Money is the lifeblood of politics. And there’s a lot of it. The 2008 elections represented the first time when the combined campaign fundraising efforts of the two major Presidential candidates topped more than a billion dollars. Barack Obama raised $750 million dollars. McCain raised $370 million. But the bare sums don’t tell the whole story. Political money is fraught with meaning.
Each political dollar has a history. It comes from a variety of sources, each restricted in its own way. Some money can only be spent for party activities. Other monies can be counted toward promoting issues. A relatively small amount of money can be used to explicitly elect or defeat a candidate for political office. This is called “hard money”. “Soft money” on the other hand is the general term given to funds that can be used for “other activities not directly related to the election of specific candidates.” In order to have a sufficient number of dollars for a variety of purposes each candidate must be able to draw from a variety of financial springs if he is not to go dry.
Viewed from the other side of the transaction, political money represented a similarly semantic but by no means symmetrical aspect. In the eyes of contributors, political money provids a means to an end: to cleanse or corrupt; to obstruct tyranny and further its ends; to build a railway through a town or around it, according to the intent of those who offered it up. If money was the original sin of political life it was also the most common vehicle for reform. To some money was a ticket to hell; to others it paved the road to heaven. The same dollar bill could assume as many meanings as those who gave or took it intended. It was all things to all men in the hope that it would somehow save some.
Although the vast majority of political contributions in the US comes from individual donations, political action committees (PAC) play an important role. Like many other structures in the campaign funding universe the PAC evolved as an adaptation to restrictions. “The PAC was created in 1944 by the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO) … to contribute money to pro-union candidates for office and to get around the Smith-Connally Act, which banned direct union contributions to candidates. Business groups began to create PACs in the 1960s and 1970s to counter the strength of the union PACs.”
From the signalling point of view the difference between a PAC and individual contributions is smaller than it may seem. As important as the spending power of money itself is the message that comes with it. Individual contributions are often “bundled” — “campaigns seek out ‘bundlers,’ people who can gather contributions from many individuals in an organization or community, and present the sum to the campaign. Campaigns often recognize these bundlers with honorary titles and, in some cases, exclusive events featuring the candidate.”
One of the most important things “bundling” does is communicate what the money is for. It gives money meaning. It delivers information in addition to cash; it tells the politician why he is being supported with the implicit expectation that he will return the favor. Without a label, political money conveys very little information. It’s no surprise that most of the major players in the Washington DC policy universe are represented by explicitly flagged PACs. There are major business PACs like the American Bankers Association, the National Association of Home Builders or the United Parcel Service. There are major union PACs like the AFL-CIO, the American Federation of Teachers, the SEIU, UAW or the Teamsters. There are even “leadership PACs” which are organized by major political figures to demonstrate how they can distribute largesse to their favored proteges. Charlie Rangel has his National Leadership PAC. Nancy Pelosi runs her PAC to the Future.
Leadership PACs are about showing who’s boss. “Federal politicians — senators and representatives — often form what is called a Leadership PAC to, among other things, raise money to help fund other candidate campaigns. Politicians often do this because they have their eye on a leadership position in Congress or a higher office.” In politics conveying the origins of money is almost as important as conveying the money itself. Money by itself would have little corrupting or persuasive influence in government. It is knowing who it is from that does the trick. When you get money from a PAC there is no doubt who it’s from. There should be little doubt what it is for. This is a feature and not a bug.
The purest signalling mechanisms are PACs which promote ideas. They promote ideologies. Examples of these are Moveon.org, the Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund, the National Rifle Association, the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League and many others. Each of these signals support for an idea and backs those politicians who best advance their cause. Some examples should make this clear. At this writing, Moveon.Org has the following petitions up on its site, each one calculated to further its ideology. Here is what it says on Health Care “reform”.
The AMA is a leading member of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which is spending millions attacking the health care bill as a crushing tax increase. As a medical professional, you have a powerful voice for reform. Can you sign our petition urging the AMA to stop funding opposition to health care reform and quit the U.S. Chamber of Commerce?
Here is what Moveon.org says on Afghanistan. “President Obama is poised to make a critical decision about the Afghanistan war in the next few weeks. He needs to hear that we need an exit strategy—not tens of thousands more troops stuck in a quagmire.” Here is what it says about attempts to curb abortion. “Conservatives forced a dangerous anti-choice amendment into the House health care bill. But we can stop it from being included in the final legislation if we speak up. Can you write a letter to your local paper today?” It’s democracy in action. Most attempts to regulate political money have been rebuffed on the grounds that it infringes on Free Speech. Buckley vs Valeo set limits on campaign contributions in the compelling public interest of preventing corruption, but also ruled “that spending money to influence elections is a form of constitutionally protected free speech”. Moveon.org is not shy about expressing what it wants.
It would have been remarkable if the current mood of dissatisfaction with Washington did not find expression in a PAC. The Tea Parties and the dissatisfaction with RINOs are proof of a genuine political movement. It could only be a matter of time before it found expression. In one of democracy’s deepest ironies, that meant it would eventually have to create a PAC to raise money in support of those who pledge to carry out the aims of the program. The Citizen Leader Political Action Committee (or CLAPAC) has been established to promote that kind of program. Long-time commenter Leo Linbeck III is on the board of CLAPAC. Its goals are straightforward and almost diametrically opposed to those of Moveon.org.
- Limited Government — Government is a monopoly, and like all monopolies tends toward corruption and exploitative behavior. By necessity, therefore, the scope and scale of government must be limited. Limited government requires eternal vigilance through active participation in the political process by private sector leaders.
- Individual Liberty — The United States was founded on the idea that the citizen is sovereign. Governments must be committed to the cultivation and protection of individual liberty, and its matched pair, individual responsibility. Our political system must serve the people, not rule them.
