Tea Party Dollars
The adage is that Americans vote with their wallets. It is the economy, above all other considerations, that guides their choices when voting. As stated in the "war room" during Bill Clinton's campaign in 1992: "It's the economy, stupid!" This slogan reminded members of the campaign team that everything begins and ends with purchasing power (does this remind you of something?).
Today, on the eve of elections that could put the party of the 44th president in the minority in Congress, the campaign expenditures of candidates for senatorial and representative seats are poised to beat all records, especially within the Republican camp and that of the tea party "populists."
According to the Campaign Media Analysis Group, the expenses paid by political pressure groups for television commercials have doubled since 2006. In this race, the Republicans clearly have the advantage, favored by the winds of revolt that are currently blowing on Washington. Any anti-government candidate, even Christine O'Donnell, who is third-rate and a storyteller of the first order, has a good chance of winning and thus attracting contributions from lobbies of all sorts, which don't always reveal their names.
One of the reasons for this influx of often anonymous money is the Supreme Court's decision of last January, affirming that financial donations from businesses to political parties are protected by the Constitution because they fall under the definition of freedom of expression. This extravagant decision caused the judges to be taken to task before the entire country during Barack Obama’s State of the Union address.
In addition to the current issue of America's very high unemployment rate, there is the feeling, reinforced by magazines such as Forbes or books like the one by Dinesh D'Souza, that Barack Obama is anti-business and that the government has begun a policy of regulation after 20 years of deregulation — something that led, among other things, to the crash on Wall Street and the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico after the explosion of BP's drilling rig.
With the decision of the Supreme Court, a dam burst. Before then, businesses or individuals could finance commercials, but only if they spoke about a specific issue — immigration or abortion, for example. It couldn't be a commercial speaking about a candidate. This restriction no longer exists, so that, in the current climate, a tsunami of money is flooding into the campaign coffers of Obama opponents.
But the money is often anonymous, which is never a good thing for democracy. The funds are given to private organizations operating under section 501(c) of the tax code, which aren't obligated to reveal the source of the donations, unlike PACs (Political Action Committees), which are obligated to be transparent. These groups, called 501(c)s, are obviously experiencing a growth in popularity.
With the use of this anonymous money by groups demanding irreproachable conduct from the government, one finds all the elements of Newspeak from the tea party and other anti-Obama groups that could be summarized with the classic formula: "Do as I say, not as I do." It is always easier to give advice to others, but this doesn't make democracy stronger.
Today, on the eve of elections that could put the party of the 44th president in the minority in Congress, the campaign expenditures of candidates for senatorial and representative seats are poised to beat all records, especially within the Republican camp and that of the tea party "populists."
According to the Campaign Media Analysis Group, the expenses paid by political pressure groups for television commercials have doubled since 2006. In this race, the Republicans clearly have the advantage, favored by the winds of revolt that are currently blowing on Washington. Any anti-government candidate, even Christine O'Donnell, who is third-rate and a storyteller of the first order, has a good chance of winning and thus attracting contributions from lobbies of all sorts, which don't always reveal their names.
One of the reasons for this influx of often anonymous money is the Supreme Court's decision of last January, affirming that financial donations from businesses to political parties are protected by the Constitution because they fall under the definition of freedom of expression. This extravagant decision caused the judges to be taken to task before the entire country during Barack Obama’s State of the Union address.
In addition to the current issue of America's very high unemployment rate, there is the feeling, reinforced by magazines such as Forbes or books like the one by Dinesh D'Souza, that Barack Obama is anti-business and that the government has begun a policy of regulation after 20 years of deregulation — something that led, among other things, to the crash on Wall Street and the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico after the explosion of BP's drilling rig.
With the decision of the Supreme Court, a dam burst. Before then, businesses or individuals could finance commercials, but only if they spoke about a specific issue — immigration or abortion, for example. It couldn't be a commercial speaking about a candidate. This restriction no longer exists, so that, in the current climate, a tsunami of money is flooding into the campaign coffers of Obama opponents.
But the money is often anonymous, which is never a good thing for democracy. The funds are given to private organizations operating under section 501(c) of the tax code, which aren't obligated to reveal the source of the donations, unlike PACs (Political Action Committees), which are obligated to be transparent. These groups, called 501(c)s, are obviously experiencing a growth in popularity.
With the use of this anonymous money by groups demanding irreproachable conduct from the government, one finds all the elements of Newspeak from the tea party and other anti-Obama groups that could be summarized with the classic formula: "Do as I say, not as I do." It is always easier to give advice to others, but this doesn't make democracy stronger.
LOL. Sounds like sour grapes to me. During the Presidential election, Obama’s website was an open pipeline for foreign funds, buying the election for a Marxist/socialist anti-American president and he’s not running now, so only Americans are funding elections. How dare Americans think they are entitled to speak freely.
http://www.backyardfence.wordpress.com