DEM Primaries/Candidates thread

[Rex Kickass]

Yeah, but seriously, Obama would have voted to increase the minimum wage and to expand stem cell funding if he wasn't running for President.

[Balta1701]

Barack Obama has come out with a list of all of the earmarks he has requested during this fiscal year, and has challenged the other candidates to do the same.

[NorthSideSox72]

Barack Obama has come out with a list of all of the earmarks he has requested during this fiscal year, and has challenged the other candidates to do the same.

Solid.

 

Obama has seen the way earmarks are handled in the Chicago city council - as they should be. Open for all to see.

[EvilMonkey]

I guess Edwards idea of helping others is by helping himself first?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/22/us/polit...and&emc=rss

In Aiding Poor, Edwards Built Bridge to 2008

 

By LESLIE WAYNE

Published: June 22, 2007

John Edwards ended 2004 with a problem: how to keep alive his public profile without the benefit of a presidential campaign that could finance his travels and pay for his political staff.

 

Mr. Edwards, who reported this year that he had assets of nearly $30 million, came up with a novel solution, creating a nonprofit organization with the stated mission of fighting poverty. The organization, the Center for Promise and Opportunity, raised $1.3 million in 2005, and — unlike a sister charity he created to raise scholarship money for poor students — the main beneficiary of the center’s fund-raising was Mr. Edwards himself, tax filings show.

 

A spokesman for Mr. Edwards defended the center yesterday as a legitimate tool against poverty.

 

The organization became a big part of a shadow political apparatus for Mr. Edwards after his defeat as the Democratic vice presidential nominee in 2004 and before the start of his presidential bid this time around. Its officers were members of his political staff, and it helped pay for his nearly constant travel, including to early primary states.

 

While Mr. Edwards said the organization’s purpose was “making the eradication of poverty the cause of this generation,” its federal filings say it financed “retreats and seminars” with foreign policy experts on Iraq and national security issues. Unlike the scholarship charity, donations to it were not tax deductible, and, significantly, it did not have to disclose its donors — as political action committees and other political fund-raising vehicles do — and there were no limits on the size of individual donations.

 

Mr. Edwards, a former North Carolina senator, set out to keep his political options open by promoting issues he cared about, like poverty.

 

“He wanted to learn, travel and be in a position to be a viable candidate,” said J. Edwin Turlington, a Raleigh lawyer who was the manager of Mr. Edward’s 2003 presidential exploratory committee. “He had the ability to raise money to fund his activities. He had a vision, and he knew it would take money.”

 

Mr. Edwards mixed policy and politics in a way that allowed his supporters to donate to the causes he believed in — and to the organizations he had set up. He also set up two political action committees, something commonly done by politicians thinking of running for president.

 

But it was his use of a tax-exempt organization to finance his travel and employ people connected to his past and current campaigns that went beyond what most other prospective candidates have done before pursuing national office. And according to experts on nonprofit foundations, Mr. Edwards pushed at the boundaries of how far such organizations can venture into the political realm. Such entities, which are regulated under Section 501C-4 of the tax code, can engage in advocacy but cannot make partisan political activities their primary purpose without risking loss of their tax-exempt status.

 

Because the organization is not required to disclose its donors — and the campaign declined to do so — it is not clear whether those who gave money to it did so understanding that they were supporting Mr. Edwards’s political viability as much or more than they were giving money to combat poverty.

 

The money paid Mr. Edwards’s expenses while he walked picket lines and met with Wall Street executives. He gave speeches, hired consultants, attacked the Bush administration and developed an online following. He led minimum-wage initiatives in five states, went frequently to Iowa, and appeared on television programs. He traveled to China, India, Brussels, Uganda and Russia, and met with Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain and his likely successor, Gordon Brown, at 10 Downing Street.

 

“He was not a U.S. senator; he had no office,” said Ferrel Guillory, a political program director at the Center for the Study of the American South at the University of North Carolina. “So he set up a series of entities to finance his travel, to finance a political shop and to finance an issue shop. It all adds up to a remarkable feat of keeping a presidential candidacy alive without any of the traditional bases for it.”

