/PRNewswire/ -- The following is a statement by Michael P. Farris, J.D., President of ParentalRights.org:
In the aftermath of this past election, it is appropriate to ask the question: What next? What will some of the legislative priorities be for the newly constituted House and Senate?
An issue that motivated many activists in last week's elections, while going largely uncovered by the national media, is the protection of the right of parents to make decisions concerning their children. This promises to be on the short list of action items for a new House controlled by Republicans.
During the last election cycle, Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi, President Obama, and other Democratic leaders promised that they would seek and obtain ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC).
Senator Jim DeMint (SC) introduced a resolution, S.Res.519, which opposes the ratification of the UN children's treaty that threatens the constitutional rights of parents. With the leadership of Senator DeMint and the substantial grassroots efforts of Parentalrights.org and 140+ affiliated family organizations, the Senate resolution has 31 formal sponsors. Written commitments from two additional senators bring the number to 33 Senators who stand against the use of international law to govern American parents. This is just one Senator away from the number needed to block ratification of this treaty.
A recent Zogby poll demonstrates that Americans oppose the Convention by 78.3% to 6.4%--a ratio of approximately 12 to 1.
On the flipside, 93% of Americans endorse the Supreme Court's traditional rule protecting parental rights as a fundamental freedom. And even with no explanation of the need for an amendment, 63% of the American public supports a constitutional amendment to protect these rights.
The proposed Parental Rights Amendment currently has 142 co-sponsors in the House, including 140 Republicans and two Democrats. In addition, dozens of candidates for the 112th Congress signed a pledge to cosponsor the Parental Rights Amendment. With many of these winning on November 2, ParentalRights.org already anticipates 156 cosponsors on the measure in January.
Showing posts with label elections. Show all posts
Showing posts with label elections. Show all posts
Monday, November 8, 2010
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Why People Embrace God Before Elections
/PRNewswire/ -- As Americans consider which candidate to vote for in the upcoming elections, they are reminded of the government's vulnerability and wonder how their decisions will affect a fragile financial landscape.
This sense of instability can have wide implications, not just for government but also for faith in religion and God, according to new research from Northwestern University and Duke University.
The study examines how people cope with events that shake their fundamental need to believe in an orderly, structured world and suggests that when a government weakens, people's faith in a higher power becomes stronger. Surprisingly, the research also finds that when faith in the stability of God or the government is shaken, people turn to the other entity to restore a sense of control.
Professors Aaron Kay, Adam Galinsky and their colleagues examined whether changing political climates can drive religious belief, especially faith in a controlling or interventionist deity. They found that beliefs toward God and the government can help satiate the same psychological need for structure and order and are interchangeable with one another.
"This research holds important implications for our understanding of the formation and strengthening of religious belief," said Galinsky, the Morris and Alice Kaplan Professor of Ethics and Decision in Management at the Kellogg School.
Lead author Kay, an associate professor at Duke University, added, "Although there are undoubtedly multiple causes of religious belief, one cause may be that when people perceive their government as unstable, they turn to God or other religious deities to fulfill a need for order and control in their lives."
To test their theory, the authors conducted a diverse set of experimental designs, laboratory, field settings, and independent and dependent measures. The experiments were designed to demonstrate that external systems of control can also compensate for one another. The researchers gathered results from college campuses in Malaysia and Canada which found that perceptions of decreased government stability, such as immediately before an election, led to increased beliefs in a controlling God. Conversely, increased perceptions of political stability led to weaker beliefs in an interventionist God.
In a longitudinal field study conducted in Malaysia, the researchers tested people's sense of governmental stability and faith in a controlling God both before and after an election. Before the election, government instability was perceived to be high and people were more likely to believe in a controlling God, compared with immediately after an election, when a sense of government stability had been restored. In another study, when participants were led to believe that scientists have concluded that God is unlikely to intervene in the world's affairs (e.g., is not an effective source of control), they showed higher levels of government support compared with participants who were led to believe that God may play an interventionist role.
