E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS*** UPDATED AT 1:15 PM WITH COMMENT FROM PRIORITIES USA ***
A top campaign watchdog group today is calling for a Justice Department criminal investigation into Super PACs supporting President Obama and GOP front runner Mitt Romney.
Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21, a group sharply critical of Super PACs, said Priorities USA Action, the Obama Super PAC, and Restore Our Future, a similar group backing Romney, are both "illegal operations" because of their close ties to the candidates they are backing.
In the wake of reports that the White House has signed off on plans to urge wealthy donors to contribute to the group, Wertheimer said he is writing a letter to the Justice Department today urging criminal probes of both groups.
"In order to believe that the Super PACs supporting President Obama and Mitt Romney are 'independent' from the presidential campaigns they are supporting, you must believe in the tooth fairy," Wertheimer said.
Bill Burton, Obama's former deputy press secretary and 2008 campaign spokesman, set up Priorities USA Action last year along with another former Obama political aide, Sean Sweeney. Burton did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Restore Our Future, which has spent millions in the GOP primary so far, was set up by former Romney aides Charlie Spies, who was Romney’s general counsel during his 2008 bid, and Carl Forti, who was Romney’s political director. Forti is also the political director for American Crossroads.
The White House plan to steer wealthy donors to give money to Priorities USA Action was disclosed in a blog posting on the Obama campaign website, saying that the move was needed to "neutralize the avalanche of special interest spending" being mounted on the GOP side to defeat President Obama.
"The stakes are too important to play by two different sets of rules," Jim Messina, Obama's campaign manager wrote.
The New York Times reported that the White House plans to dispatch top officials, including senior advisers David Plouffe and Valerie Jarrett to meet with donors. Romney himself has appeared at Restore Our Future fundraisers, something he defended on MSNBC’s The Daily Rundown, saying he’d acted within the law.
“They can help in terms of fundraising, but cannot in any way communicate a course of advertising, suggest when ads run, where they run, what's in the content of the ads,” Romney said of candidates and campaigns and whether or how much they can coordinate with Super PACs supporting them. “Those are things that are prohibited so we're being very careful in that regard.”
A top strategist who works with Democratic Super PACs told NBC News that the White House decision came after mounting worries within party circles that spending by a phalanx of GOP Super PACs could reach $1 billion by election day -- including $100 million from the conservative oil magnate Koch brothers -- drowning out the president's message
"When you see numbers like that, it starts getting a little spooky," the strategist said.
He also said most big Democratic donors have so far been gun shy of the Super PACs, because of Obama's past criticism of such groups. In the 2010 election, Obama charged that GOP groups, fueled with “special interest” money, were threatening to “hijack” democracy.
"We need some of our big birds to get off the wire," the strategist said, noting that some wealthy donors have expressed concerns that they'll be "demonized" if they give to one of the Democratic Super PACs.
So far, Priorities USA Action has had relatively little success in raising funds, reporting last week that it had collected just $4.4 million through the end of last year. A Priorities official said it had raised another $2.3 million via a 501(c)4 arm that doesn’t have to disclose donors. (The Karl Rove-Ed Gillespie-led groups American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS have a similar set up and has raised far more money.)
That $6.7 million is compared to the $30 million raised by Restore Our Future and the $51 million reported raised by American Crossroads and its non-profit, non-disclosed affiliate Crossroads GPS.
The pro-Obama group did report a handful of big checks, including $2 million from Hollywood mogul Jeffrey Katzenberg, $1 million from the SEIU labor union, $100,000 from director Steven Spielberg, and others.
While individual donors can only give $2,500 a piece to official campaign committees, the Super PACs can collect unlimited donations from individuals, corporations, and labor unions. Priorities USA Action also reported last week that $215,000 of its operating expenses were being paid by its non-profit affiliate -- called Priorities USA -- which like Crossroads GPS, does not disclose its donors.
"As much as [David] Axelrod hates to give up this part of the president's message,” the strategist said, “most voters are pretty cynical about this stuff and don't much care.”
*** UPDATE *** Priorities spokesman Bill Burton disputes the notion that Priorities is an "illegal operation."
"We of course are abiding by all appropriate rules and laws," Burton said.
Leave a Comment:
Unfortunately, as noted satirists Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert have pointed out, there really isn't all that much that the FEC can do about any of these SuperPACs.
God Bless America!
The Super Pac phenomenon is an unfortunate development, nonetheless. I hope Super Pacs are reigned in by the 2016 election.
The one thing Congress will not vote for no matter how many Americans scream against it, is more limitations and provisions that allows these Super PACs. Both Dems and Repugs dont want to bite the hands that feed them: corporations, not citizens.
Instead of crying about how Citizen's United is unfair, Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21, is actually doing the right thing and asking for investigations of campaign involvement in the PACs. This is what the anti-CU does not understand. Campaigns can not work in conjunction with PACs. PACs are independent voices. You can see how PACs go against those support by simply looking to the Massachusetts races in which both Senator candidates asked the PACs to stop and they did not. Here however you have two candidates campaigning for donations to their PAC. This is what the anti-CU crowd should focus on.
Why would they need to communicate on advertising such as where and when they run ads and how much to spend? Obviously one has to take the lead, so either the Romney campaign goes first or the superPAC goes first and then the other can respond. It's not like it isn't public knowledge, the news channels report on the spending and where.
As for the content, all they need to do is put the ads on YouTube prior to releasing them and if the Romney campaign has an account to comment, then they only need to let the superPAC know their screen name. The odds of being caught using YouTube to review the content would be very low.
That last sentence is kind of interesting, "Those are things that are prohibited so we're being very careful in that regard." Be very careful, so as not to break the law or very careful, so as not to get caught breaking the law? We already know that the Romney campaign doesn't care about Intellectual Property law when they stole a segment from NBC with Brian Williams and used that in an ad without receiving prior consent or even attempt to receive approval.
Colbert and Stewart have shown how much of a sham the 'no coordination' concept is with super pacs. ALL Super PACS.
