Represent Us, Not the Money

Over the past few months, been asking myself what I could do in politics without getting involved in candidate campaigns.  Want to make a difference, but fed up with the big money in politics that is corrupting not only political candidates but members of the media.  I really do not want to register as a Democrat as I am lifelong center-right Republican who wants to see the two party system work.  That means something has to be done to move the GOP back to center-right away from the hard right big money, immigration, racist, secession, some militia, and other hateful groups that occupy that hard right today.

Since Republicans went over the edge after the Citizens United ruling with money flowing everywhere, it is time to get the Koch Money and other wealthy donors control not only out of the Republican Party but the Democrat Party as well.  Have to admit in this election the Republican wealthy donors far outpaced the Democrats with their donations to Super PACs including Karl Rove's two groups from which they did not get a very good return.  With all the big money that was spent on Republican candidates, they still lost the White House, the Senate, and shook up the House with Tea Party people going down and Democrats gaining seats.  Looks like the big donor tax rates are going up after all even though they were promised by Romney/Ryan and GOP leadership it would never happen.  The American people spoke in this election that they are tired of the wealthy with their low tax rates and loopholes.

From the beginning, I was against the SCOTUS Citizen United ruling which unleashed the mega donor money of the GOP to Super PACs which in turn spawned the lies and distortion ads to take out anyone who was seen as a threat to Romney.  We saw the effects of that unlimited money in action in Florida against Newt Gingrich in the primaries orchestrated by Romney/Rove which worked.  Those same tactics were deployed in the general but failed miserably against Obama who was ready for their attacks, distortions, and outright lies.  Karl Rove flushed over $300M down the drain with all his losses.  You would think he would have learned his lesson but he is back wanting to get wealthy donors to anti up so he can lobby Congress.  He is what is wrong about elections and lobbyists along with conservative media in this election who were nothing more then part of the Romney campaign.

Today I discovered how all of us can help return elections to the voters away from the big donors as I read about Represent.Us on Mother Jones this morning.  Decided to investigate and discovered it is a bi-partisan effort with a high-profile, bipartisan board of advisors that has been launched to get one of the most important bills passed that will affect our political culture -- the American Anti-Corruption Act which is only 11 pages long and sponsored by the Represent.Us campaign.

When you look at the Board of Advisors, you are struck with the fact that the board is truly made up of bi-partisan, knowledgeable people.  Then you see the perpetrator of one of the biggest scandals to hit Congress, Jack Abramoff, sits on the board.  He has served his time and has been speaking out against all the money in elections.  Perfect choice to restore his reputation is to be a member of this group.  When I saw the name, Trevor Potter, I knew this was a bill that was desperately needed:

The Act was crafted by former Federal Election Commission chairman Trevor Potter in consultation with dozens of strategists, democracy reform leaders and constitutional attorneys from across the political spectrum. Mr. Potter was one of the chief architects of the McCain-Feingold law. The Act would transform how elections are financed, how lobbyists influence politics, and how political money is disclosed. It is a bold, sweeping proposal that would reshape the rules of American politics, and restore ordinary Americans as the most important stakeholders instead of major donors. The Anti-Corruption Act’s provisions enjoy support from progressives and conservatives alike. Constitutional attorneys confirm that the provisions are constitutional. The Act is being championed by the Represent.Us campaign. Click here to support this campaign. 

These are some the first paragraphs I read that made me want to learn more:

Represent.Us is a fresh campaign to pass the American Anti-Corruption Act: a law that would overhaul campaign finance, impose strict lobbying and conflict of interest laws, and end 'secret political money. We are mobilizing millions of Americans — conservatives and progressives, young and old, every issue group fighting K Street, online and offline — to join this campaign. 

Represent.Us is not just building a movement to pass the Act. The campaign will use hard-hitting accountability tactics to unseat politicians who fail to endorse the Act. If passed, the Act will completely reshape American politics and policy-making and give people a voice.

Synopsis of the American Anti-Corruption Act:

Get Money out of Politics:
Stop lobbyist bribery, End secret money & Empower voters. 

1.  Stop politicians from taking bribes

Prohibit members of congress from soliciting contributions from the interests they regulate, and prevent them from benefiting interests that directly or indirectly spend heavily to influence their elections. 

Politicians routinely host fundraisers, and invite lobbyists to contribute to their campaigns. Members of congress who sit on powerful committees get extraordinary amounts of money from interests regulated by those committees. The result is a congress made up of politicians dependent on those special interests in order to raise the money necessary to win reelection. Politicians are forced to create laws that are favorable to those interests, often at the expense of the public interest.

