Politics 2012: The GOP Nominating Race

[OldPhiKap]

Claiming more disrespect than Rodney Dangerfield got from his wife, Gary Johnson leaves the Republican party to run as a Libertarian. I honestly had no idea he was even running, so good luck, buddy.


http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/20...ertarian-party

I think he was only invited to two debates. I kind of see where he's coming from, in that he was declared "unwinnable" before things really even started. Of course, I assume he didn't raise much $$ to make a threshold viability.

Either that, or they assumed that a platform of legalizing marijuana, pro-gay marriage, and pro-choice was probably not going to go too far in the Republican primary. Go figure.

[77devil]

Claiming more disrespect than Rodney Dangerfield got from his wife, Gary Johnson leaves the Republican party to run as a Libertarian. I honestly had no idea he was even running, so good luck, buddy.


http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/20...ertarian-party

Buddy Roemer is another Republican candidate who has failed to capture support despite his background as a congressman, governor, and successful businessman. I found the republican party process of determining who could participate in the debates a bit arbitrary.

[Mike Corey]

I think it is tough, but if you want to take a stab at it in a non-partisan fashion, go ahead. Personally, I think most folks in this forum -- liberals or conservatives -- would agree that the proliferation of money in politics is not a good thing.

-Jason "my guidance, as always, put yourself in the shoes of someone who disagrees with your side and see if your post would anger them" Evans

Here is my stab:

My biggest concern with the orgy of dollars that will have everyone slipping dollars into the nooks and crannies of politicians and their handlers is that the din of cash registers will drown out the substance that occasionally has slipped into campaigns in years past.

More specifically, I worry that more than ever, it will be much easier to spread falsehoods because the marketplace of ideas can be flooded with an intentional fogging of the facts rather than its solidification. With essentially unlimited resources to articulate falsehoods, the rebuttal would be: won't there also be unlimited resources to respond to the falsehoods with facts? And isn't that the way politics has always been played?

I'm not so sure. The importance of shaping messages and caricatures with first and second impressions has not wavered; the difficulty of controlling that message hinges on the decibel level of the message and its breadth more than the substance of persuasive quality of it more so than ever.

[JasonEvans]

The unregulated, often untrackable millions that influence political campaigns are an evil thing because they allow a few individuals too great an influence over an election. One need look no further than the 2000 primary season...

George W Bush, despite being the choice of the GOP establishment, faced a difficult race against pro-campaign finance reform Senator John McCain. McCain had done far better than expected in some early states and seemed to be a real threat to Bush's nomination. Super Tuesday was approaching and the most important battle was New York. Unlike other states, New York was a "winner take all" primary in a delegate-rich state. Though Bush and McCain each felt confident they could win several other states on Super Tues, the winner of New York would likely take a large delegate lead and figured to be the eventual nominee.

McCain seemed to be in a small lead in most of the polls with less than a week left in the race. Then, on Thursday, just 4 days before voters went to the polls, a group called "Republicans for Clean Air" made a massive $2.5 mil ad buy in New York, Ohio, and California. The ads they ran touted George W Bush as a friend of the Environment, but the ads mostly attacked John McCain for his wretched environmental record. You could not turn on a TV in New York and watch for 15 minutes without seeing the ads. They blanketed the airways. Republicans for Clean Air spent more on TV ads in 4 days in New York than the Bush and McCain campaigns spent combined over the course of the entire primary season.

The ads were condemned by fact-checking media members as being grossly deceptive about both candidates records on the environment. McCain was no great environmental friend, but pro-environment groups had largely endorsed him over Bush. It did not matter... the ads aired relentlessly in the final days of the campaign.

Maybe it was the ads, maybe it was something else, but McCain slipped in New York in the final few days, barely losing the primary to Bush. Once the result of the New York primary was known, the media pretty much declared Bush the winner of the nomination and many in the McCain camp admitted that the race was over.

Many media watchers wondered who Republicans for Clean Air was. The organization had only been invented the day before the ad buy was made. In fact, Republicans for Clean Air was so hastily organized, it actually misspelled the word "Republicans" on the forms it filed announcing its creation. After a bit of media digging, two men came forward and announced they had created and financed Republicans for Clean Air -- Charles and Sam Wyly. The Wyly Brothers, who are billionaires, are close associates of George W Bush and have given millions of dollars to Republican candidates and causes over the years. They have not been generous givers to environmental causes thought. In fact, a legitimate and well-known group Republicans for Environmental Protection, said it has never received a donation from the Wyly Brothers.