And that includes the Karl Rove owned super pacs too. 'Crossroads America' and all the other names he uses.
They are ALL shams. We need to find a constitutional way to ban them all.
the sad part about the Supreme Court decision was that the Super Pacs can take unlimited Money from any one anywhere .. this includes foreign Governments .. it is very sad when Americas Politicians can be bought by Foreign Governments .. The Supreme Court Justices that voted to allow foreign governments to buy Americas elections need to be impeached for their decision
CITIZENS UNITED AND SUPER PAC'S MAY SIGNAL THE END OF DEMOCRACY AS WE KNOW IT
The Citizens United case did one thing for sure--make money in politics WAY MORE PERVASIVE. Elections have gotten a LOT MORE EXPENSIVE (on the order of 100's of times) in just 2 years. The result is only the mega-wealthy interests can truly play now.
Some quick background: Citizens United is the most blatant case of JUDICIAL ACTIVISM in generations, overturning 100 years of clear American jurisprudence. The decision calls into question the very idea of an "independent judiciary." For the first time corporations have been accorded the same rights as natural citizens to donate unregulated money into political organizations to support political candidates and causes.
The effect has been to allow corporations to donate unlimited amounts of money, without disclosing their doing so, to so-called Super PAC's. According to the Federal Election Commission, the Super PAC'S may not "coordinate" with the candidate they are associated with. Many of the Super PAC's, however, are headed by close former business associates and even past ranking members of the candidate's campaign team.
The Citizens United ruling was either STUNNINGLY NAIVE, or an INTENTIONAL DECISION by the 5 justices (Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas, and Kennedy) to shift government into subjugation by mega-wealthy corporate interests. Either way, the implications for democracy in this country are grave. Indeed, the very survival of a representative democracy is now in question.
To get an idea of the effect of Citizens United, consider that President Obama is expected to raise over $1 BILLION dollars in just over 1 year for this election cycle (the old fashioned way--from natural citizens with a $4,500 cap per person, with the average donation being under $200). $1 Billion sounds good, and it would be fantastic (much more than any other candidate for President in U.S. history, and a huge vote of confidence for the President by mostly average citizens) without Citizens United.
Now consider that the Super PAC's controlled by Karl Rove/Koch Brothers, who can join with their wealthy associates, can easily infuse $500 MILLION (1/2 the amount the President will raise in over 1 year) into their Super PAC's IN JUST 1 DAY! One of Mitt Romney's Super PAC's lists something like 23 of his former associates at Bain Capital, and has spent tens of millions of dollars ALREADY in this election cycle and the primary voting has only just begun. Newt Gingrich's associated Super PAC got $10 MILLION dollars over a 4 week period from the billionaire Adelson family out of Las Vegas, effectively keeping his candidacy alive.
Of course the Democrats now must avail themselves of the same rules or be at a severe disadvantage. So there are now Super PAC's associated with President Obama and the Democratic Party.
The vast majority of Americans simply do not realize how much money is in play here now. $1 Billion dollars ain't what it used to be! There are billions and billions of corporate dollars to be 'invested', because the payoff in influencing legislation is such a lucrative proposition for them.
Who really believes the Super PAC's are independent and do not coordinate with the campaigns?
This is the last election cycle where any average American will donate any money to a presidential candidate (Senate and Representatives are next); why bother when against Super PAC money its a drop in the ocean?
What are these mega-wealthy interests buying for all that money?
The answer is OUR VERY DEMOCRACY.
Hopefully there will be enough backlash against the Super PAC's (including individual, corporate and union donations) that something will be done after this election cycle.
This isn't a rep/dem issue - it's a problem with both parties. As an example, instead of complaining about the Citizen United ruling, the dems could have made getting another reform bill passed immediately - before this election cycle...but they didn't - which tells me they are also not that concerned about it. We need to be pushing both parties to make real election reform.
I don't care for either major party right now but I wonder if anyone else sees the oxymoron of "conservatives" spending millions and maybe billions on campaigns?
Has anyone else wondered why they are only challenging these two Super PAC's? ALL of the Super PAC's working to elect or defeat a particular candidate is in one way or another "co-ordinating" with the campaigns. Just look at who runs those Super PAC's. They are all former staff members of the particular candidate, or wealthy friends of that candidate, etc.
Starving the Beast ensures only the wealthy and elite can afford to run and then live on those wages while they control the works of their own agendas and benefactors. When they talk about Starving that Beast, you seem to forget that it’s “We the People” who is that “Beast” that they want to starve!
Blame the US SUPREME COURT.
Since the Roberts Court has already ruled that money does not directly influence legislation these PACS are here to stay as long as WE put up with them.
You may look forward to a continually shrinking democratic process.
As so many suggest (or at least allude to)... we sorely need an influential 3rd party in order to halt the erosion of democracy.
Like it or not, the only group with enough money to do that is organized labor. I think it about time they ran their own candidates instead of giving money to the two major parties - since we all seem to agree that having just two political parties leads to stalemate.
I am only looking for a wedge to be place between the two major parties, a voting block that can swing back and forth in order to avert that gridlock/stalemate.
As for the "Tea Party" being that wedge... a wedge can not be placed at the extreme edge of a thing... it has to be in the middle in order to create the separation you are looking for! It appears as though the Tea Party pushing from the far right has done exactly what we could have anticipated - moved everything left! And that has accomplished nothing.
Ecurbus: By the time that happens there will no more UNIONS left:
And my glass ball says......."Mr. Obama will campaign "NO MORE SUPERPACS" if I am re-elected".
Similiar to his "No more Earmarks in the legislation I sign as President".
The rhetoric will continue.
I wish they would outlaw all Super PACs. There is money coming into them from foreign contributors. At what point did we decide to sell our country to foreign countries. This Supreme Court shows that there is nothing Supreme about them.
Ido - where is your outrage over the GOP in this instance? This is not a Dem/GOP issue. It's on both sides of the aisle. There is nothing more telling than someone who spews their stupidity about this issue.