- Free Enterprise & Free Trade — The most powerful, proven instrument of material and social progress is the free market. Entrepreneurs, who use markets to create and capture value, are a critical driver of this progress. To improve the condition of its citizens, a nation needs a legal and social framework that encourages and rewards risk-taking and entrepreneurship, and harnesses comparative advantage.
- Economic Growth — Economic growth is essential to the flourishing of a nation. Efficient tax policy, stable and well-defined property rights, rational and restrained regulation, and freedom from the distortions of government encroachment on the private sector are prerequisites for the expansion of the economy and the national wealth.
It’s a manifesto that many might sympathize with. But in the real world of politics that means it must create a signaling mechanism to donate semantic money; to raise funds with an attached label. SEIU, Nancy Pelosi, the American Bankers Association and Moveon.org all do it. Now the CitizenLeader Political Action Committee has established itself as a vehicle for expressing part of the dissatisfaction with which Washington is viewed these days. There comes a moment in rebellion when those who resist power realize they need some power themselves; just as those who desire peace must sometimes take up the sword. Living in the world by definition puts people in impossible situations. Paul knew the feeling in the realm of religion. Now we know it with respect to politics.
To those who live without the law I have come as one without the law, in order to win those who are without the law — not that I am really under no law in relation to God, for I am bound by the law of Christ. To those who are weak I have made myself weak, so as to win the weak; in fact, I have become all things to all people, in order that, one way or another, I may rescue some of them.
Participating in politics means living in the world of “all men” and what comes with it.
Tip Jar or Subscribe for $5
PJM Home
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
47 Comments
1. twobyfour:We’ve been under attack for some time, from multiple fronts. We as in “We the people”…
Sometimes science is politics, it is after all often about money and politics is now more part of it than ever…
…but sometimes, the facade falls down and it is all revealed: Welcome to GlimateGate : The AGW Crime
I’d love to be a fly for just a bit and see faces of Maurice and George and Al in the morning.
Nov 20, 2009 - 12:49 am 2. Leo Linbeck III:Thanks to W for mentioning the Citizen Leader Alliance PAC.
CLAPAC has been organized by a group of business leaders who believe in limited government, free markets, entrepreneurship, and ordered liberty, and are committed to re-establishing these principles as the core of the American system. I am proud to be one of the founding board members.
The folks who started this effort are not rent-seekers of the type so common in today’s corporate world; they are successful entrepreneurs and patriots who, over the past year, have become alarmed at the dramatic incursion of government into the private sector. Many of them have, like me, never been politically active before, but are now fully engaged in our effort to turn the tide. Others are very knowledgeable and experienced in the ways of the political world.
We have organized a multi-prong initiative to bring the US back from the brink of an irreversible, European-style collectivism. The overall initiative has several components; CLAPAC is our political action entity which will directly support political campaigns.
We would welcome anyone who wants to support our efforts. You can begin by making a donation to the CLAPAC. The amount doesn’t matter – even $10 is important, as it helps us establish a broad base of support, which is important to the effectiveness of any PAC.
We have already raised a substantial sum of money to support our efforts, but I hope that you will consider adding your support. And if you know of other people who would be supportive of our efforts, please pass the word and send them to our website.
I plan to provide more information on CLA here at the Belmont Club as our efforts begin to take root, grow, and make an impact. And I hope you will choose to be a part of this effort.
Thanks for your consideration.
L3
Nov 20, 2009 - 1:08 am 3. Matt Beck:I’m glad twobyfour posted the link to the Hadley CRU hack story at “Watts Up With That.” I was just about to do the same thing. This is definitely the news story of the hour.
I always knew that the AGW hypothesis (being a falsehood) would be broken against the shoals of reality eventually, but I never expected it to happen in such dramatic fashion. This is a serious blow to the the transnational leftist establishment.
It seems like the science is indeed settled–against the warmists. Now begins the long task of purging the scientific literature, the universities, and the government institutions of the fraud and those who perpetrated it. This will be necessary to restore credibility to both academia and government.
Nov 20, 2009 - 1:11 am 4. Unsk:Just think about 730 million dollars. That’s about $12 per vote for Obama. No friggin’ way. I’ve raised money for local campaigns. To most well off people,
to contribute $100 is a big deal. To the average person, $25 is a big deal, and you’ve got to really work for it. What we are asked to believe is that roughly one half of all Obama voters, of which many were poor or young, gave an average of $25. That simply defies logic and all reason.
The vast majority of Obama donors were below the$200 limit where the donor identity needs to be disclosed. How convenient. It seems very likely that a lot of foreign donations were sliced and diced among that $730,000,000. It should come as no surprise that the most corrupt President in history by far, likely ran an extraordinarily corrupt campaign.
Nov 20, 2009 - 2:57 am 5. jWarrior:Right on, Unsk.
And the MSM, whose members consider themselves to be hard-hitting investigative ‘journalists’ who ’speak truth to power’, yada yada yada, could not care less. Much more fun to beat up Joe the Plumber, Sarah Palin, Carrie Prejean, etc.
Nov 20, 2009 - 3:08 am 6. ADE:All the best, L3.
Of all principles that has made the US exceptional, it is The United States was founded on the idea that the citizen is sovereign. Governments must be committed to the cultivation and protection of individual liberty, and its matched pair, individual responsibility. Our political system must serve the people, not rule them.
Little wonder the world’s elites hate the US.
You and CLAPAC are leaving Plymouth.
Godspeed.
ADE
Nov 20, 2009 - 4:14 am 7. Numerian:Leo Linbeck – I applaud your statement of principles, but WHEN and under what circumstances SHOULD government intervene? I think it is also very important to make that clear.
The left basically advocates a “government-as-provider model”, predicated on the assumption that the average citizen is basically incompetent and/or immoral, whereas conservatives assume the opposite and prefer a “government-as-facilitator” approach. Social Security is a good example of the government-as-provider in action, whereas the 401(k) is an example of the government-as-facilitator.
