31 percent of Americans now identify with that ideology. For social conservatives, the decline has been precipitous: As recently as 2009, their share of the electorate was 42 percent.
And here, let us reiterate what we are not talking about. We are not talking about fiscal conservatism, which seeks to rein in government spending. We are not talking about foreign-policy conservatism, which demands that America deal with its opponents from a position of toughness and strength. Nor are we talking about small-government conservatism, which considers Washington a maze of needless regulation and oversight.
Each of those ideologies has its virtues and failings, but they are not our topic today. Today, we are talking about the conservatism of us versus them.
One suspects it has been, in some sense, a victim of its own success. Social conservatism’s attraction has always lain in its appeal to simplicity. It says: Forget nuance, complexity and all the historical, political and socio-economic realities that make the world what it is. Forget compassion and the burden of shared humanity. Those people over there are the cause of all your troubles. That tribe is the one you should fear.
Such thinking has always enjoyed a measure of acceptability. It probably always will; for some of us, it is intellectual comfort food. But in recent years, that ideology has risen to a high water of visibility and political potency it has not enjoyed since the 1950s. The unintended byproduct is that we have been able to see very clearly what that rhetoric looks like in practice.
Turns out it looks like the outlawing of ethnic-studies classes. And restrictions on contraceptives. And demonized Muslims. And scapegoated gay people. And the erosion of civil rights. And guns everywhere. Turns out it looks like an Arizona state lawmaker who wants to make church mandatory.
Gallup’s numbers suggest more Americans are seeing through this con job, this appeal to their basest selves. They suggest the GOP, held in willing thrall to this dead-end thinking for years, may now have a chance to break free. Indeed, if the numbers continue in this direction, it may have no other choice.
Or so we should fervently hope. We know, after all, through bitter experience what happens when you pit us against them.
Nobody wins.
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS: Nothing benefits a nation as much as good government! I remind us that good government is a product of the wide spread of trusted information, which was lost when we once again allowed titans of industry to also own large media.
...................................................................................................................................................................
‘Us vs. Them’ attitude losing appeal
By Leonard Pitts Jr., May 26, 2015
For all the decades of its existence, American social conservatism has been rooted in a premise simple enough to be fully expressed in just three words:
Us versus them.
As in, an implicit promise to defend the former against the latter. This was its mission when it pushed for immigration quotas in the 1920s, when it animated the Red Scare of the 1950s, when it defined civil rights as a clear and present danger in the 1960s, when hardhats rioted against hippies in 1970. It is its organizing principle even today, as red states pass legislation to protect themselves from Sharia law and some of us define religious persecution as baking a cake for a same-sex couple.
Us versus them.
Always, social conservatism defined “them” as something faceless and frightening against which the rest of “us” must struggle with everything we had, or else be overrun. It is an ideology that has contributed virtually nothing of value to the life of the nation — unless you count mindless panic as a good thing.
So one is gladdened by signs of its decline.
There have been many such signs in recent years, but one of the most compelling is found in a new Gallup survey. According to the venerable polling company, just 31 percent of all Americans now identify themselves as social conservatives. That’s the lowest number in the 16 years Gallup has been tracking that question. It also marks the first time social liberalism has pulled even: 31 percent of Americans now identify with that ideology. For social conservatives, the decline has been precipitous: As recently as 2009, their share of the electorate was 42 percent.
And here, let us reiterate what we are not talking about. We are not talking about fiscal conservatism, which seeks to rein in government spending. We are not talking about foreign-policy conservatism, which demands that America deal with its opponents from a position of toughness and strength. Nor are we talking about small-government conservatism, which considers Washington a maze of needless regulation and oversight.
Each of those ideologies has its virtues and failings, but they are not our topic today. Today, we are talking about the conservatism of us versus them.
One suspects it has been, in some sense, a victim of its own success. Social conservatism’s attraction has always lain in its appeal to simplicity. It says: Forget nuance, complexity and all the historical, political and socio-economic realities that make the world what it is. Forget compassion and the burden of shared humanity. Those people over there are the cause of all your troubles. That tribe is the one you should fear.
Such thinking has always enjoyed a measure of acceptability. It probably always will; for some of us, it is intellectual comfort food. But in recent years, that ideology has risen to a high water of visibility and political potency it has not enjoyed since the 1950s. The unintended byproduct is that we have been able to see very clearly what that rhetoric looks like in practice.