Criminality starts at the Supreme Court. They are looking in the wrong place....as if that wasn't on purpose.
Maybe not, amazeing... have you heard the new AFL-CIO ad on themselves?
The time may be right for them as there is so much distrust of the two major parties.
You know it would only take 3 Senators who would work closely together to influence the legislative process. We're not talking about a huge movement... just a few folks with a different prospective and no ties to the two major parties.
We really, really do need this.
Since the "Supreme" Court has sold our democracy to the highest bidder the only option we have is for each individual American to incorporate, form an exploratory committee, then have "non-friend" start a Super PAC.
"......if everyone were rich how would you know you were rich, you have to have poor people so the the rich can actually feel rich. The funnest part of being rich is flaunting your money in the face of poor people"
Just like Romney and Gingrich will "repeal Obamacare on day one." The office of the Presidency simply doesnt have the power to do it. It's all rhetoric on both sides.
When criminality is determined based on what looks to be a very arbitrary set rules, it becomes meaningless. These rules ARE contrived. They are not "ethical" or "moral" or set to protect anyone against anything... they are just there. They are there specifically to get around campaign laws that, at one time, WERE meant to assure money didn't run away with our elections.
So if one or the other Super PACs are "illegal" due to a technicality or a perceived violation of these idiotic rules, I don't really give a @!$%#.
What we should be concerned with is the morality of Super PACs to begin with... 1st Amendment rights my ass.
In 2008 Obama challenged McCain to take public money...
McCain agreed.
Then Obama changed his mind and said he needed the private money to win.
Then in the state of the union adress he chastised SCOTUS for Citizens United live on national TV.
Now he's going to take the money.
It's the definition of hypocrisy.
Starving the Beast ensures only the wealthy and elite can afford to run and then live on those wages while they control the works of their own agendas and benefactors. When they talk about Starving that Beast, you seem to forget that it’s “We the People” who is that “Beast” that they want to starve!
I want an investigation of this "group"...
@LMarc
"They are not "ethical" or "moral" or set to protect anyone against "
don't try to impose your "morals" or "ethics" on us...remember the libbie code
@Ercubus
the "problem" you are decrying started with and has been perpetrated for decades by your UNION political donations so your point is pretty well moot...ALL union donations should be outlawed post haste and indefinately
For sale: "America, the Greatest nation on earth."
Cheap!
Harry Blank
You make absolutely no sense. How is my statement imposing my morals or ethics on you? And what "libbie code"? Sometimes I think people post just to hear themselves type. If you don't care for my point, address it.
The GOP corporate puppets are crying their eyes out because Obama is using their tactics. Now they are getting nervous because Obama has leveled the playing field. I'm glad Obama decided to fight fire with fire. Obama and his PAC will get my dollars.
I believe there is a way. Majority of these corporation are associated with Government contract in some form or another. President Obama can force transparency through executive order such that to receive Gov funding, contract or grants ALL CORPORATION ARE REQUIRED TO report their ALL THEIR political and lobbyist contribution. The penalty should severe such 20 X of the unreported contribution.
So Obama 'was against it before he was for it'?
His 'transparency' is showing. He's going to coordinate raising funds, but he 'won't coordinate with them' in using the funds he raises?
'Tooth Fairy' indeed.
Union contributors have been thinly disguises 'Super-Pacs' for generations, having given hundreds of $Millions to the Democrats.
todd- KCKS "Just like Romney and Gingrich will "repeal Obamacare on day one." The office of the Presidency simply doesnt have the power to do it. It's all rhetoric on both sides."
Actually, the law was written so loosely that bureaucratic 'regulators' pretty much determine the rules (just look at all of the 'exemptions' HHC Secretary Sebelius has granted). A new administration means new 'regulators' to administer the program.
Ecurbus the Prophet "As so many suggest (or at least allude to)... we sorely need an influential 3rd party in order to halt the erosion of democracy...Like it or not, the only group with enough money to do that is organized labor. I think it about time they ran their own candidates instead of giving money to the two major parties - since we all seem to agree that having just two political parties leads to stalemate."
Great idea. I'll drink to that.
This is TOO FUNNY. First Obama demonizes 'Super-Pacs', and then he tells his big 'Bundlers' to fund his own 'Super-Pacs'.
I guess what's considered a 'Demon' is 'in the eye of the beholder'.
Hypocrisy indeed.
"We of course are abiding by all appropriate rules and laws," Burton said
=======================
Of course you are. That's about as honest as a Roy Wilson rant. But not to worry Bill, the Supreme Court has been bought and paid for. You're doing just fine.
Say, it's been a while since citizens united. Has Obama done anything to regulate campaign finance? Talked about it, proposed legislation....
Anything? You know, other than putting down super pacs which he now likes?
First of all - I wished they would not have allowed these SuperPAC's to come into legal existence in the first place. They are an abomination, which circumvents the will of the people - replacing the personal appeal of a candidate reaching out to the people who is pledged to represent. Replacing anonymous access to cash (bill to be presented and paid at a later date). verses the people who voted for a candidate and can and will vot him out if he doesn't fulfill the duties he was elected to complete.
However, it does not take a lot of investigation to make us wonder why the deleterious effects of SuperPAC's has risen to this level of concern... only after the incumbent started to seek parity with the challengers?
The good thing is, Romney is getting spanked, Newt is coming in third and Santorm is leading the pack. Seems Americans are not overly swayed by the influx of cash - if your candidate is riddled with flaws, its hard to attack ad enough to cover up his bad qualities... voters will take an unknown over a bowl of crap... no matter how much you spend on paint polish and lipstick. When we need a shovel - its hard to accept a "silver spoon" or a "prima donna" as being fit for the job.
Newt, in this cycle, openned the door ... and found success. But that didn't trigger an investigation. Mitt loosed the hounds, rebounded in the polls ... and found success. I didn't see much complaint (except from Newt), nor did it immediately signal an investigation was in order.
Then comes today. Within hours of the incumbent announcing he would not resist the incoming tide of cash being injected (from anonymous sources) into the Primary election process, we get a call for investigation.
