Bye

This blog is no more.

I’ve talked for months about why I feel the Democratic party is the best solution for America, and I can’t say I believe that as forcefully any more. They are in no way worse than Republicans, but after nearly a year of a Democratic majority that was supposed to rein in a runaway executive and put the nation back on the right track, we are now even worse off than we were when Republicans controlled Congress. The Democrats have conspired to legalize illegal wiretapping (once an impeachable offense) and they’ve allowed Bush to send even more troops into Iraq, escalating a war they were given a mandate to end.

I’ve defended Democrats on this blog for too long. In my opinion the Democrats currently in both houses of Congress (with some notable exceptions) are not part of the solution; they have only so far furthered the same old problems. I can no longer with good conscience defend them as a group.

I also remain convinced that such broad-based blogging about politics is useless without a massive net to cast. I don’t have that. Big ideas were my focus, and big ideas are what are for some reason incompatible with this modern political state. This has never turned out to be quite what I wanted it to be, and that’s okay with me. It’s time to move on.

Therefore, I’ve decided to limit my focus to achieve a more immediate and attainable goal: that being local concerns, especially the electoral elimination of Eric Cantor, Virginia 7th District Republican representative. My new blog is Where’s Eric? with the simple goal of exposing one of the most ruthless, unscrupulous, and truly atrocious congressmen to broad daylight. I’m confident that once exposed for what he is, Virginia voters will realize how truly unrepresentative their representative is.  All other political blogging will be done as a diarist at Raising Kaine.

And hopefully in a few months (or sooner) there will be another blog project, wholly unrelated to politics. Crazy, eh?

So I’ll see you around. But not here.

Campaign Event for Tom Herbert

Are you in the West End of Henrico County? Are you tired of fanatical Republicans and their zany abuser fee schemes? Heard about the real Jimmie Massie?

If you answered yes to any of these questions, we want you to join us this Sunday, September 30 for a special get-together. You’ll get to meet all those other progressives and moderates who truly are out there, plus you’ll meet the stars of the show, 72nd District Democratic candidate Tom Herbert and Delegate Brian Moran, Chairman of the Democratic Caucus. The event is from 4:00-6:00 pm at the home of April Cain and Jim Evans, and there will be food and drinks provided. If you would like to attend, just drop a note to Andrew McIntire, and he will hook you up with the particulars.

Visit Tom’s website via that picture below.

Abuser Fee-apalooza!

I’m back. I took a few days off, get my stuff together, plan some personal changes, avoid all the hypocritical Republicans and their restroom shenanigans, all that stuff.

But what’s this? In this past Sunday’s Richmond Times-Dispatch, all the candidates for the Virginia legislature got to have their say on the “abuser fees,” those outrageous Not Taxes that Republicans came up with to raise the money we desperately need to fund our rapidly decaying roads but without resorting to those traditional means, such as everyone paying for the usage. That would be FAIR. Instead we now have to pay $1,000 to $3,000 for not using a turn signal. Ain’t conservatism grand?!

Anyway on to the pieces. Republican Jimmie Massie, he of the Family Foundation of Virginia, agrees with one of the principal architects of the bill, Speaker Bill Howell. So, in the real world, that would mean he supports the bill. But strangely no. He uses his support of Howell to further the case that we need to reform the abuser fees. He’s joining Howell in jumping of Howell’s own self-created cliff by becoming a staunch opponent of the same bill he staunchly defended. And then strangely he tries, twice, to say it’s somehow the governor’s problem, and that it’s his responsibility to deal with it. Gotta give it to these guys, what they lack in brains, they make up for in balls.

But what Massie really wants is to expand the bill. He seems to believe that the only problem with charging insane fees is that those insane fees aren’t charged enough. He wants even out-of-state drivers fined, never mind the impossibility of that. Here’s my favorite part: ” I will not support any law that does not apply equally to everyone driving on Virginia’s roads.” Fantastic. He talks like a progressive, about equality, but leaves the actual funding of the roads to those miserable swine who have been caught speeding. C’est la égalité, or something.

Here’s what his opponent, Tom Herbert, had to say:

The abuser fees should be repealed and if I am elected, it is one of the first things I will do.

