After watching the sudden and impressively well-organized wave of legislation being introduced into state legislatures that all seem to be pursuing parallel goals only tangentially related to current fiscal challenges–ending collective bargaining rights for public employees, requiring photo IDs at the ballot box, rolling back environmental protections, privileging property rights over civil rights, and so on–I’ve found myself wondering where all of this legislation is coming from.
The prank phone call that Governor Scott Walker unhesitatingly accepted from a blogger purporting to be billionaire conservative donor David Koch has received lots of airplay, and it certainly demonstrates that the governor is accustomed to having conversations with deep-pocketed folks who support his cause. If you’ve not actually seen the transcript, it’s worth a careful reading, and is accessible here:
http://host.madison.com/wsj/article_531276b6-3f6a-11e0-b288-001cc4c002e0.html
But even though I’m more than prepared to believe that David and Charles Koch have provided large amounts of money to help fund the conservative flood tide that is sweeping through state legislatures right now, I just don’t find it plausible that two brothers from Wichita, Kansas, no matter how wealthy, can be responsible for this explosion of radical conservative legislation. It also goes without saying that Scott Walker cannot be single-handedly responsible for what we’re seeing either; I wouldn’t believe that even for Wisconsin, let alone for so many other states. The governor clearly welcomes the national media attention he’s receiving as a spear-carrier for the movement. But he’s surely not the architect of that movement.
So…who is? [Read more]
Until not long ago, Arizona politics were an open sewer of corruption. But the state adopted a system of public campaign financing in 1998, and, since then, more than half of all candidates for office in Arizona have opted for this money.
Not anymore. Last June, in the middle of a political campaign, the Supreme Court — which seems at times to be on a crusade to remake the American electoral landscape — thrust itself into an ongoing lawsuit and froze the crucial element of the financing system. [Read more]
American business leaders are concerned about the pressure they feel to donate to political campaigns and the influx of large, undisclosed donations to third-party political organizations that are not required to disclose their sources of funding, according to a new Zogby poll commissioned by the Committee for Economic Development (CED).
The survey found that 60 percent of the over 300 business leaders polled say there is pressure to contribute to political efforts.
Seventy-seven percent of respondents believe that corporations should disclose all of their direct and indirect political expenditures, including money provided to third-party organizations to be spent on campaign ads. [Read more]
You can stop calling her Mean Jean. She prefers to be known as Ms. Pac-Man.
Second District Republican Congresswoman Jean Schmidt raised a lot of money last quarter, but when it came to contributions from individual donors, her opponent, Surya Yalamanchili narrowly beat her out $109,077 to $108,993. That’s an important distinction especially when you consider that Yalamanchili is the ONLY congressional candidate in the entire country who isn’t accepting PAC money or funding his own campaign.
With groups like Citizens United, the US Chamber of Commerce, America’s Crossroads and more trying to buy this election without disclosing their donors–some of whom could be foreign entities–it’s refreshing to note there is a candidate (and fortunately it’s on our side) who is willing to run an aggressive campaign while staying true to the reasons why he’s running. It’s a bold and risky strategy, but if successful, Yalamanchili will truly be the most liberated representative on The Hill. [Read more]