I am increasingly curious about the political affiliation of those calling for the investigation. Their timing (Democracy 21) is mildly suspicious, don't cha think?
Investigation by the Justice Department? What a joke. Holder can't come up with the name of who authorized fast and furious after an 18 month investigation, as if he is qualified to look into Super PAC's. They should call it like it is, the Injustice Department.
why not have an investigation into judges that vote this into law from the beginning? why do it now?
Nearly everyone posting is upset with SuperPacs. How many of you have signed the petition for a Constitutional Amendment to counter the Citizens United decision? ...go to Senator Sander's website and sign the petition. Doesn't matter what party you identify with. If you are mad as hell and you're not going to take it anymore...sign the petition!
"What we should be concerned with is the morality of Super PACs to begin with"
"how is my comment ..."
you seem to think that you get to decide if they are "moral" or not...since you believe that they don't meet the libbie definition of "moral" you have projected your morals on us...pretty simple , you could have answered your own question about "how is my..." and not "posted to hear yourself type"
So, Leftys.... Is Obama starting to taste bad yet?
For the record, I'm kind of a lefty myself (except for my anti Illegal stance)
Seriously... It's been a while, he's shown himself.
CAN'T YOU SEE WHAT HE IS YET?
Hint... It ain't lefty
More like Stalin.
A criminal investigation into actions the Supreme Court has ruled constitutional? Please...monitor the Super-PACS to make sure they comply with the law, but the law itself is now so loosely woven as to allow virtual synchronization between a campaign and its Super-PAC.
As if the DOJ under Holder would investigate Obama what a joke.
Yep, Mr. Holder and his staff are TOO busy defending other Obama issues to take this one on.
gtouch and ldo - but nothing about the GOP? What moronic hypocrites!
Ido and gtouh, both of you need to get a life, a clue, a third-grade education. Or just leave this nation that you hate so much, you and your fellow American-hating wingnuts are the problem, not the solution.
Let's see the quote talked about the "White House" urging it's wealthy donors and that would be the Obama Administration which has put Holder in charge of the DOJ so that makes Holder beholding to Obama so what is you issue with that logic SS.......name calling the last bastion of the unintelligent. And JXC sorry but I'm an independent moderate......I do not like the policies of our current President so if that makes me in your opinion "American-hating".......and if that makes you sleep better ok. After seeing your remarks and how.........emotional and out there you two seem to be I would rather have both of you calling me names as you have instead of you calling me friend.......as that would be embarrassing.
Let's look on the bright side of it all: Billions from the top 1% are being put back into America... one way or another.
The real shame is that Al Gore wasn't declared President when he won the vote in 2000.
If he had been, we'd never have had Alito and Roberts - the Supreme Court justices who gave us Citizens United.
LOL...Holder investigates Obama...now that is tooth fairy stuff
In other news the head of NJ NEA tells poor people "Life isn't Fair"
But don't the President's children go to private school? Didn't the Democrats close down the voucher system in Washington DC? Doesn't John Kerry want you to pay more taxes while avoiding them himself?Guess hypocrisy is not limited to Super PACS.
Alan, NJ
But don't the President's children go to private school? Didn't the Democrats close down the voucher system in Washington DC? Doesn't John Kerry want you to pay more taxes while avoiding them himself?Guess hypocrisy is not limited to Super PACS.
====================
You're kidding, right? And what exactly is hypocrital about the PACs? There are many things to be critical about the PAC, but hypocritical?
To act as though politics and hypocrisy in general are performed only by only one political party is flat out show of willful ignorance.
No I understand that both parties are hypocrites, but it is just that most posters here seem to believe that the current Administration is somehow different.
BTW The head of the NJ NEA is paid 500k. You think that's fair?
Alan, NJ
Why is it that when dems do the same as a Repub, Repubs are always so shocked and disgusted? But it totally allowable for repubs to do it. Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black?
@ Phillip That goes both ways or have you not been paying attention............
You mean on Super PACS? There I don't give a @!$%#. As Scalia said if you don't like it turn it off, and I think the whole question of money is overrated.
However, when the President sends his kids to private school, but denies it to poor people, when John Kerry advocates for higher taxes, then deliberately goes out of state to avoid taxes, and when this guy at the NJ NEA, who earns 500K, says "Life isn't always fair" and forces poor families to send their kids to failing schools, because they're union schools, then yes I call hypocrite.
BTW in Newark, NJ we spend 25K+ per student, which why we're taxed so much, so you can't say its a money problem.
Nope! And not limited to one party either. (Neither democrat nor republican, so don't start calling me names)
Holder wouldnt investigate Obama, it'd be the PAC that gets investigated. Kinda like college football players dont get punished for breaking the NCAA rules, its the school that gets punished.
You foolish fools who are making this an Obama vs Conservative argument are simply providing cover for the political parties to ignore what is best for our representative democracy. ALL corporation, union, top 1%, PAC money should be abolished from campaigns. If "WE THE PEOPLE" want our democracy back (ass opposed to the plutocracy that BOTH parties prefer) campaigns need to be funded publicly. Maine's CLEAN ELECTIONS ACT is a perfect template that could be adapted for federal campaigns.
This is not a PARTISAN issue but rather an issue of whether "WE THE PEOPLE" should be represented by those we elect as opposed to the special interest groups that ALL politicians seem to be working for.
QUESTION: Why would a group (corp/union/individual/PAC) give MILLIONS to help a candidate if they don't have a reasonable expectation of getting a return on their money? How does this expectation compare to the needs of the constituents?
Popular Amendment Movement (faircampaignreform(dot)us) can end all of this nonsense. Get involved.
Petition for US Constitutional Amendment For Election Reform
We, the undersigned US citizens, duly registered voters in our respective states/territories, do hereby petition for our state to approve the following amendment to the United States Constitution by the method noted below.
