Public Campaign - Public Financing - Comments

The debt issue is certainly

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 10:41:34 -0500

The debt issue is certainly a public attention grabber. They’ll do it to protect “homeowners” and the “economy,” but lenders will end up collecting most of the swag - agreed!

Quoting Nick Nyhart's column

Tue, 24 Jun 2008 13:35:44 -0500

Quoting Nick Nyhart's column in the Huffington Post, "Sen. Obama and his campaign must be clear in the weeks and months ahead about their commitment to ending a system that puts big money campaign contributors ahead of the needs and concerns of all Americans." I recommend that Public Campaign mount an email, telephone and letter-writing campaign to Sen. Obama's campaign offices asking him to publicly confirm support for Public Campaign Financing, and specifically for the Fair Elections Now Act. My home organization in Florida, the Space Coast Progressive Alliance (http://www.spacecoastprogressivealliance/elections) will join the effort, and I'll bet that all of the state and local Clean Elections organizations around the country will join in as well. The timing is right, while the country's attention is on the issue, that several thousand emails, letters and calls should have some impact. Fred Markham

Obama opting out is NOT understandable

Mon, 23 Jun 2008 04:16:54 -0500

How is his opting out "understandable?" He's raking in big corporate money too, not operating under this myth that they are all small donors. I can't believe how gullible people are. Obama just noticed the system is broken, after studying it for two years? I don't buy it. He's opting out because he's getting lots of donations. That's the only reason. And this site, of all sites, "understands"??? What a cop out.

Toss Her a Brick - With the

Thu, 22 May 2008 15:40:34 -0500

Toss Her a Brick - With the most recent election we see that, once again, that fundraising and campaign finance is the most important way to win elections. A person who is really qualified is not as important as how many $$$ the person has, is able to raise. Just look at Clinton's campaign to see this. The only way she is staying is because she has alot of financial backing. If you see her site, she has 3 big banners promoting donations and giving money to her campaign. Each person should be given the same amounts, decided from the government, and no more. All candidates should be on equal terms to win the election. I felt so fed up with this, that I decided to go to the website www.bricktoss.com, and toss her a brick.

I think the black man should win the election.

Mon, 28 Apr 2008 10:08:58 -0500

I think the Barack obama should win the election because he is the right leader for this great land. And I think he can do a good job. Good luck Barack

Clean elections

Fri, 04 Apr 2008 16:37:17 -0500

Cutting funding for Florida's Elections is not the way to go to obtain clean and fair elections.

You're welcome

Thu, 13 Mar 2008 14:22:47 -0500

Matt, No problem -- thanks for writing about this! Hope the information on our site was useful to you.

Thanks for referencing my

Sun, 09 Mar 2008 21:47:33 -0500

Thanks for referencing my aritle, Katie! I just happened across this post and thought it was cool because I actually rummaged through this site a little bit while researching. I plan to touch on the subject again in future columns, so I'll keep you updated. Sincerely, Matt Styer

ELECTION 2008: WILL THE AMERICAN PUBLIC BE THE LOSERS AGAIN?

