Republicans Risk Shutdown Over Poison Pills in Budget Deal

Image from source, Think Progress

You know, with all of the talk about torture in the news, the old 24 ticking time bomb clock has been on my mind. But, instead of the no-win scenario that can only be stopped by illegally torturing a suspect, we've got a no-win scenario that can only be stopped by Republicans dropping their bizarre quest to undo financial system protections, or by Democrats giving into them. It's always something. Whenever there is a budged deadline, we are either right down to the wire, or we go past it, and get an expensive government shutdown.

Shutdown is--for reasons unknown to me--orgasmic for many base conservatives. Right wing talk radio, and even many (formerly extremists, now apparently mainstream) elected GOP officials wax rhapsodically about it. They rarely express exactly what it proves, what it accomplishes, or what it's supposed to lead to. It's a lustful, needful thing, that's all. A political fetish. But while they want it oh so bad, and don't care who knows it, they simultaneously want to blame it on Democrats.

Recently, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal clumsily tried to pre-emptively say the President would cause a shutdown!  And now, even after there was a deal seemingly reached, Republicans have thrown those poison pills in there, so that they can both get their delicious shutdown, and say it's the Democrats' fault. My question is, who is fooled by this? And what is accomplished?

Anyone know?

[Excerpt]

35 Hours Before Deadline, Agreement To Keep Government Open Breaks Down

Last night, Congressional negotiators reached an agreement that most assumed would keep the government open until September. But with just 35 hours before funding for the federal government runs out, that agreement is in serious Jeopardy. . .

Read more at: Think Progress

The Difference Between Conservative and Liberal Rich Donors

Well, I've had a combination of a busy week, and a general malaise over current events. You probably can tell, if you scroll through my recent posts that there aren't very many. Sorry about that, I'll try to get inspired. In the meantime, here's a great piece on a subject I've written a lot about: Rich donors, and the difference between right and left wing versions of them.

[Excerpt]

What’s The Difference Between Wealthy (Koch) Republicans And (Soros) Democrats?
 
The billionaire Koch brothers have been corrupting democracy for decades. Their labyrinthine web of front groups toil 24/7 to distort the facts on issues like climate change, voter suppression, gun control, and taxes. And if that collection of topics sounds familiar, it’s because the Kochs almost single-handedly created the Tea Party (with PR help from Fox News) to push their views on those subjects unto a gullible sector of the American populace. . .

Read more at: NewsCorpse

Supreme Court Decides There's Not Enough Money in Politics

Image from source, Wonkette

Wednesday's Supreme Court decision to strike some campaign finance laws has me bugged. The 2010 Citizens United decision unleashed the floodgates of shady money, and we've seen the result in just crazy saturation of political ads. Money choses candidates. Even the GOP lost out last time, when Mitt Romney won the money wars then lost the election (yes, Karl Rove, he really did lose).

But SCOTUS wasn't done. It's still too restrictive for the poor rich donors. Money equals speech they say, and apparently, more money equals more speech. You aren't a gazillionaire? So sorry, your message will henceforth be drowned out! It sucks. It's sucks hard. And it's not over. Justice Clarence "Coke Can" Thomas thinks there should be no restrictions! So there's that to look forward to.

[Excerpt]

Supreme Court Decides Citizens United Part Two: The Dickening

. . .This morning, the Supreme Court handed down a decision in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission. Why do you care? Because this sucker is this year’s Citizens United, and you can practically hear your right to free and fair elections tick tick ticking away, America. Where Citizens gave us those cool-ass SuperPACs so that people like Sheldon Adelson can throw $10 million at one candidate but it is totally not at one candidate because SuperPACs are magic. But wait! That didn’t really work out very well and those meddling Democrats STILL won things and we STILL haven’t broken the election system enough to completely exclude the blahs and the poors. . .

Read more at: Wonkette

Latest Right-Wing Outrage: Obama Donors

Image from Wonkette

Let's get something out of the way right now: I don't think that foreigners ought to be able to donate money to campaigns in United States elections. I don't know if that is going on here. . .it certainly isn't proven by the source material. But for conservatives trying to drop the hammer on President Obama for this, when the Supreme Court Citizens United ruling has opened the door for SuperPACs with secret donors, and no accountability? And when one of the biggest of those groups is run by the oh-so-ethical Karl Rove? Excuse me if I respond with a yawn. Wake me when Citizens United is repealed or overturned or blocked, and then I'll be interested.

