Put your money where your campaign is

Let the horse race begin! Politico has released its first 2010 campaign fundraising scorecard, and is already naming the winners and some embarrassing missed-the-mark losers. And this is just the first quarter.

So what gives? The game has hardly begun, right? Wrong.

The most important part about the media picking up on the candidates fundraising support thus far is that it creates a self-fulfilling prophecy of sorts. People read reports like these and think "Well, I was going to support Carolyn McCarthy to challenge Kristen Gillibrand, but why contribute to a losing battle?" Then what was still maybe a close game really does become a losing battle.

And my oh my, Sen. Burris, have you got a losing battle on your hands. Maybe he can take a hint from former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer: disappear from politics for a while, come back slowly, tail nicely tucked between the legs, and become a political pundit.

Franken v. Coleman: A sign of the times?

Are we in the beginnings of a new political era in which lawyers and recounts are as much part of the election process as attack ad's and American flag lapel pins? Some political scientists are claiming that as campaigns become more precise in targeting and mobilizing voters, the closer the elections are getting, which means long, drawn-out last resort measures to keep us trekking the campaign trail much longer than most of us want to be.

I say there are still contestants in this country willing to bow out (gracefully or otherwise) when their time is up. But they may be a dying breed and I can't help but wonder if this is all a product of this country's elementary school mindset that there are "no losers." Consolation prizes are great, but at some point kids need to understand that yes, there are losers and one day you might just be one of them. At which point, the next lesson would be how to congratulate the winner and move on with your life.

That being said, hopefully the everlasting Minnesota Senatorial race will give rise to a new precedent which will dissuade this type of litigation -- as opposed to encourage it as the Supreme Court did when it decided the 2000 Presidential race.

The tides need a 'changin, and I see no better time than now.

Media got you seeing double?

Anyone heard about the ethics probe Jesse Jackson Jr. is now facing in relation to the political pay-for-play Bloagojevich scandal? The media, like white on rice, was all over this story so maybe you saw it here. No? here? Maybe here, then? Well if you didn't see it there, you definitely saw it here!

There's no denying that media plays a big role in what stories get told on a daily basis and what constitutes "news". So, is this news? Word of Jackson's involvement has been out in the open for months, so why is this making headlines in mainstream and alternative media now? Something we in the biz like to call the "echo chamber effect." You just can't let the NY Times and The Washington Post cover something and let that be that. Every other reporter wants their byline on the story, too.

Sometimes this is a good thing. Different angles can be covered, bias unfolded, etc. Other times it's just plain ad nauseum.

We can also see how politicians use media to their advantage to score political points. Jackson is claiming he's the one who voted in favor of this ethics committee and he has nothing to worry about. Cooperation is his middle name, after all. So you have to wonder, as the smart news consumer that you are, why is this making headlines right now? Well, Jackson set up a press conference of course. If he wants to stay in politics and begin campaigning for any seat in 2010, he needs to be setting the debate on his terms, and not let others define him. If he stayed in the shadows it would look like he did something wrong -- doesn't matter if he really did or not. Especially with a case such as this where just the controversy alone could seriously damage his career.

Oh, I know...you must've seen it here.

Mayor for sale

What do these two pictures have in common? Upon a recent visit to Albuquerque New Mexico I've found the connection. Anyone interested in running for mayor in "the Q" has to resort to panhandling to even be considered for candidacy. A campaign finance law passed in 2005 requires those interested in the office to collect about 3,300 individual $5 contributions in a 45-day period if they want to go the public funding route.

Bottom line: If you arent independently wealthy enough to finance your own campaign, you need to convince thousands of people to cough up $5 for you to run. And it doesn't matter if someone gives you $5 or $500 -- they still just count as one $5 contributor.

While this may be easy for incumbents or sitting councilmembers interested in the seat or people with 3,000+ facebook friends, it would be near impossible for an unknown challenger to convince people to give up a five-dollar-foot-long to give him a shot in hell's chance of being a candidate -- not to mention actually winning the seat.