Turns out it looks like the outlawing of ethnic-studies classes. And restrictions on contraceptives. And demonized Muslims. And scapegoated gay people. And the erosion of civil rights. And guns everywhere. Turns out it looks like an Arizona state lawmaker who wants to make church mandatory.
Gallup’s numbers suggest more Americans are seeing through this con job, this appeal to their basest selves. They suggest the GOP, held in willing thrall to this dead-end thinking for years, may now have a chance to break free. Indeed, if the numbers continue in this direction, it may have no other choice.
Or so we should fervently hope. We know, after all, through bitter experience what happens when you pit us against them.
Nobody wins.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Carly touted "her failed 2010 Senate campaign".... wow, that's some kind of point, isn't it?
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* Because her lack of political experience beats the heck out of the rest of the occupants of the clown car who have political experience.
* Not sure about Fiorina. But I don't think business experience is a minus at all. And lack of political experience could be a plus. All these people on both sides, who somehow have become filthy rich by working in government are the problem. The so called "experienced" ones.
* Better question: Isn’t it questionable to take someone with no political experience and disastrous business experience and make them President of the United States? Follow-up question: you talk about championing average Americans yet you robbed more than 30,000 of their livelihood and still collapsed your company. How was that in the best interest of "the little guy?"
* The US has had several presidents without political experience. Imagine Ulysses Grant running for president after losing the Battle of Gettysburg and being removed as general of the Union Army. Or imagine Eisenhower seeking the presidency after leading the allies to defeat on D-Day and being fired as a result. Then you'd have Carly Fiorina.
* The only reason this woman isn't a politician right now is because she couldn't get elected.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Wallace Grills Fiorina: Why Should People Elect Someone with ‘No Political Experience’?
By Josh Feldman, May 31, 2015
Chris Wallace challenged Republican presidential candidate Carly Fiorina on the question of why voters should send someone with “no political experience” to the Oval Office.
Wallace brought up Fiorina’s criticisms of Hillary Clinton––namely her calling Clinton a personification of the professional political class––and pressed her on the matter.
“Isn’t it as questionable,” Wallace asked, “to take someone with no political experience and make them President of the United States as it is to take a politician without business experience and make them the head of a Fortune 100 company like Hewlett-Packard?”
Fiorina argued that the U.S. government was always intended to be a “citizen government” and told Wallace it’s “not accurate to say that I don’t know anything about politics.” She touted her advisory role to multiple politicians, her failed 2010 Senate campaign, and how she’s “been in and around government for a long time” as examples.
Watch the full interview below, via Fox:
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* Because her lack of political experience beats the heck out of the rest of the occupants of the clown car who have political experience.
* Not sure about Fiorina. But I don't think business experience is a minus at all. And lack of political experience could be a plus. All these people on both sides, who somehow have become filthy rich by working in government are the problem. The so called "experienced" ones.
* Better question: Isn’t it questionable to take someone with no political experience and disastrous business experience and make them President of the United States? Follow-up question: you talk about championing average Americans yet you robbed more than 30,000 of their livelihood and still collapsed your company. How was that in the best interest of "the little guy?"
* The US has had several presidents without political experience. Imagine Ulysses Grant running for president after losing the Battle of Gettysburg and being removed as general of the Union Army. Or imagine Eisenhower seeking the presidency after leading the allies to defeat on D-Day and being fired as a result. Then you'd have Carly Fiorina.
* The only reason this woman isn't a politician right now is because she couldn't get elected.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Wallace Grills Fiorina: Why Should People Elect Someone with ‘No Political Experience’?
By Josh Feldman, May 31, 2015
Chris Wallace challenged Republican presidential candidate Carly Fiorina on the question of why voters should send someone with “no political experience” to the Oval Office.
Wallace brought up Fiorina’s criticisms of Hillary Clinton––namely her calling Clinton a personification of the professional political class––and pressed her on the matter.
“Isn’t it as questionable,” Wallace asked, “to take someone with no political experience and make them President of the United States as it is to take a politician without business experience and make them the head of a Fortune 100 company like Hewlett-Packard?”
Fiorina argued that the U.S. government was always intended to be a “citizen government” and told Wallace it’s “not accurate to say that I don’t know anything about politics.” She touted her advisory role to multiple politicians, her failed 2010 Senate campaign, and how she’s “been in and around government for a long time” as examples.
Watch the full interview below, via Fox:
...................................................................................................................................................................
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)