[Excerpt]

BREAKING: Obama’s Campaign Site Rejects Fraudulent Donation

Today’s right-wing Obama-is-a-foreigner thing is the startling revelation that, theoretically, Barack Obama could be accepting campaign donations from foreign nationals. . .

Read more at: Wonkette

SCOTUS Kills 100-year-old Montana Campaign Finance Law

Ladies and gentlemen, The Supremes!

I really don't get it. I thought that with the proliferation of gazillions of dollars in the wake of the Citizens United case, that the Supreme Court would begin to see the error of their ways. Instead, they've just reaffirmed it. Maybe not enough time has yet passed. Maybe it's a pride thing. Oddly, the original case wasn't even asking the question that SCOTUS ultimately answered: can corporations give unlimited money to political campaigns? Yes! Because every American believes that there just haven't been enough political ads!

My only hope is, that we as Americans get so burned out on the blizzard of ads, that we all get itchy for a constitutional amendment. Without a change in the court, it's the only way.

[Excerpt]


Supreme Court rejects Montana campaign finance limits

The Supreme Court on Monday struck down Montana’s attempt to limit campaign contributions, citing the Citizens United ruling that opened the floodgates for unlimited corporate campaign spending. The 5-4 ruling was made on partisan lines, with the conservative majority voting to summarily dismiss the Montana case without oral arguments. . .


Read more: Politico

Keith Olbermann and Bernie Sanders Discuss Money in Politics

The Citizens United case has been discussed on this blog before, and will probably continue to be, because I think that money in politics is one of the biggest problems we have in this country. And ironically, in the biggest economic slump since the Great Depression, there has never been more money spent getting people elected. The revolving door of politicians and lobbyists, lobbying groups effectively writing laws, politicians beholden to the big money givers. . .it's just a gigantic mess. Politicians these days spend more time fundraising and dialing for dollars than they do legislating.


And before I get a comment saying, "Yeah, well Obama's spending a billion dollars to get re-elected!", yes, I'm aware of that. But what is his option? With the campaign laws as they are, neither side has a choice at present. The solution is a constitutional amendment to get the money out of politics.

Wisconsin: Birthplace of Workers' Rights? Possible Deathbed Too?

I've been posting a lot less than I usually do, for two reasons. One of those reasons is my new home theater system, of which I've now worked out most of the kinks. The second reason is that The Other Half is home on vacation (staycation?) until Monday. Also--I suppose this is a third reason--we actually went out for some exercise today! And the plan is to step that up to 4-5 times per week. This shouldn't prevent me from blogging after I get into a rhythm, as exercise will take the place of Countdown with Keith Olbermann in my schedule.

But I have managed to catch The Rachel Maddow Show most nights lately, and I'm impressed. Mostly, I'm impressed with how well she holds up in HDTV on a new 60" set (the same cannot be said of many, many other TV stars). Rachel's framing of the Wisconsin Governor vs. Unions conflict has been different from most reports, getting down to the nitty gritty. Whatever you believe about the money, and the fiscal state of Wisconsin (and even PolitiFact is giving Rachel a BZZZT! on some of that), it's important to note what's behind the Governor's actions. Much of it is the right-wing's hatred of Unions. But what is behind that? Mostly that Unions do tend to champion liberal causes, and are the largest donors to Democratic candidates. In fact, if the Unions get squashed in Wisconsin (and sure to follow, everywhere else), all you have left is the big right-wing donors in politics. Unions, oddly enough, are just about the only counter-balance to the big, giant, billionaire-funded right-wing organizations pushing all those "Concerned Americans for Drilling in Yellowstone"-type commercials.  Oy.

But did you know that many of the benefits that we used to take for granted, and are now having slowly stripped away, were born in Wisconsin?

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Should We Have Unlimited Anonymous Political Speech?

One of the biggest changes in the American political process this year is not the tea party. It's the influx of unlimited money being spent by anonymous sources to get--mostly--Republican candidates elected.  What's particularly weird about it is that to me, it would seem like a counter-intuitive issue for conservatives to support.

Conservatives don't often seem to be for expanding the definition of speech.  For example, many have argued that burning the American flag is a free speech issue, but conservatives by and large don't accept that argument.  In this case, money=speech and corporations=citizens.  Neither equation seems like it would work in Republican math.  And I'll betcha if this tidal wave of money was crashing on Democratic shores, we'd be hearing a lot of fuming from FOX "News" and right-wing talk radio about it.  So, are conservative principles a little flexible if they are the recipients of a positive outcome from a dubious policy?  Do the ends justify the means?

