Latest baseball scores, trades, talk, ideas, opinions, and standings

Archive for the ‘Federal Elections Commission’ Category

>Tlhe Politics of Money

>As Republicans see President Barak Obama stumble with each passing day on the zillions of dollars he “wastefully” throws on financial flames in the form of bailouts and stimulus bills, their eyes have got to be on the 2010 congressional races and the 2012 presidential race in three years.

Mitt Romney has been actively campaigning for Republican candidates in places like Virginia. Beyond him, we don’t see much happening for Republicans to regain control of Congress. Why isn’t John McCain more active in this arena? We can’t go through another time where Democrats control Congress with Obama in the White House. It’s an active recipe for fraud and disaster.

Assuming Obama’s approval ratings plummet further as he continues to focus on spending vast amounts of money on the socialization of America, Republicans become emboldened, especially when it appears he is fighting a gas fire with water and everything he does seems to spread the flames of failure because the economy will not come around soon. Republicans know better. This is a recession, let capitalism run its course. Let GM and Chrysler fail. Get rid of the excess we’re paying to have these unions hang around.

Someone last night on the Glenn Beck Show estimated unions add $1,600 to the price we pay for each American car. Union people, it was estimated, receive average annual pay of $152,000 per year, including benefits.

Is it any wonder why the unions, via GM and Chrysler, are clammering for more money than the $17 billion we’ve already given those two car makers? They want another $23 billion this year. Then what will it be next year, and the next and the next? When will the Democrats wake up? We must let them fail, that’s what capitalism is about. Stop spending money on failing entities. Their management and unions aren’t worth it.

We could still be involved with eight or ten percent unemployment in four years and that bodes badly for Obama.

But can Republicans match the vast amounts Obama spent on the last election? The president raised roughly $750 million during the 2008 campaign, and it’s almost certain that he will raise $1 billion (and possibly MUCH more) for his 2012 re-election race.

That means to avoid being totally swamped by Obama financially (as McCain was in 2008) the GOP nominee must demonstrate a national fundraising base that can deliver at least $500 million and probably closer to $750 million for the November 2012 election.

One attractive candidate the nation is watching is Governor Bobby Jindal of Louisana. He is young, handsome, highly intelligent and extremely capable. He raised $3.5 million in 2008, apparently looking to his re-election bid in 2011. Do these results mean that he can raise those huge sums in a few years time necessary to mount a presidential campaign?

No. But it does indicate a significant level of excitement for him among donors in Louisiana and nationally, an excitement likely to increase after he gives the Republican response to Obama’s Congressional address next Tuesday leading into Jindal’s [State of the Union] response.

These numbers show his already huge appeal to Republicans in Louisiana and nationally,” said Phil Musser, a Republican consultant and former executive director of the Republican Governors Association. “They also show he’s got a solid, disciplined staff in place and is committed to — and is executing — a strategy to organize and monetize that interest.”

Jindal has played coy to date on a 2012 race, insisting that he is focused on winning re-election in 2011. We believe him. But, assuming he wins that race — and wins it easily — he will have to look seriously at whether or not a national bid makes sense. That decision is still a ways off (and budgetary struggles in Louisiana could complicate his glide path) but with his moves over the first few months of 2009, Jindal is putting himself in a place where he will make a decision on a presidential run from a position of strength rather than one of weakness.

At least one reader believes all this emphasis on candidate money raised is wrong. Instead, they should be “reporting on the candidates’ positions on important issues of the day. American Democracy is in grave trouble,and a large part of the reason is the political obligation that comes with accepting donations from private entities. Until the presidency can no longer be ‘bought,’ America won’t be able to elect the best man or woman for the job.” Phil Gordon

My response to that is that candidates flip-flop too much to count on any stances they take during the campaign. Obama is the worst. He promised transparency and he gives us a 1078-page bill demanding it be read in 12 hours. No senator or representative read the entire bill. No voter got to see it until it was almost passed. Where’s the transparency?

He promised no more earmarks or playing favorites with taxpayer money. The recently passed $787 billion bill had a lot of pork in it — things that should have been openly debated like Harry Reid’s fast-transit rail system from LA to Vegas, medical reform, and other favorite projects of special interest folks.

We had better watch Obama closely. Where did he get most of his election money? He claims it was from small internet donations. No one believes that. The more likely senerio is several rich folks like George Soros loaned him millions of dollars and Obama’s people divided it up into small pieces, putting millions of anonymous donor names on it. Many of the people on those lists don’t exist or are cartoon characters.

It’s a known fact that very little of Obama’s election funding was verified. Because of the financial bailouts, Obama has billions of dollars in non-designated funds that, presumably, he can spend any way he wants without Congressional oversight. When he pays back his Soros loans, he may be tempted to use taxpayer bailout money. He wouldn’t be that crass and bold, would he?

Yes. He believes in doing things the Chicago way, and we all know what way that is. The Federal election machinery is so lax I doubt anyone will ever do anything about this kind of election fraud, especially while he’s president. And I’m talking about the election fraud Obama has already perpetrated, not the new one of using bailout money to pay back Soros which could only compound the problem. Obama wants to get so insulated, so powerful that in four years no one can oust him. His dictator-like tendencies will be strengthened if he has any amount of success in extinguishing the financial fires in four years. Dream on, Hussein.

The FEC (Federal Election Commission) was established by Congress, post-Watergate,

“… to administer and enforce the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) — the statute that governs the financing of federal elections. The duties of the FEC, which is an independent regulatory agency, are to disclose campaign finance information, to enforce the provisions of the law such as the limits and prohibitions on contributions, and to oversee the public funding of Presidential elections.

The FEC is one of the most inept commissions ever. It is either moribund due to political maneuvering or stupidity. A man whose name starts with the letter ‘O’ should go to jail for all of his election finance fraud, but no one seems interested in investigating it further. To muddy the water further and create opportunity for more fraud, Obama is now taking over the duties of what used to be a non-partisan activity to avoid political jerrymandering — that of setting congressional boundaries in each state to maximize the number of democrat seats.

Barack Obama championed a new campaign finance law last year that can’t be implemented until we get some new FEC appointees confirmed. Democrats in Congress frustrated Bush’s suggested appointees. The new law would require disclosure of “bundled” campaign contributions from lobbyists. Obama and his Senate colleague Russ Feingold say the bundling disclosure requirement would “go farther than any other provision in the lobbying reform bill to shine a spotlight on the dangerous connection between money and legislation.” Uh, huh…sure it would, but I doubt Obama wants light shed on his shady dealings.

How about Mitt Romney? He has the ability to raise large sums of money. No one knows if by 2011 he will even want to make himself available for a presidential run, however.