[A] U.S. PIRG report examines how 2016 presidential candidates would fare under a campaign financing system similar to that of New York City, which matches small donations to local candidates with additional public money at a six-to-one ratio. For example, if someone gives $10 to a candidate for the New York City Council, the city provides an additional $60, so the candidate receives $70 total [with an individual contribution cap of $200].
[...]
The U.S. PIRG report also demonstrates that a small-donor matching funds system would overwhelm the financial impact of super PACs.
[...]
The U.S. PIRG report acknowledges it does not take into account how both candidates and potential small contributors would change their behavior under a small-donor matching system. The report notes that New York City has seen both an increased number of small donors and increased diversity in where donors live.
The Intercept
And for whom.In what some see as a sign of the tightening race between the two Democratic candidates, Priorities USA Action is pouring $5 million into pro-Clinton voter outreach and radio ads.
The majority of the money — $4.5 million — will go to voter outreach in early-voting states, which started on Friday with Georgia and Illinois, and others will be added on a rolling basis. The group has teamed up with other pro-Clinton organizations for the early-voting campaign.
“We want to make sure that we’re educating voters on where, when and how they can vote,” spokesman Justin Barasky told POLITICO.
Politico
No they don't.“It is truly unfortunate that the largest pro-Clinton super PAC has decided to infect the democratic primary process with its haul of Wall Street cash. Democratic voters expect more,” Sanders campaign manager Jeff Weaver said in a statement.
Apparently not.“Doesn’t the Clinton campaign have the funds to run its own ads without resorting to its super PAC, which is funded by the very people Secretary Clinton has promised to take on?”
If that won't buy you an election, nothing will.As of the end of January, Priorities USA had $36 million in the bank.
Why, of course not!In a key twist to the 2012 election, US President Barack Obama has reversed course and will encourage rich Democratic donors to back a fund that can raise unlimited millions for his reelection bid.
Obama’s campaign manager Jim Messina said Obama would allow cabinet members and senior advisors to address big money events, reasoning that Democrats could not be “unilaterally disarmed” in the face of a Republican cash landslide.
[...]
“With so much at stake, we can’t allow for two sets of rules in this election, whereby the Republican nominee is the beneficiary of unlimited spending and Democrats unilaterally disarm.”
Raw Story
As Stephen Colbert has been gleefully pointing out.Right now, the anonymous donors to a political action committee, or PAC, can buy ads on behalf of – or against – a candidate, and spend unlimited amounts as long as there is no official connection between the PAC and any candidate. This degree of separation, however, is pure fiction: in reality, “former” aides to the candidate can and do operate these “Super PACs,” which are funded by one Daddy Warbucks or another: no overt coordination is necessary. What’s important here is disclosure, or the lack of it: the PACs don’t have to say who is funding these ads, only that the “Committee for Good Government” or some such semi-fictional entity is paying for it. In this way, [Sheldon] Adelson – a casino billionaire, one of the richest people in the country – can drop a cool $10 million into the race (with more in the pipeline) and in effect buy the election, without the average voter knowing who is paying the bills.
In related news, but on the positive side (mark your calendars!):[Adelson] and his allies have been campaigning for war with Iran for years, not only here but in the Middle East. Adelson is a major financial backer of Israel’s ultra-nationalist Likud party, which calls in its platform for a “Greater Israel,” and he has backed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to the hilt. [...]He supports the extremist – and increasingly violent – “settler” movement, and is the money-bags behind the “Clarion Fund,” which is responsible for flooding the US with anti-Arab propaganda.
[...]
Newt didn’t always believe the Palestinians are a figment of their own imaginations: this idea coincided with Adelson’s generous donations to Gingrich, Inc.
In a 2005 article for the Middle East Quarterly, Professor Newt opined that the Palestinians are “a relatively wealthy, educated, and cosmopolitan people,” who are “in some ways among the most international and most advanced people in the Arab world.”
[...]
”“The U.S. government should become the protector of the Palestinian people’s right to have a decent amount of land. The desire of some Israelis to use security as an excuse to grab more Palestinian land should be blocked by Washington even if that requires employing financial or other leverage to compel the Israeli government to behave reasonably on the issue of settlements.”
[...]
Upon receiving a record amount of $13 million from Adelson – the latest installment was a check for $5 million from Miriam Adelson, his Israeli-born wife – Newt the Historian woke up one morning to discover that there are no Palestinians – only a horde of drooling Orcs trespassing on Israeli land.
On Monday afternoon, [U.S. Senate candidates Elizabeth Warren and incumbent Scott Brown in Massachusetts] signed an agreement. Republican Scott Brown described it as a “bold statement that puts super PACs and other third parties on notice that their interference in this race will not be tolerated,” and Democrat Elizabeth Warren added, “Both campaigns will need to remain vigilant to ensure that outside groups do not try to circumvent what is an historic agreement.”
According to the congressional newspaper, The Hill, “The pact signed by Warren and Brown on Monday imposes a financial penalty whenever an outside group intrudes on the race. If an outside group places a television or Internet ad supporting a candidate, the candidate would be required to donate 50 percent of the cost of the ad to a charity of the opponent’s choosing within three days. Negative attack ads would also trigger the penalty, with the candidate whose rival is attacked being forced to forfeit half the cost. Also included in the accord are written requests signed by both candidates to broadcast station managers imploring them to voluntarily enforce the pledge.”
[...]
The League of Conservation Voters’ Navin Nayak told Mother Jones magazine, “While we cannot take directions from any candidate on our independent activities, we are inclined to respect the People’s Pledge agreed to by Elizabeth Warren and Scott Brown and we hope that Scott Brown will honor his end of the deal when Crossroads and the Koch Brothers inevitably break it.”
Bill Moyers
He'll be getting a call from the White House soon.A recent survey (PDF) by the Democratic-affiliated Public Policy Polling (PPP) firm found that in a hypothetical race against Democratic President Barack Obama and Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, Colbert would receive 13 percent of the vote.
According to the poll, Obama would win the election with 41 percent of the votes, and Romney would come in a close second with 38 percent.
The polling firm concluded that Colbert actually pulled most of his support from the current president.
Raw Story
