Campaign Finance

Robocall to Steny Hoyer by Reverend Lennox Yearwood

davidswanson — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 19:39:17 -0400

Listen to Rev and Call Hoyer. Then Call Rev and Tell Him to Run for Congress in Hoyer's district!

McCain and the Lobbyist--Missing the Story of the Miss

dlindorff — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 10:43:27 -0500

By Dave Lindorff

All the attention in the breaking story about John McCain's 2000 relationship with a blonde young telecom lobbyist has been focussed on the question of whether or not they were "doing it."

As George Stephanopoulos claimed on ABC, the importance of the story depends upon whether McCain is shown to have had a "relationship" with the lobbyist, Vicki Iseman.

But really, who cares whether they were shacking up on the campaign trail? McCain, after all, already double-timed his starter wife and dumped her for a trophy wife, the statuesque and wealthy beer industry heiress Cindy Hensley, so it's not as though he is campaigning on a strong pro-family platform.

No, the reason his aides, back in 1998-2000, started working behind the scenes to keep Iseman away from McCain, and confronted McCain over his dalliances was because McCain, who had a history of corruption, most notably his card-carrying membership in the Keating Five savings and loan scandal, couldn't afford to appear to be backsliding.

It isn't, that is to say, a matter of whether or not McCain was diddling Vicki. It's whether he was delivering for her and her clients, perhaps in return for her delivering for him.

As the New York Times reported in its investigative story on the McCain/Iseman liason, published February 21, the media were reporting back in 2000 on how McCain had been writing letters on behalf of some of Iseman's telecom clients.

The Times article reports that McCain wrote letters in 1998 and 1999 to the Federal Communications Commission urging it to uphold marketing agreements that would allow TV companies like Glencairn Ltd., an Iseman client, to control two stations in the same city. The paper says the senator also introduced a measure in the Senate that would create tax incentives for minority ownership of stations, a measure sought by Iseman on behalf of several media clients. McCain also on two occasions reportedly pushed legislation that would permit a company to control television stations in overlapping markets. That was a measure being sought by Paxson (now Ion Media Networks), yet another Iseman client.

The Times reports that in 1999, Iseman asked Mr. McCain's staff to send a letter to the FCC seeking approval of a television deal being sought by Paxon. McCain sent that letter, and a second one--a level of interference which led to a rebuke from the then FCC chairman.

So what's the story here? Is it whether Sen. McCain is an adulterer? Or is it whether he is a rank hypocrite posing as a Mr. Clean Government?

The problem may be that what McCain was doing shilling for the telecom industry is not illegal, and is not uncommon. In fact, it's what our legislators do. Virtually all of them. The only thing different about McCain is that he claims he doesn't do that, at least not since he saw the light when he nearly went to jail for it, or at least had a near political death experience after hitching his nascent congressional career to a corrupt banker's wagon.

Meanwhile, we see once again what a wussy newspaper the New York Times is, at least where investigative stories about the Right are concerned. Once again, we learn, this time from the New Republic, that the Times and its executive editor, Bill Keller, held, this time for over two months, a political story that the public had a need and right to know about during a critical election campaign. How different might the presidential campaign look now if the Times had run its story in December, when it was ready to go, well ahead of the Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire primary, instead of now when McCain has the Republican nomination all but sewn up?

This kind of dithering and backpedaling and censorship by Keller, which reportedly followed intense lobbying and threats by McCain and his campaign, recalls Keller's holding (for a year, and until after the 2006 Congressional election!) of a reporter's story about the National Security Agency's illegal warrantless spying program, and his holding and ultimately killing of an already typeset story (a week before the 2004 presidential election) about the remote cueing device on President George Bush's back and in his ear during the 2004 presidential debates.
(See my story on this in FAIR's Extra magazine and in Mother Jones magazine.)