 

Mr. Edwards depended for his activities in large part on donations from supporters. In addition to the two nonprofit organizations, he created a leadership political action committee and a 527 “soft money” organization that also shared the same name: the OneAmerica Committee. These two committees each allowed donors to give more than the $2,300 per person limit in a presidential primary or general election, and, in some cases, to give in unlimited amounts.

 

From 2005, when he established them, through 2006, the committee and the soft money organization raised $2.7 million, most of which paid for travel and other activities that helped Mr. Edwards maintain his profile.

 

“It’s a permanent campaign,” said Meredith McGehee, policy director at the Campaign Legal Center, a nonprofit group based in Washington. “It’s about shaking every money tree possible and finding every means to finance a permanent campaign. It’s like having different checking accounts, with different rules, and the goal of keeping your name and agenda in the public eye.”

 

 

The two foundations and the two political committees all shared an address in Washington and jointly raised around $4 million. Most donations to the political committees came from his core supporters, trial lawyers and unions, and in one case from an anonymous donor, who gave $250,000. Many donations ranged from less than $10,000 to $50,000. For example, Boyd Tinsley, the violinist and backup singer for the Dave Matthews Band, gave $50,000, as did the Service Employees International Union, whose organizing efforts Mr. Edwards has supported.

 

The Edwards campaign defended the activities of the nonprofit.

 

“One of the Center for Promise and Opportunity’s main goals was to raise awareness about poverty and engage people to fight it,” Jonathan Prince, deputy campaign manager, said yesterday. “Of course, it sent Senator Edwards around the country to do this. How else could we have engaged tens of thousands of college students or sent 700 young people to help rebuild New Orleans? It’s patently absurd to suggest there’s anything wrong with an organization designed to raise awareness about poverty actually working to raise awareness about poverty.”

 

“Of course, some of the people who worked for Senator Edwards in the government and on his campaign continued to work with him to fight poverty and send young people to college,” he added. “Perish the thought: people involved in politics actually trying to improve peoples’ lives.”

 

Mr. Edwards also developed mutually beneficial relationships with public and private institutions. He founded the Center on Poverty, Work and Opportunity at the University of North Carolina, which provided him with a platform. In return, he raised $3 million to sustain it. He was hired by the Fortress Investment Group, a New York hedge fund, to “develop investment opportunities,” according to a 2005 Fortress news release. That led to meetings with such people as Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany; Henry Kravis, founder of KKR, one of Wall Street’s most successful investment funds; and the chief executives of General Electric, Citigroup, Coca-Cola and DaimlerChrysler.

 

“Fortress became a vehicle for foreign travel,” Mr. Turlington said, “but it was also a way to spend more time with sophisticated financial people.”

 

The Edwards campaign declined to disclose the amounts raised or spent by the two similarly-named nonprofit agencies — the Center for Promise and Opportunity and the Center for Promise and Opportunity Foundation — since their 2005 tax filings, which are the most recent to have been filed.

 

The Center for Promise and Opportunity Foundation, which started with $70,000 in 2005, gave out $300,000 in college scholarships in 2006, said Pamela Garland, the executive director of the College for Everyone Program that is part of the foundation. The center, often praised for helping poor students in Greene County, N.C., get into college, is on track to give out $476,000 this year, Ms. Garland said.

 

Mr. Edwards broke his ties to that charity once he announced his candidacy for president. “It’s really just me now,” said Ms. Garland, who began her job last May. She credited Mr. Edwards with devising the program, raising the money and speaking to high school students, using his own up-from-poverty story to inspire them.

 

At the same time, the larger nonprofit group had a more politically active agenda. Its directors included Mr. Turlington, the Raleigh lawyer; Miles Lackey, Mr. Edwards’s former chief of staff; Alexis Bar, his former political scheduler; and David Ginsberg, Mr. Edwards’s current deputy campaign manager.