According to Kay, one implication of this research is that higher levels of religious belief, commitment, and possibly extremism might be more likely in those countries that have the least stable governments and other secular institutions.
Galinsky noted the timely relevance of their research: "Particularly in today's landscape and with upcoming elections, we find uncertainty swirling around government. It is in these cases when people are likely to turn to other sources of control like putting faith in an intervening God."
The new study, entitled "For God (or) Country: The Hydraulic Relation Between Government Instability and Belief in Religious Sources of Control," will be published in the November issue of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (published by the American Psychological Association). Kay and Galinsky co-authored the study with Stephen Shephard of the University of Waterloo, Craig Blatz of Grant MacEwan University and Sook Ning Chua of McGill University.
This sense of instability can have wide implications, not just for government but also for faith in religion and God, according to new research from Northwestern University and Duke University.
The study examines how people cope with events that shake their fundamental need to believe in an orderly, structured world and suggests that when a government weakens, people's faith in a higher power becomes stronger. Surprisingly, the research also finds that when faith in the stability of God or the government is shaken, people turn to the other entity to restore a sense of control.
Professors Aaron Kay, Adam Galinsky and their colleagues examined whether changing political climates can drive religious belief, especially faith in a controlling or interventionist deity. They found that beliefs toward God and the government can help satiate the same psychological need for structure and order and are interchangeable with one another.
"This research holds important implications for our understanding of the formation and strengthening of religious belief," said Galinsky, the Morris and Alice Kaplan Professor of Ethics and Decision in Management at the Kellogg School.
Lead author Kay, an associate professor at Duke University, added, "Although there are undoubtedly multiple causes of religious belief, one cause may be that when people perceive their government as unstable, they turn to God or other religious deities to fulfill a need for order and control in their lives."
To test their theory, the authors conducted a diverse set of experimental designs, laboratory, field settings, and independent and dependent measures. The experiments were designed to demonstrate that external systems of control can also compensate for one another. The researchers gathered results from college campuses in Malaysia and Canada which found that perceptions of decreased government stability, such as immediately before an election, led to increased beliefs in a controlling God. Conversely, increased perceptions of political stability led to weaker beliefs in an interventionist God.
In a longitudinal field study conducted in Malaysia, the researchers tested people's sense of governmental stability and faith in a controlling God both before and after an election. Before the election, government instability was perceived to be high and people were more likely to believe in a controlling God, compared with immediately after an election, when a sense of government stability had been restored. In another study, when participants were led to believe that scientists have concluded that God is unlikely to intervene in the world's affairs (e.g., is not an effective source of control), they showed higher levels of government support compared with participants who were led to believe that God may play an interventionist role.
According to Kay, one implication of this research is that higher levels of religious belief, commitment, and possibly extremism might be more likely in those countries that have the least stable governments and other secular institutions.
Galinsky noted the timely relevance of their research: "Particularly in today's landscape and with upcoming elections, we find uncertainty swirling around government. It is in these cases when people are likely to turn to other sources of control like putting faith in an intervening God."
The new study, entitled "For God (or) Country: The Hydraulic Relation Between Government Instability and Belief in Religious Sources of Control," will be published in the November issue of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (published by the American Psychological Association). Kay and Galinsky co-authored the study with Stephen Shephard of the University of Waterloo, Craig Blatz of Grant MacEwan University and Sook Ning Chua of McGill University.
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Election Forecasts Favor Republican Gains in Midterm
/PRNewswire/ -- In the weeks leading up to the 2010 midterm elections, five forecasters or teams of forecasters offer models and predictions for the House in the most recent issue (October 2010) of PS: Political Science and Politics, a journal of the American Political Science Association. The models offer a broad consensus that the Republicans will make substantial gains in the House, although there is not a consensus over how large those gains will be. A 30-seat spread between the low and high end of the seat change forecast range exists, with two forecasters giving an edge to Democrats maintaining their control of the House and three forecasters anticipating Republicans retaking the chamber.