We are left to wonder, what other great stories is Keller hiding from us, perhaps until after Election Day this November?
_______________
DAVE LINDORFF is a Philadelphia-based investigative journalist and columnist. His latest book is “The Case for Impeachment” (St. Martin’s Press, 2006 and now available in paperback edition). His work is also found at www.thiscantbehappening.net

A Plan to Raise More Money Than Republicans Every Election Cycle

George Ortega — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 17:23:54 -0500

In 2006, we were lucky that voters held Republicans accountable for Iraq and corruption. Luck is not the only thing on our side this time. While Republicans usually out-raise us in campaign funding, this election cycle we Democrats have sensed opportunity and reversed the relation. However, if we are to begin winning elections not by chance but because of our ability to consistently out-fundraise Republicans, we must first understand why, aside from rare, anomalous, instances, Republicans routinely raise more cash than we do. Upon analysis, the answer becomes glaringly obvious.

Our money comes largely from the salaries of our wage-earning donors, while Republican money comes largely from the profits wealthy donors earn selling Americans products. The way to end this major fundraising disadvantage is equally obvious; we need to beat the Republicans at their own game by selling our own products. The rest of this diary describes how, if we begin now, we can sell enough products to raise several million dollars for Democratic campaigns by October 2008, and if we keep working beyond November, we can raise $100-200 million dollars for the 2010 elections.

To anyone who thinks we’re already trying to do this with BuyBlue and other "percentage of profit" schemes, let me be very clear that what I’m talking about is not the selling of products by individuals or corporations who donate 1%, or 5%, or even 20% of their profit to the Democratic Party. I’m talking about the big money we can raise by creating companies that donate the full 100% of their profit to helping elect Democrats. Before showing that this is doable by presenting some companies that already donate all of their profits to progressive causes, I’ll briefly describe how product profits would flow from our company to the electing of Democratic candidates.

Let’s say we start a company that sells food products to compete with the food products Philip Morris (they now call themselves Altria and spun off Kraft Foods in March, 2007) sold in North America in 2006 to generate $23 billion in net revenues. Our products are basically equal in quality to competing products, and we sell them for basically the same price. Why would shoppers buy our products over those of Philip Morris? Because, as is printed on each of our products’ labels, and as our legions of bloggers will have plastered all over the Internet and elsewhere, we donate the profits from the sale of our products to organizations fighting global warming (or enhancing education or curing diseases, or addressing any number of other causes that the public broadly supports). So, our company markets the food products, and donates 100% of the profits to the Sierra Club. In October of 2008, the Sierra Club uses that money to pay for a barrage of TV ads that warn Oklahoma voters about Senate candidate and global warming denier, James Inhofe, and explain how dangerous he is to their children and grandchildren’s welfare. The strategy is simple, effective, and legal.

Can we really expect to raise a lot of money for Democratic candidates by creating companies that give 100% of their profit away? Well, first consider that UNICEF (United Nations Children’s Fund), who began selling greeting cards in 1949, has raised over $1 billion for children this way, and that each year their greeting cards generate $130 million in profits. Sounds too "institutional’? Well consider how college buddies Xavier Helgesen, Jeff Kurtzman and Chris Fuchs founded Better World Books in 2002, and have donated all of their $4.24 million in profits to the cause of literacy and education. Sounds like not enough money? Consider that the AAFES (The Army and Air Force Exchange Service), run by our U.S. Department of Defense, has been selling discounted products and services to our military personnel since 1900. It gives its profits back to the soldiers in the form of quality-of-life programs, and has generated over $2.3 billon from these products during a recent 10 year period.

Who else is selling products and giving all of their profits away? Well, Robert Kennedy Jr. founded a company in 1998 called Keeper Springs whose bottled water has raised over $500 thousand for clean water organizations. Actor Paul Newman’s company, Newman’s Own, has been selling food products since 1982, and has donated all of its over $200 million in profits to progressive causes. Even the Girl Scouts of America raise money by selling products; each year their brief cookie selling campaign earns them over $300 million.

Here are some other 100% profit-donating companies you can check out; Humanitas Wines, $30 thousand since 2001; Under One Roof, $3.8 million since 1990; Merit Telecom, over $185 thousand since 2000; Peacekeeper Cosmetics, over $85 thousand since 2001; Charles, Prince of Wales’ Duchy Originals, £6 million since 1992.