 

The $1.3 million the group raised and spent in 2005 paid for travel, including Mr. Edwards’s “Opportunity Rocks” tour of 10 college campuses, consultants and a Web operation. In addition, some $540,000 went for the “exploration of new ideas,” according to tax filings.

 

Nonprofit groups can engage in political activities and not endanger their tax-exempt status so long as those activities are not its primary purpose. But the line between a bona fide charity and a political campaign is often fuzzy, said Marcus S. Owens, a Washington lawyer who headed the Internal Revenue Service division that oversees nonprofit agencies.

 

“I can’t say that what Mr. Edwards did was wrong,” Mr. Owens said. “But he was working right up to the line. Who knows whether he stepped or stumbled over it. But he was close enough that if a wind was blowing hard, he’d fall over it.”

 

Of the explicitly political entities, Mr. Edwards’ OneAmerica Committee 527 organization allowed donors to give without limitations. The money was transferred to his leadership political action committee. Leadership committees were initially created to allow prominent politicians to raise money for distribution to needy office-seekers. But Mr. Edwards spent the entire $2.7 million he raised for OneAmerica, including $532,000 raised by the 527, on himself, an increasingly common trend among politicians

 

Bringing bending of the rules to a whole new level.

[Balta1701]

So, one interesting thing about that NYT article is that the Edwards campaign actually offered to set up the NYT with interviews which would give the other side of the story, interviews with people that the campaign claims were actually helped by Mr. Edwards's anti-poverty programs, and the NYT actively turned down the offer.

[EvilMonkey]

So, one interesting thing about that NYT article is that the Edwards campaign actually offered to set up the NYT with interviews which would give the other side of the story, interviews with people that the campaign claims were actually helped by Mr. Edwards's anti-poverty programs, and the NYT actively turned down the offer.

Any way you look at it, it was a sleazy thing to do as a way around the rules, just further reenforcing his two americas viewpoint, the one he is in, and everyone else.

[NorthSideSox72]

Obama raises a record $32.5M for the past quarter, dwarfing the $21M raised by Hillary Clinton.

 

Other candidates...

Edwards with $9M, down from the $14M he did the previous quarter

Richardson up to $7M+, approaching Edwards' tally

Dodd raised $3.25M

[BigSqwert]

Obama raises a record $32.5M for the past quarter, dwarfing the $21M raised by Hillary Clinton.

He has no chance.

[EvilMonkey]

He has no chance.

Maybe he can spend some of that in Illinois. Or will he just take the state for granted and ignore us?

[NorthSideSox72]

Maybe he can spend some of that in Illinois. Or will he just take the state for granted and ignore us?

Ah yes, that wonderful electoral college.

 

Can we please get rid of that now? Since it effectively disenfranchises about 80% of the country in its current form?

[BigSqwert]

Maybe he can spend some of that in Illinois. Or will he just take the state for granted and ignore us?

Why single out one candidate? They will all focus on the same states.

[southsider2k5]

Ah yes, that wonderful electoral college.

 

Can we please get rid of that now? Since it effectively disenfranchises about 80% of the country in its current form?

 

And a popular vote wouldn't? Sorry. I don't think some candidate is going to suddenly start to value smaller places anymore because they now change the electoral process. If anything it would just disenfranchise other people because now they wouldn't value lesser populated areas anymore, because there would be no incentive to care about place that weren't densely populated. Its just like many things, the framers of the consitiution put in protections to ensure that certian groups of people maintained their voices. The small states were one of those main groups the framers looked to protect.

[NorthSideSox72]

And a popular vote wouldn't? Sorry. I don't think some candidate is going to suddenly start to value smaller places anymore because they now change the electoral process. If anything it would just disenfranchise other people because now they wouldn't value lesser populated areas anymore, because there would be no incentive to care about place that weren't densely populated. Its just like many things, the framers of the consitiution put in protections to ensure that certian groups of people maintained their voices. The small states were one of those main groups the framers looked to protect.