2.  Limit super PAC contributions and “coordination” 

Require Super PACs to abide by the same contribution limits as other political committees.Toughen rules regarding Super PACs and other groups’ coordination with political campaigns and political parties. 

The Supreme Court's Citizens United and subsequent court cases ruled that SuperPACs have the right to raise and spend unlimited money influencing elections, so long as the SuperPACs do not coordinate with the candidate campaigns. Since Citizens United, we've seen tremendous coordination between campaigns and their Super-PACS, making a mockery of the "independence" that the courts thought would exist. SuperPACs have become extensions of the campaigns, and allow mega-donors to exert undue influence on election outcomes.

3. Prevent job offers as bribes

Close the “revolving door” so that elected representatives and their senior staff can no longer sell off their legislative power in exchange for high-paying jobs when they leave office. 7 years for all members and 5 senior congressional staff. (currently 2 years for Senate; 1 year for House; 1 year for senior staff) 

Today, politicians routinely move straight from Congress to lucrative lobbying jobs on K Street, in order to influence their former colleagues and friends. Senior staffers who work for congressmen do the same thing. This corrupts policymaking in two ways: members and their staff anticipate high-paying jobs on K Street, and routinely do favors to their future employers while still in Congress; and once out of congress they enjoy undue access and influence to members of Congress. The biggest spenders hire these influencers, and win policy as a result.

4. Call lobbyists lobbyists

Significantly expand the definition of, and register all lobbyists to prevent influencers from skirting the rules. 

Today, the definition of who is a lobbyist - and who is not - is weak. The result: members of congress and their staff, even when they are in the cool down phase when they may not lobby (1 year for US House members, 2 years for Senators, and 1 year for senior staff) work as "historical advisors" to skirt the law while receiving big money to influence policy.

5. Limit lobbyist donations

Limit the amount that lobbyists and their clients can contribute to federal candidates, political parties, and political committees to $500 per year and limit lobbyist fundraising.Federal contractors already are banned from contributing to campaigns: extend that ban to the lobbyists, high-level executives and government relations employees and PACs of federal government contractors. 

Lobbyists currently must abide by the same contribution limits (to candidate campaigns) as everyone else: $2500 per election. Lobbyists "bundle" these $2500 contributions with other lobbyists, and individuals working for special interests that seek to influence politicians. This adds up to serious money, and serious undue influence.

6. End secret money 

Mandate full transparency of all political money.Require any organization that spends $10,000 or more on advertisements to elect or defeat federal candidates to file a disclosure report online with the Federal Election Commission within 24 hours. List each of the organization’s donors who donated $10,000 or more to the organization to run such ads. This includes all PACs, 501c nonprofits, or other groups that engage in electioneering. 

Elections are being flooded with secret money funneled though "501c" organizations that are not required to disclose the names of donors. 501c's either spend money directly to influence elections, or make unlimited contributions to SuperPAC's. This allows secret political donors to flood elections with money, and influence outcomes.

7.  Level the playing field with a small donor tax rebate 

Empower voters by creating an annual $100 Tax Rebate that voters can use for qualified contributions to one or more federal candidates, political parties, and political committees.In order to be eligible to receive Tax Rebate contributions, candidates, political parties, and political committees must limit the contributions they receive to no more than $500 per contributor per calendar year or contributions from entities that are funded exclusively by Tax Rebates and small-dollar contributions. 

Nearly $6 billion was spent on the 2012 elections, and the vast majority came from big special interest donors. In 2008, less than 0.5 percent of Americans contributed $200 or more, and less than 0.1 percent of Americans contributed $2,300 or more. Politicians become dependent on this tiny percentage of the population. To change this, we need to dramatically increase the number of small donors to politics, so that politicians become dependent on everyday Americans and not moneyed interests. That's how we get politicians who actually fight for the general public.

8. Disclose “bundling”

Require federal candidates to disclose the names of individuals who “bundle” contributions for the Member or candidate, regardless of whether such individuals are registered lobbyists.

9. Enforce the rules

Strengthen the Federal Election Commission’s independence and strengthen the House and Senate ethics enforcement processes.Provide federal prosecutors additional tools necessary to combat corruption, and prohibit lobbyists who fail to properly register and disclose their activities from engaging in federal lobbying activities for a period of two years. 