Both approaches to government are based on different assumptions; the left assumes citizens are incompetent and/or immoral, and therefore desires the state to act as a surrogate parent. Conservatives more or less assume the reverse. Consider the liberal position on gun control and affirmative action for example; what assumption about citizens are they making?
Nov 20, 2009 - 4:54 am 8. Gary Ogletree:After Sarah’s convention speech I sent in $90. Big mistake. The RNC keeps sending me Past Due letters about owing them money when I never joined their party. Apparently no one reads the mail there because they have yet to take me off their list. However, I found I can send money to SarahPAC , get an email thank you without being badgered. I also have confidence that my donation won’t be wasted. If only I could divert my tax money from the IRS to SarahPAC. Then I would happy ever after.
Nov 20, 2009 - 5:32 am 9. Lifeofthemind:The biggest puzzle for me was why did the Republicans hold back and not aggressively challenge Obama and his corruption? John McCain is a decent man. He wanted to be President. He sincerely asked people to work for him and spent years working for it. While I was a volunteer and driver for the campaign I met him several times and do not think he wanted to lose. He was personally decent and generous to me. Before the last debate the campaign brought me in to have a private photo with John and Cindy and Sarah and Todd. That was when the big donors were getting their photos taken. I got to exchange a few words with him and I told him to “Expend all ordnance.” He looked exhausted and clearly kew that the polls said he was going to lose. He held back, he assured the public that Obama was decent and honorable and it would be OK if he became President. Why? The reason simply escapes me, unless McCain was convinced that he would lose and it was important for America to try and heal the wounds.
McCain should have stared Obama down and said, “Why are you so arrogant?” He should have said that he did not believe the birther line but that a decent respect for the public required releasing all your documents, including birth and educational records, before asking for the job. He should have forced the issue on national television about phone banks in Gaza and bundling of foreign money and the hypocrisy of the Democrats reneging on their pledge to use the public campaign finance system. Why did McCain hold back? If you fight a campaign, win. Obama used about 3/4 Billion dollars, half foreign and illegal. McCain had the chance to strike when the world was watching. It was the only way to break past the blanket media endorsement of Obama.
He held back and now are all stranded as the barbarians sweep around us. We are like the Byzantines after Manzikert.
Nov 20, 2009 - 5:40 am 10. Habu:Money in politics always been around. It’s the lubricant of our entire system. It allows positions and voices to be heard and fully outlined.
ANY restrictions on who gets, and how much of the money they spend, is a direct assault on the free speech of our citizenry. Having said that naturally a caveat follows. Others I am sure will provide their sophistry as to how restricting money spent on getting the message out is a good thing and isn’t a restriction on free speech.
We have just been through either a real or imaginary crisis, fully exploited by the Democratic Communists in our Congress and those who work for Goldman Sachs and the FED.
Bernanke will not disclose where the money went and we’re talking HUNDREDS of MILLIONS of dollars. Is there sufficient doubt to exclude as the vanguard of this calumny the Democrat-Communists from the larceny of creating the “crisis” on a Sunday night and getting the money by the next week end? Only the hopelessly naive would believe so.
Since Castro in the late fifties (actually much earlier,FDR being the Godfather) up until today the Democratic Communists have sought to undermine our republic using a concept called “‘economic democracy”, a bastardization of our free market system so profoundly misleading as to be seditious.
There must be a cleansing, a clash of these competing positions. But how favorable is it when the Democratic Communists structure the system they now fully control to steal taxpayers money? There are options that cleanse more deeply than an edict from an unelected administrative Czar. Let the clash begin.
Nov 20, 2009 - 5:49 am 11. always right:(1) I also have doubts about the dollars donation to Obama camp. It is good to see it mentioned again.
(2)
Nov 20, 2009 - 5:51 am 12. Insufficiently Sensitive:L3,
I am not an entrepreneur, but certainly applaude your effort. And thank you for an outlet for active engagement from other concerned ordinary citizens.
Bravo CLAPAC. Donation is en route.
I’ve been besieged by Republican orgs breathlessly begging. Their line is, we’ve got to stop those horrible Democrats. Not a peep along the lines of principles that Mr. Fernandez lists above – just simple, nearly desperate, negativity.
Occasionally I mail them a dollar bill, with my own comments on their pure reaction. When they can state where they’re going, and how they’d govern if ever elected again, maybe I’d send more. But until these mindless not-Democrats get organized (they’ve had a YEAR now, and just dribbled it down the drain of negativity), I’ll contribute to CLAPAC with some hopes of useful work on the receiving end.
Nov 20, 2009 - 6:51 am 13. anton:Leo, you know that you are now on the Administration’s “Enemy of the State” list. I would be proud to be on that same list with you and to ensure that honorable position I have made a donation. I will be encouraging local Conservatives to do the same. Good luck!
7. Numerian; “….assumption that the average citizen is basically incompetent and/or immoral..” Perhaps it is because that is what a Lefty sees every morning when they look in the mirror.
Nov 20, 2009 - 6:53 am 14. RWE:Lifeofthemind #9:
I believe that John McCain, for all his “rogue” status is so one of the Denizens of DC that he fully embraces the belief that some things are simply not done, that DC is comprised of polite society who should comport themselves with proper dignity. Indeed, his rogue status relative to the Republican Party derives from that fact, not from a “kick over the poker table” attitude.
In marked contrast, Ronald Reagan had more respect for the institutions of our government than just about anyone, but I recall reading that at his very first cabinet meeting he roiled officialdom by responding to a SecState dance of nuance and sensitivity by saying “Tell them we don’t care what the prior administration’s position was. We are not going to do that. The American people did not elect me to take actions that are not in our interests.”
A few months back McCain’s mother expressed her disdain for the ruffians who have seized control of the Republican Party. That brought to mind one of my favorite quotes, from 1988: “If the Democrats proposed burning the US Capitol to the ground the Republican counter proposal would be to accomplish the task in a series of small fires rather than one large conflagration.”