Current system, with electoral college - for national elections, only a few states matter. And within that, only a few districts sometimes matter. Effective voting populace - 10%.

 

If we removed the electoral college and voted for national office with a true national vote - every vote counts the same. 1 person is 1 vote. Candidates may choose to not campaign in podunk South Dakota, which they would not have ANYWAY under the current system, but they do visit places all over the country. Effective voting populace: 80%.

 

Yes, its flawed either way. But the popular vote would be much, much closer to representing the will of the people.

 

And the electoral college and its small states protections was built into the representative body - Congress - and I would suggest that part needs to stay for that reason. For a President, it has no purpose at this point.

[southsider2k5]

Current system, with electoral college - for national elections, only a few states matter. And within that, only a few districts sometimes matter. Effective voting populace - 10%.

 

If we removed the electoral college and voted for national office with a true national vote - every vote counts the same. 1 person is 1 vote. Candidates may choose to not campaign in podunk South Dakota, which they would not have ANYWAY under the current system, but they do visit places all over the country. Effective voting populace: 80%.

 

Yes, its flawed either way. But the popular vote would be much, much closer to representing the will of the people.

 

And the electoral college and its small states protections was built into the representative body - Congress - and I would suggest that part needs to stay for that reason. For a President, it has no purpose at this point.

 

You cannot tell me that with a true popular vote for President that all of the sudden 70% of entire country would come under consideration in a Presidential election. That is idealistic and unrealistic. If anything the electoral college actually gives more consideration to more places, because their electoral votes actually matter. If you don't believe me, look at how many people per electoral college vote there are in a state by state basis. If you take advantage away from the small states, you completely eliminate any reason for a candidate to waste his time in those kind of places, as they payoff becomes worthless. All that means is that only urban areas will be considered.

 

As for the will of the people, there are protects for the minority in every single area of government. That is exactly why 50% +1 can't amend the constitution. That's why the Great Compromise took place... That is why we have appealate courts... The whole intent all over the framing of the constitution was to make sure that one group of people never had complete control over everything, and that goes for all branches of government, not just the legislature. Taking away the considerations of the small states is just one more thing that falls into that category.

[NorthSideSox72]

You cannot tell me that with a true popular vote for President that all of the sudden 70% of entire country would come under consideration in a Presidential election. That is idealistic and unrealistic. If anything the electoral college actually gives more consideration to more places, because their electoral votes actually matter. If you don't believe me, look at how many people per electoral college vote there are in a state by state basis. If you take advantage away from the small states, you completely eliminate any reason for a candidate to waste his time in those kind of places, as they payoff becomes worthless. All that means is that only urban areas will be considered.

 

As for the will of the people, there are protects for the minority in every single area of government. That is exactly why 50% +1 can't amend the constitution. That's why the Great Compromise took place... That is why we have appealate courts... The whole intent all over the framing of the constitution was to make sure that one group of people never had complete control over everything, and that goes for all branches of government, not just the legislature. Taking away the considerations of the small states is just one more thing that falls into that category.

You are only acknowledging one type of vote loss - small states and rural areas. In the current system, because most states are pretty much a given for candidates, you lose far, far more votes, because you eliminate all but 5 or 6 states from making a difference. And that will generally INCLUDE those same small states in the at vote loss column. Look at the states that really mattered in the last election - OH, FL, PA. Those were the three states that got all the attention, and they are states with mostly urban populations. The small rural states, like the ones in the plains and the mountain west, were mostly ignored (except CO and NM).

 

So again, yes, if you have a national vote you will see remote, rural areas get no attention from candidates. But, that loss is just a lot smaller than the current loss of voter power.

[southsider2k5]

You are only acknowledging one type of vote loss - small states and rural areas. In the current system, because most states are pretty much a given for candidates, you lose far, far more votes, because you eliminate all but 5 or 6 states from making a difference. And that will generally INCLUDE those same small states in the at vote loss column. Look at the states that really mattered in the last election - OH, FL, PA. Those were the three states that got all the attention, and they are states with mostly urban populations. The small rural states, like the ones in the plains and the mountain west, were mostly ignored (except CO and NM).