This is just not democracy as it was intended. People should be supporting candidates by voting (what a concept) instead of worrying about giving money to every possible candidate to level the playing field and inevitably losing money on the candidates who didn't win or couldn't collect enough contributions to even make it on the ballot.

Unemployed Texans get the boot

Texas Governor Rick Perry accepted $14 million in federal stimulus dollars, but rejected $555 million which would have gone to increased unemployment benefits. How furious are Texans over Gov. Perry's decision? While a slew of youtube members have voiced their concerns, the real measure will be his 2010 run for reelection. Republican Senator Kay Hutchison, a key primary opponent in the race, said earlier in the year that although she opposed the stimulus package, she would not turn down money from it if it were to pass. Texans will have to decide if that makes her wishy-washy or just plain smart.

Of course Perry's first and foremost goal is to please those who will have a hand in making him the Republican candidate, then he'll have to worry about pleasing the masses. Although with a 6.8% unemployment rate, the masses are hardly negatively impacted by the $555 million rejection, but those who are affected will certainly not suffer in silence...not if youtube has anything to do with it.


Photo courtesy of AP

Will AIG be the straw on the donkey's back?

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has been busy making his rounds shedding light on the mishandling of the AIG bailout and the lavish bonuses that ensued.

What kind of impact will this and other blunders have on the 2010 midterm elections? I think Democrats can expect to lose some seats, especially where there are open contests in which no incumbents are running. And this will happen not necessarily because all faith is lost in the Democratic party. I think people will be smart to give Republicans a bigger voice in Congress, not just on Sunday evening talk shows.

Yes, right now they are the "party of opposition," and who's to say their method would've fared any better than what Obama's administration has done so far. But let them put their money where their mouth is for a bit and see what evolves. Both parties (hopefully) realize what is at stake here -- and it's not just open Congressional seats, it's the livelihood of their constituents.

Democrats, as much as I support their cause, will have to live with the consequences of their recent actions. Big, big details were overlooked and they just couldn't afford that kind of flub right now. On the other hand, there is not a shadow of a doubt that Republican's also would have screwed up somewhere along the line, but their defense is a little different because of their 'hands-off' approach. Dem's inherently don't have that luxury, because if you chose to take control of a situation you need to see to it that it is controlled properly to the very end.

Now, damage control will be on the top of the Democratic agenda. But until that giant white-out pen does its job, and it will, the Republicans definitely will have a slight upper hand at the polls in the upcoming election.

Bent Steele

A Republican leader who is pro-choice with regards to both life and liberty? That's what it looked like in Michael Steele's interview with GQ magazine, but good thing I didn't hold my breath...it didn't take long for him to swallow his words (again) when conservative Republican's came a 'knockin.

Steele has been decidedly contradictory on these positions, first campaigning for a Constitutional amendment to ban abortion, then in the GQ interview saying its a woman's choice or really, he said it's the states choice to decide if it's the woman's choice (how's that for circumlocution), and then later retracting that statement to say he is definitely pro-life and it should definitely be a federal matter to ban abortions completely.

In terms of gay rights, he said in the GQ interview that it is not a choice to be gay, in fact it's as much of a choice as being black. But he also argued in another interview that it is crazy to let them marry, or to give them rights via civil unions.

This man clearly has some personal issues to work out before he does any more interviews. He's not said anything lately that he hasn't retracted, even the most agreeable statement that sometimes Rush Limbaugh can be "ugly." I'll ditto that.

Unfortunately Steele's time may be up because of these recent outburts of rationality, and the GOP will be back to the drawing board in its search for a leader. I gotta give it to them, they tried real hard to branch out -- looking to a woman and a minority for leadership roles, but it looks like "old, white, male" may still be the winning combination.