If McCain had kicked over the poker table, he would have been cheered by some and it might have helped his campaign – probably not enough to matter – but he would have been excluded from the polite society he so values, forever.
Leo: Great idea! Best of luck!
Now, I’ll go put on some pants.
Nov 20, 2009 - 6:59 am 15. Jim in Virginia:Leo Linbeck III- I agree with what is on CLAPAC’s website but before I donate to (or, were I a politician, accepted funds from) any group I would want a lot more information. Who is on the Board? Who is in charge? Are you Birchers? Birthers? Truthers? Neocons or Isolationists? Are you Republicans, Libertarians, non partisan? Do you plan to be a local, regional or national organization?
What candidates have you (individually or collectively) previously supported, as volunteers or donors? Which candidates would you consider supporting in the future? Are you closer to the Club for Growth, Ron Paul, Pat Buchanan, Rudy Giuliani, the Belmont Club or Free Republic?
With all due respect, without more information, CLAPAC is like the guy by the side of the road with the cardboard “Homeless please help” sign.
For some people, some of these are litmus test issues, and more data will make them less likely to support you. I’d argue that you would more than make up for that loss by gains from people who are more comfortable donate (and donating regularly) when they know more about you.
I intend this as constructive criticism and look forward to hearing more about CLAPAC.
On the overall fundraising issue- Barack Obama’s presidential campaign had an enormous Internet fundraising operation, with no accountability and apparently no way (and no interest) to determine if donors were American citizens or used their own names. If half the energy that has been spent on birth certificate research had gone into chasing the money, what would we find? A year in, some of Obama’s supporters are becoming disillusioned. Maybe some of them have stories to tell.
Nov 20, 2009 - 7:01 am 16. peterike:There are two big corruption stories of the Obama campaign that have effectively been white-washed from history by the MSM. One is the fraudulent means used to win the caucauses. The group “We Will Not Be Silenced” did good work around that, but of course it’s been ignored.
http://wewillnotbesilenced2008.com/
The other story, as mentioned above, is the illegal campaign contributions. There were a lot of internet efforts done around that at the time, including detailed exposes on how the O-team disabled all their credit card checking mechanisms.
I wonder if Breitbart would be interested in taking up either of these issues, since they seem to be about the only real investigative journalism outfit around (young kids doing the work that veteran journalists refuse to do) and they do seem to have found a way to get the story out behind the backs of the media.
We need to hammer home the notion that the Democrats, as a party, are irredeemably corrupt (the Republicans, on the other hard, are perhaps redeemably corrupt).
It continues to amaze me, pace LOTM, that the Republicans just let things like this vanish. Why wasn’t every Republican during the campaign starting off any interview by saying something like “Where is the money coming from?” Republicans need to challenge the media relentlessly and call them out on their lack of interest in this and other topics.
I wonder if Charlie Gibson’s ever even heard of any of this? No, I don’t wonder.
Nov 20, 2009 - 7:07 am 17. joe buzz:Money buys votes story of the day:
$100M Health Care vote
h/t Drudge
Nov 20, 2009 - 8:09 am 18. Marcus Aurelius:There is a ghost lurking in many of these discussions. As often as not, it is not explicitly mentioned but there is always a heavy dose of implicit mention. That is, monetary contributions to candidates are likened to bribery.
Not saying politicians anywhere are immune to corrupt deals involving transfers of wealth but a lot of people attempt to paint the NRA’s contribution to an out and out pro-gun candidate as a rank and corrupt bribe. Which of course is a ludicrous position to stake out.
Can you imagine the NRA sending boatloads of money to Nancy Pelosi to try to get her to vote to liberalize (and keep liberal) gun laws? No, groups contribute to and work on behalf of candidates they believe already support their cause.
Many of the campaign finance regulations aim to dissolve the influence of advocacy groups. United we stand divided we fall and those in power want to divide the electorate — so people wanting to band together to deliver a harmonious message to government instead becomes white noise.
They try to tell us this will make government more accountable to the citizen rather than the “special interest groups” (which really means: “issues I am not concerned about”).
The ironic thing of it is, everytime the pols think they have a way to break up the groups the lawyers get busy and find a way to get around the laws. In the end things become even murkier
Nov 20, 2009 - 8:58 am 19. Leo Linbeck III:Jim in Virginia,
Very fair and reasonable questions. The board of CLAPAC is Richard Weekley (the leader of tort reform in Texas), Meredith Simonton (the Executive Director of Citizen Leader Alliance), and me.
You can easily Google Weekley. Simonton is our staffer.
As for me, if you want to know about what I believe, there’s probably no better place than the Belmont Club comment archives.
Hope this helps. Cheers,
L3
Nov 20, 2009 - 8:59 am 20. Josh:And that’s why Obama’s claim to be a “post-partisan” candidate was entirely laughable, and all those in the press and public who bought it, fools.
Nov 20, 2009 - 9:15 am 21. Marty:L3–
typo at CLAPAC website welcome page? says “principals” where I think you mean “principles”
now, back to contribute
Nov 20, 2009 - 9:56 am 22. Leo Linbeck III:Since Jim in Virginia appropriately raised the question about me, here is the link to the BC post where I provided links to more information:
http://pajamasmedia.com/richardfernandez/2009/10/31/best-commenter-finalists/#comment-11
More generally, he raises a fundamental question on all this: who can you trust?
The current status quo is one in which the opponents of liberty rely on funding sources that are compulsory: taxes. Those taxes are recycled into a variety of organizations who, regardless of their true intentions, are doing things that are harmful to our system, but helpful in expanding the scale and scope of government.
The proponents of liberty, on the other, if they take seriously their professed beliefs, rely solely on voluntary contributions. But as Jim in Virginia points out, once a check is cashed or the submit button on the credit card form is pushed, the giver has largely given up control. They have to trust the people in charge of that money to steward it well.