James Campbell of the University at Buffalo, SUNY, presents a "seats in trouble" model for his forecast. The model is based on the Cook Political Report's district-by-district assessment of the status of House races. He finds that the more seats a party has that are rated as toss-ups or worse before Labor Day, the more seats they actually lose in November. His model combines Cook's expert handicapping of districts with national variables such as presidential approval and the number of seats a party holds going into the election. Campbell's model combines the in-depth analysis of the Cook Report with the rigorous historical analysis of national statistical models. Based on his model, he forecasts that Democrats will lose 51 or 52 seats, allowing the Republicans to regain a majority.
Models created by Alan Abramowitz (Emory) and Joseph Bafumi (Dartmouth), Robert S. Erikson (Columbia), and Christopher Wlezien (Temple) corroborate the prediction of steep Democratic losses. Abramowitz uses the generic ballot and presidential approval to measure the national political climate, estimating that Republicans will gain 43 seats in the House. He further offers a forecast for the Senate, predicting a Republican gain of four seats. Bafumi, Erikson, and Wlezien give the Republicans a 79% chance of retaking the House, forecasting a 229 Republican to 206 Democratic split of seats, but they note that there is a wide dispersion of possible outcomes, and that seemingly minor variation in the national vote can have major consequences for the distribution of seats.
In contrast, the forecast by Michael Lewis-Beck (University of Iowa) and Charles Tien (Hunter College and CUNY) and the forecast by Alfred Cuzan (West Florida University) both predict that the Democrats are likely to maintain their control of the House. Lewis-Beck and Tien rely on established voting behavior theory in the formulation of their model and estimate a Democratic loss of only 22 seats, allowing the party to retain their majority. Cuzan uses a structural model relying on national-level variables and election outcomes as far back as 1914 to forecast Democratic losses of 27 to 30 seats, staving off Republican attempts to retake control. However, this model leaves a one in three or four chance that the Democrats will lose at least 40 seats, reducing them to a minority status.
Stepping beyond the collection of congressional predictions is Carl Klarner's (Indiana State University) forecast of state legislative elections. He calls attention to the 43 state legislative elections that will be held this November, noting that many of the winners will have the responsibility for drawing new district lines based on the 2010 census. According to his model, Republicans will gain control of 11 legislative chambers, leaving them with a total of 46 of 98 partisan chambers, and the Midwest is shaping up to be a battleground of note.
Primaries held in a number of states in mid-September offer a taste of how hotly contested the midterm elections in November are likely to be. Whether Democrats or Republicans ultimately assume control of the House, Campbell notes that this majority is likely to be much narrower than the current Democratic majority, which may present a roadblock to the Obama administration's legislative agenda and will quite probably make control of the House a real question again in 2012.
James Campbell of the University at Buffalo, SUNY, presents a "seats in trouble" model for his forecast. The model is based on the Cook Political Report's district-by-district assessment of the status of House races. He finds that the more seats a party has that are rated as toss-ups or worse before Labor Day, the more seats they actually lose in November. His model combines Cook's expert handicapping of districts with national variables such as presidential approval and the number of seats a party holds going into the election. Campbell's model combines the in-depth analysis of the Cook Report with the rigorous historical analysis of national statistical models. Based on his model, he forecasts that Democrats will lose 51 or 52 seats, allowing the Republicans to regain a majority.
Models created by Alan Abramowitz (Emory) and Joseph Bafumi (Dartmouth), Robert S. Erikson (Columbia), and Christopher Wlezien (Temple) corroborate the prediction of steep Democratic losses. Abramowitz uses the generic ballot and presidential approval to measure the national political climate, estimating that Republicans will gain 43 seats in the House. He further offers a forecast for the Senate, predicting a Republican gain of four seats. Bafumi, Erikson, and Wlezien give the Republicans a 79% chance of retaking the House, forecasting a 229 Republican to 206 Democratic split of seats, but they note that there is a wide dispersion of possible outcomes, and that seemingly minor variation in the national vote can have major consequences for the distribution of seats.
