RNC & T&A

The Hill reports:

The Republican who spent nearly $2,000 of Republican National Committee (RNC) funds at a Los Angeles nightclub known for simulated bondage scenes and nudity was indentified Monday as Erik Brown, CEO of Dynamic Marketing Inc.

Evidently the RNC doesn't care for the publicity:

"The chairman was never at the location in question; he had no knowledge of the expenditure, nor does he find the use of committee funds at such a location at all acceptable," the spokesperson said. "Good reporting would make that distinction crystal clear. The committee has requested that the monies be returned to the committee and that the story be corrected so that it is accurate.”

In light of $200K for Plalin's clothes and her T&A act - why do they think they ought to get the money back?Surely the political content was at least as ... significant.

The Candidates and the Lobbyists

The word lobbyist has become rather dirty in the public mind after DeLay and Abromoff got done with it, and in many respects it deserves that approbation. There is a lot of dirt floating about. There are also other aspects of lobbying that are getting buried in the dirt.

I have varied interests as my readers may have noticed, and though some are not political in practice, they of political interest. Others are directly political. These interests cannot be represented by me alone; I simply do not have the reach. I do some reaching out with this blog I work within DPO to try to see some interests are included, and I have used the candidate forum as a stage; but none of these give me direct access to policy makers nor the clout of being able to point to a large interested group. Simply the ability to point to a large interest segment is of value, but beyond that are the skill sets involved in person to person persuasion and understanding of the politician's political considerations. These varied skill sets are not easily obtained in the ordinary workplace; this type of schooling is obtained by being near that action. Professionalism in lobbying is scarcely a sin; it is a requirement.

As usual, in something like politics there is a caveat, while professionalism is a requirement, there is the who employed the professional when they are working in a political campaign. This actually matters, their expertise is developed in fairly narrow areas and their influence can be narrowed by the 'who' they know. Just as framing carpenters and finish carpenters are both carpenters; they are not the same jobs. A lobbyist's area of experience may well say something about the agenda of a campaign. Some of the candidates have registered lobbyists, either on leave or currently employed, working for them as aides.

The Hill took note of some of the aides/lobbyists. Hillary Clinton's campaign employees Rachel Kelly, a lobbyist on leave from Great American Insurance Company and her finance director Jonathan Mintz, registered in '05 with the Podesta Group. Obama's campaign has Teal Baker, on leave from Podesta and Brandon Hurlbut on leave from B&D Consulting. John Edwards has Adam Jentleson formerly of the Center for American Progress and Matthew Morrison formerly from American Federation of Teachers.

Over at Mitt's campaign Barbara Comstock, a partner at Corallo Comstock, continues to lobby because she is a consultant to the campaign rather than an employee. (cough)

In '06 the primary sources of the Podesta Group's income were the medical industry, defense, investment and media. B&D Consulting's income is a very mixed bag but primarily medical, education, and local government. Corallo Comstock's primary income has been Hearst Corp.

The emphasis of these campaign's is reflected in the interests of some of these aides: health, education, labor. What gets interesting is 'who are the players at the table.' The links will take you to Open Secrets' table of lobbying organizations and the groups and their expenditures. The Clinton campaign is real heavy on the industrial aspect of medicine and the insurance side. Investment groups are a huge benefactor of insurance companies' capital; insurance companies are actually investment groups using your premiums as their investment source. The linkage between insurance and investment cannot be overstated.

The Podesta Group's 2006 lobbying income is listed at $12.2 million and as Tony Podesta told The Hill:

“I talk to them all time,” said Tony Podesta, who as the head of Podesta Group worked with Baker and Mantz. “Either one of them is welcome to return.
*****
Podesta downplayed the potential benefit to his firm if Clinton or Obama win the presidency and his former colleagues land influential positions.

“If Teal works in the White House, I’ll know someone on staff,” he said. “But it’s not like this would be a special point of access. I’m pleased and proud [the campaigns] recruited someone from here."

Perhaps...meanwhile, who has the candidates' ears?

Florida Versus DNC

The DNC told states who got to run their Primaries first and what was the earliest date other states could use. Florida didn't like the rules and set their Primary earlier, stating that they deserved the attention. DNC disagreed and voted to strip the state of its delegates to the Convention if they went ahead. Florida sued.

Florida argued that it was a violation of the Constitution to not count the people's vote, the DNC argued that it had a right to set the schedule. A Federal judge dismissed Florida's argument. WaPo's Michael Shear quotes Sen Bill Nelson vowing to fight on:

"This fight is not over. This fight is going to go on another day," Nelson said. "This decision in the court today just emboldens by determination to not let party bosses make the decision over the people's right to vote."