 

So again, yes, if you have a national vote you will see remote, rural areas get no attention from candidates. But, that loss is just a lot smaller than the current loss of voter power.

 

To me that is like focusing on one bad pitch to say that it changed the outcome of a game. Well yeah maybe the result was there, but if the other 249 pitches don't go the sameway, maybe that one pitch doesn't matter anymore.

 

This is a pure population play to make places like California and New York and Texas matter more than they already do. There has always been a certian protection of minority rights in this country. Even though it doesn't seem to fit the ideal of "one person, one vote", the USA has always had a * attached to that. If that was the full intent of the consitution, we would have never had a Senate in the first place, and we never would have had an electoral college. We also would have never had an executive branch if we wanted the entire system to be majority plus one for all decesions. Its checks and balances. The big states are not allowed to run completely roughshod over the rest of the country to balance out the small states rights.

[EvilMonkey]

Why single out one candidate? They will all focus on the same states.

They will all run a few ads here, I singled out him since he is FROM here. Will he run ads here, campaign here (other than to RAISE money, which is spent in other states), or will he take his Illinois votes for granted? Simple question.

[Rex Kickass]

He'd campaign here quite a bit actually. Always nice to speak from a position of strength now and again, but when you're within a couple weeks of Election day, don't expect to see him around Illinois much.

[NorthSideSox72]

New poll from New Hampshire showing for the first time a change among the top 3 candidates - Richardson pulls ahead of Edwards. Clinton still in first over Obama, but the gap appears to be closing. CNN review of poll.

 

[longshot7]

<!--quoteo(post=1464507:date=Jul 2, 2007 -> 12:29 PM:name=NorthSideSox72)-->

<!--quotec-->Ah yes, that wonderful electoral college.

 

Can we please get rid of that now? Since it effectively disenfranchises about 80% of the country in its current form?

 

And a popular vote wouldn't? Sorry. I don't think some candidate is going to suddenly start to value smaller places anymore because they now change the electoral process. If anything it would just disenfranchise other people because now they wouldn't value lesser populated areas anymore, because there would be no incentive to care about place that weren't densely populated. Its just like many things, the framers of the consitiution put in protections to ensure that certian groups of people maintained their voices. The small states were one of those main groups the framers looked to protect.

 

f*** the small states. Large states should have more of a say anyway.

 

Gore won that 2000 election. Do we want that debacle to happen again?

 

[Balta1701]

Gore won that 2000 election. Do we want that debacle to happen again?

Well, the odds say that as long as the system sits around as badly broken as it currently is, its probably only a matter of time before a Repub. wins the popular vote and a Dem winds up in office too, so...

[FlaSoxxJim]

Well, the odds say that as long as the system sits around as badly broken as it currently is, its probably only a matter of time before a Repub. wins the popular vote and a Dem winds up in office too, so...

 

 

I'd give 5-4 odds against that happening.

[Balta1701]

I'd give 5-4 odds against that happening.

That wasn't an electoral college issue, that was an issue with the disaster that was Florida's voting system. And the Dems are going to have to learn a lot better how to take advantage of the gaping holes in the voting system security as well as the opponents have before that becomes an issue.

Edited July 25, 2007 by Balta1701

[FlaSoxxJim]

That wasn't an electoral college issue, that was an issue with the disaster that was Florida's voting system.

 

That is true, but do you really think it's possible to have a national election result so close that the EC goes one way and the popular vote the other, yet have all of the voting go so smoothly in every state as to not be contested at all? I certainly don't.

[Rex Kickass]

That wasn't an electoral college issue, that was an issue with the disaster that was Florida's voting system. And the Dems are going to have to learn a lot better how to take advantage of the gaping holes in the voting system security as well as the opponents have before that becomes an issue.

 

You could also make an argument that this was more of an issue of the Supreme Court determining a political solution to override a states rights issue.