Virginia needs a stable and reasonable funding source to solve the critical transportation problems. The commonwealth’s transportation and infrastructure needs have been ignored for almost 30 years. When Gov. Mark Warner began his term in January 2002, with the cooperation of the Senate and the support of the people of Virginia, he attempted to solve this problem. He was blocked by the incumbent leadership in the House of Delegates who, according to The Times-Dispatch on August 12, know only one word: No.

This standoff continued for five years while congestion on the highways got worse. This year, Gov. Tim Kaine attempted to negotiate a compromise. However, the House leadership’s solution is based on the abuser-fee funding gimmick which at best is only a short-term fix for a long-term problem.

Now, as it is being blamed for the unpopular abuser fees, the House leadership wants to extend the fees to out-of-state drivers. Yet, because of difficulties of collection and billing, the fees will likely remain an unfair burden on Virginians. I will vote to repeal the abuser fees and examine Virginia’s transportation and infrastructure.

Citizens need to consider not only highways, but rail and other environmentally sound alternatives to ever more congested highways.

Reason? Logic? Both anathema to Republicans. Could the choice be any more clear?

Take a Stand Day

First up, WordPress is really pissing me off. For a day now I haven’t been able to comment on any blog, even my own. How fucking pathetic is that? A lot of angry forum comments and a few support requests, and still nothing has changed. This is the first major problem I’ve had with them, but right now Blogger isn’t looking too bad.

On to the important business.

Today is “National Take a Stand Day,” the kick-off of “Stand Up In September,” a series of vigils, marches, and protests against the Iraq Occupation. There are many, many events scheduled for today all over the country (you can find one near you here).

Tonight at 7 PM at VCU, there will be a “Take a Stand Town Hall” featuring several speakers including journalist Robert Dreyfuss. You can get all the info here, and you can RSVP if you plan on attending. The rest of the relevant information is below (from the above site).

Hope to see many of you there!  Hopefully this will provide me the first opportunity to really test out my new Flip video camera.

Virginia Commonwealth University Commons, Second Floor Auditorium
907 Floyd Avenue
Richmond, VA 23298

“Our Take A Stand Town Hall and Stand Up Vigil is part of a nation-wide organizing drive to demand that members of Congress and the Senate take a stand with the vast majority of Americans who want a safe and responsible redeployment of American Forces from Iraq.

“Our event will include great speakers like Iraq war veterans and their families. As well as guest speaker Robert Dreyfuss, a well known Journalist. We will be showing our Take A Stand video highlighting the local anti-war organizing efforts from this past summer. Our event will be followed by a Stand Up Vigil. We will be providing signs, please refrain from bringing any.

“The event location is handicap accessible. Free parking is also available.”

Obligatory Gonzales Post

As a liberal blogger, I think I’m contractually obligated to do a post about this. Here are my thoughts:

Who fucking cares? The damage has already been done. Removing Alberto Gonzales changes nothing. His policies are still in place and in many instances have even been codified with substantial Democratic acquiescence. His presence was a massive victory for our totalitarian leadership, and his resignation does absolutely nothing to change that. In fact it does the exact opposite by giving the illusion that the cancer has been at least somewhat excised.

So let’s not start blowing each other quite yet.

Letter to the Editor

My response to local far-right codger Ross MacKenzie, and his recent screed.

“In the latest of his increasingly unhinged and laughable commentaries, Ross Mackenzie compared withdrawal from Vietnam with withdrawal from Iraq, as did Bush in his recent VFW speech. MacKenzie claims that we could have achieved ‘victory’ in Vietnam if only we had stayed a little longer. What was this ‘victory’ he insists we could have had? A stable Vietnam, economically viable with secure trading ties to the United States? A stopper on the spread of communism in Asia? Well, communism didn’t spread. Vietnam is now one of Goldman Sachs ‘Next-11′ group of upcoming economic powers, and the US has been steadily normalizing relations with them, including Bush’s recent visit. Mission accomplished.

“So what does MacKenzie think a ‘victory’ in Iraq would look like? Since he won’t say, perhaps the official reasons given for the war provide some clarity on this. WMDs? Done. There weren’t any. Victory. Regime change? Saddam’s gone. Victory. Liberation of Iraq? Once again, victory. Saddam’s links to al Qaeda? Turned out not particularly true (some might even say ‘lie’), so we can chalk up a victory there, too. In fact all of the concrete reasons given by the administration for the war have been met. As Bush himself clearly stated: ‘Mission Accomplished.’