I wanted to see for myself how many shoppers would prefer to buy their products from a company that donates its profits to a worthy cause rather than from a conventional company. So, two ladies and I stood in front of a supermarket, and we asked 100 shoppers the following question; "If your supermarket offered new food products that were equal in price and quality to the products that you now buy, and you knew that 100 percent of the profit from these new products would be used to end world hunger, would you buy these new products?" 92 of the shoppers said yes.

O.K., so maybe you’re convinced that selling products would be a good way to raise millions of dollars to elect Democrats to the White House, Congress, and elsewhere. But, maybe you think this is out of our reach because selling a product is expensive, and it demands a lot of know-how. For an in-depth explanation of how not-expensive and not-involved this kind of enterprise really is, you might want to check out Paul Newman’s book Shameless Exploitation in Pursuit of the Common Good: The Madcap Business Adventure by the Truly Oddest Couple wherein he explains exactly how he did it, or read this article as an intro. For now, know that Newman started his company with only $20,000 (he had earmarked $40,000 for the project, but only spent half that amount), and that he and his partner, Alex Hotchner, had absolutely no food marketing experience before they began. How’d they do it? Well, basically they formed an "S" corporation, and outsourced manufacturing and distribution. Also, their entire staff consisted of Alex and Paul, a part-time secretary and a part-time bookkeeper.

Now let’s cut to the chase. A few paragraphs back I said that if we start now, our companies that exist to generate campaign funding for Democrat candidates could raise $100-$200 million in time for the 2010 election. Is this grandiose, wishful thinking or a realistic goal? Let’s go through the numbers. We’ll do a rough ballpark projection using Newman’s Own as our model, knowing full well that as influential a celebrity as Paul Newman was in 1982 when he started the business, the Blogosphere today has far more clout and contacts to push products than Newman had 25 years ago.

In September of 1982, Newman launched his first product with $20 thousand. In 2007 dollars, that comes to about $42.5 thousand. So, let’s say we invest about $2.12 million to launch 50 products. After its first year, Newman’s product had earned $1 million in profits. So, by launching 50 products next summer, we can expect to earn at least a few million dollars by November 2008, and $50 million by the summer of 2009. Newman launched a second product in February of 1983, and a third product in July of 1984. By the end of 1984, the three products had earned a total of $4 million in profit. (Newman’s figures are on pages 205 and 206 of his book, Shameless Exploitation in Pursuit of the Common Good.... To access the online "Chronology" where Newman cites these earnings, first visit this "Search Inside" page, type "204" in the search box, click "GO," and then click the "from Back Matter" link. The $4 million figure appears on page 205.)

So from three products, Newman’s Own earned an average of $148 thousand per month over 27 months. Extrapolating from these earnings, by the summer of 2010, our products would earn about $177 million ($148,000 times 24 months, times 50 initial products rather than one).

Not too shabby a fundraising drive by our company employees who would, of course, earn a decent salary for their labor. Remember, Newman outsourced manufacturing and distribution, and so would we. We would not have to own or rent a single factory or warehouse. We raise $177 million for Democratic candidates in two years by selling products to launch a major offensive against the Republican Party in 2009 and 2010.

And that’s the plan. Shoppers get the opportunity to buy from a company that donates its profits to organizations working on progressive causes rather than from companies that will probably use their profits to finance Republican candidates who’ll oppose that work. The organizations our companies donate their profits to use that money to attack Republican candidates. We fight fire with fire, and win...Big.

What would all of this mean for the Blogosphere? Well, we’ve had major victories, and we’re now a force that politicians ignore only at their peril. Championing, promoting, and setting up these fundraising companies would probably bring about the most forceful leveling of the economic playing field in the history of democratic elections. We would be restructuring our capitalist democracy so that it stops catering to the rich and powerful, and finally begins sufficiently representing the millions of us who are America. Let’s get this done.

Cleaning House?

Chip — Mon, 04 Dec 2006 04:59:42 -0500

ABC News reports that Speaker Nancy Pelosi selected El Pasoan Silvestre Reyes (D-TX) as the next chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, the committee on which he has served for the past six years. Prior to his election to the House in 1996, Representative Reyes was a border patrol agent for more than 26 years.