One of my biggest problems with this influx of cash is that it is being kept anonymous. Why? To what end?  Because of this anonymity, the money could be from anywhere, including foreign corporations and countries.  Now, if the Sultan of Oilistan tried to give $10 million to a GOP Senate hopeful's election effort, it would be illegal. But if the donation is made anonymously, how would we know? And how would we know that there wasn't a little quid pro quo for all that jack?

Another problem is a little less hypothetical.  How exactly would genuine grass roots uprisings--and again, I'm not talking about the tea party--even hope to compete with the deep pockets of Big Oil, Big Pharma, Big Insurance, Big Media and all the rest?  These groups can now effectively buy an election.  My hope is that the huge increase in political advertising is such a turn-off, that all that extra money actually has a detrimental effect. I mean, aren't you sick of political ads?  Sharron Angle may have an enormous war chest to spend attacking Harry Reid, but as soon as I hear "I'm Sharron Angle, an' I approve this mess-eege," I tune out. And I yell at her.

So, what would the conservative argument be?  I thought I'd find out.  Here is an article from another point of view. One that assumes "money" does equal speech. It also claims that anonymous donations are a "tiny" portion of overall spending, something I'm not sure is always the case.  Anyway, I thought I'd present it here for anyone curious about the issue. I do not endorse or agree with the following. . .

[Excerpt]

Obama and the Left Assault Anonymous Political Speech




The word has been handed down, from MSNBC's Rachel Maddow all the way up to President Barack Obama, and the talking points have come out. Political speech that isn't reported to the federal government is a “threat to our democracy,” in the words of President Obama. The Democratic National Committee has released a television ad accusing the U.S. Chamber of Commerce of diverting foreign members' dues toward political ads in the United States. . .

Read more at: The New American

Are Republican Groups Using Foreign Money to Fund US Elections?

I've touched on this before, but it is very curious that it's raising so few eyebrows outside of liberal circles.  Yes, it's true that this massive influx of corporate cash into the political process is primarily benefiting Republicans right now.  But since the Citizens United case in the Supreme Court is allowing unlimited corporate donations to political races, exactly what is being done to ensure that foreign corporate money isn't steering some of the decision making?  Even if it is being done--this time--to help the GOP, aren't there any conservatives out there troubled by the possibility that foreign companies and even foreign countries could be helping decide elections?

Olbermann's Special Comment on Supreme Court Corporations Decision

Is it possible to be simultaneously thrilled and horrified? For me, this "Special Comment" from Countdown with Keith Olbermann inspired both emotions. Thrilled that Olbermann tackled this in such a thorough, vigorous, passionate way. Horrified at the implications of the Supreme Court's decision today to let corporations become not just persons under the Constitution, but in effect super persons. I'm sure this will not be the last you hear of this, least of all from me. But if Olbermann is correct, our ability to effectively talk about it or do anything about it may be in danger.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Nearly $1 Billion Given to McCain Lobbyists?

Photo from DailyKos

Yeah, some Maverick.

[Excerpt]

The (Nearly) $1 Billion Connection: McCain And His Lobbyists’ Clients

Washington, D.C. – Campaign Money Watch, a nonpartisan campaign finance watchdog group, announced today the result of a new analysis of the fees Sen. John McCain’s (R-AZ) lobbyist bundlers, advisors and staff members have collected from domestic clients over the past decade.

The total? A staggering $930,949,819. . .

Read more at: CampaignMoney.org

Thanks to Stupid Monkey Planet for the link.

Lindsey Graham is Disgusted

Image from Time

This morning I commented on (McCain lackey) Sen. Lindsey Graham's performance on Meet the Press. My comments were that he looked like a constipated turtle (a trait he shares with Sen. Mitch McConnell), and that disgust on his face looked supremely unattractive. Jason Linkins at Huffington Post has a ever-so-slightly more mature and professional take on the matter. . .

[Excerpt]

Sen. Lindsey Graham Flacks McCain, Offers Hysterical Histrionics On Meet The Press

We took note of this on this morning's Sunday Morning liveblog, but Lindsey Graham's hilariously operatic, garment-rending performance on Meet The Press this morning deserves a special mention of its own. Pressed into duty to defame Obama for opting to continue his own fundraising process in lieu of the public financing he agreed to take way before he had any idea that his own superior method of public financing would prove itself to be far more effective, Graham came to show with a pocketful of woe and a story of Barack's broken promises. He quickly spun this into melodramatic gold, pretending to be stung and betrayed and emotionally out of tune over the matter. . .