The Wylys did not care about the environment. They saw an opportunity to use that issue to hurt John McCain and boost their friend, GWB to the nomination. They bought the nomination for Bush... and it only cost them $2 million to do it.

I don't say any of this to pick on one candidate or another. There is no evidence Bush had any idea about what the Wylys were doing. There are examples of Democratic millionaires throwing money around to boost one candidate or another. I merely bring this up as an example of how money can influence a campaign and how powerless the other side is to respond. In 2000, McCain spoke out and said the Republicans for Clean Air ads were false and misleading, but his :10 second sound byte that ran on the news was drowned out by thousands of TV ads that ran all day for 4 days ahead of voting day.

It is not at all ironic that John McCain attempted to do something to fix all of this. McCain-Feingold was an attempt to keep unregulated money out of politics. It failed because money=speech according to the Supreme Court.

I do not know what can be done. I am encouraged that the internet has made it so easy for small donors to get their funds to the candidate of their choice. The campaigns in recent years of Howard Dean, Ron Paul, and Barak Obama (in 2008) were each extremely well-financed thanks to legions of small donations, not because rich friends or corporations backed them (though Obama certainly eagerly took donations from the rich as his campaign picked up steam in 2008).

Still, we see situations like what has happened in Iowa in recent weeks where ads from previously unknown organizations have suddenly flooded the air with attacks on Newt Gingrich. The ads were bought by Restore Our Future. Mitt Romney claims he has no ties to that organization, though he has been the featured guest speaker at fundraisers for ROF and ROF says its sole purpose in life is to get Mitt Romney elected president.

Sigh...

The reason we use Iowa and New Hampshire as our early voting states is to give the voters a chance to get to know the candidates up close. Odds are excellent that most of the folks who vote in Iowa will have had a chance to personally see several of the candidates speak and probably even shake their hand and ask a question. There is very little money involved in a handshake and a speech. And yet, while we still value this small-scale type of campaigning, we increasingly tell the less-monied candidates they do not matter by allowing Super PACs to spend millions of dollars to influence the elections. Why even bother with the retail politics of the small states if money is going to play such a huge role in the end?

I don't know what to do, I just know that it is going to get a lot worse before it gets better. Barak Obama has a massive war chest ready to roll out once he knows who he will be running against. The attack ads from both sides will likely be brutal. It is not a pretty picture.

I've heard it said that money is like voting... except it allows people to vote with their wallets. Ok, fine. But what happened to one man, one vote? Money allows the rich to vote a heck of lot more often than the poor and that just is not right.

-Jason "by the way, if anyone feels this post is over the line, please let me know. The mods will take it down if folks think it is partisan" Evans

[CameronBornAndBred]

I've heard it said that money is like voting... except it allows people to vote with their wallets. Ok, fine. But what happened to one man, one vote? Money allows the rich to vote a heck of lot more often than the poor and that just is not right.

-Jason "by the way, if anyone feels this post is over the line, please let me know. The mods will take it down if folks think it is partisan" Evans

Excellent post, thanks for the history lesson. Last minute ads can hold huge sway, it's amazing what a girl with a daisy or some past passengers on a swift-boat can do to an election that has taken months to culminate. I'm always amazed by the amount of money that candidates themselves throw in, when they can afford it. Hillary Clinton, Mitt Romney, Ross Perot, John Edwards...they all spent millions of their own dollars and lost. It always makes me think about those ads that warn about "work-at-home" jobs...if you have to spend your own money to get hired then it's a scam. I guess that's true for everything except politics. Or maybe it's more true about politics than it is about any other job.

[OldPhiKap]

Excellent post, Jason.

My beef is that if we're going to say that money is speech, so be it. But speech is not anonymous. The reason we have the First Amendment is to protect individuals from speaking their mind and letting the marketplace of ideas carry it or bury it. It was not designed (I do not think) to protect anonymous speech like this.

If these Super-PACs are going to exist, they should have to disclose who their donors are (and, if the donations come through corporations or organizations, who the principals are). I do not think that a law requiring that would violate the First Amendment, and indeed candidates have to disclose donations over a certain threshold ($100 in my home state) as it is.