“Bush and MacKenzie, who apparently operate off the same page of talking points, display enormous historical ignorance in their equation. That is nothing new. Truth is not the point with them. They can rely on such simplistic, fuzzy-headed analyses because their loyal supporters are not interested in hearing the truth. Sloganeering requires less work, less honesty, and is far more effective. Contrary to their assertions to the contrary, their ‘victory’ in Iraq is not to be found on the battlefield. No, the real ‘victory’ for them can be found lining the wallets of Bush’s corporate donors.”

Not included in the letter is the fact that Ross MacKenzie is an embarrassment to both himself and his entire city.  He has no business being in the profession of journalism, and his status is only a result of his willingness to carry water for corrupt degenerates.  That says all you really need to know about him.

Around the Internets: August 26, 2007

Here’s what struck my fancy as I surfed through the tubes this past week.

Remember all the bunk about the two supposed war critics who thought the surge was working? Read this. And keep in mind: THEY’VE ACTUALLY SEEN IRAQ. Not the dog & pony show Iraq, the real one. Golly gee, wonder why all those pundits aren’t talking about it. They’d rather rely on Very Serious People, rather than the troops. Why do they hate America?

Here’s Time’s excellent article by Amanda Ripley on Giuliani, that gleeful neocon fascist. It’s nice to see the traditional media finally getting around to covering Rudy for what he really is: a power-hungry bully who wants to use about 3,000 corpses to further overcompensate for his own personal shortcomings and failings. One of my favorite quotes:

…he has apparently made a tactical decision to thunder loudly about terrorism, perhaps to deflect from his personal life and his liberal record on social issues—which an internal campaign memo termed potentially “insurmountable” last year.

Not that this is news to anyone actually paying attention to anything, but liberals read more than conservatives and correspondingly Democrats read more than Republicans. There are so many jokes I can put in here, I’m having a tough time picking one. So here’s a few for you to pick your favorite from.

• I was expecting it to be a little more impressive of a win for the liberal side, but apparently Dr. Seuss books counted for the conservatives.
• I guess the back of a cereal box now counts as book. Perhaps that explains the conservatives making it so close.
• 34% of conservatives were honest enough to admit having read nothing in the past year. Given that about 1/3 of conservatives I’ve ever witnessed seem honest about anything, well… you can figure out where that one’s going.
• Does reading the Bible eight times count as eight books? Apparently.
• Conservatives can read?!
• Etc.

Just Like Vietnam

Thanks, Mr. Bush, for stating the obvious. The Iraq Occupation does share many, many traits with that other occupation, that in Vietnam. Let’s analyze a few of those similarities, shall we?

In Vietnam the United States tried repeatedly to set up new governments, overthrowing and even assassinating the leader of its own client regime when it inevitably failed. The reason the puppet government failed was not because they weren’t strong enough or even democratic enough; it was because they weren’t supported by the people of South Vietnam. In Iraq we’ve installed three of “our kind of men” as Prime Minister. None have been able to come to any kind of political consensus with the “electorate” leading to the complete factional stand-off we see now.

Vietnam, just like Iraq, was sold to the public based on a non-existent threat. The domino theory, wherein communism would have swept over Asia as states like Vietnam “fell,” was never likely to come to fruition. Communism did take over all of Vietnam when we withdrew, but it didn’t lead to the dominoes falling. It led to the position we are in now, with communism itself marginalized and weak. Where it WAS once successful and even a “threat,” it fell not because of Reagan as the common myth states, but because of the inherent, fatal economic problems in Russia’s system. Iraq was, and still is, based on a similar ruse: the idea of terrorism as some existential threat or, even less commonly spoken, the idea of an Islamic caliphate taking over the U.S. Laughable both, but in Iraq, as in Vietnam, the real reasons for the war, the need to identify an enemy and pursue it with our entire might, rationale and results be damned, remains unspoken.

Iraqification = Vietnamization. Surge = Escalation. These are both checkpoints in the occupation of a failed state. The removal of the existing government leads to a power vaccuum, and the occupier fills it in. The process is instituted to give power to what is supposedly the occupied nation, but resistance to the occupiers leads to ramping up the forces, leading to less of a perception that the people have control of their own country. “Cyclical” comes to mind.

