Today I am giving you the opportunity to stop reading my blog. (Wow, did I really just say that?! I didn't mean it! I love that you read my blog!) What I'm really doing is giving you the opportunity to find out more about what you want to find out about.
http://www.opencongress.org/
Everything you need to know about the United States Congress in one place. As a joint project between two non-profit foundations, the site combines official government data (you know, all that legal mumbo-jumbo that only those crazy lawyers understand) with relevant Google news articles, and campaign contribution information from OpenSecrets. Which leads me to the next site you should definitely take a look at:
http://www.opensecrets.org/index.php
Their mission at OpenSecrets? "Inform, Empower & Advocate!" Let's face it, I'm all about empowerment so next time I need (or am just wildly curious for) information about campaign contributions or lobbying data, I'm definitely going there.
http://www.followthemoney.org/
Show me the money!! Need I say more? (But seriously, for the more graphically inclined this site is pretty neat.)
http://maplight.org/
Last, but certainly not least (drumroll please) maplight.org! The data compiled by this website actually lets you see the timeline of contributions (including who's doing the contributing) and votes for each bill, and will actually show when the legislator received large donations before or after the vote. Yes, that's right, you can actually see that shady business right up in your face!
Happy researching!
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Sunday, February 7, 2010
Demonizing Political Ads
Ok, so you’ve probably already seen it, but it’s so funny that it bears repeating (or replaying). Check out my new favorite political ad of all time:
What on earth were they thinking?! Well, according to Allan Hoffenblum, “I thought the spot was right on as far as its message.” Hmmm… I wonder what the message was supposed to be exactly. I didn’t learn much from it except that Carly Fiorina thinks that Tom Campbell is a FCINO/wolf with glowing red eyes dressed up like a sheep! (And perhaps that everyone in Fiorina’s campaign camp is on the same psychedelic pills.)
Coming through with an amazingly cheesy retort was Campbell himself, saying, "Carly Fiorina's campaign is in full Mutton Meltdown mode.” Ah geez!
So who exactly is responsible for my new favorite ad? Republican consultant Fred Davis III who is the former Chief Creative Consultant to 2008 Presidential Candidate John McCain. Ok, he has a much longer resume than that. You can check it out for yourself at his website: http://www.strategicperceptioninc.com/samples.php
I confess, I am surprised that someone who seems so legit would come up with something so extremely nuts. Although, to him, “if nobody sees it and nobody talks about it, you have wasted your money.” In that respect, since the official version hit over 450,000 views on Friday, the ad is a smashing success. Way to go Fred Davis III. In fact, the ad is so popular that there are already T-shirts. No joke, they are completely fantastic! http://www.zazzle.com/demonsheep_2010_tshirt-235821840421345343
I know, I’ll go away so you can watch it again. Enjoy!
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Revisiting Campaign Finance Reform
After the Supreme Court decision on January 21st (see January 21st rant), Congress is in a tizzy! Ok, not all of Congress, more like the Democrats on the Senate Rules Committee (Dick Durbin, Russ Feingold, Chuck Schumer and John Kerry to be exact) are in a tizzy.
The plan? To attempt to limit election spending by government contractors (who have a direct monetary interest in who gets elected) and U.S. subsidiaries of foreign companies (I don’t really have to explain that one do I?). Under the old rules, U.S. subsidiaries could form Political Action Committees as long as they were funded solely by donations from U.S. employees and foreign nationals are not the ones deciding how to spend the money. The trick here, for all you accounting nerds out there, is what percentage a company must be foreign owned before regulations kick in?
Possibly the most interesting facet of the whole issue is Senator John McCain’s reaction to the Supreme Court’s ruling. McCain, who broke ranks with Republicans in 2002 to cosponsor the McCain-Feingold act (part of which was overturned in the Supreme Court ruling), will not back efforts to address the court’s ruling. Most fascinating.
Also fascinating is the fact that the media is already saying that the Senate Democrats will probably need 60 votes to get the legislation (that isn’t even written yet) passed. The only reason 60 votes would be necessary would be to avoid a Republican filibuster. After Scott Brown is sworn in tomorrow (dang that was fast), the Democrats will officially “control” (as if the Democrats could actually keep anything really under control) 59 seats.
The plan? To attempt to limit election spending by government contractors (who have a direct monetary interest in who gets elected) and U.S. subsidiaries of foreign companies (I don’t really have to explain that one do I?). Under the old rules, U.S. subsidiaries could form Political Action Committees as long as they were funded solely by donations from U.S. employees and foreign nationals are not the ones deciding how to spend the money. The trick here, for all you accounting nerds out there, is what percentage a company must be foreign owned before regulations kick in?