Anywho, I am coming to two conclusions as we wind down towards the Iowa vote:

1. Mitt is the only one with the infrastructure and money to go the whole distance and win the nomination. The question becomes: how long/damaging will the struggle be until he drags the party to the altar.

2. I don't see Ron Paul kissing and making up. I would put money on a third party candidacy.

[OldPhiKap]

Guess who's back
Back again
Rogue is back
Tell a friend.
Guess who's back, guess who's back, guess who's back, guess who's back,
Uh huh uh.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vid...ote_rogue.html

[JasonEvans]

The latest poll from Iowa comes to us from Insider Advantage. Take a gander at this.

Paul 17.3
Romney 17.2
Gingrich 16.7
Santorum 13.4
Bachman 11.8
Perry 10.5
Hunstman 2.8

Are you kidding me?!?! 4 guys within 4 points of each other?

Now, it is worth noting that this poll runs counter to many others that seem to show Rom and Paul well out ahead of the field by about 8 points or so.

Still, it is going to be a fun final few days!

-Jason

[OldPhiKap]

The latest poll from Iowa comes to us from Insider Advantage. Take a gander at this.

Paul 17.3
Romney 17.2
Gingrich 16.7
Santorum 13.4
Bachman 11.8
Perry 10.5
Hunstman 2.8

Are you kidding me?!?! 4 guys within 4 points of each other?

Now, it is worth noting that this poll runs counter to many others that seem to show Rom and Paul well out ahead of the field by about 8 points or so.

Still, it is going to be a fun final few days!

-Jason

Interesting breakdown:

-- roughly 27% of the polled participants self-identified as "independent", not sure if that is high or low for Iowa. 32.9% of them are for Paul, only 9.5% for Romney.

-- Of the few self-identified Democrats, 23% were for Gingrich and 29.8% for Bachman. That's a different kind of Democrat than I know, so that may be folks going to cause some mischief.

-- Romney polls very well with seniors but drops off steadily from there. 23.3% of females favor him, only 10.9% of males.

-- Paul is strong with everyone except seniors. 23.1% of males prefer him, only 11.8% of females.

-- 7.3% "no opinion" and 3% "no one" although the pollees are identified as votors "who will be voting" -- not sure if that label is correct, especially since it calls it a "primary" and not a "caucus"

-- only 429 participants; could be a very small statistical sample with wide variation.

-- 412 of 429 pollees are white. Not sure this shows much about how any candidate will do in the general.

[CameronBornAndBred]

-- Of the few self-identified Democrats, 23% were for Gingrich and 29.8% for Bachman. That's a different kind of Democrat than I know, so that may be folks going to cause some mischief.

As a Democrat I am also pulling for Bachmann, followed closely by Gingrich. But MB's days are numbered, or at least her Iowa campaign manager thinks so. (Ex-campaign manager that is.)

[mph]

As a Democrat I am also pulling for Bachmann, followed closely by Gingrich. But MB's days are numbered, or at least her Iowa campaign manager thinks so. (Ex-campaign manager that is.)

Minor correction. It was her Iowa co-campaign chair who flipped to Paul. The campaign chair position is usually unpaid and largely symbolic. They are typically a current or former political bigwig who offer their endorsement and, if applicable, fundraising and ground game connections. Unlike the campaign manager, chairs rarely have input into strategic decisions. The co-chair in question is Kent Sorenson, a freshman Iowa state senator and local Tea Party darling. Although he attracted a great deal of TP money in his Senate run, he's too new to offer much help with her ground game and local fundraising. His leaving will have very little substantive impact on campaign operations. Still, you're right that it looks like a rat fleeing a sinking ship. MB's news cycle over the last week has pretty much been the opposite of Santorum's.

Santorum looks like a virtual lock for the top 3. Gingrich is toast. The only remaining question is the order of finish. If the Silver article OPK linked is correct, Santorum still has an (outside) shot of winning this thing if he can cannibalize enough of MB's and Perry's support. How crazy would a Santorum, Paul, Romney finish be? Unlikely, I know. But that would make the next few weeks a lot more interesting.

[OldPhiKap]

How crazy would a Santorum, Paul, Romney finish be? Unlikely, I know. But that would make the next few weeks a lot more interesting.