Read more at: Huffington Post

John McCain Used Wife's Jet on the Cheap

Photo from source, via Raw Story

I've read and heard a lot about Hillary Clinton's tactics being a harbinger of how she would act as President. They say that if she's been underhanded or is playing dirty to win the election, she'll employ the same tactics in the Oval Office. OK, that argument just might have merit.

But what of John McCain? The former "Maverick" and "straight talker" (both terms still being used, while they no longer really apply) used to be for campaign finance reform. "McCain/Feingold" anybody? And yet, he's broken campaign finance laws anyway. Now, it's come out that he's exploited a loophole--one that was supposed to be closed, but hasn't been because the FEC is understaffed--in order to get cheap flights on his wife's jet airplane.

That's not illegal. But it is kind of sneaky. So we have a guy who is willing to flout his own laws, and weave and bob between other ones in order to get to be President. How is that any better than what Hillary Clinton is accused of? As far as I know, she's at least not accused of these types of behavior.

[Excerpt]

McCain Frequently Used Wife’s Jet for Little Cost

. . .Mr. McCain’s campaign paid a total of $241,149 for the use of that plane from last August through February, records show. That amount is approximately the cost of chartering a similar jet for a month or two, according to industry estimates.

The senator was able to fly so inexpensively because the law specifically exempts aircraft owned by a candidate or his family or by a privately held company they control. The Federal Election Commission adopted rules in December to close the loophole — rules that would have required substantial payments by candidates using family-owned planes — but the agency soon lost the requisite number of commissioners needed to complete the rule making. . .

Read more at: New York Times

John McCain Breaking the Law Daily?

Photo from source, Raw Story

This is another case of, if a law is broken--even repeatedly--but nobody cares, does it count? Ordinarily, I'd say "whatever," but think about the Bill Clinton impeachment proceedings for a minute. How important was the rule of law back then? Hmmm. . .?

[Excerpt]

As lawsuit is filed, DNC says McCain maybe breaks laws 'daily'

The Democratic National Committee is keeping up its offensive against John McCain and his campaign finance record, releasing a memo Monday accusing the GOP candidate of potentially breaking the law daily in his attempts to free himself of public financing obligations.

The DNC released a memo Monday outlining several of McCain's potential law violations. The arguments also serve as the backbone of a DNC lawsuit against the Federal Election Commission saying the agency is too weak to enforce the law. . .

Read more at: Raw Story

Petition Delivered on John McCain Campaign Finance

Several days ago, I wrote a post asking you to get active and sign a petition, regarding John McCain's breaking of campaign finance law. I signed it, you may have signed it, and now it has been delivered. Check this out, from Fire Dog Lake.

[Excerpt]




Delivery of 32,000 Cosignatures to FEC Complaint Against McCain (Video)

Joe Sudbay of AmericaBlog and Reverend Lennox Yearwood delivered 32,000 signatures to the FEC, cosigning the complaint filed last Thursday against John McCain and his campaign. It took three reams of paper and 1,400 pages to print it all out. . .

Read more at: Fire Dog Lake

John McCain Officially Breaks Campaign Law

Photo from TPM Muckraker

Sorry for the thin commentary from yours truly lately, but these stories hardly need comment. John McCain clearly broke the law, he's a Republican, nothing will come of it. That's it.

[Excerpt]

McCain breaks spending limits

John McCain has officially broken the limits imposed by the presidential public financing system, according to spending reports filed last week by the campaign.

The senator from Arizona has spent $58.4 million on his Republican primary effort. Those who have committed to public financing can spend no more than $54 million on their primary bid. . .

Read more at: Boston.com

McCain May Have Broken Campaign Finance Law

Photo from source, TPM Muckraker

Actually, it looks like John McCain did break the campaign finance law. Trouble is, the agency that oversees such matters is almost nonexistent. Plus, Republicans breaking the law in government rarely results in jail time or even punishment. Unless you count being a FOX "News" commentator as punishment.

[Excerpt]

McCain Exceeds Public Spending Cap

Just a refresher that John McCain's tangle with the FEC has yet to be resolved:
Sen. John McCain has officially broken the limits imposed by the presidential public financing system, reports filed last night show. . .

Read more at: TPM Muckraker