I'm sorry, Bill's an ass. The question is not whether the people can vote, and even have their vote counted, the question is what the DNC has to do with that. Note the "N" in DNC, that is National; it is not "N"for Florida. Florida Democrats have options to have their delegates counted, but their early Primary isn't one. DNC sets the rules for its Convention, Florida doesn't get to.

There are probably better ways to run a Primary season than the way it is now. I recently read a suggestion that the Primaries be set across the entire 6 months with the smallest going first, working up to the biggest progressively. That actually seems like it might have some merit, though squeezing 50 separate Primaries into 180 days might be really rough on candidates. It does have the benefit of allowing campaigns some time to build momentum and practice for a lower price tag. Frankly (heresy) I think the Super Duper Tuesday is stupidity piled onto an already money loaded election system.

Michigan and Florida have pointed up the weakness in the Super Tuesday Primaries, states get lost and candidates just cannot barnstorm all those states in the time between the early States and February 5th. Campaigns that might grow, 2nd tier, are killed off by the early big money campaigns and the onerous demands of hitting the big markets all at once. This benefits, in this case, Hillary and Obama but there are other voices out there with other ideas and Democrats deserve to hear them and should hear them. Money will always be in elections, but there is no need to aid its influence.

Kevin Mannix Is Worth A Lot Of Bucks To...

Freedom Works. Hart Williams has done some astonishingly good work researching and reporting on conservative and libertarian causes, and most amusingly freaked out Sean Hannity. Now he's got Kevin Mannix in his sights and if you have anything shaky going on that's not a good thing. The 2006 tax return shows $268,650 for “Legal services” paid to Kevin Mannix by Freedom Works Foundation, it is interesting that in 2005 he was worth $200,089 as a political consultant. Nearly a half million dollars in two years? Freedom Works ( Inc and Foundation) are essentially petition mills and advertising shills.



Since I actually labor for money I find it just a little offensive that running conservative petitions and advertising hit pieces is such a lucrative business that "contractors" like Mannix are worth that kind of money. I encourage you to spend some time on Hart's piece, there is a lot more there that it would be pointless to cut and paste into an article when Hart has done the work. Because Freedom Works (all of it) is a national organization there are circles within circles, something Hart is great at analyzing.

Money, Politics, Voters

I've said this stuff before, the courts and voters keep agreeing with me, as much as I don't like it, so I'll say it once again - emphatically. "Money as free speech" is not going to go away, the courts aren't going to rule against it, the voters have shown little enthusiasm for it, and it really isn't all that bad an idea. The part that stinks is who seems to own the playing field - Big Money, usually corporations.

It has always cost money to campaign, no there was no television in 1790, but there also was a completely primitive transportation system and widely spread population. They reached their audience through surrogates, just like today, and it cost significant amounts of money. The politicians made do, they collected money and spent it. And yes, big money existed at the time and it was in play. Money is the currency of availability to the voter. You fly in the face of that at the risk of making very poor decisions and forcing more end-runs by office seekers.

Money is not a polluter of the system, the pollution comes from the one-sidedness of sourcing. Large corporations have an incentive to cough up some money to help assure a larger return, and they would be crazy not to. But there is no reason that the tilt has to be so strongly in their favor, they have to answer to shareholders for their expenses and returns, the shareholders in the election process need to step up and invest in their own futures. Those people would be us, you know us, U.S., the voters that get ignored. The second you stop to think about the sheer numbers of voters and then multiply that number by $25 you have some actual cash. There is one problem.

Voters are disillusioned, it is tough enough just to get them to turn out to vote (my vote doesn't count, anyhow) much less get them to cough up some cash (the big boys just buy them). The very biggest problem in this scenario is the opponents of Big Money trying to pass laws, the route to passing those laws is to tell people that they cannot compete. Listen to the contradiction in that argument, you sell the idea of failure on the basis of that failure and pretend that you are educating the voters when what you actually are doing is propagandizing them into the belief that there is no point in doing what you bemoan. I don't doubt the good intentions of most proponents, but having the government finance elections strikes me as a recipe for a whole lot of BushCo behavior. Do you really want the minions of George II making financing decisions about campaigns?

No, I surely do not and I also do not see it as a solution to sell the voter on the idea that he is helpless and needs saving. The voter can afford to spend the price of a 12 pack on a campaign. The voter is not helpless in the face of corporate largess, all the voter has to do is make it prohibitively expensive for them to buy elections. Sure, you read this blog and feel pretty politically active, and you are at the very least more interested than the average citizen, then contribute to your favorite. Write letters, write blogs, spend a couple nickles, and talk to your disinterested friends. You actually have a good argument for that mindset of failure, and it can be meaningful, it can make a difference. It's time to stop whining and take it back, just that, TAKE it back, don't ask, don't whine, just goddam do it.