Federal agencies routinely fail to enforce the anti-corruption rules that already exist because their leadership are appointed by those they are supposed to regulate. The result is a wild-west elections system, where even lax rules can be skirted or broken with impunity.

Sounds tough? It is. But this is why it will work 

Reform will only occur at a moment of crisis. We will harness public anger and demand for change. 

We must start with the people, not Congress, and gather an unprecedented coalition.
We must engage liberals, conservatives and independents. Highly visible spokespeople from all quarters will aid us. 

Politicians will only act if forced to by electoral pressure. We will unseat politicians who don’t cooperate. 

The solution must be comprehensive. Incremental reform won’t work: it has to come as a package. 

But we need your help 

Co-sponsor the Act 

Represent.Us Call to Action:

Romney Campaign and Super PAC in Violation of the FEC?

Romney and his Super PAC share top aides and they see nothing wrong?  Figures out of Romney who believes that he can do anything he wants to get the nomination whether it is ethical or not.  It is more important that he win then follow the rules:

Despite all the crossover, the groups can make a legal argument that the shared operatives don’t amount to forbidden coordination because staffers erected a mental barrier between work done for each. 

“It comes down to showing they provided material or information from the campaign that was used for ads. How do you do that?”asked Mr. Wertheimer

Information about campaign ads isn't hard to find as Romney's Super PAC used an ad from the 2008 failed Romney campaign about a missing teenager.  Why did the Super PAC release this ad instead of the campaign?  Is Romney's campaign running short of money to run such an ad?  Legitimate questions with no answers.

Romney decides to go 'scorched earth' and along comes his Super PAC doing just that.  Larry McCarthy, the one responsible for the Willie Horton ad, is being used by the the Romney Super PAC, Restore Our Future, to attack ads on other candidates.  The man responsible for the Willie Horton ad for Bush 41 is involved with the Super PAC attack ads for Romney.  Imagine that.  McCarthy and the word ethics should never be used in the same sentence as he will never be noted for his ethics.  Only thing he knows is attack politics from everything that has been seen first for Bush 41 and now for the Romney Super PAC.  The Horton ad was against Dukakis but his attacks ads today are against fellow Republicans.  Romney and his Super PAC have sunk to a new low.

Then there is the problem with using front companies to shield payments to people which should be against every FEC regulation there is if we still have an active FEC:

But a watchdog group said both the Romney campaign and the super PAC’s practice of using companies to shield payments to people violates campaign-finance law.

There is not much ethical about the Romney campaign but he wants to be President?   But then he considers corporations people even when they are set up for the purpose of helping his campaign and really are just a front.  Doesn't seem very ethical to most people but then it is Romney and he is supposed to be above criticism just like Obama.

Romney camp, super PAC share high-level aides
Companies used as payment conduits
By Luke Rosiak-
The Washington Times Sunday, February 26, 2012 

Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign and the super PAC accepting million-dollar contributions to support him are barred by law from coordinating, yet they share many of the same top-level workers, a fact both groups have helped mask by paying high-level aides through companies that appear to exist largely as conduits to avoid disclosure. 

Months before a top Romney aide, Steve C. Roche, stopped working for the campaign, a company controlled by Mr. Roche was established and has since been paid $2 million by the super PAC, with a million-dollar check coming just three days after the last money publicly disbursed to him by the campaign, a Washington Times review of campaign expenditure records showed. 

Another consulting firm has done hundreds of thousands of dollars of work for both the campaign and the super PAC, with the most recent payment from the campaign coming the same day as the first from the super PAC. Still other companies, some doing work for the campaign and others for the PAC, are based at the same address. 

The groups said they have done nothing wrong because staffers are careful not to use anything they learn in working for one group to the other’s advantage. 

But a watchdog group said both the Romney campaign and the super PAC’s practice of using companies to shield payments to people violates campaign-finance law. 

Though Mr. Roche was regional finance director for the Romney campaign through the summer, in April a cryptically named limited liability company, Podium Capital Group LLC, was established in Delaware taking steps that hide its creator’s identity, incorporation records show. 

The super PAC disclosed paying $1 million for “fundraising services” to Podium on Aug. 4, listing as its address a post office box in Beverly, Mass. 

The super PAC, Restore Our Future, acknowledged to The Times that Podium is “Roche’s company.” 

The Romney campaign says it is careful to follow the law; but a review of the records shows that its interpretation relies on a remarkably strict and hard-to-demonstrate definition of “coordination.” 