This difference in funding – compulsory vs. voluntary – creates a serious practical challenge: if limited government advocates choose to trust no one, we will lose.
So, we have to trust, but verify.
As far as why you should trust me, in my time here at the Belmont Club, I’ve always posted under my real name. (Anton: that means I’m already on the list
) I’m easy to Google. When others have asked me direct questions, I’ve always tried to answer. Of course, this is Wretchard’s bar; I’m just a guy sitting in the big leather chair in the corner, smoking a cigar. But I’m wearing a name tag.
So I’ve decided it’s time to get up and go to work. And I can tell you there are thousands of other entrepreneurs and business guys like me who are starting to move. We have many of them already in our group. And more will join in the coming days, as we share more about what we’re doing.
I will also add that it is my expectation that some of our most serious opposition will come from rent-seeking corporate interests who see the expansion of government as a business opportunity, not a threat. As the king’s power expands, there are always vassal lords who stand to benefit.
Finally, as far as verification is concerned, CLAPAC’s activities are publicly reported, and I will remain active here at the BC. So you’ll have plenty of opportunity to verify.
Anyway, thanks again to Wretchard for the vine, and I’m happy to engage further on this important effort.
Cheers,
Nov 20, 2009 - 9:59 am 23. Trent Telenko:L3
Wretchard,
Much of Obama’s & Democrat’s advantage in 2007-2008 fund raising was from ignoring campaign finance laws that McCain’s campaign tried to follow.
The Republicans will be under no such limits in 2012.
The Democrats’ real problem in selling their health care plans — despite all their illegal campaign money and Ailansky/Chicago machine political tactics political — is that they are lying.
It is much more difficult to promote a single consistent message which is inconsistent with the actual objective than one which is consistent, particuarly with a national political objective.
This is related to the deception/interrogation principle that it is far more difficult to keep your story straight if you lie about it than if you tell the truth.
The most effective deceptions are based on half-truths, by concealing facts to give a false impression.
The real brass tacks objective of the Democratic health care plans is to nationalize the vast existing private health care oversight industry (insurance, etc.) and make them all public employees who will then contribute money to the Democratic Party the way public education employees do.
Note the consistent increase in non-teaching staff (mostly administrators) relative to teachers due to the ever-increasing paperwork requirements which add nothing to instructional value. With the administrators/non-teaching staff servicing left-wing causes in which they believe, and knowing that generous political donations to Democratic election groups keep their pay raises and promotions in an ever-increasing bureauracy coming.
I.e., the Democrats intend to turn the existing huge, but as-yet mostly private, health bureacracy into another part of the Democratic Party’s public employee (AKA NEA/SEIU/ACORN) client base.
Paid for by constant reductions in actual health care, just as the public education budget is increasingly devoured by administrative overhead.
The 1.3 million employee British Health Service is the model here.
The British BHS is larger than the uniformed US military payroll in a country with only 1/6th the population of the USA.
Nov 20, 2009 - 10:50 am 24. mariner:LotM:
Are you really confused about this?
The answer is the the Republican party is corrupt as well (just not as corrupt as Democrats). They have a gentlemen’s agreement not to expose each other’s corruption.
This was obvious to me when the Senate refused to convict Clinton during the impeachment trial. If that cluebat weren’t heavy enough, remember when the Republican Speaker of the House joined Democrats to protest the FBI’s investigation of Cold Cash Jefferson — AFTER he had been videotaped accepting the cash? (But of course Democrats aren’t gentlemen. Remember how they vigorously protested the FBI’s investigation of Randy Cunningham?)
The fix has been in for years.
This, BTW is why so many Republican “conservatives” are trashing Sarah Palin. If she gets her way corrupt Republicans will be swept aside along with corrupt Democrats.
Nov 20, 2009 - 11:22 am 25. mariner:Jim in Virginia:
How long have you been reading this blog?
If you had read it for any length of time you would have a good idea who L3 is and what he stands for. Try checking the archives.
Google him. “The truth is out there.”
L3:
God Bless You. I’ll send something when I can.
Wretchard:
Thank you for this post.
Nov 20, 2009 - 11:29 am 26. anton:22. Leo Linbeck III: “ENEMY OF THE STATE”
Leo, I was pretty sure that you had obtained that status a while back. This just puts you on the big board that is spelled out in all capital letters. I would be proud to listed with your ilk.
24. mariner, Re: the Clinton impeachment thing, I thought that they were more worried about that half-wit AlGore becoming President, they knew him better than the rest of the nation and it scared them enough to leave Slick Willie in charge.
Nov 20, 2009 - 11:41 am 27. mariner:anton @ 26:
That is a plausible alternative explanation.
Nov 20, 2009 - 11:54 am 28. small goverment:mariner
I almost replied before I read your last line. Sarah was taking on corruption in the Republican party before she ran for governor. Check out why she resigned from the Oil and Gas Commission and the results.
Nov 20, 2009 - 12:03 pm 29. olde fogey:This is exciting news. For the last few months, there have been recurrent comments indicating a desire for an understanding of how we could individually take action to combat the current attempted destruction of our country.
Many of us have taken action to financially support candidates that offer the hope of stopping this takeover. As mentioned, this often leads to an unsatisfying result where we are bombarded by requests for money from all over the country to “combat” the Pelosi/Reid schemes. I’ve personally checked out each request and some of these come from individuals who appear to be sincere (and also have at least a chance of winning) but others have just found another name to add to their mailing list so they can get their turn at the feeding trough.
As possible examples, Lt. Col. Allen West is running for Congress in Florida’s 22nd district. He lost in 2008 narrowly due to Obama’s coattails and has a good chance to win in 2010. On the other hand, Joseph Cao, who won Louisiana’s seat that was formerly filled by William Jefferson, was the only Republican who voted for the Pelosi health bill so may well be one of those who is ready to step up to the trough. As one individual located in California, it is nearly impossible to sort out who is deserving of my hard-earned money. And I sure as hell do not trust the Republican party to help me make such a decision.
