E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSFrom NBC's Lauren Selsky
Former Louisiana Gov. Charles "Buddy" Roemer (R) today announced that he formed an exploratory committee to pursue the 2012 GOP presidential nomination.
Roemer, who referred to himself as a reformer and who noted that he had been "out of politics for 20 years," said he would "challenge the current system of money in politics from day one by setting a voluntary limit on contributions of $100 per individual," adding that he will "accept not one penny more."
While not calling anyone out specifically, he did say that "Washington D.C. is a boomtown, and the rest of America is hurting." He added that "Washington DC is a fundraiser every night and it's an auction during the day for retiring congressmen."
He also made mention of the current union issues facing other states, saying: "I love these governors having the battles now. We did that 25 years ago."
He continued, "So all the problems -- budget out of balance, tax code needs to be rewritten, all these things -- I've been through before in a real, but a smaller scale. I've added my business experience to that now, and I'm ready to make my case."
Leave a Comment:
Hmmm, looks like the only place the Republican party can go to find candidates is backwards. Looks like we are headed back to the future, 1980's, here we COME!
A political hack here, a political hack there, a political hack everywhere.
Here a hack, there a hack, everywhere a hack, hack.
No matter if they are dressed in red or blue, service in Washington will turn them green (with envy, jealousy, greed and lust for power).
Backwards or not, it can't be worse than what we have had the past several years and today.
new day, what are you going to do if the nation elects a GOP president?
That want happen. America is stupid at times, but that that stupid to elect anyone from this current bunch of Republican thugs.
The same thing you are going to do, 'cracker, when Obama DOES get re-elected: Go on some message boards all day and snivle and whine and act like an ass.
*ouch*- the old tried-and-true "I know you are, but what am I?"
Howdy newday,
I don't know too much about this guy but I did see him on Morning Joe this morning. 2 things he said caught my attention: first, when he said that the Marines should not be used for oil duty in the Middle East; second, when he lamented that after financial reform, no corporations were found to be too big to fail. It may not mean a lot to dems, but those 2 views alone will perk-up the ears on the indy left and draw some initial interest. If on deeper examination he turns out to be nothing more than the typical anti-woman union-busting repub, then any initial interest will quickly vanish. But some of what he is saying now sounds pretty darn good.
$100 campaign contribution limit. Sounds refreshing. Let's hear more.
Yeah, that's a third thing he said that caught my interest. He may not hold up after further scrutiny, but the guy's definitely off to a good start.
Any attempt to squelch the First Amendment is refreshing to the Left.
While no doubt Obama will keep the estimated $1 billion he is accumulating for his re-election....
money is money, speech is speech. Both existed when the Constitution was written. If the founders had wanted the two conflated , I am pretty certain they would have told us. SCOTUS is just wrong on this.
Bob:
Did I say I approved of that? You need to clean out your eyes, Bob. You're not hearing straight.
Are you FOR big money campaigns, Bob, or against them? Take a stand. I'm against.
Whe money=speech, only the rich have a voice.
Only the rich have an AMPLIFIED voice.
What Democrat/Liberal said he HAD to have the $100 limit? I think its interesting to see a republican that WONT take a bribe from a huge corporation. For the record, I don't like the $1 billion that Obama is going to raise. I see people losing elections all the time because they don't have the finance necessary to put their message out. as Indy Lib said, "When money=speech, only the rich have a voice."
"The history of campaign finance reform is the history of incumbent politicians seeking to muzzle speakers, any speakers, particularly those who might publicly criticize them and their legislation."
Justice William O Douglas:
Some may think that one group or another should not express its views in an election because it is too powerful, because it advocates unpopular ideas, or because it has a record of lawless action. But these are not justifications for withholding First Amendment rights from any group—labor or corporate. . . . First Amendment rights are part of the heritage of all persons and groups in this country. They are not to be dispensed or withheld merely because we or the Congress thinks the person or group is worthy or unworthy.
A conservative quoting William O. Douglas. Well, I never.
So I guess this makes you big money. Then what's your point about Obama?
" They are not to be dispensed or withheld merely because we or the Congress thinks the person or group is worthy or unworthy."
Did you forget to add; "...except for unions, of course"?
Indy Lib: I remember him. Was Democrat who supported Reagan's policies, switched to Republican party. Unless he has evolved, you will see more of the loyalty to the Reagan agenda.
we suffer with Presidents named "Jimmy" and now "Barry"...
"Buddy" ? No thanks.
Heh heh. If Bob doesn't like him, the guy's definitely worth a second look.
Indy Lib,
If $100 applies to corporations and all groups as well I'm all for it. If it doesn't its just a way to limit my contribution while allowing the Koch Brother and News Corporation to give as much as they want to sway the election. I have learned to always look between the lines in words Republicans use. They lie a lot. Look at Scott Walker, Mike Huckabee and Newt Gingrich just this week. I'm sure I've missed some other lies. Feel free to add to my list anyone.
His announcement this morning was impressive. If he can keep to his word he may be worth second look.
Rule #1 of politics:
If a person tells you they were a 'successful' politician in Louisiana, you can assume that he either A) was in jail at some point or B)should be in jail, but hasn't been caught yet
I don't care which party you belong to, that's just funny. I think maybe you could widen your net though, perhaps eliminate the word Louisiana, that ought to be broad enough.
On a serious note, I find the $100 limit interesting, but have concerns about where this would actually apply. Is it only contributions by individuals, with no limit by either corporations or unions, or would it apply to all entities, in keeping with SCOTUS view of corporations as persons. Wouldn't it just be easier to publicly finance campaigns? I still check the box on my tax return for contributions to the Presidential campaign, in the forlorn hope that someday, money (and the raising thereof) won't be the arbiter of whom we elect as President. Extend that process across the board, no more fundraising, as a result, no more "special interest" groups, perhaps a less corrupt financing system.
although, i agree with limiting money, this is just another fund raiser to line his own pockets. the gig is up gov!