Election Reform:
1. Abolish the Electoral College (Repeal Amendment 12)
2. ONE NATIONAL primary date to be held on the Tuesday eight (8) weeks prior to the General Election day for Congressional offices and for the President. Candidate petitions must be filed with the local/state elections boards 60 days prior to the Primary Election date. Federal election petitions shall be uniform in every state and shall include a “contract with the voters” that spells out clearly what that candidate stands for on all issues that they may have to address in elected office. They shall be held accountable in court for breach of that contract if elected and any/all terms are not met.
3. NO campaigning allowed for any elective federal office more than 60 days prior to the National Primary Date.
4. NO campaign contribution shall be donated to any candidate of more than $200 from an individual or $500 maximum from a family (spouses/children living in the same household.) No donations shall be made to a candidate more than sixty days prior to the primary date. No candidate shall contribute from their own funds more than 60% of the total donations from other private individuals.
5. NO campaign contribution from any PAC, corporation, union, non-profit organization, special interest group, etc. shall be allowed for any elected federal office.
6. NO third party campaigning (separate PAC ads, corporate ads, etc.) for/against any candidate shall be allowed at any time during or before the election season.
7. NO party conventions shall be held to select the presidential candidates. The selection must be done at the ballot box in the primary election.
8. The One Man/One Vote Supreme Court ruling shall be enforced by this Amendment, namely that NO federal candidate selection shall be by any means other than the ballot box on Primary/General Election Dates.
9. National Party Organizations shall NOT raise money for or donate to specific candidates of their party prior to the dates outlined above.
10. PAC’s shall NOT be granted tax-exempt status by the IRS, and any non-profit organization who uses their funding for political purposes shall lose their tax-exempt status.
11. All lobbyists shall be outlawed from influencing Congress at all times.
This amendment shall be approved ONLY by State Constitutional Conventions to be called within 90 days of this petition being submmitted to a state’s Secretary of State. A minimum of 25% of the registered voters in each state shall be required to further this petition to the respective Secretary of State.
Name Signature State Address
Petition for US Constitutional Amendment For Congressional Term Limits
We, the undersigned US citizens, duly registered voters in our respective states/territories, do hereby petition for our state to approve the following amendment to the United States Constitution by the method noted below.
Term Limits for Congress:
1. Representatives to Congress shall serve no more than two two-year terms in the House.
2. Senators shall be elected to no more than two six year terms in the Senate.
3. No elected official shall serve more than six terms in office in any combined elected offices (House/Senate/Presidency.)
This amendment shall be approved ONLY by State Constitutional Conventions to be called within 90 days of this petition being submmitted to a state’s Secretary of State. A minimum of 25% of the registered voters in each state shall be required to further this petition to the respective Secretary of State.
Name Signature State Address
anti-trust
Only 40-45% of the voters vote in elections. How about getting more votes out that support your point of view. You will never stop the money.
The thing you should be ranting over is electronic ballot boxes....
That's too many rules... it won't fly.
Simplify it.
For example... NO purchased TV or radio commercials, period!
There is enough unused broadcast bandwidth that a special channel can be set up on which all these commercials and campaign ads can be aired. That way, if you have an interest, you can tune in and watch.
Because I'm telling you... those things are tearing this country apart! They HAVE to stop. The ugliness is just too much... toooooo much. They have to stop.
I would love to see the election cycle limited to 3 months, $10 million. That way, the candidates would actually have to discuss issues - not throw out nonsense!
Anti-Trust, Though this would be the only way for the people of this nation to take back control of what is occurring in Washington, it would certainly take a concerted effort to undertake such an endeavor. I myself would have no problem signing on to something like this. However, there are to many that know that the only way to get their views heard and approved by our elected officials is to buy them. This is exactly what is taking the United States down into the toilet. As I've read so many postings, it's obvious that A LOT of people are unhappy with the way things are going in our nation's capital and the only way to rectify that, is to clean house and bring in new elected officials that are truly "for the people". The vast majority of the people of the United States have been greatly affected by what has occurred in our nation over the past 4 years and it's the Congress of the United States that has allowed or is allowing things to continue without changing the status quot. Now, I'm not the smartest guy in the world but, if this is something that has taken time to develop, it tells me that anyone who has been in office for more than 2 years is responsible. So, they are a part of the problem and for the benefit of the majority, they should go. Take a look at this year, due to the elections, which are still 9 months away, does anyone really anticipate anything getting done in Washington, when all these people care about is keeping their good paying job with all the bribes you can get away with?
I'm not sure what anyone else is looking at when it comes to November but, my ballot will be for re-election for one incumbent (the President). As for anyone else, they will not get my vote. They have already proved to me that they are incapable of helping this nation to prosper and doing what needs to be done for the people of the United States.
Funny how the Republicans never said they were against Super PAC's but Obama did so vehemently. So on this one issue who is the only hypocrite?
Although I understand the gentleman's point, Super PACs todate have already spent millions within the GOP Primary process and all 4 remaining candidates and some that are no longer in the race have or had PACs supporting them. Why should the investigation be aimed at the PAC for the President and Romney alone?
Excellent question Allen - if they are going to investigate, they should investigate all of them, not just Obama and Romney, and not just the presidential race - how about all those senate and congressional races being fueled by super pac's? No way those folks should have a say in who I vote for in my congressonal district or from my state for US senate.
Isn't it interesting the call for criminal investigations didn't start until the President announced he was going to play by the republicans rules. Leave no doubt, the republicans and their supreme court are responsible for this Super Pac mess.
Since I can't find this suggestion, let me add to the fray. When consumers boycott, manufacturers & retailers take notice. If all the people who object to the citizen's united ruling vote against the big money, the big money doesn't get its way. The social psychologists who manipulate the electorate with lies and fear are defeated and the the 99% get heard. Money only buys what people are willing to do to get it. Pocketsful of cash don't have to have an inevitable effect. It may not matter who gets elected but it would be revolutionary to defeat big money. Think about it. The myths are becoming more and more transparent as the lies they are. When you enter a voting booth you aren't asked what your salary is. Think about it...
