Tuesday, July 03, 2007

Political Contributions

Folks, I've gone the "please, please help out" route myself and it is two things at once, it is an exercise in gratification and humility to have people reach into not too deep pockets to back your play - a reminder of how much you owe to the public; and then there is the absolute desolation of the recognition that the reason wealth and power so control political discourse is because so few of the general public contribute. I loathe the influence granted to the wealthy elite by their money contributions, the absolute necessity of their interest for campaign survival.

It need not be the case that the elites buy politicians, some pols aren't buy able, but the way to get control back in the hands of the citizenry is not legislation (the Supremes won't like it anyway), it is simply to buy it back and that is done by actually doing it. Yes that's right, out buy the elites. At some point it is economically unfeasible for them to compete, there are a lot more of us than them and 90% of eligible voters do NOT contribute. That's a lot of $25 contributions. That is enough to swamp the plutocrats, absolutely sink their political aspirations.

There has been over $100 contributed on this site to Steve Novick, a candidate that I have only brought to your attention, that I have not campaigned for on a site not connected with his campaign beyond a courtesy contribution connection. That is something, but even with the $190,000 he has shown, it is far short of what is barely required to start a Senate campaign. This stuff is important and until you actually mark your ballot the measure of support is either staff or dollars.

No matter who runs against Smith the dollar gap will be large, the guy has a war chest and he has the national Party that cannot afford to lose. We can't afford to keep this BushCo shill, this moderate at election Gordon. Help out now and put some legs under the only truly active campaign. I've tossed some bucks their way in the hope of having a visible Democratic challenger - and if you don't mind a lot - one that we choose, not the DSCC.

Look, I'm a DPO and by extension a DNC guy, that means I work in the grassroots end, the plain folks end of the game and whether you're a County Chair or State Chair you're still just one of the folks, most of those going up to DNC as state Party reps are just folks, the DSCC is another game, another deal altogether. While I may respect some of Chuck Schumer's stuff, there is a whole whacking bunch of it that I do not, that I find totally inappropriate for Oregon or the nation as a whole and I do not want them picking our Senatorial candidate, whomever it is and however qualified they are. It is our damn choice, let's make our choice and back whomever it is and we only do that by supporting our candidate. Step up, please.


Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Zak J. said...

I got the opportunity to hear Novick speak for the first time at our monthly county party meeting in June. The guy is a very quick, impressive speaker; smart as a whip, too.

Steve Culley said...


Haven't seen or heard Novik. How does he feel about guns and borders security and limiting the ever increasing, constant influx of immigrants into "green" Oregon?

Zak J. said...

Good questions, Steve. On the 2nd Amendment, I don't know where he stands--it didn't come up in his speech. On border security, he seems to be in the middle--not for an all-out deportation, but recognizing that immigration does have economic impacts on working Americans. (I believe he favored going after employers as the first round of enforcement.)

I didn't mean to endorse the guy, but what I think is that he has the "presence" to hold his own in big-league debates, which is more than can be said for some other potential Smith challengers. He's definitely worth watching, regardless of who else throws a hat in the ring.