In terms of US casualties, the similarities even exist. During the first five years of the occupation of Vietnam, around 5,000 were killed, roughly the same amount as this time when contractors are added to the soldiers total. It was when the escalation ramped up that the numbers of casualties dramatically increased. We’re seeing the beginnings of a similar trend now under Bush’s escalation. This summer has seen more Americans killed than any of the others.

Bush also claimed in his speech that withdrawing from Iraq will lead to similar outcomes as our withdrawal from Vietnam. We could only be so lucky. The examples that Bush laid out (except for the “killing fields” example in Cambodia, whose Khmer Rouge government was ousted by the Vietnamese communists) are true; nobody says otherwise. Just as no one says that withdrawing from Iraq will be pretty in the short term. More lives will be lost. But Vietnam, while still recovering from the destruction we caused, is well on its way to economic viability, embracing the West as evidenced by Bush’s recent visit and their growth leading to their inclusion in Goldman Sachs’ list of the Next-11 nations for investment and economic opportunities. Communism did not spread, it fell. The short-term pain led eventually to Vietnam’s emergence as a growing power when the occupying nations were removed.

But the greatest lesson from the Vietnam withdrawal is the one Bush completely failed to grasp when he made the amazingly bad decision to go ahead with this new talking point. This is the fallacious notion that we could have “won,” whatever that might mean, if we had just stayed longer. The term “Friedman Unit” had yet to be invented, of course, but the parallels are striking. Success is “just around the corner,” “we just need the willpower to go the whole way,” “if we leave now, we’ve lost.” The historical record has made such a strong case against this argument in terms of Vietnam that it’s almost repetitive to even repeat it here. There is no chance for victory in Iraq, just as there was none in Vietnam, and even those pushing for “victory” seem to have no idea what it means or what it will even look like. What is happening in Iraq is beyond their capacity for expression, and they revert to simplistic slogans which mean practically nothing but are incredibly effective in deluding those easily deluded.

If the goal of this entire enterprise, as George W. Bush has consistently claimed, was to build a strong democracy in the Middle East that would ally itself with our interests, then we have certainly already lost. The current democratic government in Iraq has fallen apart, has factionalized to such a degree it’s likely untenable. No American attempts to intervene on its behalf are going to garner the popular support they would need to be successful. The government we’ve installed has collapsed, our presence is adding nothing to creating a viable state, and it won’t get any better until we leave.

Just like Vietnam.

A New Look

Incredibly bored at work today, I decided to muck around with the way the blog looked because I was getting a little tired of it, as I’m wont to do from time to time. There were some flaws with the last template I was using, and this one has fixed some of those but also added some new ones.

Let me know your thoughts. I need to do a little fix-up on that header image, the text is just popping out a bit too much for my taste. (Better, still not great.)

Also I’ve done a bit more collating of info on our good friend, Eric Cantor, over there on those page links at the side. I’ve put together some detail on where his money for the last cycle came from, and I’ve put together the first page on his issue positions. That’s some soul-crushing work, let me tell ya.

Feingold

Before 2001 I had never heard much about Russ Feingold. At the time I was a fairly disinterested political observer, cycnical as all hell, and I didn’t really pay a whole lot of attention to what was happening in Washington.

9/11 was a kind of turning point for me, as I’m sure it was for many people. I began to see more clearly our government’s slide from something I thought was noble to what Bush and his enablers have allowed it to become. And the first time I noticed Feingold was when he made the infamous vote. I’m referring of course to his lone vote in the Senate against the USA Patriot Act. (It’s not in the book, but I believe I remember hearing him in an interview say that the reason he was the only one who voted against was that he was the only one who actually read it.)

Since then he’s become a much bigger player in the Senate, with talk of a presidential bid which unfortunately ended when he and his wife divorced. He has tried desperately to get his fellow Democrats to embrace and exercise their political mandate of 2006 and end the war, and he has taken the only action he can to hold Bush accountable by introducing a censure resolution in the senate, which went absolutely nowhere.