But it isn't Representative Reyes' border patrol experience, or his service in the military during Vietnam, his vote against the Iraq war, or his experience on House Select Intelligence and Veterans Affairs Committees that makes his selection so intriguing. After all, Reyes was instrumental in leading opposition to the WI Republican Jim Sensenbrenner's House immigration proposal and is credited with keeping Fort Bliss and White Sands military bases open, as well as previously chairing the Congressional Hispanic Caucus.

Representative Reyes has been a strong critic of the administration's border security failings. "The Republican House leadership spent the entire month of August holding media events and hearings on the border, and the message from those who work on the border every day is that we don’t need 700 miles of new fence. We need a comprehensive plan that addresses the three main priorities of the Border Patrol: manpower, technology, and infrastructure. After six years of controlling the White House, the Senate, and the House, their ‘signature achievement’ on border security is a 700 mile fence along a 2,000 mile border. This fence doesn’t come close to solving our problem."

Nor did he shrink from criticizing the White House. "This is yet another example of the lack of checks and balances in our current political climate. Libby's indictment and the continuing investigation into White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove demonstrate that Congress needs to take increased action exercising its oversight responsibilities. Congress has rightfully been criticized of its lack of oversight, and current events certainly warrant that we take a more active role.

Any action exposing an undercover agent is not only against the law, but against the best interests of our nation. This is a political bombshell for the Bush Administration, but has the potential to be very positive for the men and women of the U.S. intelligence community. This sends a strong signal that we as a nation respect their sacrifices and will stand up for them. President Bush must keep his word, hold the wrongdoers accountable and make it clear that no one in his White House is above the law."

So, why then will Speaker Pelosi's selection of Reyes to Chair the House Intelligence Committee be controversial? It won't be for the 94 votes he missed in the House, the ninth most of any member. Instead, ironically, it will be for the part he denies playing in the award to International Microwave Corporation (IMC) of a $239 million dollar, no bid contract for 12,000 border security sensors and cameras installed between 1998 and 2004 to cover a few hundred miles of the 6,500 mile Canadian and Mexican borders.

Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) official Walter Drabik launched the Integrated Surveillance Intelligence System (ISIS) in 1996, a few months after Rep. Reyes, a strong proponent of placing cameras on the border arrived in Washington. Drabik chose the Alaska-based Chugach Development Corp. to install the system. Later, in 1999, Drabik helped select IMC for a $2 million contract to succeed Chugach.

"Over the objections of Border Patrol officials, INS official Walter Drabik chose cameras distributed by a firm called ISAP. U.S. officials and contractors said IMC had bought the ISAP firm without disclosing it to U.S. officials. This allowed IMC to buy cameras from its own subsidiary, substantially increasing profits. Undisclosed self-dealing could be illegal."

Drabik said in an interview that he recommended that first Chugach, then IMC, hire Rebecca Reyes, the congressman's daughter, as liaison to the INS. Both did so.

Reyes' daughter, Rebecca, became IMC's vice president of contracts, and ran the Integrated Surveillance Intelligence System (ISIS) for IMC. Her career path continued to trace the movements of the ISIS program as IMC was sold to L-3, a mid-level upstart company that aimed to be the "Home Depot" of advanced electronics, making their products available to all. In 2005 alone, L-3 won $4.7 billion in Pentagon contracts.

According to a Washington Post article reporting the number of contractor in Iraq at close to 100,000: "MPRI, a unit of L-3 Communications, has about 500 employees working on 12 contracts, including providing mentors to the Iraqi Defense Ministry for strategic planning, budgeting and establishing its public affairs office. Titan, another L-3 division, has 6,500 linguists in the country."

The Department of Homeland Security Inspector General's office issued a scathing report criticizing the implementation of the program, "A Review of Remote Surveillance Technology Along US Land Borders" in December of 2005, noting that official inattention to the system "placed taxpayers' dollars and . . . national security at risk."

