If only Texas had public campaign financing, this would be moot

[tbyg52]

Sigh....

Kinky demands Gilbert return campaign contributions

Kinky Friedman has a new suggestion for agriculture commissioner opponent Hank Gilbert: give the money back.

Friedman released a statement today denouncing the $150,000 Gilbert accepted from Farouk Shami after endorsing him and dropping out of the governor's race. I wrote about the story in today's Dallas Morning News.

The Friedman campaign called the exchange "a bribe" and said the East Texas cattle rancher went from "attacking Shami to endorsing him and attacking Mayor Bill White."

http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2010/01/kinky-demands-gilbert-return-c.html

I continue to be really angry that Kinky is running for anything, and that Hightower is advising him.

[sonias]

1. I would love to see public campaign financing in Texas

I agree that this would be a moot point then.

But since we have the wild, wild west of unlimited campaign contributions in Texas races, I can't begrudge Hank holding on to the money.

Hank explained it well enough for me - Ross Ramsey Falls into the Rumor Mill

I don't think Hank needs to give the money back. There is nothing dishonest in taking it or in Farouk contributing it. Farouk gave Kinky money last election. Kinky's just jealous he didn't get Farouk's money this time. Too bad Kinky you jackass - suck it up!

Staples will have millions of dollars from rich corporations and rich patrons like Bob Perry and James Leininger who really do expect something for their huge contributions.

Sonia

[NoPasaran]

2. Kinky can pound sand for all I care

[sonias]

3. A tale of another contribution aberration

Lets make this thread about all contribution aberrations. If you're a millionaire, you can do whatever you want with your money. Take this example. This guy backs Bill White but he gives $50K to Perry. The hope is that it helps Perry win since White can hopefully beat Perry.

Dallas Morning News 1/21/10
Austin millionaire's donation to Republican Rick Perry may actually be meant to help Democrat Bill White

(snip)
Included among the governor's usual givers, staunch Republicans all, is John McHale, an Austin high-tech millionaire with a long history of giving to Democrats.

McHale gave the Republican governor $50,000, making him one of Perry's largest donors as he seeks to fend off a challenge from GOP rival Kay Bailey Hutchison, a U.S. senator.

(snip)
McHale has given millions to Democratic candidates and causes. He supported Barack Obama for president, political groups linked to liberal financier George Soros, national and state Democratic candidates and the Democratic Governors Association.

McHale was backing White in his bid for the Senate. According to Perry's latest finance report, McHale's $50,000 donation was made on Dec. 4 – the very day White announced he was switching to the governor's race.

That just sounds nutty to me. :crazy:

Sonia

[tbyg52]

4. >>If you're a millionaire, you can do whatever you want with your money.

As can corporations, after today. :-(

[sonias]

5. Yeah that SCOTUS ruling sucked

We're already drowning in corporate influence in Texas and now the flood gates are wide open to make sure we really do drown.

Expect the kind of crap DeLay tried the last redistricting to rear its ugly head again. Our state contribution has stronger contribution rules than national now. I expect that will change with the next legislative session under the guise of following this stupid SCOTUS ruling.


:grr:


Sonia

[sonias]

6. The Texas Effect

Texas Tribune 1/22/10
The Spigot Turns On
(snip)
The ruling doesn't apply to contributions. Corporations and unions are barred from giving directly to political candidates and that ban remains untouched by the ruling in Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission.

The ruling will change campaign finance in Texas, where corporations and unions face similar restrictions to those in federal law. The March 2 primary elections might be affected — they're now less than six weeks away — but political financial practice here and across the U.S. could undergo serious changes before the general election in November. The ruling opens a new and potentially huge spigot of political money.

:puke: It's going to get real ugly out there this fall.

Sonia

[sonias]

7. A Stunner from the Supreme Court - (Texas Observer)

Texas Observer - The Contrarian blog 1/21/10
A Stunner from the Supreme Court

(snip)
The federal government and many states have bans on corporate contributions to campaigns (Texas' corporate prohibition is more than a century old). The laws prevent big companies like Wal-Mart or AT&T or Citigroup (or large unions like the AFL-CIO) from giving their own money to candidates. They also prevent corporations from airing ads that support or oppose specific candidates.