Possibly the most interesting facet of the whole issue is Senator John McCain’s reaction to the Supreme Court’s ruling. McCain, who broke ranks with Republicans in 2002 to cosponsor the McCain-Feingold act (part of which was overturned in the Supreme Court ruling), will not back efforts to address the court’s ruling. Most fascinating.
Also fascinating is the fact that the media is already saying that the Senate Democrats will probably need 60 votes to get the legislation (that isn’t even written yet) passed. The only reason 60 votes would be necessary would be to avoid a Republican filibuster. After Scott Brown is sworn in tomorrow (dang that was fast), the Democrats will officially “control” (as if the Democrats could actually keep anything really under control) 59 seats.
Sunday, January 31, 2010
And the Healthcare Debate is On... In California?
In the midst of the national debate on healthcare, the California State Senate passed Senate Bill 810 this week in the hopes of creating a single-payer healthcare system for California residents. The bill would basically allow for a public option while also allowing those with private insurance to continue that coverage.
If you’d like to read the bill in its entirety, knock yourself out: http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/sen/sb_0801-0850/sb_810_bill_20100113_amended_sen_v97.pdf
Not surprisingly, the vote went almost exactly down party lines with one Democrat from Santa Ana (the reddest part of the state) voting no on the bill. Ultimately though, even if the bill makes it through the state assembly and through the Governor’s desk (which is extremely unlikely given that he has vetoed similar legislation twice already), the citizens of California will have to vote it into law in an election.
I know what you’re thinking, if this is already being done at the national level why are we putting an extra burden on ourselves? Glad you asked! After last week’s special election in Massachusetts, supporters of healthcare reform don’t believe that any meaningful reform will come out of Washington and it is now up to the states to take up the cause. (Fun fact of the day: newly elected Scott Brown of Massachusetts actually voted FOR the universal health care bill in Massachusetts when he was in the state senate. Oh and by the way, so did then-Governor, now- Republican Senator Mitt Romney.)
California is certainly not the only state to take up the cause. We’re in good company with Massachusetts, Vermont, New Mexico, Maine, and Connecticut. (http://www.newrules.org/equity/rules/singlepayer-and-universal-health-care)
Alright Schwarzy, so what’s the big problem? Well, there is the small issue of the $200 billion price tag at a time when we can’t even get a balanced budget passed. On the other hand, according to the bill’s author, Mark Leno (D-San Francisco), we’re already spending $200 billion on healthcare and this bill is, “the same $200 billion used in a more efficient, cost-effective fashion."
I don’t have a hard time believing that we’re already spending that much on healthcare, but the fact that the bill includes $1 million to set up a commission to decide how to pay for the new system does not make me feel warm and fuzzy inside.
The one thing that everyone (except Republicans) seems to agree on: even if we don’t pass this legislation, it’s at least good that we’re having a debate and getting the information about healthcare (and its ginormous issues) out there.
If you’d like to read the bill in its entirety, knock yourself out: http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/sen/sb_0801-0850/sb_810_bill_20100113_amended_sen_v97.pdf
Not surprisingly, the vote went almost exactly down party lines with one Democrat from Santa Ana (the reddest part of the state) voting no on the bill. Ultimately though, even if the bill makes it through the state assembly and through the Governor’s desk (which is extremely unlikely given that he has vetoed similar legislation twice already), the citizens of California will have to vote it into law in an election.
I know what you’re thinking, if this is already being done at the national level why are we putting an extra burden on ourselves? Glad you asked! After last week’s special election in Massachusetts, supporters of healthcare reform don’t believe that any meaningful reform will come out of Washington and it is now up to the states to take up the cause. (Fun fact of the day: newly elected Scott Brown of Massachusetts actually voted FOR the universal health care bill in Massachusetts when he was in the state senate. Oh and by the way, so did then-Governor, now- Republican Senator Mitt Romney.)
California is certainly not the only state to take up the cause. We’re in good company with Massachusetts, Vermont, New Mexico, Maine, and Connecticut. (http://www.newrules.org/equity/rules/singlepayer-and-universal-health-care)
Alright Schwarzy, so what’s the big problem? Well, there is the small issue of the $200 billion price tag at a time when we can’t even get a balanced budget passed. On the other hand, according to the bill’s author, Mark Leno (D-San Francisco), we’re already spending $200 billion on healthcare and this bill is, “the same $200 billion used in a more efficient, cost-effective fashion."
I don’t have a hard time believing that we’re already spending that much on healthcare, but the fact that the bill includes $1 million to set up a commission to decide how to pay for the new system does not make me feel warm and fuzzy inside.
