Act Blue has a new feature which aggregates candidate donations from all sources on their site. Makes it even more fun.
Off to see a Lois Murphy campaign kick off event.
Sunday, February 19, 2006
Words Speak Louder Than Actions
The administration has long been unable to tell the difference between words and actions.
Of course that affliction is shared by many of our country's prominent editorial boards.
Of course that affliction is shared by many of our country's prominent editorial boards.
Busby
Francine Busby is running in the special election to replace criminal war profiteer Duke Cunningham. It's one of those "can she really do it?" races and then also "how does she think she's going to do it?" Northern San Diego county isn't exactly blue territory. While not quite the core of California wingnuttery, geographically, it's pretty close. Still she seems to be the favorite among the many many candidates who are running.
At this link you can listen to a stump speech. She's running as a proud against the Bush agenda Democrat. She might actually win.
Listen to the speech. If you like what you hear maybe you can help.
Consider the message that wins by Ciro and Busby would send. Might even penetrate Adam Nagourney's skull.
At this link you can listen to a stump speech. She's running as a proud against the Bush agenda Democrat. She might actually win.
Listen to the speech. If you like what you hear maybe you can help.
Consider the message that wins by Ciro and Busby would send. Might even penetrate Adam Nagourney's skull.
Wankers of the Day
San Antonio Express editorial board.
Yesterday their news page reports that Cuellar is full of shit, and today they endorse him.
Yesterday their news page reports that Cuellar is full of shit, and today they endorse him.
Saturday, February 18, 2006
Millionaire Amendment
People, including apparently the Lamont campaign, are getting this wrong.
I don't know how much Lamont is worth and don't think he's obligated to blow his personal fortune on the race, but the Millionaire Amendment includes this other provision:
Short version is that as long as Lieberman outspends more than Lamont generally it doesn't matter how much Lamont dumps into the campaign himself.
Anti-war activists embraced Greenwich millionaire Ned Lamont for his money and his politics, but a recent campaign filing indicates Lamont might not spend too freely to underwrite a Democratic primary against U.S. Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman.
Some critics of Lieberman's support of the war in Iraq have been drawn by Lamont's willingness to challenge a three-term incumbent and encouraged by his ability to self-finance at least a portion of a steep, uphill challenge.
But under the "millionaire's amendment" to the federal campaign reform act of 2002, Lamont cannot spend more than $514,000 of his own money without providing a potential windfall for Lieberman.
Lieberman's donors would be able to triple their maximum contributions from $2,100 to $6,300 if Lamont's personal spending hits $514,000. The contribution limit for Lieberman donors would double again to $12,600 if Lamont's personal spending reached $1,028,000.
...
In a written declaration filed this month, Lamont notified the FEC he does not intend to spend above the $257,000 threshold, but Swan said the campaign intends to amend that declaration.
Swan declined to say how much Lamont would spend, though it now appears that exceeding $514,000 could be counterproductive. Lamont will use his personal funds for "seed money" to get the campaign started and partly offset Lieberman's fundraising advantages, Swan said.
"It just reinforces for me we have to go out and make this a grass-roots campaign," Lamont said. "That includes financial support."
Swan said campaign lawyers are researching whether Lamont's personal spending could rise without penalty under federal elections law if Lieberman's spending becomes excessive.
I don't know how much Lamont is worth and don't think he's obligated to blow his personal fortune on the race, but the Millionaire Amendment includes this other provision:
he Millionaires' Amendment also takes into account fundraising by the campaigns. Campaigns must use the "opposition personal funds amount" formula to determine whether an opposing candidate has spent sufficient personal funds in comparison to the amounts raised by the campaigns to trigger increased contribution limits
A candidate with a significant fundraising advantage over a self-financed opponent might not receive an increased contribution limit. In this way, the regulations avoid giving increased contribution limits to candidates whose campaigns have a significant fundraising advantage over their opponents.
Short version is that as long as Lieberman outspends more than Lamont generally it doesn't matter how much Lamont dumps into the campaign himself.