I was in the library the other day, and I saw a biography called simply Feingold by Sanford Horwitt and decided to give it a shot. Well, let me restate that. It’s not really a biography, more a love letter. Horwitt is clearly an unabashed fan, even though he does point out a lot of what has made Feingold controversial even among Democrats, especially his unquestioning votes for Bush’s nominees (he believes that, barring a major stain on the record, it’s the president’s right to have his nominees confirmed, which I grudgingly respect), and his vote to continue the impeachment trial of Clinton. But he ties even these in to a bigger picture of who Russ Feingold is: a completely honest politician who states clearly what he believes and acts thusly.

During the long period between when the McCain-Feingold (or Bipartisan Campaign Reform) Act was gestating after having been voted down, Feingold stuck to the letter of his own proposed law, even though his opponent would not. It nearly cost him his seat, but in part because of his honesty he was re-elected. He refuses to take any money or gifts from lobbyists, even those allowed by the law, and will not let his staff receive so much as a cafeteria lunch from anyone. He’s a true progressive in the finest tradition, secure in what he believes in, and willing to take a strong, even maverick stand for what he thinks right.

If you want to find a reason to stop being so cynical about politicians for a little while, check this one out. It’s a quick read, and who knows? Maybe some conservatives can make it one of their 8 books a year (if they’re not in the 34% of them who don’t read anything ever).

And I just found about this cool little program (thanks, Dusty).  Feingold’s PAC, the Progressive Patriots Fund has started up a new campaign, “My President Will Be…“  Check it out and join in the fun.

The Defeatists

The history of the global warming “debate” has been fascinating. If you take a step back and see the big picture, you’ll find an elaborate series of withdrawals by the conservative set.

First, there was the claim that nothing was happening. The earth wasn’t getting warmer, it was all just nonsense! Facts eventually got in the way of this one.

Next, after the unstated realization that they were wrong on that one, they changed tactics. They started arguing that the effects of warming were merely isolated. It could be contained very easily; no need for regulations or a change in the way we behave. Once again, facts proved troublesome.

After this, they started jumping on a new bandwagon. They said that, sure, it’s getting warmer (refusing to acknowledge how incorrect they were before) but it’s not our fault! How presumptuous of us to believe that we could actually change the world we live in!

Once again, facts stood in the way.

And now another year, another talking point. We now have the defeatists. They all realize the world is warming, and most even see the truth of how human behavior causes it. Kudos for that, at least. But their new argument is that there’s nothing that can be done about it. We’re too far along already, the world will keep warming for at least a while no matter what we do, so better just to wait and take what nature throws at us.

This is exactly the same sort of myopic thinking that allowed slavery to continue as long as it had.

Leading the charge has been Robert Samuelson, he of the editorial page of the Washington Post, “a neocon newspaper,” according to Chris Matthews. In his July 5, 2006 column, he lays out the case that “we don’t know enough to relieve global warming, and — barring major technological breakthroughs — we can’t do much about it.” He states correctly based on existing models that no matter what happens, in 2050 greenhouse emissions will be higher than they are today. Government regulations will be too tough, fuel prices too high, etc. But after spending around 80% of the article saying nothing can be done, he essentially negates all that. He says something can be done, but it needs “engineering.” But really, that’s not the point of the article. The point is sowing doubt, which has been the only real weapon for global warming denialists and now defeatists.

Cut to 2007, and it’s all-consuming to Samuelson. His recent columns seem to serve no purpose but to claim how nothing can be done about global warming. You can find such pieces here and here. Same talking points, nothing new about any of them, just furthering doubt.

And that’s really what it all comes down to. You can read more about how there’s nothing we can do from Mark Hertsgaard at the San Francisco Gate or Fareed Zakaria at Newsweek. Both claim it’s “much too late to stop global warming” or “we cannot stop it.” But if you actually read beyond the title or the opening paragraph you realize that what they are saying is that because of man-made actions, global warming will probably continue for the next couple of decades. What happens beyond that is never mentioned, ostensibly because it doesn’t fit the bigger plan of feeding into the cult of doubt.

The simple fact is that refusing to look ahead more than 10 years into the future is what got us into this mess in the first place. To decry the incremental steps needed to begin the process of moving us to an enlightened global society, one that doesn’t have to torch the planet to meet our outrageous energy needs, is almost laughably naive for people so supposedly committed to finding real solutions to the problems.

Here’s a great article on “fighting the new defeatism” and just in case you run across some of the old-school denialists, here’s “How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic.”

photo credit:  Globalwarming Awareness 2007

Where’s Eric Cantor?