Not sure that's too improbable. Paul and Romney seem to have ceilings they can't pierce. Santorum -- whatever anyone thinks of him -- is a social conservative, military hawk. He has been living in Iowa for who-knows-how-long now, and has been to every county in the state. He's the next "non-Romney" candidate who has not hit serious vetting like that which took Perry and Cain and Gingrich down -- and won't get it until after Iowa has come and gone.

Your line-up is as good a guess as any.

[JasonEvans]

-- Of the few self-identified Democrats, 23% were for Gingrich and 29.8% for Bachman. That's a different kind of Democrat than I know, so that may be folks going to cause some mischief.

It is worth noting that there are only 14 self-identified democrats in the poll, about 3% of the total number of respondents. The potential for them to cause trouble would seem exceedingly small. What's more, it is quite possible there are folks who have been lifelong members of the Democratic Party who are nonetheless strong conservatives. There are plenty of socially conservative Dems in southern and midwestern states. Heck, Zell Miller is still a Democrat, I believe.

So, while there may be some meddling Democrats who come out with a goal of voting for a "beatable" GOP candidate, I don't see there being enough of them nor do I see them being coordinated enough to have an impact.

-Jason "with only 14 respondents, the poll numbers on the Dems are pretty much random" Evans

[snowdenscold]

-- Of the few self-identified Democrats, 23% were for Gingrich and 29.8% for Bachman. That's a different kind of Democrat than I know, so that may be folks going to cause some mischief.

As a Democrat I am also pulling for Bachmann, followed closely by Gingrich. But MB's days are numbered, or at least her Iowa campaign manager thinks so. (Ex-campaign manager that is.)

See, this is indicative of the type of things that, as an independent, drive me nuts. I understand wanting the other guy to have a bad candidate so your guy has a better chance of winning, but what about wanting an opposing candidate that is most in line with you? Hedge your bets?

Anyway that's really a segue into my main point: that there's more of a focus in our government on 'winning' than what's best - and this seems to be rampant across both major parties. They'll stall, delay, manipulate, etc. if they can score a few political points and make the other guy look bad, even if it's harmful in the short term. Why? To increase their chances of winning the next election(s). As if that was an end in and of itself. Actually helping the country? Secondary.

I realize this has been constant theme throughout the history of politics - winning for the sake of winning, power for the sake of power, etc. - but it seems to have gotten much worse in the past 20 years or so. No compromises or concessions can be made, nothing good can be said of the other side - all because it might decrease your party's chances of winning. They've convinced themselves that it's best for the long run, and that it indirectly helps, but I'm afraid we've entered into a prisoner's dilemna of political hostility.


Apologies if that's over the line - I know it's pretty opinionated, but I kept it non-partisan =) I'd love some discussion though.

[OldPhiKap]

See, this is indicative of the type of things that, as an independent, drive me nuts. I understand wanting the other guy to have a bad candidate so your guy has a better chance of winning, but what about wanting an opposing candidate that is most in line with you? Hedge your bets?

Anyway that's really a segue into my main point: that there's more of a focus in our government on 'winning' than what's best - and this seems to be rampant across both major parties. They'll stall, delay, manipulate, etc. if they can score a few political points and make the other guy look bad, even if it's harmful in the short term. Why? To increase their chances of winning the next election(s). As if that was an end in and of itself. Actually helping the country? Secondary.

I realize this has been constant theme throughout the history of politics - winning for the sake of winning, power for the sake of power, etc. - but it seems to have gotten much worse in the past 20 years or so. No compromises or concessions can be made, nothing good can be said of the other side - all because it might decrease your party's chances of winning. They've convinced themselves that it's best for the long run, and that it indirectly helps, but I'm afraid we've entered into a prisoner's dilemna of political hostility.


Apologies if that's over the line - I know it's pretty opinionated, but I kept it non-partisan =) I'd love some discussion though.

I wish I could disagree with any part of what you said. I really do.

[OldPhiKap]

Bachman had another top Iowa staffer defect to Paul, although it sounds like it has to do with loyalty to the guy who left as opposed to a policy thing. Still, not what you want on the news cycle right before the caucus. Net win to Santorum, who is surging as the "base" option.

[CameronBornAndBred]

Apologies if that's over the line - I know it's pretty opinionated, but I kept it non-partisan =) I'd love some discussion though.

