|Posted by Pete Healey on April 20, 2010 at 5:58 PM||comments (0)|
TOP TEN REASONS WHY CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM IS A DEAD END ROAD - REASON #5
A Constitutional Amendment to Limit Corporate Campaign Contributions? Really? No, I mean Really?!?!?!
"A chance in hell," the experts say.
Some American politicians would like us to believe that corporate funding of corporate candidates from both major parties is such a crisis that we require a constitutional amendment to deal with it. I can think of half a dozen contenders for such amendments to our constitution before this one gets much consideration, but what the hell..
I'll give the last word to the author of a major work on the constitution and its amendments:
"The Constitution dictates that two-thirds of both houses of Congress or two-thirds of the state legislatures have to call for an amendment. To be ratified, the amendment must be approved by three-fourths of the states."
UVA politics professor Dr. Larry J. Sabato, who recently published the second edition of his work “A More Perfect Constitution,” said the chances of actually pushing through an amendment are dismal because “no constitutional amendment that is not strictly bipartisan has a chance in hell today.”
“I’d contend that in this polarized era, it is even less likely that an amendment will pass two-thirds of each congressional chamber and three-fourths of the state legislatures. That especially applies to Specter’s amendment because Democrats will perceive an advantage in ratifying it, while Republicans will be strongly opposed,” he said.
Sabato said that not counting the Bill of Rights, only 17 amendments have been ratified in 220 years, the last amendment being congressional pay raises in the 1990s.
“I spent 30 years researching this book and studying the process of every successful amendment — and looking through the 9,000 proposed amendments that failed. Not to put too fine a point on it, Senator Specter’s amendment has only a small chance of congressional passage and even less chance of ratification,” he said.
Taken from the www.DailyCaller.com
|Posted by Pete Healey on April 20, 2010 at 3:26 AM||comments (0)|
TOP TEN REASONS WHY CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM IS A DEAD END ROAD - REASON #6
"MO" HINCHEY AND HIS CAMPAIGN MONEY
Congressman Hinchey (Democrat from the 22nd District of New York - a sprawling, ugly, gerrymanderers dream of a district) is one of the "good guys," so it may come as a surprise where his campaign money comes from and where that ranks him among other members of the House of Representatives.
Fully 70% of his campaign contributions come from outside of his congressional district, and half of his money comes from outside of New York State! And that only ranks him about 300th out of 435 members of the House! So he's not even close to the worst of them! He's not even in the bottom 100!
www.Maplight.org is the source of a great deal of such campaign finance information, on all members of Congress.
|Posted by Pete Healey on April 14, 2010 at 1:29 AM||comments (0)|
TOP TEN REASONS WHY CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM IS A DEAD END ROAD - REASON #7
Both Republicans and Democrats are so enmeshed with the corporate/union political funding structure that neither will agree to any reforms that seriously challenge the status quo.
When McCain-Feingold was finally brought to the floor of the Senate for consideration, the first item removed from it was a certain amount of free radio and television time for candidates. Since two-thirds to three-quarters of all campaign money is spent on electronic media advertisements and commercials, this was a huge win for them. Any new reforms must begin there, and be unyielding.
Don't hold your breath.
|Posted by Pete Healey on April 2, 2010 at 10:17 PM||comments (0)|
TOP TEN REASONS WHY CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM IS A DEAD END ROAD - REASON #8
Buckley vs. Vallejo from 1976 is still the law of the land, and no reforms have yet made a dent in it. And McCain-Feingold is a dead letter. Neither major party candidate for President accepted the "voluntary" limits on spending in this legislation.
Let me repeat, neither Obama (Change We Can Believe In) nor McCain (one of the bill's authors) agreed to abide by the major campaign finance legislation in this decade (enacted in 2002)!
The shift to a state-by-state strategy hasn't gone far, either. Maine and Arizona have public financing, and nothing much has happened. Massachusetts passed a public campaign law but refused to fund it. A similar law was proposed in New York State four or five years ago, but the local Assemblyman in my district, a liberal Democrat, refused to support it, and that proposal hasn't been seen or heard from since.
|Posted by Pete Healey on April 1, 2010 at 12:56 AM||comments (0)|
TOP TEN REASONS WHY CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM IS A DEAD END ROAD - REASON #9
Scott Murphy was a candidate for congress in a northern New York State district in a special election, when Governor Patterson chose then-congresswoman Gillibrand to become US Senator (to replace Hilary Clinton who became US Secretary of State).
So, Democratic Pary leaders asked Murphy what qualifications he had for the office. Murphy said, " I have $650,000 of my own money for this campaign."
Party leaders asked him what positions he took on the important issues of the day. Murphy replied," I have $650,000 of my own money for this campaign."
Party leaders stopped asking questions.
|Posted by Pete Healey on March 31, 2010 at 11:52 PM||comments (0)|
TOP TEN REASONS WHY CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM IS A DEAD END ROAD - REASON # 10
Mike Bloomberg - Need any further explanation?
Ok, three hundred million dollars ($300,000,000) of his own money to buy 12 years in office as Mayor of New York City, with the last four years a straight up theft and hijacking, since he overruled the will of the voters who approved a two term limit for the Mayor TWICE in referenda!
|Posted by Pete Healey on January 23, 2010 at 8:31 PM||comments (0)|
Corporate Rules, OK? In the US, we don't have direct popular election of our President, the Mayor of New York City recently spent $100 million to get 'elected' for a third time even though voters in New York passed TWO referenda banning anyone from serving three terms as Mayor of their city, and both major party candidates in last year's presidential election refused to abide by the campaign finance spending limits imposed by the McCain-Feingold law, even though one of the candidates was named McCain. Feh! Corporate Rules, OK?