Instead, they have to form political action committees that raise funds from individuals. The company can't donate its own money. So when AT&T gives money to a candidate, that cash must come from the AT&T PAC, which has raised it from hundreds of people.

That may seem like a distinction without a difference, but it's not.

AT&T can write huge checks from its corporate account — much more money than could be raised from individuals. Moreover, the company can't pay for sham "issue" ads that support or attack specific candidates. If the corporate prohibition is overturned in a state like Texas, a company like Wal-Mart or AT&T could spend many millions on ads in political races.

Dave Mann tells it like it is and how it's going to be. :cry:

Sonia

[sonias]

8. So Long, Democracy, It’s Been Good to Know You

Texas Observer Purple Texas blog 1/22/10
So Long, Democracy, It’s Been Good to Know You

Thursday was not merely a 9/11 for American democracy — it was worse.

The Supreme Court's appalling and unconscionable 5-4 ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission means, essentially, one thing: Corporations will not just dominate, but rule, American politics for the forseeable future.

On Paul Burka's Texas Monthly blog, UT law professor David Anderson summed it up chillingly: "This is the end of politics as we know it, the end of democracy as we know it."

It is almost impossible to comprehend the immensity of what has happened. As The New York Times wrote in an appropriately apocalyptic editorial, "With a single, disastrous 5-to-4 ruling, the Supreme Court has thrust politics back to the robber-baron era of the 19th century. Disingenuously waving the flag of the First Amendment, the court’s conservative majority has paved the way for corporations to use their vast treasuries to overwhelm elections and intimidate elected officials into doing their bidding

And what state has the biggest robber-barons already? They are literally dancing in the streets over this one. :(

Sonia

[onestepforward]

9. "It is almost impossible to comprehend the immensity of what has happened."

I can't imagine a more disastrous blow to our democracy and it was created by our very own Supreme Court. x(

[sonias]

10. Put it was a partisan 5-4 ruling

Same kind of ruling that gave us a Bush presidency. Ironic huh - the guys (the Rs) that gave Bush the presidency, allowed bushie to appoint more conservative supreme court justices (Alito and Roberts) who undid our democracy in 2010. Seems to me that the conservative members of SCOTUS are responsible for killing democracy.

Would Sandra Day O'Conner vote with the conservatives if she was still on the court? Who knows. Either way she's responsible for the 5-4 ruling in Bush v Gore that gave G.W. the White House in the first place. :grr:

And the guy whose the swing vote on the court - Justice Kennedy is not a very stable force for sanity.

Roberts is the worst Chief Justice ever!! :puke:


Sonia

[sonias]

11. Ah the 5-4 split is now reported by the MSM

NY Daily News 1/23/10
5-4 split is the rule in Supreme Court's big cases

WASHINGTON - It comes down to this at the Supreme Court: If you've got Justice Anthony Kennedy on your side, you can pretty much do what you want. Without him, you're the author of an angry dissent.

Thursday's decision to strike down restrictions on corporate campaign spending more than 60 years old was the third time in nine days that the court divided 5-4, with liberals on one side and conservatives on the other.

(snip)
The rulings demonstrate the extent to which ideology - not fidelity to precedent or a particular interpretation of the Constitution - is the driving force on the court.

(snip)
Roberts and particularly Alito provided the crucial votes. Alito took the place of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who had voted to uphold the rules that the court jettisoned Thursday.

Because Kennedy was a near-certain vote to overturn one opinion in its entirety and a portion of the other, critics of the ruling focused on Roberts as the leader of the court and an advocate for a restrained approach to changing the law.

So everyone who said that SCOTUS was not such a big thing to worry about when bushie was "appointed" president, hopefully see the error of their ways. Unfortunately, the rest of us who knew better along with the majority of Americans got screwed! And we continue to pay for it everyday. :grr:


Sonia