The Big Money
One thing I've been thinking about recently is the usual sniping about how bloggers are too stupid to know which candidates should be supported, the usual Washington Insiders Knows Best line. This is in part based on the Lump of Campaign Money fallacy, the belief that there's a fixed amount of campaign dollars to be raised and spent, which of course is ridiculous. And, generally, the insiders want candidates to be beholden to them so they don't really like candidates with outsider support.
But if the netroots spend their money stupidly what does that say about the insiders and the Big Money people? Hillary Clinton has $17 million cash on hand for her re-election which she of course doesn't need given the GOP meltdown. Who are all of the idiots giving money to her? I'm not picking on Clinton, roughly the same thing could be said for lots of big name incumbents and their donors. But huge amounts of money are flowing to campaigns which don't really need it while challengers are struggling. If more people who thought nothing of writing $2000 checks to Clinton's campaign were plunking it into Francine Busby's race or Rodriguez's race against fake Democrat Cuellar, or some more challenger campaigns in November they'd be a lot better off.
The relatively small amount of money channeled through the netroots is often mocked by Those Who Know Where Our Money Should Go. But the truth is the netroots has played a critical role in helping Democrats get elected in special elections, stepping up when not enough others would.
The real misallocation of funds is to incumbents in safe seats, not a few thousand bucks to challengers with longer shot chances. Funding challengers is a risky investment which can potentially pay big future dividends. Funding incumbents with safe seats is largely just wankery.
But if the netroots spend their money stupidly what does that say about the insiders and the Big Money people? Hillary Clinton has $17 million cash on hand for her re-election which she of course doesn't need given the GOP meltdown. Who are all of the idiots giving money to her? I'm not picking on Clinton, roughly the same thing could be said for lots of big name incumbents and their donors. But huge amounts of money are flowing to campaigns which don't really need it while challengers are struggling. If more people who thought nothing of writing $2000 checks to Clinton's campaign were plunking it into Francine Busby's race or Rodriguez's race against fake Democrat Cuellar, or some more challenger campaigns in November they'd be a lot better off.
The relatively small amount of money channeled through the netroots is often mocked by Those Who Know Where Our Money Should Go. But the truth is the netroots has played a critical role in helping Democrats get elected in special elections, stepping up when not enough others would.
The real misallocation of funds is to incumbents in safe seats, not a few thousand bucks to challengers with longer shot chances. Funding challengers is a risky investment which can potentially pay big future dividends. Funding incumbents with safe seats is largely just wankery.
The Dukestir
Josh Marshall has a good rundown on the Dukestir, but I'm fascinated by the lack of important context here as well as (unsurprisingly) a lost opportunity by the Democrats.
Consider this. The Dukestir wasn't just a corrupt congressman taking bribes. He was taking bribes for defense contracts during war. He was cheating our military, our government, and the taxpayers. He illegally profited on the war.
Consider this. The Dukestir wasn't just a corrupt congressman taking bribes. He was taking bribes for defense contracts during war. He was cheating our military, our government, and the taxpayers. He illegally profited on the war.
Daily Ciro
The wanker Cuellar continues his wankfest. Wank wank wank.
You can help here!
WASHINGTON — A political attack on former Congressman Ciro Rodriguez by Henry Cuellar's campaign backfired Friday when an angry Illinois business owner said her company was being dragged through the political mud with false accusations.
Cuellar's campaign accused Rodriguez of working for a Chicago company that persuades firms to outsource jobs and fire employees.
"It couldn't be further from the truth," Sandra Figueroa Bast, owner of Bast Services Inc., told the San Antonio Express-News. "It's slanderous," she said, noting Cuellar "should have had the decency to call me before writing something that is false."
Cuellar campaign manager Dan Wright, in a news release, said Rodriguez was hired by Bast as a Washington lobbyist, choosing "to line his own pockets at the expense of jobs for working families by representing a firm whose goal is to ship American jobs out of the country."
Federal law prohibits a former lawmaker from lobbying the House for one year.
Cuellar's campaign didn't offer proof of any lobbying to back up the charge.
...
Rodriguez and Bast said the former congressman was hired by the Chicago company, which was seeking to expand a Kindergarten-through-12th-grade science program for at-risk children into San Antonio schools.
"It had nothing to do with outsourcing jobs," he said.
Bast noted, "I don't have any work overseas."
You can help here!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)