The one thing that everyone (except Republicans) seems to agree on: even if we don’t pass this legislation, it’s at least good that we’re having a debate and getting the information about healthcare (and its ginormous issues) out there.
Sunday, January 24, 2010
And The Gloves Can Come Off!
The California Governor’s race has gotten a shake up in the last few weeks as Tom Campbell dropped out, to make a run instead for Barbara Boxer’s Senate seat.
Folks, things are about to get ugly! (Isn’t it exciting?!)
As noted in a San Jose Mercury News article this week, “Before, Whitman and Poizner would have had to keep a lid on nastiness for fear the famously genteel Campbell would ‘slip through the middle’ as the public became repulsed by multimillion-dollar mudslinging.” (http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_14251951?source=most_viewed&nclick_check=1)
Now why does that scenario sound familiar? Not that long ago, in the 1998 race for the Governor’s seat, when we elected none other than recently ousted Former Governor Gray Davis. The poor man in the race, Davis eked by while airline mogul Al Checchi and Rep. Jane Harman from Southern California spent massive amounts of their personal wealth attacking each other.
Afraid of a historical repeat, Whitman and Poizner have, thus far, run a cordial race. However, with Campbell out of the running, the mitts can come off.
Whitman, worth an estimated $1.3 billion, has already donated $29 million to her own war chest while Poizner, who is refraining from disclosing his personal net worth, has only given himself $15 million. Not surprisingly, since he (or she) with the most money wins, Whitman is currently leading the Republican primary race 45 percent to Poizner’s 17 percent. I know, I can do math, 38 percent of voters are still undecided.
To see whether or not the candidate’s have any actual differences in their platforms, check out this cute little chart: http://www.mercurynews.com/portlet/article/html/imageDisplay.jsp?contentItemRelationshipId=2832973
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Citizens United v. FEC - an update
If you’ll recall (way back when, i.e. September) we talked about an interesting Supreme Court case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Well, the highest court in the land finally came to a decision, and not one that I am particularly fond of. I know, I’m not usually that blunt in my blog, but I have to admit, my hackles are up.
As a blogger, I like to think that I help to inform the electorate! Now, I have no illusions that my effect on the electorate is… well… itty bitty… and that’s if it actually exists at all. But this is my soap box, and I like that I have one (when I’m old I hope to have a real soap box and be crazy enough to actually stand on it on a street corner and yell at people – and not just about politics, but about anything… “Hey you, stop picking your nose! That’s disgusting!”).
Today though, my effect on the electorate (who, in reality, are my family and friends – thanks for reading my blog by the way!) went directly to zero. And it definitely did not pass go or collect $200.
The Supreme Court’s decision today overturned a decades old rule limiting direct spending of corporations on elections. Heard of political action committees (PACs)? Well, after today, they basically no longer exist. Previously, PACs acted as a middleman between corporations and candidates. Corporations had to set up a PAC, register it, solicit donations, and file separately with the IRS. Now, that accounting firewall and limits to how much a corporation can raise are out the window. Now, a corporation can dip into its own cash, and give it to whomever it wants or independently advertise on behalf of (or against) a candidate.
To summarize, corporations can spend unlimited amounts of money to influence the electorate, and I have my blog. As proud as I am of my blog, somehow that just seems way unfair. And while I’m not saying that my first amendment rights don’t still exist, clearly I still have the right to say whatever I want, clearly I can’t say anything as loudly or as often as a multi-million dollar corporation. So, to that end, I feel that I have to say, shame on you Supreme Court! How dare you make me, as a United States citizen, feel like I have less of a voice today than I had yesterday.
As a blogger, I like to think that I help to inform the electorate! Now, I have no illusions that my effect on the electorate is… well… itty bitty… and that’s if it actually exists at all. But this is my soap box, and I like that I have one (when I’m old I hope to have a real soap box and be crazy enough to actually stand on it on a street corner and yell at people – and not just about politics, but about anything… “Hey you, stop picking your nose! That’s disgusting!”).
Today though, my effect on the electorate (who, in reality, are my family and friends – thanks for reading my blog by the way!) went directly to zero. And it definitely did not pass go or collect $200.
The Supreme Court’s decision today overturned a decades old rule limiting direct spending of corporations on elections. Heard of political action committees (PACs)? Well, after today, they basically no longer exist. Previously, PACs acted as a middleman between corporations and candidates. Corporations had to set up a PAC, register it, solicit donations, and file separately with the IRS. Now, that accounting firewall and limits to how much a corporation can raise are out the window. Now, a corporation can dip into its own cash, and give it to whomever it wants or independently advertise on behalf of (or against) a candidate.