Among the problems cited:

"A GSA inspection of eight Border Patrol zones found that $20 million had been paid to IMC for work there but that none of its camera systems was fully operating.
Near Buffalo, IMC billed the government for 59 cameras but only four were installed, and in Naco, Ariz., unassembled high-tech gear was found lying in the desert, the report said. "No IMC personnel had been on-site since the equipment was delivered" in 2003, the report added.
The most troubled part of ISIS was in Washington state, where the more than 64 cameras fogged up in cold and rain and sometimes broke down completely, according to Border Patrol officials and the GSA report. IMC-hired workers had done such shoddy wiring of fiber-optic cable at junction boxes that Border Patrol operators couldn't control the cameras, according to the officials and documents. Electrical wires were found corroding under water in supposedly sealed concrete vaults, they said.
The GSA report found that IMC was paid about $1 million up front to install 36 poles to hold multiple cameras in Washington state, but in fact had installed only 32. Contract documents executed by both GSA and the company "misrepresented the work that was actually furnished," it said.
It was common, the GSA report said, for the government to pay IMC "for shoddy work . . . [or] for work that was incomplete or never delivered."
IMC's Acri said the Washington project was "a nightmare" but blamed it on miscommunications with Border Patrol officials. L-3 has fixed many of the problems there recently, but Border Patrol agents still complain of malfunctions and blind spots.
The GSA inspector general's report also sharply criticized operations at a Border Patrol repair center in New Mexico staffed by two Border Patrol officials and 19 IMC employees. Many Border Patrol agents complained that repairs on the ISIS equipment they sent there took months to complete.
The GSA report said "little or no work" was done at the center in the previous year, even though IMC billed the government for $500,000 during that time. The report said millions of dollars in IMC overcharges might have occurred there.
The Border Patrol official who ran the center, David Watters, acknowledged he had a brother and a niece who worked for IMC. But he said his relatives' jobs did not affect his dealings with the company.
Watters said that the GSA report was unfair and that the center's slowdown in repairs was caused by the halt in ISIS work. IMC's Acri disputed some of the GSA's findings, saying it failed to accept his assertions that IMC did not profit improperly.
The GSA report and numerous government and industry executives said Border Patrol, INS and GSA officials -- most of whom lacked experience on complex contracts -- often deferred to IMC in deciding what equipment to buy and how much IMC should be paid. The GSA report said IMC's contracts with the government lacked detail, "thereby leaving interpretation of the government's needs up to the contractor."
"Government officials failed miserably to do their job," said Tim Golden, an IMC subcontractor on the program who later had a falling out with IMC. "It's incomprehensible how inept they were."
Many ISIS documents were drawn up in such a way that IMC was paid up front, and escaped financial liability if its performance was disputed, said the GSA report and U.S. officials.
Inspectors visited three sites in 2004 - Nogales, Naco and Tucson - and found none of the remote surveillance systems was fully operational, despite payments of more than $5.2 million since 2001."

According to the Washington Post, "Many -- but not all -- of the system's problems have been resolved in the past year by repair work done by L-3 Communications Holdings Inc., a New York firm that bought IMC in 2003, officials said." However coincidentally, Rebecca Reyes is employed by L-3 Communications in their Washington Government Services Office.

For his part, Representative Reyes campaign contributors include key defense industry companies.

Campaign Contributions, 2005-2006:

Echostar Communications Corporation PAC Inc $2000

L-3 Communications Corporation Political Action Committee $3000

General Dynamics Voluntary Political Contribution Plan (GDVPCP) $6000

Lockheed Martin Employees' Political Action Committee $6000

Boeing Political Action Committee $6000

Raytheon Company Political Action Committee $9000

Campaign Contributions, 2003-2004:

L-3 Communications Corporation Political Action Committee $5000

Echostar Communications Corporation PAC Inc $5500

Boeing Political Action Committee $7000

Employees of Northrup Grumman Corporation PAC $7500

General Dynamics Voluntary Political Contribution Plan (GDVPCP) $9000

Lockheed Martin Employees' Political Action Committee $10000

Raytheon Company Political Action Committee $10000

Speaker Pelosi, are you really the woman to clean up the House? Come on, show us!