“It seems like this was an overall plan involving both the campaign and the super PAC” that spanned months, said Fred Wertheimer, executive director of Democracy 21, a campaign ethics watchdog, of Mr. Roche’s transition. With high-ranking operatives from the campaign heading the independent group, he noted, there was much less need to communicate with current campaign staffers. 

‘Travel reimbursement’ 

Any gap between Mr. Roche’s tenure as a campaign official and his super PAC work lasted days at most. Mr. Roche received checks from the campaign as recently as Aug. 1 for “travel reimbursement.” But the Romney campaign declined to say when he left, and the exact dates of his compensation are not discernible in campaign records because fundraisers were paid through another company, SJZ LLC, named after Mr. Romney’s national finance director, Spencer J. Zwick. 

“People hire consulting firms all the time to do campaign work for them, but this appears to be a deliberate effort to mask the actual recipient of the money and therefore circumvent disclosure laws,” Mr. Wertheimer said. “It comes down to, is this a real company?” 

There is no record of Podium’s existence outside of the single Delaware filing. It has no physical address, and it has never done work for any other political group. Mr. Roche did not respond to requests for comment. 

It was unclear why high-level operatives with official campaign titles were being paid only indirectly through SJZ, or why, if the campaign contracted with a firm for services, it was separately reimbursing that firm’s workers for expenses. Except for some general-election work it did in 2008 after Mr. Romney abandoned his presidential bid, the SJZ entity has not worked for any non-Romney campaign, Federal Election Commission (FEC) records show. 

The Times review shows that the Romney super PAC’s accounting practices used corporations as conduits for payments instead of named employees. During the campaign, Mr. Romney has said that “corporations are people, my friends.” 

Excerpt:  Washington Times

The Times took at look at the funding of Romney's Super PAC and how they operate.  Must have given the investigators a headache.  When you can look at FEC records and see major problems, you know there is going to be even more in a campaign.  Is this what McCain was referencing about a Super PAC who was going to be in trouble.  Why he endorsed Romney is what many of us are waiting to find out.  After he endorsed, the opposition research against Romney was released most believe from his campaign.  Think if I was a candidate who trashed McCain in the past, I would rather not have his endorsement.

The question of the day is whether the FEC is going to get some backbone and go after Romney's Super PAC and frankly they should include his campaign PAC as well in any investigation.  Something smells big time, but will the FEC finally get involved and start handing out major fines?  Time will tell but since it is a Republican, they probably will investigate.

Filibuster 'reform' Dead but AmeriPAC Still Wants Money to Defeat Reid's Plan to Destroy the Filibuster

UPDATE:  After further research when we received the same email from World Net Daily, we decided to do some more investigation and discovered two PACs.  The first PAC is American Political Action Committee (AIRPAC) #C99002396 we found after going to the AmeriPAC website and found the number listed on the bottom of the page and they had this PAC since 1980 and are conservative.  The AmeriPAC we found using that acronym at the FEC is AmeriPAC:  The Fund for a Greater America #C002711338 and very Democrat.  When you search for American Political Action Committee, a whole host of sites comes up and buried in there is AmeriPAC with the correct number. 

Should have checked it out completely but using an acronym of the PAC for search is done frequently.  Are Democrats now picking acronyms and adding a few words to confuse people because it certainly confused us and we have been following PAC contributions for years.  My recommendation is to not only check out FEC contributions but now check out their websites before you give one penny. 

What you read below is when we thought AmeriPAC was a Democrat PAC following the search on the FEC database.  We decided to leave up the initial post to show how easy it is to be fooled by these PACs using the same acronyms.  The one thing that stands is the fact this filibuster change rule died last night but AmeriPAC wants donations and for everyone to buy a book so my premise that these PACs are out for money even after something has happened stands.  We apologize to the ACU for thinking they were sending out paid email from a Democrat PAC.

Recommend the FEC have a link to all PACs alphabetical by name with their number. Maybe they do but I couldn't find it -- you have to search by name of the PAC off the main link. 

Anyone for cleaning up the FEC to make it user friendly?

******

Started out this post complaining about PACs like AmeriPAC who asks for money after it is too late to have any impact which has always made no sense.  The Filibuster Reform bill died last night with the adjournment of the Senate but that didn't stop AmeriPac from asking for money to stop it this morning:

Reid To Destroy GOP By Filibuster!
Reid Pushing For A Vote This Week!