To summarize, corporations can spend unlimited amounts of money to influence the electorate, and I have my blog. As proud as I am of my blog, somehow that just seems way unfair. And while I’m not saying that my first amendment rights don’t still exist, clearly I still have the right to say whatever I want, clearly I can’t say anything as loudly or as often as a multi-million dollar corporation. So, to that end, I feel that I have to say, shame on you Supreme Court! How dare you make me, as a United States citizen, feel like I have less of a voice today than I had yesterday.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
The Masses in Massachusetts
Last night in a special election to fill the late Ted Kennedy’s Massachusetts Senate seat, the voters elected Republican candidate Scott Brown. I know, I know, you’re like, who cares? They’re all the way across the country from me!
Oh, but you care. Believe me.
First the good news: Gone is the Democrats “supermajority”. Personally, I don’t think any party or any person should have a “supermajority”. Maybe that the balanced Libra in me, but I’m all about balance of power even within one of the branches of government.
Now the bad news: The Democrats actually needed that supermajority to bring the health care bill to a straight up and down vote on the Senate floor! I don’t care what party you’re from, you have to admit that it would be a shame for Congress to have spent so much time and effort on a health care reform bill only to have it filibustered (which I personally consider cheating) by the Republicans.
So what’s going to happen to health care now? Within hours of the election results, Democrats laid out a new approach that would still include major provisions such as 1. No longer allowing insurance companies to deny people coverage based on preexisting conditions, 2. Allowing young adults to stay on their parents insurance for a longer period, 3. Helping small businesses and low-income people pay premiums, and 4. Changing Medicare to encourage quality care rather than simply more care.
Clearly, as the president said in an interview with ABC, “We know that we have to have some form of cost containment because if we don't then our budgets are going to blow up.” (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_health_care_overhaul;_ylt=AlJcU4LrjA7SQ1dkWs3gYLKs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTNuaWM5dWQ4BGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTAwMTIwL3VzX2hlYWx0aF9jYXJlX292ZXJoYXVsBGNjb2RlA21vc3Rwb3B1bGFyBGNwb3MDMQRwb3MDMwRwdANob21lX2Nva2UEc2VjA3luX3RvcF9zdG9yeQRzbGsDZnVsbG5ic3BzdG9y)
Just in Fiscal Year 2010, the Federal Government will spend more on Health Care than any other individual line item including education and defense. And, more importantly, health care costs are expected to increase by $0.1 Trillion every year for the next four years. http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/breakdown?year=2010
Granted, I don’t have the answers, but I can see that there’s a problem and I really hope that the Senate can find it within themselves (I’m not sure if their hearts have turned to stone yet) to actually come to a compromise and pass some sort of health care plan that will contain costs. Good luck!
Oh, but you care. Believe me.
First the good news: Gone is the Democrats “supermajority”. Personally, I don’t think any party or any person should have a “supermajority”. Maybe that the balanced Libra in me, but I’m all about balance of power even within one of the branches of government.
Now the bad news: The Democrats actually needed that supermajority to bring the health care bill to a straight up and down vote on the Senate floor! I don’t care what party you’re from, you have to admit that it would be a shame for Congress to have spent so much time and effort on a health care reform bill only to have it filibustered (which I personally consider cheating) by the Republicans.
So what’s going to happen to health care now? Within hours of the election results, Democrats laid out a new approach that would still include major provisions such as 1. No longer allowing insurance companies to deny people coverage based on preexisting conditions, 2. Allowing young adults to stay on their parents insurance for a longer period, 3. Helping small businesses and low-income people pay premiums, and 4. Changing Medicare to encourage quality care rather than simply more care.
Clearly, as the president said in an interview with ABC, “We know that we have to have some form of cost containment because if we don't then our budgets are going to blow up.” (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_health_care_overhaul;_ylt=AlJcU4LrjA7SQ1dkWs3gYLKs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTNuaWM5dWQ4BGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTAwMTIwL3VzX2hlYWx0aF9jYXJlX292ZXJoYXVsBGNjb2RlA21vc3Rwb3B1bGFyBGNwb3MDMQRwb3MDMwRwdANob21lX2Nva2UEc2VjA3luX3RvcF9zdG9yeQRzbGsDZnVsbG5ic3BzdG9y)
Just in Fiscal Year 2010, the Federal Government will spend more on Health Care than any other individual line item including education and defense. And, more importantly, health care costs are expected to increase by $0.1 Trillion every year for the next four years. http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/breakdown?year=2010
Granted, I don’t have the answers, but I can see that there’s a problem and I really hope that the Senate can find it within themselves (I’m not sure if their hearts have turned to stone yet) to actually come to a compromise and pass some sort of health care plan that will contain costs. Good luck!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