Great post, and as an instigator, I'll respond. My reply was mostly tongue in cheek; I loathe the idea of Bachmann (way to far right for my tastes) or Gingrich (just way too Gingrichy) being anywhere near the Whitehouse..but also I know that whomever he faces, Obama is going to have a difficult time in his re-election campaign. Obviously there are those I'd rather see him face (extremist or over-the-top egoist are two good choices) but honestly I want someone level headed and responsible...knowing full well that whomever it is has a pretty good chance of winning, and thus leading our country for the next four years. If the Republicans win, and if I have my druthers, I'd rather live with Romney as the man in office, but as one who would like to see Obama be given the long run to shape his policies I would not mind his opponent be anyone else. By the way, I can pretty much assure you that most of the staffers on Obama's re-election committee would agree.

[Duvall]

See, this is indicative of the type of things that, as an independent, drive me nuts. I understand wanting the other guy to have a bad candidate so your guy has a better chance of winning, but what about wanting an opposing candidate that is most in line with you? Hedge your bets?

Anyway that's really a segue into my main point: that there's more of a focus in our government on 'winning' than what's best - and this seems to be rampant across both major parties. They'll stall, delay, manipulate, etc. if they can score a few political points and make the other guy look bad, even if it's harmful in the short term. Why? To increase their chances of winning the next election(s). As if that was an end in and of itself. Actually helping the country? Secondary.

I realize this has been constant theme throughout the history of politics - winning for the sake of winning, power for the sake of power, etc. - but it seems to have gotten much worse in the past 20 years or so. No compromises or concessions can be made, nothing good can be said of the other side - all because it might decrease your party's chances of winning. They've convinced themselves that it's best for the long run, and that it indirectly helps, but I'm afraid we've entered into a prisoner's dilemna of political hostility.


Apologies if that's over the line - I know it's pretty opinionated, but I kept it non-partisan =) I'd love some discussion though.

Well, that's the problem. I don't think your assertion that this approach is "rampant across both major parties" can be supported by a fair reading of the events of the last twenty years, at least with respect to national politics.

[El_Diablo]

See, this is indicative of the type of things that, as an independent, drive me nuts. I understand wanting the other guy to have a bad candidate so your guy has a better chance of winning, but what about wanting an opposing candidate that is most in line with you? Hedge your bets?

Anyway that's really a segue into my main point: that there's more of a focus in our government on 'winning' than what's best - and this seems to be rampant across both major parties. They'll stall, delay, manipulate, etc. if they can score a few political points and make the other guy look bad, even if it's harmful in the short term. Why? To increase their chances of winning the next election(s). As if that was an end in and of itself. Actually helping the country? Secondary.

I realize this has been constant theme throughout the history of politics - winning for the sake of winning, power for the sake of power, etc. - but it seems to have gotten much worse in the past 20 years or so. No compromises or concessions can be made, nothing good can be said of the other side - all because it might decrease your party's chances of winning. They've convinced themselves that it's best for the long run, and that it indirectly helps, but I'm afraid we've entered into a prisoner's dilemna of political hostility.

Apologies if that's over the line - I know it's pretty opinionated, but I kept it non-partisan =) I'd love some discussion though.

I think you're ultimately talking about two different things here: voter behavior and politician behavior.

Democratic voters pulling for a Bachmann candidacy are not necessarily doing so just for winning's sake. If one's ultimate personal preference is to have liberal-progressive policies, then it actually makes a lot of sense to root for Bachmann to be the GOP nominee because Obama trounces her in head-to-head polls, and the expected result is in line with the voter's preferences. Romney may be more moderate and thus closer to most Democrats' general policy preferences, but a Romney candidacy means a definite policy shift to the right if he wins the election, which is much more likely than a Bachmann general election victory. On a more subtle level, it would also mean that Obama would have to move more to the right (to compete with Romney for the center) than he would have to move if he were facing Bachmann (since he already is much closer to the center than she is). To take this logic to the extreme, it would make sense for a pure liberal to hope that Attila the Hun were cloned and then nominated by the GOP, because then Obama could actually move to the left and still appeal to the electorate more than his opponent would. Similarly, Republican voters would probably be happy to see Karl Marx resurrected and win the Democratic nomination over Obama, because then any of the current GOP nominees could probably coast to a general election victory on a purely conservative platform. So while it's counterintuitive on the surface, it makes a lot of sense for a liberal-progressive to pull for Bachmann instead of Romney at this point, and to do so for purely ideological reasons rather than mere partisan ones.