The dynamic duo strikes again

For a hundred years politicians have been able to bank favors to score Senate appointments during periods of vacancy, but recently the temptation to capitalize on this process has been too strong to bear. Enter Russ Feingold, the charismatic young buck in the video above with a reformers spirit.

Teaming up with Feingold is our other favorite maverick, John McCain, as well as Sen. Durbin (D-Ill) and Rep. Conyers (D-Mich) to introduce an amendment to end the gubernatorial rationing of Senate seats.

The McCain-Feingold camp has been successful before with enacting legislation in an attempt to keep government fair and balanced, but this one is quite a hefty request. The deciding factor, after all, will not be whether the amendment will give adequate power to the people, but how much time and money it will suck out of an already depleted well. Elections are expensive, so chances are, in the end, the decision will remain in the states hands and many will continue to go the appointment route to save money. Not to mention maybe even make some in the process.

Burris, Kaufman, Gillibrand and Bennet are our current appointed Senators who will have to run in the 2010 midterm elections to retain their positions. However, Burris might be pressured into not running by fellow Democrats, and Kaufman has been accused of being a seat holder for when Joe Biden Jr. is ready to inherit the seat. Also, had Judd Gregg of New Hampshire not gone back on his work to join Obamas cabinet, Bonnie Newman would've been included in this line up.

Political documentaries breaking the law?

What's the problem with this pre-election documentary, and why is the high court bothering to watch it? And no, it isn't just "popcorn and a movie Friday" at the Supreme Court.

Funny story actually, since her husband is the one who pushed the envelope with how he could raise campaign funds and what he could buy with them. "The Lincoln Bedroom hit the headlines during President Bill Clinton's first term, when he was accused of rewarding generous campaign donors with a night's stay there."

Basically, the McCain- Feingold law was enacted to put limitations on how campaign funds could be raised, and what they could be used for. For example, it is not ok to use "Levin funds to pay for any part of a federal election activity if the activity refers to a clearly identified
federal candidate." Levin funds are contributions made to spend only on "get out the vote" activities in federal elections. So these funds can be used on ad's that say "Rock the Vote" but they cannot be used on ad's that say "Ba-rack the Vote."

So this takes us back to Hillary: The Movie. The McCain- Feingold Act also bans corporate-funded broadcasts of "electioneering communications" 30 days before a primary and 60 days before the general election. But the film was not broadcast on cable or satellite, it was played in movie theaters. So the question is: is it constitutional to ban these documentaries in theaters the same way it is banned on television, or is that plain old censorship?

I say the latter. If someone is willing to pay the increasingly ridiculous price to watch a movie like this, they probably already have preconceived notions about Hillary, which the movie will likely reinforce. But, if they went to the movie expecting triumphant praise of the woman, they will see it as radical right-winged nonsense deserving of a laugh...then maybe try to get their money back. Bottom line: The law is good as is. If this documentary was played on television in the outlawed time-frame it would be a problem, but it wasn't so it's not. It's like political porn -- in a pant suit.

No Republican Left Behind

State budget, shmate rudget, have you seen the NRCC budget lately? That's what needs fixing if Republicans want to keep their jobs.

It's looking like the main duty of a representative is not service to their constituents, but rather haggling their money away from them. Well, John Boehner (R-Oh), House Minority Leader, is taking this job seriously and has long been fundraising for his 2010 re-election with his own PAC. The only problem? Getting his fellow Republicans to do the same. Nothing a little ultimatum can't fix:

"Boehner is threatening to deny help to GOP members who fail to hit specific benchmarks for raising money, putting together effective campaign operations, hiring the right people and smartly managing their campaign resources."

True, it is getting time to buckle down and raise some money, but uhm, nobody's got any. It seems just about as rational as the No Child Left Behind Act -- if they can't hit a benchmark, cut them off at the knees. That'll show em.

Boehner's got his own reasons, though. First of all, "House Majority Leader" has such a better ring to it. Well, I guess there's only one reason, but it's reason enough.