ALERT: Dictator Harry Reid is pushing a new rule to give liberals carte blanche power to pass any bill they want - whether the American people like it or not!

This was not the first time AmeriPAC has sent out emails like this.  I usually just delete their emails but this time I decided to follow my own link below to the FEC and check out how AmeriPAC was connected and to my shock discovered they gave to Democrats who were running for Congress along with Democrat Congressional Committees.  Talk about non-truth in advertising.

There is a a searchable campaign data base at the FEC so if you put in the name of the PAC in search, you should be able to find out how many donations they received and how they spent those donations. I decided to follow this link for AmeriPAC and it turned up their donations were given to Democrat Congressional candidates and committees:  Blue Dog Democrat PAC, DNCC, and familiar Democrats like Loretta Sanchez (D-CA) and Jason Altmire (D-PA), Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ), and Alan Grayson (D-FL) for starters. Don't know if this link will take you to the list or if it will time out but it is worth a try: http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/com_supopp/2009_C00271338-- at that link you see contributions to Democrats running for the House in 2010.

AmeriPAC is sending out their emails to Conservatives like us looking for donations -- will bet money some people will be fooled with their rhetoric because it was sent out by info@conservative.org from the ACU when actually AmeriPAC is a Democrat PAC.  Why would the ACU send out an email for a Democrat PAC?  Most likely they never bothered to check out the PAC as we would bet it was more important to get paid to send out the email which gives the group credibility then to spend time checking them out.  We didn't didn't send them money but we also didn't check them out until this morning.  Lesson Learned -- check out every PAC that asks for donations in email.

We have lost track of how many times PACs like AmeriPAC have asked for money to stop something when it is already defeated/passed or to ask for money for campaign ads the night before the election so they can go on the air. People need to be very careful when donating to a PAC and check out how a PAC spends its money before donating. All these scare tactics to get money should be a tip off.  Now we will follow our own advice and check out every PAC that sends an email.  Who knows how many other PACs we are getting emails from give to Democrats.

In contrast to asking for money to lead the effort against Reid's attempt to change the rules for filibuster, we have the real story from Byron York of the Washington Examiner below that details the quiet death for the filibuster 'reform' ended last night.

In Senate, a quiet death for filibuster 'reform'
By: Byron York 01/26/11 10:10 PM
Chief Political Correspondent

Lost in the hubbub over President Obama's State of the Union speech was the quiet death of liberal Democratic hopes to "reform" the Senate filibuster. Those hopes officially expired at 10:20 p.m. Tuesday, as lawmakers prepared the leave the Capitol after the president's speech, when the Senate adjourned for the first time this year.

For months, some Democrats had been working on a plan to use a parliamentary maneuver called the "nuclear option" to put an end to minority Republicans' ability to block Democratic initiatives. Under that scenario, on the first day of its session -- and only on the first day -- the Senate would be able to change its rules regarding filibusters with a simple majority vote. Normally, it takes 67 votes to change the Senate's rules, but on the first day, Democrats believed, they could kill the filibuster with just a 51-vote majority.

Of course, the first day the Senate was in session was January 3. Most people would assume that such first-day changes, even if they were possible, would have to be made on that day. But in the Senate, "first day" can be a flexible term. So when the Senate finished business on January 3, Majority Leader Harry Reid did not adjourn the body, which would have meant the end of the day. Instead, Reid declared the Senate in recess, which meant that it remained, in technical Senate terms, in its "first day" until whenever Reid chose to call an adjournment.

Through January 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 -- through all those days the Senate was in recess and therefore still officially in its "first day." That meant liberal Democrats could continue to maneuver and negotiate ways to end the filibuster and, if they could find 51 senators willing to go along with their scheme, take a vote on the Senate's "first day."

Furious negotiations went on behind the scenes. The Democrats' anti-filibuster wing, led by Sen. Tom Udall, tried to muster support for the effort to kill, or at least substantially weaken, the filibuster. Udall wasn't, of course, trying to persuade Republicans to go along; all GOP senators opposed the idea. Rather, Udall and his allies were trying -- and, it turns out, failing -- to convince 51 Democrats to put an end to the filibuster. By Tuesday, it was clear they had failed. After the State of the Union, Reid adjourned the Senate, and the 22-day "first day" was over.

The filibuster was untouched; nothing has been done to it. "Literally nothing," says a Republican Hill source.

Excerpt: Read more at the Washington Examiner

NOTE: Updated to show that the email of the group who sent out the AmeriPAC email is the American Conservative Union.