My congressman seems to be almost entirely absent from his own constituents. Granted, this is not completely atypical, but he is from Virginia, which a simple map check will tell you isn’t far from where he works. In fact the only news I’ve heard from him at all recently was his vote against turning the interstate slaughter of dogs into a felony. Seriously.

Almost every politician does work in their district, in their home office, communicating with the people they represent. Some, like Russ Feingold, do it a lot more than others, and they give the impression of actually giving a damn about their constituents. Eric Cantor does not. In fact a quick overview of his websites indicates nothing about any time spent actually talking with the people of the 7th District. He has only what he calls an “Advisory Council,” for which you must sign up and enter your personal information, along with the requisite request for campaign support/funds, before you are allowed to even know about when he is willing to listen to what you have to say. I’ve signed up for it. I’ll let you know how that turns out.

I’ve contacted a lot of politicians in my time, from when I was in Philadelphia and wrote to Senators Arlen Specter and Rick Santorum, to my time here when so far I’ve contacted Senators John Warner and Jim Webb. Always I’ve received a response from these representatives. I didn’t always agree with them (seriously, who actually writes a rep to tell them how much they agree?), but they’ve always returned my e-mails, letters, or phone calls, with a clarification of their positions and stances. Not Cantor. I’ve twice tried to reach him to explain certain repugnant positions he’s taken or to express my displeasure with his behavior, always in the most polite terms my seething anger could muster, and I’ve never heard back. Not once. Not even a form letter.

And his blog, which was unveiled as some new innovative forum enabling him to listen to his constituents (his own words: “I would like to use this blog to create a two-way dialogue…”), has only recently even allowed relatively unmoderated comments. This after flak over his censoring of critical comments, a common occurrence among conservative bloggers, and actually changing critical comments to make them read as if they advocate support. That’s enough of a kick-in-the-teeth for the “two-way dialogue” concept, but it gets even better. A quick perusal of the blog offers nothing in the way of policy ideas or even comments on why he supports certain legislation or opposes it. In order of importance to him are posts on “interesting articles,” “security,” “taxes,” and “caucus of confusion,” i.e. his funny little term for Democrats. It’s almost entirely a vehicle for his attack machine and pimping of his own op-eds and television appearances. Which brings us to…

… what Eric Cantor actually does. Posturing. That’s it. He’s served as the mouth-piece and genial public face for the far right of the Republican party, with his appearances on news programs (such as this particularly embarrassing episode in which he tries to convince Chris Matthews that the military should not take orders from the government) and his statements simply decrying Democrats (such as his revolting National Review piece complaining about Pelosi’s visit to Syria with no mention of the Republicans joining her). Since 2001 thirteen bills he has sponsored have actually made it out of committee, and only two were enacted, a particularly shoddy track record considering his own party was in power during the entire time of his congressional career, save the last eight months.

He serves almost no useful purpose in Congress, he doesn’t reflect or listen to the people he is supposed to represent, and, as his ties with Jack Abramoff show, he’s not to be trusted. It’s far past time for this guy to go the way of George Allen. 2008 sounds like the right time to me.

Step 2: Campaign Finance Reform

The second in a series covering fundamental changes needed in American politics to bring the nation closer to the progressive ideal. The first was Gut the Military.

It’s been talked about before, pretty widely in fact. There was even a supposed compromise made several years ago, called the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (affectionately dubbed “McCain-Feingold” after its two principle sponsors). It didn’t go far enough. Not by half. It doesn’t even come close to one of the principle problems that America now faces.

America, for all its flaws then as now, was built on the principle of “one man, one vote.” This is unassailable. It’s the reason we have equal representation in terms of both the House and the electoral college, so that everyone’s vote is worth the same impact.

That’s always been the ideal, but it’s never really been true. The history of limiting the vote of certain segments of the population, both overt and subtle, has been particularly sordid. No news there. But monetary control of practically every election has proven a much more effective means of maintaining certain interests control practically everything in Washington. Read this for a brief history of money in politics.

What this influence clearly means is that the impact on elections and on candidates is inherently unequal. One person does not have one vote. It’s true that individuals are now limited to donating $2,300 to a candidate, but they can donate that to as many candidates as they like and donate to other organizations like the RNC and the DLC which end up giving their money to those same candidates (see here for the whole list of donation limits). Corporations are technically not allowed to give money to candidates, but they do through the establishment of PACs.