In contrast, the forecast by Michael Lewis-Beck (University of Iowa) and Charles Tien (Hunter College and CUNY) and the forecast by Alfred Cuzan (West Florida University) both predict that the Democrats are likely to maintain their control of the House. Lewis-Beck and Tien rely on established voting behavior theory in the formulation of their model and estimate a Democratic loss of only 22 seats, allowing the party to retain their majority. Cuzan uses a structural model relying on national-level variables and election outcomes as far back as 1914 to forecast Democratic losses of 27 to 30 seats, staving off Republican attempts to retake control. However, this model leaves a one in three or four chance that the Democrats will lose at least 40 seats, reducing them to a minority status.
Stepping beyond the collection of congressional predictions is Carl Klarner's (Indiana State University) forecast of state legislative elections. He calls attention to the 43 state legislative elections that will be held this November, noting that many of the winners will have the responsibility for drawing new district lines based on the 2010 census. According to his model, Republicans will gain control of 11 legislative chambers, leaving them with a total of 46 of 98 partisan chambers, and the Midwest is shaping up to be a battleground of note.
Primaries held in a number of states in mid-September offer a taste of how hotly contested the midterm elections in November are likely to be. Whether Democrats or Republicans ultimately assume control of the House, Campbell notes that this majority is likely to be much narrower than the current Democratic majority, which may present a roadblock to the Obama administration's legislative agenda and will quite probably make control of the House a real question again in 2012.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Bauer Notes Obama's Coattails 'Were Cut Off,' Voters Return to the Right
/PRNewswire/ -- Former presidential candidate Gary Bauer on Wednesday said that it was clear that the pundits were wrong, rather than President Obama changing the nature of the electorate, "it's a center-right country, and Obama's coattails were cut off last night as his coalitions stayed home." The chairman of the Campaign for Working Families offered the following analysis of the evening's events:
NEW JERSEY LEADS THE WAY:
"New Jersey is a ground breaking story this morning as a hard-core blue state for the Democratic Party where they have institutional power and media support failed to deliver. And despite many campaign stops, Obama could not transfer his 15 point win from 2008 to his ticket's standard bearer barely a year later. The biggest shock at the White House today has to be the loss of independent voters in both New Jersey and Virginia.
"It's clear that voters, especially independent voters, do not like the change they have experienced since Obama's election ... changes like higher unemployment, strangled credit, and massive proposed tax increases on everything from health insurance to fuel and food. These results show that the voters are rejecting runaway deficit spending, higher taxes and bigger government. If the White House and Congressional liberals are listening, they will pull Obamacare off the agenda and stop the march to socialized medicine."
HOFFMAN'S CAMPAIGN SENDS A MESSAGE:
"The small showing of the independent in the New Jersey race reveals why Hoffman's near win is so significant. The Democratic National Committee even ran ads for New Jersey Independent Chris Daggett to draw away from Republican Chris Christie, but he made a feeble, single-digit showing. But in New York's 23rd, a district that went to Obama, Hoffman ran a simple campaign with a single message, 'I will not be a vote for Nancy Pelosi.' With the Republican establishment against him, with the media against him, with the Democratic establishment against him, Hoffman pulled in 46 percent of the vote on a confusing ballot on which he was not listed at the GOP's candidate. If Hoffman's performance is combined with the numbers of failed Republican candidate Dede Scozzafava, who was listed as the GOP's candidate, he would have carried the day.
"That simple Reaganite message that higher taxes and government take-over of industry must stop was powerful enough to create real drama all night. And in fact, when the Democratic Party winner Bill Owen gave his own victory speech, he was careful to reach out to the Republicans in his district ... something Obama might try.
"As one of the first conservative leaders to endorse Hoffman, I was moved to act by the fact that the long-term Republican was standing on the core Reaganesque principles - smaller government, lower taxes, a strong national defense, and support for life. And while some may mock these American ideals, they remain bedrock issues for most Americans. The fact that a district which went so solidly for Obama came so close to electing an unknown third party candidate shows the power of those ideas. "
A REPUDIATION OF SOCIAL ISSUES?:
"Some pundits today insinuate that Hoffman's loss was a repudiation of social issues. Nothing could be further from the truth. In Maine, where the governor and both chambers of their legislature tried to lead in the nation in radically redefining marriage, once again - for the 31st time - voters said no to gay marriage. Values issues have a place in the national discussion."