Get rid of these ridiculous things. Reverse the Supreme Court decision that allows them. Until you do that there are no fair elections, no Republic, no elements of the America laid out Constitution whatsoever. You are more like a facsist plutocracy right now. Your Founding Fathers and WWII vets are rolling in their graves.
Better to concentrate on getting Tea Party backed Justice Thomas off the Supreme Court.
Pray tell Amy, why?
Because Amy doesn't like him. Remember, Amy thinks in very simple terms.
Hear hear! Time to remove that corrupt, incompetent "jurist".
Thomas is an INSULT to the Supreme Court.
Because Thomas's wife's affiliations and work for many GOP groups, big money she's making. Also his appearances at GOP functions. If this was a left leaning judge, the right would be coming un glued! Hypocrisy= GOP
I wonder, If I had said it is time to remove a Liberal leaning Black Supreme Court Justice, what Amy's friends would call me?
At least she thinks for herself Joanna Smith...I've never read anything you've ever written that wasn't a blatant lie or a mind boggling misinterpretation. It'd do you good to see how others see you before you call ANYONE simple.
Didn't he conveniently "forget" to claim the Mrs's earnings on his taxes last year?
Amy B. Portland,ME: I agree with you amy because if Clarence Thomas was any more right wing he would be in a place all by himself, he is what the gop wants a person who's mind and soul has been purchased.
Again, nothing Supreme about this court!
White collar auto . We would call you George Wallace or Ron Paul and maybe David Duke.
Frank DeFazio: You have to look over White Collar Auto because him and his suck-up sidekicks still thinks when the sun goes down its not suppose to get dark, just like all of the teatards.
I wouldn't be surprised at some form of criminal activity from Super PACs but the US Supreme Court ruled that they are legal. Unless the court changes its mind we're stuck with Super PACs.
Maybe one of these SuperPACs could fund reducing our country's deficit. I mean, if they can raise that kind of money, why not?
Assuming that you really meant Americas debt of $15,000,000,000,000 with an overly optimistic funding goal of $500,000,000. Might as well think that people can significantly pay down their debt with a ten dollar bill.
Good to see that you aren't afraid of thinking outside the box though. kudos.
I hope they also investigate Stephen Colbert's PAC-----give him even more material to skewer our system.
I wondered about the coordination issue between the administration and the Superpac in the first read thread earlier.
"As much as [David] Axelrod hates to give up this part of the president's message,” the strategist said, “most voters are pretty cynical about this stuff and don't much care.”
Another casualty of politics. The system is broken it sure seems as if this is satire, it certainly is surreal.
We have the best government, money can buy ! The Super Pac adds should at least have to show who the donors are.
Well, if that's what it takes to get ride of the robo calls and campaigning from other states in my states elections I'm all for it. What we really need is a way for people to run for office without it costing so much money - no way the average person could ever afford to run for any office higher than a small city council or small county commission seat and that is just wrong! Make all the news outlets (print, video, and audio) donate equal time to each candidate, everything else to be done by the individual campaign office - all mailers, phone calls, etc in person. Not everything needs to be in the electronic age to survive. Who knows, maybe this is why President Obama decided to use super pac's? Bring it to the forfront, expose it as the problem it really is. I sure don't blame him for using the super pacs if the supreme court (stacked wth right wingers by the way) say it is ok and legal - if it is good for the goose it is also good for the gander. Be better if no one used them, but I guess the advertising busnesses would have an absolute fit about that - no big bonuses for the big wheels who run them if that happens.
Sorry ladies and gentlemen of the right and left nothing's going to happen about Super Pacs until after this election and we as Americans get fed up and say enough is enough!!! So just get ready to hear 5 million different commericals about what Obama did wrong and a comeback on why the commerical is lie and what the President has done right, then people telling us how much of a corporate raider Mr. Romney is and then how the left is distorting his record and how he has really help to create jobs. A long long long year is ahead.
Jeffrey, time to give up TV some more.
Did that three years ago, Annie, hehe. What few TV shows I used to watch I can now watch later on the networks' websites and don't have to pay a cable or satellite bill. The internet bill is paid for by the business I manage for a friend and I live at the business, so he doesn't consider my personal usage of the internet service a problem (he lives off-island and the internet is our way of communicating for the business.)
Imagine ALL that money going to creating jobs for the middle class. What decadence, these politicians act more like royalty EVERY YEAR. I for one will never vote for a GOP member again and Obama isn't doing democracy any favors by stooping to the Republicans level.
Super PACs heralds the death of democracy, regardless of whom they support.Monetary contributions should be by individuals only, with a legal maximum limit.
Regards,
Bayjee.
That IS the intention, Bayjee... to destroy democracy.
I thought you all had that pretty well figured out already.
Ok, then... that IS the intention.
So... what can we do about it?
Keep "occupying?" (perhaps we have to)
Strange, I haven't heard any Republicans complain about activist judges ever since the Citizens United ruling. If there was ever a case for legislating from the bench there it is.
Super PACs demand an investigation of Fred Wertheimer and Democracy 21
Alas not illegal by any means but certainly immoral. I don't think we'll see any change this election cycle. No canidate is going to turn away that much money this close to election time. Hopefully after Nov. election finance reform will become a hot enough issue to make some changes.
The Republican Supreme Court has set this Republic back 200 years. The only way to combat this treasonous Supreme Court ruling is with a Constitutional amendment that defines money as NOT free speech.
There isn't a tooth fairy?
Well I notice their was no call for an Investigation , till President Obama changed his stance on them.
Seriously , if The president went on the record saying " The Sky Is Blue " . Within 24 hours some member of the Republican party would be screaming the sky is really orange .
it's obama's closest friends doing the investigation , who do you think they will look at, it's a con by the democrates
point Proven ROFL
carpenter7
First, Had you taken time to read the article, you would have seen the following:
He is calling for the investigation of ALL Super PACs regardless of who they support. They need to be stopped and an act of congress is the only way to do it. let congress ban all Political Action Committees, lobbyist and corporate gifts to campaigns, all funds from unions, special interest, and trade groups and then let the Supreme Court weigh in on that. Make it where there is No Campaign Financing except that paid for by the government, and restrict the amount to a set amount equal for all candidates. But that will never happen. The Mainstream Media has too much to lose.