As for the crux of your complaint regarding the winning-for-winning's-sake mentality that some politicians take...I generally agree with you. I think most people agree that it is troublesome for politicians to take certain positions for political reasons instead of "doing the right thing" or at least doing what he or she believes is "the right thing." I can't think of a good way to put recent concrete examples out there without it sounding like I'm trying to single out one party in particular, so I'll just leave those examples unspoken.

But I can't go so far as to say that even some recent egregious behavior is entirely due to "winning for winning's sake." Because if you take a step back, from a purely strategic perspective, it's not unreasonable for someone to oppose policies that benefit an opponent politically in the short term because defeating that politician in the next election allows for a general policy shift in the long run, or at least for the next four years. So while it may be troublesome to consider and extremely frustrating to watch on a daily basis, it may have an underlying substantive, principled component that goes beyond mere partisanship and "winning for winning's sake." One may have doubts about how much the "big picture" actually plays into any particular politician's thought process, but there is--in theory, at least--a bigger picture that goes beyond simply winning the next election. That said, I generally agree with you that many politicians are very pro-being-reelected and let that get in the way of finding actionable solutions to the problems we face as a society. But even there, the problem is ultimately with the American people, who allow their elected representatives to engage in such behavior rather than calling them out on it. After all, if being destructive by scoring political points at the expense of fixing problems were (a) actually detected by the electorate and (b) disincentivized by the electorate, then rational politicians wouldn't do it at all because it would actually hurt their reelection chances. But thankfully for them, people are often too caught up in other important things--like what the Kardashians are up to--to notice, and people can bypass critical thought about important issues by relying on a news network to boil it all down to a few easy-to-understand talking points that may or may not be accurate. To paraphrase Alexis de Tocqueville, H.L. Mencken, Joseph Heller, and others: the beauty of democracy is that we collectively get what we deserve.

I hope this post is taken in a non-partisan way...and I apologize in advance to any pro-Kardashian board members who take umbrage.

[Jim3k]

The unregulated, often untrackable millions that influence political campaigns are an evil thing because they allow a few individuals too great an influence over an election. One need look no further than the 2000 primary season...

George W Bush, despite being the choice of the GOP establishment, faced a difficult race against pro-campaign finance reform Senator John McCain. McCain had done far better than expected in some early states and seemed to be a real threat to Bush's nomination. Super Tuesday was approaching and the most important battle was New York. Unlike other states, New York was a "winner take all" primary in a delegate-rich state. Though Bush and McCain each felt confident they could win several other states on Super Tues, the winner of New York would likely take a large delegate lead and figured to be the eventual nominee.

McCain seemed to be in a small lead in most of the polls with less than a week left in the race. Then, on Thursday, just 4 days before voters went to the polls, a group called "Republicans for Clean Air" made a massive $2.5 mil ad buy in New York, Ohio, and California. The ads they ran touted George W Bush as a friend of the Environment, but the ads mostly attacked John McCain for his wretched environmental record. You could not turn on a TV in New York and watch for 15 minutes without seeing the ads. They blanketed the airways. Republicans for Clean Air spent more on TV ads in 4 days in New York than the Bush and McCain campaigns spent combined over the course of the entire primary season.

The ads were condemned by fact-checking media members as being grossly deceptive about both candidates records on the environment. McCain was no great environmental friend, but pro-environment groups had largely endorsed him over Bush. It did not matter... the ads aired relentlessly in the final days of the campaign.

Maybe it was the ads, maybe it was something else, but McCain slipped in New York in the final few days, barely losing the primary to Bush. Once the result of the New York primary was known, the media pretty much declared Bush the winner of the nomination and many in the McCain camp admitted that the race was over.

Many media watchers wondered who Republicans for Clean Air was. The organization had only been invented the day before the ad buy was made. In fact, Republicans for Clean Air was so hastily organized, it actually misspelled the word "Republicans" on the forms it filed announcing its creation. After a bit of media digging, two men came forward and announced they had created and financed Republicans for Clean Air -- Charles and Sam Wyly. The Wyly Brothers, who are billionaires, are close associates of George W Bush and have given millions of dollars to Republican candidates and causes over the years. They have not been generous givers to environmental causes thought. In fact, a legitimate and well-known group Republicans for Environmental Protection, said it has never received a donation from the Wyly Brothers.