THE PICTURE BECOMES CLEAR:
"Obama came to office as the political equivalent of a Rorschach test. People could read into his message of 'change' anything they wished. But the picture is becoming clearer by the day. He embraces a socialist agenda through government-run businesses, from the auto industry to health care. He proposes a nanny state where taxes are used to punish politically incorrect behavior like drinking soda or turning on the heat in winter. He supports schemes for redistribution of hard earned money to those who did not earn it, through higher and higher taxes, and more and more give away programs. He expands government power through unelected 'czars' who use government power as a weapon against those they do not agree with, rather than building a consensus on how to go forward.
"But while it's clear that hard-core liberals are rallying to Obama's side and that he is uniting the Republican Party in new and energizing ways, the big news in the numbers is Obama's loss of support among independents. Independents are abandoning the Democrats and have been very sophisticated in cutting through the political noise. Calling a liberal a 'moderate' does not change political reality. Democrats have assumed that independents want more government and support higher taxes and ballooning deficits. But they are wrong.
"They are also wrong to claim that conservatives like me do not want the GOP to be a big tent or that the party is engaged in some kind of civil war. Nothing could be further from the truth. All people, regardless of race, creed or color, are welcome to join together in support of timeless, American values. The GOP is a party of principles and ideas, and a healthy party talks about how best to implement those ideas. The GOP desires to free Americans from the weight of government taxes and regulations so that they can build a better life for themselves and their families. Ideas such as smaller government, strong national defense, and respect for all people at all stages of life are the bedrock of a winning party. Tuesday those values won and with them so did the GOP."
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
NEW JERSEY LEADS THE WAY:
"New Jersey is a ground breaking story this morning as a hard-core blue state for the Democratic Party where they have institutional power and media support failed to deliver. And despite many campaign stops, Obama could not transfer his 15 point win from 2008 to his ticket's standard bearer barely a year later. The biggest shock at the White House today has to be the loss of independent voters in both New Jersey and Virginia.
"It's clear that voters, especially independent voters, do not like the change they have experienced since Obama's election ... changes like higher unemployment, strangled credit, and massive proposed tax increases on everything from health insurance to fuel and food. These results show that the voters are rejecting runaway deficit spending, higher taxes and bigger government. If the White House and Congressional liberals are listening, they will pull Obamacare off the agenda and stop the march to socialized medicine."
HOFFMAN'S CAMPAIGN SENDS A MESSAGE:
"The small showing of the independent in the New Jersey race reveals why Hoffman's near win is so significant. The Democratic National Committee even ran ads for New Jersey Independent Chris Daggett to draw away from Republican Chris Christie, but he made a feeble, single-digit showing. But in New York's 23rd, a district that went to Obama, Hoffman ran a simple campaign with a single message, 'I will not be a vote for Nancy Pelosi.' With the Republican establishment against him, with the media against him, with the Democratic establishment against him, Hoffman pulled in 46 percent of the vote on a confusing ballot on which he was not listed at the GOP's candidate. If Hoffman's performance is combined with the numbers of failed Republican candidate Dede Scozzafava, who was listed as the GOP's candidate, he would have carried the day.
"That simple Reaganite message that higher taxes and government take-over of industry must stop was powerful enough to create real drama all night. And in fact, when the Democratic Party winner Bill Owen gave his own victory speech, he was careful to reach out to the Republicans in his district ... something Obama might try.
"As one of the first conservative leaders to endorse Hoffman, I was moved to act by the fact that the long-term Republican was standing on the core Reaganesque principles - smaller government, lower taxes, a strong national defense, and support for life. And while some may mock these American ideals, they remain bedrock issues for most Americans. The fact that a district which went so solidly for Obama came so close to electing an unknown third party candidate shows the power of those ideas. "
A REPUDIATION OF SOCIAL ISSUES?:
"Some pundits today insinuate that Hoffman's loss was a repudiation of social issues. Nothing could be further from the truth. In Maine, where the governor and both chambers of their legislature tried to lead in the nation in radically redefining marriage, once again - for the 31st time - voters said no to gay marriage. Values issues have a place in the national discussion."