I will trust Leo Linbeck and any organization with which he is affiliated. The reason is simple. I “know” Leo Linbeck better than I know some acquaintances because I’ve read his opinions on BC for years. It’s obvious from looking at the web site that they have just barely begun so others may not yet agree but I hope the time will come.
Money and offer to help are on the way. Thanks to Wretchard for pointing the way.
Nov 20, 2009 - 12:08 pm 30. Konyok:An excellent example of the power of concentrated interests relative to diffuse interests. Like the Obama staring Eye of Sauron, a brand name is needed to sign the dollar.
While it’s true that money is the “mother’s milk” of politics, the existence of a PAC that approximates the desires of the great unwashed does not solve the problem. It is not enough to send L3 a check and then wait for results. Personal engagement is necessary to ensure good candidates get needed support in 2010. Every office from dog catcher to state governor and U.S. senator should be addressed.
Last night I attended my county Republican central committee meeting. (Politburo?) Uncredentialed, I was the only attendee from my heavily Democrat precinct. I couldn’t vote on any of the yawn inducing by-law questions, but I was warmly received and had the opportunity to interrogate my state house and senate wannabe candidates.
Now is the time to get involved so that we can communicate to CLAPAC who would, and wouldn’t, be appropriate for their support when the primaries come around. Now is the time to infiltrate the Republican party.
Nov 20, 2009 - 12:33 pm 31. anton:27. mariner: I’m not saying that the Repubs are clean as the driven snow. I am pretty sure that there are too many that have sold their sould to stay inside the Beltway.
I was concerned that they would boot Clinton and we would end up with Gore. Al had already started down the path to AGW looniness which left me to doubt his ability to think rationally at any level.
Clinton I despised as an adulterer and a liar, but crazy Al scared me.
Nov 20, 2009 - 12:35 pm 32. Don Rodrigo:3. Matt Beck:
I’m glad twobyfour posted the link to the Hadley CRU hack story at “Watts Up With That.” I was just about to do the same thing. This is definitely the news story of the hour.
Thanks, Matt, for keeping that issue alive, even if it’s not pertinent to this thread. It does look like it may be a big scandal for AGW. Perhaps Wretchard will find time to delve into it on future posts.
Nov 20, 2009 - 12:36 pm 33. wretchard:I think one of the most interesting developments on the Internet has been the emergence of “self-forming” networks, of which the CRU hack (see my latest post) may be one. The traditional detective looks for the mastermind, the Moriarty, the Napoleon behind the surface activity. Operating along that principle, Nancy Pelosi believed the Tea Parties were “astroturf” or front organizations because she was accustomed to thinking in those terms.
Now they are going to look for the “mastermind” behind the CRU hack. Maybe they’ll find one, maybe they won’t. But here’s the thing the Internet has made it possible for memes to mastermind events. Ideas can simply suggest actions to a multiplicity of people. We live in fairly interesting times.
Nov 20, 2009 - 12:37 pm 34. F:L3:
Done. Good luck. We’ll be watching and listening. F
Nov 20, 2009 - 12:50 pm 35. Konyok:Wretchard,
Just as Major Hasan is *for* Al Qaeda if not *of* Al Qaeda.
So, we must look for ways to leverage existing infrastructures like the PAC funding system or the Republican party to advance our cause(s), fully cognizant of the dangers of “going native.”
Nov 20, 2009 - 1:14 pm 36. Darren:I know how much BCers like game theory, here is video of a dollar auction in action as well as linkage of lobbying to the dollar auction problem.
Everybody has to pay their bid in a dollar auction, even the people who lose. Lobbying is very much the same, PACs contribute to politicians, but the politician cannot apportion their vote by contribution. The lobby whose position is supported by the vote of the politician wins, but the lobby that loses not only lost the vote, but lost their contribution as well. The best strategy for dollar auctions is to realize when you’re in one, and stop playing as soon as possible.
I like Mr. Linbeck’s approach mainly because it avoids the dollar auction entirely by supporting people at the outset who believe the same things the PAC believes. In the most negative light, PAC money could be seen as bribery of a sort, it certainly looks that way in the Murtha case with associated Johnstown-based defense contractors. PACs that support at the outset candidates who (as far as the PAC can determine) won’t be able to be bought later are a really good idea.
Nov 20, 2009 - 2:10 pm 37. Habu:I’ll start a PAC.
It will celebrate one of the many unique events that have happened in the US Senate in which the Congressman Preston Brookes beat down Senator and blowhard Charles “Chucky” Sumner. It occurred on May 22, 1856, so if we get started we can celebrate the 144th anniversary of this glorious event and perhaps imbue in some of our Republican officials the guts to “take care of the constitution” for us ….before we have to get the job done ourselves.
This event actually happened but I do want to applaud L3 on his PAC and wish his PAC and his family the best protection they can afford when the goons show up to stomp on their gladiola bed, Chicago style.
Habu
Past president of the General Curtis LeMay Tokyo Torch Festival.
Supporter of replacing water boarding with the scrotal torque technique.
Killer of America’s enemies who have sworn to kill us first.
** Aside from administrative costs all donations will go toward acomplishing our charter which is held in a vault at the Federal Reserve or Goldman Sachs, I can’t remember which one they said would hold it.
Another copy is hidden in Sandy Burgers pants.
Nov 20, 2009 - 2:19 pm 38. Konyok:Habu,
Perhaps you could run for Congress in one of the phantom districts receiving stimulus money? I’d suggest a robust Deadwood platform.