There are some contribution links on the side bar, every campaign has them on their site, do something.

Oh No, I'm Rich and I Need Your Help Getting More

“The top 25 individuals in the industry [private equity and hedge funds] got paid over $10 billion, taxed at a rate of 15 percent. Those 25 people got paid three times the amount that was paid to all 80,000 people who teach in the New York City schools, and they paid roughly one-half to one-third of taxes on a percentage basis.” said Damon Silver, associate general counsel at the A.F.L.-C.I.O. Just for comparison, you and your employer pay 15.48% FICA on your wages up to $90,000. That has nothing to do with your Income Tax. So you know, this is how Mitt made his pile, that champion of lower taxes, guess whose taxes.

The NYT points out that these folks are connected, "The industry’s leaders include a variety of seasoned political hands. The senior chairman and co-founder of the Blackstone Group, for instance, is Peter G. Peterson, a former White House official and commerce secretary. Mr. Kravis’s ties to the Bush family go back decades, to the time when his father was friends with Senator Prescott Bush, the president’s grandfather. Another major player in the debate, the Carlyle Group, is based in Washington and led by a group of well-connected former top government officials."

Billionaire Henry R Kravis just spent some time trying to persuade Congress just how important his industry is to Americans, it's a tough sell with sky high compensation and tax rates below much less well to do taxpayers. The assertion is that they take the risk and deserve the low capital gains rate and that they "rescue" American industries and also that raising their taxes will hurt all Americans. Oh yeah, the sawdust encrusted nail bangers who work for me take no risks and will benefit immensely if these paper pushers have to pay real taxes on their income. You can surely hear BushCo leaping to their defense, tax and spend Dems... Oooops, Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) ranking (R) on Senate Finance Committee is part of the move to tax at the ordinary 35% for their bracket.

If you had an idea they'd just let this happen to them, NYT again,

"The newly founded Private Equity Council, which represents the largest industry players, has retained a battery of lobbyists from Akin Gump Strauss Hauer Feld; Capitol Tax Partners; Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck; and Johnson, Madigan, Peck, Boland & Stewart. Kohlberg has several well-positioned lobbyists, including Kenneth B. Mehlman, a former chairman of the Republican National Committee, who is a partner at Akin Gump. "

Poor babies...

Follow the Money

Seen a major news media story lately...or not seen one? There's a piece of analysis that would help your understanding, figure out what monied interest benefits. Whether the story supports your particular political bent or not stop and think about it.

I've complained about the constriction of media ownership before, and I'll do it again. There are vast amounts of money moving through the corporate owners of the media and their interests do not neccessarily coincide with the American public's interests. Let's back up in time a little and see what I'm talking about.

Enron. Right up until its collapse the corporation was touted as the wave of the "new" economy and an example of the benefits of de-regulation. But hey, there were warning signs all over the place that things were not as they seemed. Rolling blackouts in CA, skyrocketing energy prices, low profile complaints of gouging and manipulation by low profile (low readership) publications. These were ignored or ridiculed if noticed and certainly not ever mentioned after the collapse by major media. Of course little outfits don't have the resources to really investigate Big Business, but there are media companies with those resources, question is, do they have the will? Follow the money where? Enron got big and powerful through "de-regulation," that's the same philosophy that's created the media conglomorations, remember the mantra: lower prices, better service through the "free market." Yes, there are more money trails to be followed, but this is just a Blog, after all.

There are plenty of other examples that could be put up, but I've chosen one that is relatively uncontroversial and "politically neutral." If a story doesn't involve a local crime type issue the chances are it affects somebody's profit margin. Politics affect profit margins, ok that's not a news flash, but there seems to be a willingness to look at news as though it were news, sure there's the " I watch CNN and you watch FOX," type dispute, but even that is essentially meaningless, these medias are all controlled by a small group of very large corporations. The competition for viewers of one political bent over another is still nonsense as far as getting the truth about the world and our government, it is simply illustrative of the ability of a corporation to tailor the news to suit its ends.

One media outlet still exists as fairly open, the internet. Yes, there is a definite shortage of money for investigative reporting but the ability to quickly disseminate very local low budget discoveries gives it some clout - and interest to major media. So the story has to do with internet access, hmmm, where's the money? Do political types benefit? Do large money organizations benefit?

How about the Public's benefit?