THE PICTURE BECOMES CLEAR:
"Obama came to office as the political equivalent of a Rorschach test. People could read into his message of 'change' anything they wished. But the picture is becoming clearer by the day. He embraces a socialist agenda through government-run businesses, from the auto industry to health care. He proposes a nanny state where taxes are used to punish politically incorrect behavior like drinking soda or turning on the heat in winter. He supports schemes for redistribution of hard earned money to those who did not earn it, through higher and higher taxes, and more and more give away programs. He expands government power through unelected 'czars' who use government power as a weapon against those they do not agree with, rather than building a consensus on how to go forward.
"But while it's clear that hard-core liberals are rallying to Obama's side and that he is uniting the Republican Party in new and energizing ways, the big news in the numbers is Obama's loss of support among independents. Independents are abandoning the Democrats and have been very sophisticated in cutting through the political noise. Calling a liberal a 'moderate' does not change political reality. Democrats have assumed that independents want more government and support higher taxes and ballooning deficits. But they are wrong.
"They are also wrong to claim that conservatives like me do not want the GOP to be a big tent or that the party is engaged in some kind of civil war. Nothing could be further from the truth. All people, regardless of race, creed or color, are welcome to join together in support of timeless, American values. The GOP is a party of principles and ideas, and a healthy party talks about how best to implement those ideas. The GOP desires to free Americans from the weight of government taxes and regulations so that they can build a better life for themselves and their families. Ideas such as smaller government, strong national defense, and respect for all people at all stages of life are the bedrock of a winning party. Tuesday those values won and with them so did the GOP."
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Opinion: The Better Way: Fair Elections Gains Momentum
/PRNewswire/ - The Arms Race Returns (or It Never Went Away)
Our elections are an arms race to see who can raise the most campaign cash -- and today's political strategy is to promote a high cash intake and downplay fundraising efforts that fall short of that goal. Candidates promote these dollar figures as "proof" that their campaign is viable.
Recent Federal Election Commission filings are once again serving as a litmus test for which candidates for Congress are "real" and which are in trouble for next year's congressional races.
The most recent numbers are also a reminder that the problem of big money in politics is getting worse. The FEC reported last month that fundraising for U.S. House and U.S. Senate candidates had topped $250 million over the first six months of the year. Despite the economic downturn, we're on track to have one of the most expensive midterm election cycles ever. That translates into candidates spending more time than ever before dialing for dollars and rubbing elbows with the wealthy and powerful rather than listening to regular voters concerned about jobs and the economy, health care, and the need to address our nation's energy policy.
Meanwhile, in Congress...
Health care reform. Money continues to pour into the campaign coffers of members of Congress from the health insurance and pharmaceutical lobbies. This year alone, the health industries have spent more than $260 million on lobbying and have given almost $29 million in political contributions, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
To what end? A majority of Americans support comprehensive health care reform, but far too many elected officials in Washington, D.C. seem to side with the health industry's positions. Campaign cash is used to curry favor and buy access that Main Street Americans just can't get.
Exempting auto dealers? Last week, the House Financial Services Committee passed a piece of legislation creating a Consumer Financial Protection Agency. Among the amendments offered in committee was one authored by Rep. John Campbell (R-Calif.), a former car dealer, to exempt auto dealerships from the agency's oversight.
Not only was Rep. Campbell the recipient of $170,550 in campaign donations from auto dealers, according to the Center for Responsive Politics; he received between $600,000 and $6 million in rent from auto dealers in 2008. If that's not a conflict of interest, we don't know what is.
Only in Congress is this business as usual. Rep. Campbell's amendment passed 47-21. The final bill passed by a 39 to 29 vote. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, those voting against the bill "received an average of 20 percent more in contributions from financial interests over the past two-and-a-half years than the bill's supporters."