Nov 20, 2009 - 2:48 pm 39. Don Rodrigo:Not completely pertinent to the thread, but still about the issue of “political currency:”
I get the impression that the Obami and the Democrats treat the 2008 victory as having “bought” the country. The votes they received are perceived by them as currency. Numerous statements and actions by Obama and company all scream “we own this, so we’ll do as we please.”
It’s as if we citizens are to be considered tenants on Obama’s property.
Remember, this is the guy who implied to European diplomats that the American nuclear arsenal was “his,” for him to do with as he pleased. The nationalizing of most of the auto industry is another dramatic example, as well as the notion that he is a “partner with God on matters of life and death.” And the list of examples goes on and on. I have read blog entries from leftists who gloat that “the military is OURS now! (yeah, right)” and other sophomoric nonsense. To these folks, this was a conquest, and they are now occupiers dealing with an often sullen populace. For an ideological bunch who railed against American occupation of Iraq, they seem to be fine with doing the equivalent with their own country.
Nov 20, 2009 - 3:36 pm 40. whiskey:Life — McCain WANTED to lose. He wanted OH SO BADLY TO LOSE. So that a Black guy could be President. McCain worships the good opinion of the NY Times and Washington Post more than he loves his country. He desires to be invited to fashionable cocktail parties more than he loves America.
Yes, he and Duke Cunningham stood tall under enormous pressure in Vietnam. When their country needed them the least. When their nation needed them the most, one was a corrupt hack selling his vote for hire, and the other a corrupt hack … selling his vote for fashionable opinion.
Look at Megan McCain. That tells you all you need to know about McCain.
RINOS want to lose because they ultimately agree with all the PC-Multiculturalism nonsense.
The only way to beat the money is through FEAR. What Breitbart is doing. What CRU did. What hopefully, the “Army of Davids” can do by targeting Obama, his friends, his family, his backers, and digging out every dirty little secret, every ugly little transaction, every corrupt bargain, and making it public. Through the internet.
Nov 20, 2009 - 3:55 pm 41. jWarrior:Re: Republicans. I remember reading that Bob Dole first ran for office as a Republican because there was more opportunity for success (less competition) than because he actually, you know, believed in limited government. Arlen Specter is cut from the same cloth, as I suspect are many others. They just want to be someone important and powerful.
Potomac fever explains a lot too. No matter how fire-breathing a Republican is when he comes to DC, he often succumbs to the siren song of ‘moderation’ and ‘bi-partisanship’ (agreeing with the Democrats). Here their wives play a big part – imagine the pressure a guy is under at home when he is constantly slandered as a bible-thumping etc by the Washington Post, and she makes it clear she won’t get invited to join the Ladies Auxiliary of the Kennedy Center (or whatever) if he keeps it up.
Then they see the millions their ex-colleagues make when they go off to become lobbyists, and suddenly they find themselves ‘indispensable’. See George Nethercutt, the guy who knocked off Tom Foley in 1994, then reneged on this term limits promise.
Nov 20, 2009 - 4:10 pm 42. Subotai Bahadur:If I may, I’d like to offer a connection between the labeling and role of cash in our political system, and my explication of the deliberate alliance with and support of hostile foreign interests by the Democrats since the mid-1960’s to attack their political opponents domestically at # 19 in “The Devil You Know” thread.
As I noted, such matters quickly become a two way street. Once it does so, the stronger partner will provide both direction and support to the weaker partner to accomplish their own ends. Cash is the most fungible means of support available. Let us note the public revelations of funding anomalies by the Democratic Party.
Let me emphasize strongly that I do not make any claim that the Republican Party is moral, honest, or anything but a mechanism for achieving political ends. The problem with them is largely that their public political ends as believed by its base are not the actual political ends they are pursuing. The principles they claim are not what they are fighting for. Thus the dissonance with its base.
I will say that there is reason to make a working assumption that the Republican Party, while not totally honest, is not taking aid from foreign sources; especially hostile ones. The reason for the limited statement of faith in the Republicans is simple. There is a constant level of investigation and observation of the activities and personalities in the Republican Party that would preclude such. If it could be shown that the Republican Party was operating in alliance with a foreign power, it would result in a new star in the media firmament, and a host of Pulitzer Prizes for the reporters who broke the story.
If a Democrat was caught in bed with an underage live boy or dead girl with the encounter Federally funded through ACORN; if it was reported at all, he would be praised in the media for his work with youth. If a Republican is caught littering, he will be reported as being an environmental monster. The difference in emphasis between what the state-controlled media covers is blatant.
As an example we can look at the hordes of reporters literally going through trash dumpsters in Wasila, Alaska in a desperate attempt to find anything unsavory about Sarah Palin. Or more recently, the ELEVEN Associated Press reporters assigned to “fact check” her book. Or the special report issued by CNN to “fact check” a satirical comedy piece on Saturday Night Live that was less than idulatory toward Buraq Obama. [Admittedly that last was also done as a deterrent to any further such sketches].
Contrast that with the media’s deliberate and studied lack of interest in any part of the background of Buraq Obama, or his TWO autobiographies; both of which it seems by forensic analysis and coy admissions, were not written by him.
If after all of that scrutiny, there have not been any such stories about Republican misdeeds, even made up ones; there probably are not any out there of comparable nature to the Democrats’.
Moving back to the concept of working with foreign powers, the Democrats have not only tried to illegally work with our enemies to influence our domestic policies [as described in the previous thread]; the quid pro quo has moved beyond words.
Consider the 1992 primaries. William Jefferson Blythe Clinton was running for President. Part way through the New York Primary, Clinton was broke. James Riady [ethnic Chinese from Indonesia] arranged a multi-million dollar unsecured loan from Worthen Bank with the funds actually coming from a Bank in Hong Kong controlled by the Lippo Group. Riady ran the Lippo Group Conglomerate, which had ties with Chinese Army intelligence.
There were further illegal contributions from Riady and his employee John Huang, and others, resulting eventually in their being found guilty of violations of campaign finance laws and fined $8.6 million; which was paid by the Lippo Group. The Democrats got to keep and use all campaign contributions until after the elections.