The Wylys did not care about the environment. They saw an opportunity to use that issue to hurt John McCain and boost their friend, GWB to the nomination. They bought the nomination for Bush... and it only cost them $2 million to do it.

I don't say any of this to pick on one candidate or another. There is no evidence Bush had any idea about what the Wylys were doing. There are examples of Democratic millionaires throwing money around to boost one candidate or another. I merely bring this up as an example of how money can influence a campaign and how powerless the other side is to respond. In 2000, McCain spoke out and said the Republicans for Clean Air ads were false and misleading, but his :10 second sound byte that ran on the news was drowned out by thousands of TV ads that ran all day for 4 days ahead of voting day.

It is not at all ironic that John McCain attempted to do something to fix all of this. McCain-Feingold was an attempt to keep unregulated money out of politics. It failed because money=speech according to the Supreme Court.

I do not know what can be done. I am encouraged that the internet has made it so easy for small donors to get their funds to the candidate of their choice. The campaigns in recent years of Howard Dean, Ron Paul, and Barak Obama (in 2008) were each extremely well-financed thanks to legions of small donations, not because rich friends or corporations backed them (though Obama certainly eagerly took donations from the rich as his campaign picked up steam in 2008).

Still, we see situations like what has happened in Iowa in recent weeks where ads from previously unknown organizations have suddenly flooded the air with attacks on Newt Gingrich. The ads were bought by Restore Our Future. Mitt Romney claims he has no ties to that organization, though he has been the featured guest speaker at fundraisers for ROF and ROF says its sole purpose in life is to get Mitt Romney elected president.

Sigh...

The reason we use Iowa and New Hampshire as our early voting states is to give the voters a chance to get to know the candidates up close. Odds are excellent that most of the folks who vote in Iowa will have had a chance to personally see several of the candidates speak and probably even shake their hand and ask a question. There is very little money involved in a handshake and a speech. And yet, while we still value this small-scale type of campaigning, we increasingly tell the less-monied candidates they do not matter by allowing Super PACs to spend millions of dollars to influence the elections. Why even bother with the retail politics of the small states if money is going to play such a huge role in the end?

I don't know what to do, I just know that it is going to get a lot worse before it gets better. Barak Obama has a massive war chest ready to roll out once he knows who he will be running against. The attack ads from both sides will likely be brutal. It is not a pretty picture.

I've heard it said that money is like voting... except it allows people to vote with their wallets. Ok, fine. But what happened to one man, one vote? Money allows the rich to vote a heck of lot more often than the poor and that just is not right.

-Jason "by the way, if anyone feels this post is over the line, please let me know. The mods will take it down if folks think it is partisan" Evans

Citizens United has created a monster and no one, Jason, knows what to do.

Here's one Harvard Law lecturer who is aware of some history and is currently allowing the problem to rattle around in his head. I link to this not because I think it is meritorious (I do not), but because he published this today in the WaPo. Tom Donnelly

Roosevelt offered his proposal in a time of perceived crisis — when, in the face of a conservative (and active) judiciary, many feared that people might lose their power to address the great social and economic issues of the day. Gingrich’s bombast aside, we face no such crisis today. Although the Supreme Court’s rhetoric is steeped in judicial supremacy, few scholars doubt that its decisions usually reflect the constitutional views of the American people (that is, when such views exist). Nevertheless, Roosevelt’s prescription ought to outlive its historical context.


Each term, the Supreme Court decides a handful of controversial cases by a bare majority. These decisions are all but impossible to reverse in the short term — even as they bitterly divide the justices. Furthermore, the court imperfectly reflects the constitutional views of governing coalitions over time, as the justices often maintain their positions for as long as possible to ensure that a sympathetic president can appoint their successors. Roosevelt’s proposed remedy — what might be called a “People’s Veto” — could be tailored to address these widely recognized problems.

This will have some populist appeal, but it is rife with risk. If you permit such a people's veto, then you also risk that real rights get trampled, and they would since people will not always vote to do right, but will instead vote their prejudices. Still, I thought that the idea was worth a link.