Fair Elections Gains Momentum
Fortunately, it doesn't have to be this way. There is a bill that is making it's way through Congress that would allow candidates to run for office without having to rely on big campaign contributions from those with interests before Congress.
Called the Fair Elections Now Act (S. 752 and H.R. 1826), the bills would create a voluntary system in which candidates could run for office on a mix of small donations and public funding. Candidates would qualify for the public grant by collecting a set number of contributions of $100 or less. Qualified candidates could also supplement the grant with small donations of $100 or less from people in their states that would be matched 4-to-1 by a new Fair Elections fund.
The size of the grant, coupled with the matching fund system, provides candidates with enough resources to mount competitive campaigns without relying on special interests or donations from those with business before Congress. The bipartisan Fair Elections Now Act is sponsored in the Senate by Assistant Senate Majority Leader Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Democratic Caucus Chairman John Larson (D-Conn.) in the House.
From David Donnelly
Source: Public Campaign Action Fund
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Our elections are an arms race to see who can raise the most campaign cash -- and today's political strategy is to promote a high cash intake and downplay fundraising efforts that fall short of that goal. Candidates promote these dollar figures as "proof" that their campaign is viable.
Recent Federal Election Commission filings are once again serving as a litmus test for which candidates for Congress are "real" and which are in trouble for next year's congressional races.
The most recent numbers are also a reminder that the problem of big money in politics is getting worse. The FEC reported last month that fundraising for U.S. House and U.S. Senate candidates had topped $250 million over the first six months of the year. Despite the economic downturn, we're on track to have one of the most expensive midterm election cycles ever. That translates into candidates spending more time than ever before dialing for dollars and rubbing elbows with the wealthy and powerful rather than listening to regular voters concerned about jobs and the economy, health care, and the need to address our nation's energy policy.
Meanwhile, in Congress...
Health care reform. Money continues to pour into the campaign coffers of members of Congress from the health insurance and pharmaceutical lobbies. This year alone, the health industries have spent more than $260 million on lobbying and have given almost $29 million in political contributions, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
To what end? A majority of Americans support comprehensive health care reform, but far too many elected officials in Washington, D.C. seem to side with the health industry's positions. Campaign cash is used to curry favor and buy access that Main Street Americans just can't get.
Exempting auto dealers? Last week, the House Financial Services Committee passed a piece of legislation creating a Consumer Financial Protection Agency. Among the amendments offered in committee was one authored by Rep. John Campbell (R-Calif.), a former car dealer, to exempt auto dealerships from the agency's oversight.
Not only was Rep. Campbell the recipient of $170,550 in campaign donations from auto dealers, according to the Center for Responsive Politics; he received between $600,000 and $6 million in rent from auto dealers in 2008. If that's not a conflict of interest, we don't know what is.
Only in Congress is this business as usual. Rep. Campbell's amendment passed 47-21. The final bill passed by a 39 to 29 vote. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, those voting against the bill "received an average of 20 percent more in contributions from financial interests over the past two-and-a-half years than the bill's supporters."
Fair Elections Gains Momentum
Fortunately, it doesn't have to be this way. There is a bill that is making it's way through Congress that would allow candidates to run for office without having to rely on big campaign contributions from those with interests before Congress.
Called the Fair Elections Now Act (S. 752 and H.R. 1826), the bills would create a voluntary system in which candidates could run for office on a mix of small donations and public funding. Candidates would qualify for the public grant by collecting a set number of contributions of $100 or less. Qualified candidates could also supplement the grant with small donations of $100 or less from people in their states that would be matched 4-to-1 by a new Fair Elections fund.
The size of the grant, coupled with the matching fund system, provides candidates with enough resources to mount competitive campaigns without relying on special interests or donations from those with business before Congress. The bipartisan Fair Elections Now Act is sponsored in the Senate by Assistant Senate Majority Leader Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Democratic Caucus Chairman John Larson (D-Conn.) in the House.
From David Donnelly
Source: Public Campaign Action Fund
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)