Fri, 07 Mar 2008 21:51:31 -0500

Regardless of who wins in the upcoming national elections, Special Interest and Big Money Donors will be the winners again and the American public will be the losers. Why do you think special interest groups and corporate executives contribute large sums of money to the political campaigns of candidates from both major parties? We all know the answer to that question. They want and expect “their politicians” to somehow look out for the interests of the group that provided the money. In America today, we are living under a political system that not only allows, but encourages and condones the legalized bribery of candidates for the presidency and congress. To the Special Interest and Big Money donors, it doesn’t matter who wins the election because they contribute to the campaigns of the candidates of both major parties. Regardless of the outcome of the elections, the Special Interest and Big Money donors are always the winners. The reality of political life in America today is that politicians are being bribed every day by special interest groups that want them to look out for their interests, which are not necessarily compatible with the best interests of the American people. Money given to candidates for federal office by Political Action Committees, industry lobbyists, labor unions and other special interest groups is nothing more than "legalized bribery." As public servants, candidates for federal offices should not be taking money from these organizations to influence the decisions they will make during the course of performing their official duties. If a policeman takes a thousand dollar bribe from a drug dealer to help him out in some way, he would be committing the crime of Bribery. Why then is it legal for a presidential or congressional candidate to take a thousand dollar bribe (I mean campaign contribution) from some special interest group to help them out in some way. There is another practice that is perfectly legal, but equally as objectionable as receiving money from Political Action Committees and Special Interest Groups. It’s called “Bundling.” Bundling is the practice of pooling together a large number of contributions from individuals (or PACs) in order to maximize the influence of the bundler and the interests they represent. Most often, a bundler is a corporate executive or lobbyist, who raises substantial sums of money for specific candidates with the expectation of getting something in return. Here’s is an example of how a corporate bundler might operate: Let’s say the Chairman of a big Wall Street firm invites a candidate to give a 15 or 20 minute speech at a luncheon before a hundred or so of the firm’s top executives. At the end of the speech, the Chairman presents the candidate with a bundle of $2,300 checks from those executives and the candidate walks away with almost a quarter of a million dollar bribe (I mean contribution). Although this practice is perfectly legal, whose interest will the candidate really be looking out for if he’s elected? Here are some actual figures of Bundled Special Interest money from Wall Street firms (Top Four Donors) flowing into the campaigns of the leading presidential candidates that can be found on the http://www.opensecrects.org/ website: Senator Clinton: Goldman Sachs: $490,000, Morgan Stanley: $426,000, Citigroup: $353,000, Merrill Lynch: $161,000. Senator Obama: Goldman Sachs: $474,000, J.P. Morgan: $280,000, Lehman Brothers: $275,000, Morgan Stanley: $190,000. Senator McCain: Merrill Lynch: $177,000, Citigroup: $161,000, Goldman Sachs: $104,000, J.P. Morgan: $75,000. No matter how you say it, Special Interest dollars and Bundled Contributions can buy votes, elections and possibly even buy positions within the government. For example: the current Secretary of the Treasury, Henry M. Paulson, Jr. was Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Goldman Sachs before he became the 74th Secretary of the Treasury on June 19, 2006. Did the large amount of money received from Goldman Sachs executives have something to do with it? I will support any legislation that defines the receipt of any special interest money by candidates for federal office as Bribery and therefore illegal. I will also support the continued reporting by the Federal Election Commission of the names of the employers of people making donations of $200 or more. This way, the American voters can see where the candidates’ money is actually coming from, including those organizations that are bundling their contributions to candidates with the hopes of getting something in return. Our elected officials should be more concerned about doing what is in the best interest of American people, rather than doing what is in the best interests of their big money and special interest donors. Eliminating special interest money will be an important first step. For additional information, contact: JOHN W. WALLACE Candidate for Congress NY's 20th Congressional District

I see...

Wed, 30 Jan 2008 16:47:21 -0500

I see... I have never been to Portland.

Clean elections

Thu, 24 Jan 2008 10:57:50 -0500

To put it plainly, without public funding of the political process democracy simply doesn't exist.

politics has did alot of

Sat, 19 Jan 2008 00:34:12 -0500

politics has did alot of harm to the word.i hope the leaders can do something practical.

Wrong

Sun, 18 Nov 2007 13:50:31 -0500

This is so wrong... The truth is that some piece of pie and his girlfriend, Muffin, went up to the cake and the pie said, "Hey kid, have you been buttering my Muffin?" Then the cake said, "no way! It's that Fench Croissant that has been, those dang Frenchies."

Paying for Favors

Fri, 05 Oct 2007 15:09:33 -0500

Politics has long been an "old boy's network" that favors those who pay to play. By opening the arena I really don't see things changing because the Mr. & Mrs. Average can't give tens or even hundreds of thousands so their giving won't be noticed apart from the bottom line. Tough call...

Public financing of judicial races

Wed, 26 Sep 2007 14:05:56 -0500

It would be wonderful for my state's (Texas) judicial races to be publicly financed; I can't think of a more sober addressing of the public's perception of conflict of interest in judicial decision-making than this.