During the 1996 campaign, the money was gathered by Al Gore. The Democrats received millions of dollars in illegal bundled contributions from people around the country who had themselves received it from overseas. One can remember the classic Al Gore fundraiser at the Hsi Lai Buddhist temple in Hacienda Heights, California; where he raised $166,000 cash from Buddhist monks who were supposedly under a vow of poverty, and most of whom were foreign nationals and not legally allowed to contribute. The money was funneled by the aforementioned John Huang.
Gore used the phrase “no controlling legal authority” to claim innocence. It seems to have worked. The press downplayed the trials and conviction, and there was no more than a wink and nod to the administration for receiving the illegal money that Riady and Huang were convicted of giving.
Now we have the 2008 campaign. It has been documented elsewhere in excruciating detail exactly how the Obama credit card operation deliberately removed all the normal built in software controls that would enable the contributions to only be collected in accordance with the law. Further, the controls that would protect against credit card fraud were also disabled [matching name and card number, etc.], and there were a goodly number of American credit card holders who were billed for contributions they had not made. A large portion of the questionable contributions came from overseas. Historically, there are not that many expatriate Americans who contribute to political campaigns from overseas, or even vote. In addition, several large, bundled, illegal foreign [from Gaza, from Kenya, from Egypt] contributions were stopped. Given the porous nature of the spot checks on contributions; it is not unreasonable to believe that a whole lot more got through.
The question that remains is exactly WHO overseas would have a vested interest illegally funding a Democratic candidate for president? The evil Swiss? Perhaps the Andorrans. Or perhaps it is a collection of the various foreign powers that the Democrats have been allying themselves with for a generation.
I offered a research project for readers in “The Devil You Know” thread; about the historical results when one faction within a nation/kingdom/empire turns to a foreign power for help in opposing another faction. The short form answer is: civil war or conquest.
Oh, as to why the Institutional Republicans did not, and do not, call out the Democrats on what they do?
I suspect it is a combination of 3 things, with the proportions varying from moment to moment. First, I am sure that they have some skeletons in their own closets they are concealing. Secondly, they have no hope of achieving any traction with any revelations about any illegal activity by the Democrats, because of the media bias noted above. Finally, as an institution, the Republicans are like the Whigs in the 1850’s. They have no deeply held overarching ideals or beliefs that can unify them or which they are willing to fight for. Therefore, they are reduced to trying to hold on to individual positions, power, and perks. The base is not so cynical, and they resent being manipulated and ignored. Thus, the Republican Party is more concerned with forcing its base to submit than with defeating Democrats.
Subotai Bahadur
Nov 20, 2009 - 4:30 pm 43. Don Rodrigo:Potomac fever explains a lot too. No matter how fire-breathing a Republican is when he comes to DC, he often succumbs to the siren song of ‘moderation’ and ‘bi-partisanship’ (agreeing with the Democrats). Here their wives play a big part – imagine the pressure a guy is under at home when he is constantly slandered as a bible-thumping etc by the Washington Post, and she makes it clear she won’t get invited to join the Ladies Auxiliary of the Kennedy Center (or whatever) if he keeps it up.
This may hold true for why a majority of Wall Streeters are Democrats: so they can get along with their tony neighbors on Manhattan and in the Hamptons.
Nov 20, 2009 - 4:42 pm 44. Jim in Virginia:25 Mariner- I’ve been reading Mr. Fernandez since back when he was Wretchard. But I usually don’t read all the comments, and not knowing that Leo Linbeck III uses his real name I never considered googling him.
Nov 20, 2009 - 9:01 pm 45. Carol Herman:Mr. Linbeck: several quick searches tell me all I need to know. The check will be in the mail tomorrow. By the way, I’m BSCE Rice 1978. I used to be a Houston conservative until I moved north.
Good luck to you and CLAPAC.
Who can forget how Carville got rich? He got 10% off the top of the revenues on the ads Clinton ran. In 1992. And, in 1996.
What people probably don’t realize is how the money extends outward, like a grapevine. Making media outlets rich. And, ditto, for some pollsters.
Of course, McCain lost. So, there ya go. One side wins. The other side only needs a little over 50% to pick up everything. And, it takes a special type of person to “dial for dollars.” Which is another thing that separates real politicians, from losers.
Up ahead, however, the pharmaceuticals, who put in the biggest pot of cash you can visualize, are coming to discover the downside. When the winners shaft ya. And, then, come at you, again, looking for more money. Are you exhausted yet from all these trappings?
Nov 21, 2009 - 12:30 pm 46. Carol Herman:Pelosi actually shows she’s boss in another way! She’s sat on her liberal faction. She pushes the agenda SHE wants! And, she’s successful at it. Like no other female in history!
An example of how she strategizes, you have only to look at the US Army. Obama comes in and changes NOTHING! Pelosi tells him to offer the Secretary of the Army chair to a republican! So she just freed up a republican seat, that has been in republican hands since 1840! And, ya know what? It wouldn’t have mattered if Dede Scuzzafava had won it, instead. (And, Doug Hoffman’s changes of climbing above Bill Owens’ total isn’t much of a reality, either.) So, for strategy, the abilities reside in your Majority Chair. Newt made a mess of it. And, Hastert was worse!
Nov 21, 2009 - 12:51 pm 47. Desert Ronin:@33. Wretchard: “. . . Nancy Pelosi believed the Tea Parties were “astroturf” or front organizations because she was accustomed to thinking in those terms.”
Working with the Tea Party Partiots in Arizona and Nevada, I’ve been dismayed to see so much influence from Freedom Works and the GOP factions around the Tea Party Express. Wretchard, what do you make of the insurance funds flowing through Freedom Works?
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/30219673/the_lie_machine
Nov 21, 2009 - 5:31 pm