And you would not do the same against a non democrat? While I have a problem with the existence of any PAC no matter what they do, my issue with what the President has done is that he has changed his position 180 degrees regarding PACs. President Obama has been one of the most vocal critics of PAC activity since before the 2008 Campaign. Now he has decided to reverse course and be like everyone else in Washington.
My problem is that we have a that the sitting President of the United States who has been the most vocal critic and berate others about this same activity, now doing exactly what he said he would not do. It is about INTEGRITY; something that is in very short supply in Washington.
When I was in the Marine Corps almost 45 years ago, one of the base principle of leadership was Integrity. One of my leadership manuals defined integrity in the following way:
That same manual declared that integrity is the ONE thing any leader MUST have in order to lead. Integrity is the basis of the social contract between the leader and the lead. It is especially important if you, the leader, are asking someone to possibly go out and die for or with you. Integrity is making a promise and then keeping your word. Integrity is about making a commitment and keeping to it no matter how hard it is to do so. This is where I see that President Obama has failed.
I voted for President Obama in 2008 but I will have a hard time doing so again for just that reason; a lack of integrity. One cannot commit to something when times are good only to withdraw from the commitment when things get tough. What else will he do an "about face" on when the going gets rough? How about sending more young Americans into harm's way again when he said he would not (like to Syria)? How can I trust the man to honor a commitment when he will so easily forget it for gain. By doing so, he as proven that Sir Winston Churchill was right when he said:
I initially voted for President Obama because he espoused the virtues of being different from the same old "Washington Professional Politicians". This action proves to me that he is not. It is now, as I see it, down to a case of "Fool me once, Shame on you. Fool me twice, Shame on ME!"
Chris, this activist right-wing SCOTUS would simply overturn any such laws passed by Congress, just as they did with CU. The ONLY way to change our election and campaign finance system is through a citizen driven constitutional amendment process. That is why I have been an ardent supporter of the Popular Amendment Movement since its inception in August 2010.
So what color is the sky chris ? I see your opinion , I stated mine . Thats the beauty of US . I don't have to Take your opinion over my own .
Ohhh wow you was in the Marines 45 yrs ago . thats nice . Thanks for dodging bullets . Thats that . Now What was your point ? trying to be condescending and impress me with your wise old age is not going to work . Since I am an adult as well . I am sure that might work with the kids .
carpenter7
Blue, with some hints of grey and a few storm clouds in the distance. And what color is yours? Is it ping and full of Flying Unicorns with Rainbows shooting out of their butts? Is that what you see because the DNC said the Unicorns would be crapping rainbows any time now?
Nor do I need to concede to yours; everybody has one and they all stink!
That there is no Integrity in Washington and THAT is why we are in the mess we are in. Perhaps that went over your head or is there just a comprehension problem here. I guess the colleges are not teaching what they used to. Why is there no leadership in Washington? Or, do you believe there is any leadership or integrity on either side right now? If so, please share with everyone else what you are smoking, it is definitely Panama Red quality or better.
You most certainly don't sound like one (an adult that is). Why not just go back and sit with your friends at Occupy Everything, beat the drum and cry about why it is so unfair that no one will give you a job because you majored in Philosophical Basket Weaving. That should fix all of the problems that we face right now. When you can come up with something other than Ultra Liberal DNC Drivel, come back and try again, kid.
The US is a deeply corrupt nation.
The Love of Money is the root of all evil.
Money is the root of all evil. That's why the churches pass the basket around every week....
The Tooth Fairy Responded:
While I can understand how Super PACs represent freedom of speech, I also feel that they need to be restrained a bit as they put to much power in the hands of a few.
If I want to go on TV and call Romney a vulture capitalist that should be my right as a U.S. citizen. Now, if I have $10 million dollars to sink into adds lambasting Romney then that would be going to far. Such action makes the person a political powerhouse instead of a citizen voicing their opinion and I don't think that should be covered under freedom of speech.
I think Super PACs are here to stay, but we need to start putting limitations on them and what they can do. Because right now they can say and do anything they like. It doesn't even have to be truthful. Maybe they should just be treated as lobbyists.
What's wrong with these Yayhoos? All this was approved by the Supreme court!
8.3% Unemployment Lie
6 February 2012 46 Comments
By Greg Hunter’s USAWatchdog.com
The most recent unemployment number is a total lie, and that lie was repeated all over the mainstream media (MSM). Two sins were committed here, and I don’t know which one is worse. The report was a sham, and the MSM reported that information without a single question about its accuracy. In a story carried across the MSM spectrum, the Associated Press said, “In a long-awaited surge of hiring, companies added 243,000 jobs in January – across the economy, up and down the pay scale and far more than just about anyone expected. Unemployment fell to 8.3 percent, the lowest in three years.” The report went on to say, “At the same time, the proportion of the population working or looking for work is its lowest in almost three decades. The length and depth of the recession have discouraged millions of people from looking for jobs. The better news of the past couple months has not yet encouraged most of them to start searching again.” (Click here for the complete AP story.)
Here’s a headline for you. If it were not for accounting gimmicks and what the government calls “seasonal-adjustments,” the unemployment rate would have gone up, not down! In his latest report, economist John Williams from Shadowstats.com said, “January’s unadjusted unemployment rate rose to 8.8% . . . The only difference between those numbers and the headline 243,000 January jobs gain and 8.3% unemployment rate, is how the seasonal adjustments were applied. There are serious issues with the current quality of those adjustments, and extremely small distortions in those seasonals can make big differences in the resulting headline data.”