A Proposal for Election REFORM by Coordinated State Ballot Initiatives

thepen — Fri, 01 Dec 2006 11:12:34 -0500

Dear Friends and Activists,

We all worked enormously hard this election for the most progressive candidates we could find, and we had a couple winners. In addition, Ciro Rodriguez is in an upcoming runoff in TX-23 with very excellent prospects. In truth we probably had even more winners but for the election shenanigans we knew would be a handicap and which certainly took place. But the good news is that in spite of them, and thanks to your valiant participation, the people have regained both the House and the Senate. This at least allows us the power and opportunity to fight another day, and it is critically important that we continue to speak out in ever increasing numbers now that we have majorities who are more likely to influenced.

In the meantime, we have put a lot of thought into the next major strategic move. There will be bills in Congress to attempt real election reform, but there is no assurance that anything of substantive impact can survive a veto, assuming we can even pressure its passage. Therefore, we propose opening up a collateral front by putting together as many state ballot initiative campaigns as possible where laws can be passed directly on to the books. What we have in mind are two separate propositions in each such state, with the idea that there is synergy in collecting signatures for two related initiatives at the same time.

1) A paper ballot initiative of some kind

2) A clean money campaign financing measure

PAPER BALLOT REFERENDUM: http://www.usalone.com/paper_ballots.php

Critical to the success of these initiatives will be to establish a consensus of what we should shoot for, and to get everyone on the same page up front, so to speak. We recognize that with the question of paper ballots there are two camps who so far have been working perhaps at cross purposes. Some support H.R. 550 as an attempt to add on some kind of afterthought accountability to the existing electronic voting machines. Some others strongly oppose any variation of that bill because it doesn't go far enough, and are pushing for total elimination of the infernal Accu-Hack machines with their secret proprietary software.

What we are asking you, our participants, to do is to weigh in on what direction you think we should go in. We have set up a special referendum page where we ask if there should be mandatory paper ballots in all elections. Especially if you are one of the movers and shakers in the election protection movement, please email us so we can engage you in the drafting of the actual proposed initiatives.

PAPER BALLOT REFERENDUM: http://www.usalone.com/paper_ballots.php

While it is true that such initiatives cannot be pursued in all states, among the many where they can are most of the key presidential swing states. And by passing parallel state propositions where we can we would hope to build a de facto national standard, adding to the momentum for federal legislation, as in the recent spate of minimum wage increase intiatives, all of which succeeded.

With regards to clean money legislation, initiatives have been successful in AZ and ME to date, although limited to state office candidates only. We think we would like to also see some kind of help for federal candidates from state voters while we are working also to pass federal legislation. The recent measure in CA failed in large part because its supporters did not have the support of most of the unions for whatever reason, with the nurses association alone responsible for most of the votes it did get.

We are very interested in taking another shot at CA in particular with an initiative to public finance political campaigns for candidates, attempting to craft a measure that more people on our side can get behind, and as above to spark plug parallel initiatives in as many other states as possible where that can be done. So again, if you are an interested think tanker in the clean money movement, please email us so we can welcome you on to the team.

We would like to thank each and every one of you again and again for your magnificent and generous contributions, without which some of the candidates we were helping would have had no campaigns at all. And these same former and future candidates will be playing a key role in signature gathering for these upcoming state initiatives as they develop. We have moved the ball down the field and we are not going back.

Please take action NOW, so we can win all victories that are supposed to be ours.

To be added to the list go to http://www.usalone.com/in.htm

Or if you want to cease receiving our messages, just use the function at http://www.usalone.com/out.htm

Bogus Ethics Bill Passes House

Bob Geiger — Wed, 03 May 2006 20:19:55 -0400

Our friends at Think Progress report that the House of Representatives just passed by a vote of 217-213 the conservative version of a reform bill that the Washington Post called a “sham,” “diluted snake oil” and “an insult to voters.”

Missing from this legislative act of smoke and mirrors were things such as restrictions on lavish gifts and free trips from lobbyists and any increase in transparency on donations made by those trying to curry favor with people in Congress.

The following eight Democrats voted with the majority:

John Barrow (GA)
Dan Boren (OK
Leonard Boswell (IA)
Henry Cuellar (TX)
Jim Marshall (GA)
Jim Matheson (UT)
Charlie Melancon (GA)
Gene Taylor (MS)

Please go to Think Progress to read more.