What this all has led to is a situation where voters are increasingly disenfranchised and have lost control over everything except for the choice between the two candidates they are permitted to vote for.

What Must Happen
Campaigns should be funded from the treasury. Candidates must apply for the money, based on a certain baseline level of monetary support from a certain percentage of the total population they’re to represent. Each willing donor will give the same low amount to fund the beginning of the campaign, around $10-20. Think of it as a sort of petition but with each signer putting up a bit more than their name. This is in essence the exploratory phase, but in this one it’s real. It will determine if there is the relevant support to continue the process. Any donations beyond this introductory amount are strictly prohibited. The amount given through the election fund will be set at an agreed-upon level for a typical election for that position (for instance, a campaign for a New York senate seat would get substantially more than one for a seat from Maine). Each candidate will be given a set amount of air-time, and if they so choose they may purchase more. In addition candidates may use an unlimited amount of their own money, not additional funds raised, for their campaign. However, their opponents will be given a similar amount: not equal, but in the area of 60-75%.

Arizona is a good example of a state that has instituted a similar program of public funding, and so far it has been successful (click here for a good debunking of common talking points against such a program).

The elections are ours, and we must take them back. Leaving the cost of running for election to special interests does nothing but limit the number of voices in our public debates, decrease accountability, corrupt our leaders, and move us farther from the key principle of our republic: representation. Most of our leaders stopped representing us long ago. It’s clear we need to make them represent us again.

Around the Internets: August 18, 2007

Here’s some shit.

• It turns out that Multiple-Choice Mitt Romney is richer than all of the other presidential candidates. Combined. Republicans thus lose any right to refer to anyone as “elitist.”
• The right-wing-tard alternative to the Daily Show fails. Almost entirely because it fucking blew. Seriously, watch that clip. Egads.
• The news business has had a long, sometimes glorious, sometimes depressing history, but I think everything has led up to this: the greatest headline of all time.
• Nobody likes the lobbying business (except for Hillary Clinton apparently), but the oft-ignored penny lobbyists are refusing to allow society to advance to the next evolutionary step: a penny-free society, loosed of its little copper (or zinc, really) shackles. This is probably somehow Bush’s fault.

Jimmie Massie: What Law?

Looks like 72nd District VA House of Delegates candidate Republican Jimmie Massie, he of the Family Foundation of Virginia, doesn’t seem particularly well-versed in the Code of Virginia. That’s the list of laws and stuff that Massie is ostensibly running to have some say in.

Jimmie Massie sent out a campaign flier, advertising a “PACs and Corporations Breakfast Fundraiser” for his campaign last week. The problem: he refused to put the mandatory disclaimer on the ad, saying who sent and paid for the ad. You can see the actual ad in a scanned version by clicking this link: massie-invite.pdf.

The law as articulated in the Virginia Campaign Finance Disclosure Act (pdf) (Title 24.2, Chapter 9.3, 9.4, and 9.5 of the Code of Virginia) states in Chapter 14 - Political Advertisement Disclaimers, Section 1 that, “A disclaimer statement is required for all political advertisements which uses [sic] express advocacy to support the election or defeat of a candidate or group of candidates.” It covers what it’s not required on, such as yard signs, buttons, referendum ads, etc. but then covers what it “IS Required on” such as “advertisement disseminated through the mail,” “fliers,” and “pamphlets.”

And it’s not as if this is some weird Virginia quirk. All federal campaign ads have the same requirements, as you can see in this section at the Federal Election Commission website. It’s the reason you hear that little “I’m…, and I approve this message” at the end of commercials.

The penalty in Virginia for such illegal actions is a $1,000 abuser fee — er, I mean, fine — via Chapter 15, Section 2 of the Virginia campaign finance code(pdf). (It’s $2,500 if it occurs less than 14 days before Election Day.) But here’s a fun fact: in Indiana(pdf) it’s a “Class A misdemeanor, punishable by up to a $5,000 fine, not more than one (1) year imprisonment, or both.” Ha! Massie’s a lucky cat indeed.

You can visit his opposition Tom Herbert at his campaign site, or you can donate via his campaign or ActBlue page.

Picture credit: jimmiemassie.com

cross-posted at Raising Kaine