As far as “discouraged” workers who are not looking for a job, that is total rubbish put out by the government. The real story is the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) simply has stopped counting more than 1.2 million of the unemployed in its report Friday. Williams goes on to say, “The issues here suggest that the headline 8.3% unemployment for January has moved well outside the realm of common experience and credibility, into the arena of election-year political shenanigans.” Williams is such a gentleman. Please take into consideration the government’s “official” or “headline” number is only based on people being out of work for 6 months or less. If the unemployment rate was calculated the way BLS did it in 1994 and earlier, the unemployment and underemployment would be 22.5% (according to Shadowstats.com.)
A recent report by a D.C. consulting firm estimates about 3 million long-term unemployed have been dropped from the unemployment statistics in the last few years. (Click here for that story.) The Obama Administration has predicted the “official” unemployment rate would be below 8% by the November 2012 election. Heck, if you stop counting enough people, you can get the unemployment rate down below 5%, and that will make the 15 million or so unemployed feel really good. Taxpayers are paying to be essentially hoodwinked by the BLS, and the mainstream media never questions these numbers.
Meanwhile, on the very day the fantasy unemployment numbers were released, it was reported that planned layoffs surged. Reuters reported last Friday, “Employers announced 53,486 planned job cuts last month, up 28 percent from 41,785 in December, according to the report from consultants Challenger, Gray & Christmas, Inc. January’s job cuts were also up from the same time a year ago, gaining 38.9 percent from the 38,519 layoffs announced in January 2011.” (Click her for the complete Reuters story.) With unemployment going up to 8.8% (without the government’s accounting gimmicks), this jobs report is especially dishonest, but almost every month the government lies to America about the so-called “recovery.”
Jim Willie at Goldenjackass.com says the government lies about the economic statistics to hide an economy teetering on the edge of an abyss. In his latest post, Mr. Willie (who holds a PhD in statistics) said, “The entire system requires the constant banter of recovery, legitimacy, hope, and integrity. All are sorely lacking, glaringly lacking. The economic numbers have few honest series of data. My favorite honest series remains the income tax payroll withholdings, which screams of chronic recession in basic tones. . . . The US economy remains the weakest of all industrialized nations. Its corruption remains the highest in data reporting. See American Airlines for job cuts. See the Manhattan banking sector for job cuts. See state and local governments for job cuts. See college and university construction projects for job cuts.” (Click here for the complete Jim Willie report.)
The Federal Reserve just announced an extension of 0% interest rates through 2014. The Fed didn’t do this because it thought the economy was going great guns. You can say whatever you like about the Fed (I think it should be audited on a regular basis), but those folks are not stupid. For everybody to believe the economy is surging forward, you have to also believe the Fed and its hundreds of economists got it all wrong. Last Friday, the government reported an improvement in unemployment when, in fact, it jumped up, which is why I call Friday’s jobs number an 8.3% unemployment lie
Oh Yeah - quote USA Watchdog because that's reliable! Right or should I say right wing? A little off topic aren't you bobo? But, you're printing this lie wherever you get the chance!
Seeking Sanity - just another blank hard drive waiting for the official download of his opinion to be "Saved As".
As for the rest, I've got to wonder what the fuss is about? why are you questioning how your handlers get financed? Half of this country has already indicated it's ready to sign off on them using their positions and influence to start WW3 and end their lives and the lives of their children based on nothing but BS and fabrication. And not even new BS. The same BS they peddled in '01 and '03. Citizenry is sucking it right up.
Now they're telling you the money's legit. There is no foreign influence, like the Jewish American lobby on the front end making sure the puppet they select already owes his entire political life to them by the time he steps to the inaugural microphone. U mad? You're too busy laughing at the people trying to point this out and the candidate trying to stop it to hear the air sirens, but no matter. This will be the last SuperPAC "outrage" anybody on this thread is likely to live through the way we're going.
So called enlightened people who really are just too dumb to know when not to be arrogant arguing about partisan politics and vying for some false sense of superiority even with the shadow of the bomb getting bigger and darker. Wake up. Remember the good old days when being blissfully ignorant about the fact that there haven't been two separate political ideologies in the US system since the end of the Civil War didn't mean annihilation? Those days are over.
You have gotten the government you deserve. Join hands and sit Indian style all you want cause nobody cares. It's going to take a lot more than that.
"Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on
a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of
it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people
don't want war neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in
Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the
country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to
drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist
dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no
voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.
That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked,
and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the
country to danger. It works the same in any country."
Sure does. To this day. And in some countries it works over and over within the same decade with little or no change in delivery. All it takes is the money.
I'll bet there are a fair number who angrily question the relevance of this quote in this discussion. 'Nuff said. Don't forget your flak jacket come reckoning.
Now after all that was reported how come you didn't add 70,000 jobs are going to be added by Home Depot how about Aflac actually has a commerical begging for people to sign up and be hired??!! In other words whatever problems that are in the unemployment number that you find there's going to be statistics and places showing that people need workers too BOB. i'm not saying these people got it wrong but it shows me that trying to slam the government for faulty statistics is also hypocritical since these are the same stats that have been used at least in your man's report through the Clinton and Bush, and Obama adminstrations. And Bob did you see that employers are looking for 3 million people to fill there jobs right now??!!! As Clint Eastwood said Bob it's halftime and it's time for America to pick up the pace and stop trying to make it look like America is weak because you don't like President Obama.
Jeffrey - thank you for a superb post!
All big non governmental supplied funding for campaigns ought to be banned. That means from individuals, corporations, unions, etc. The government ought to supply a reasonable amount of funding for campaigns that will cover the election season across the country for the various media markets, staffing etc. Everyone plays on a fair even playing field, and no quid pro quo is ever expected.
TOtally agree, you shouldn't have to be rich to get elected.
I gave you a thumbs up there, Lars... but are you serious?
Fair? You want politicians to be fair?
You are quite the humerous fellow there Lars.
(That will be 3 quid, thank you very much.)
Bad idea. There is already far too much public financing of elections. Whenever the political class becomes self-funded, they become even more entrenched. You cannot enforce "fairness" in an election when some government commission is put in charge of doling out the funds. Anyone who believes otherwise is dangerously naive.