Romney campaign now $11 million in debt

Josh Marshall reports: “Coming into the convention out of primary cash, the Romney campaign borrowed $20 million with general election money it couldn’t spend yet as collateral. The campaign is now $11 million in debt.”

But the LA Times reports: “That liability pales in comparison to Romney’s cash reserves. The campaign announced this month that Romney Victory — the joint fundraising effort between the Romney campaign and the Republican Party — ended August with $168.5 million in the bank.”

And Andrew Sullivan reminds us about where all that money’s coming from:

“a new WaPo/ABC poll looked at opinions regarding outside spending on the presidential race, with 75% “very concerned” about the amount of spending from corporations, unions, and the wealthy. They also note how conservatives don’t seem to understand that the majority of the outside spending is supporting Romney:

2012 09 16 campaign finance graphics 2

This is your brain on Fox “news” and Limbaugh.

Citizens United and transparency: it really is your choice

What are the Democrats working on, with regard to donor transparency and the ridiculous idea that “corporations are people too” Citizens United ruling?

The Raw Story reports that Nancy Pelosi wants to fix the SCOTUS’ Citizens United ruling: “In a conference call, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) told reporters, “We must amend the constitutional to fix Citizens United.” Her latest call to action was spurred by Monday’s Supreme Court decision to overturn Montana’s 1912 law limiting corporate spending in political campaigns based on its 2010 Citizens United ruling. The court’s decision led Montana’s governor Brian Schweitzer (D) and Lt. Gov. John Bohlinger (R) to call for a constitutional amendment to overturn the decision.”

Great! What are the Republicans working on?

Mitch McConnell speaks to Fox NewsThink Progress reports that now Mitch McConnell things campaign donor disclosure amounts to “harassment” and “intimidation:” “In a speech… to the conservative American Enterprise Institute, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) took the stunning view that attempts to let voters know who is paying for political messages amounts to a “political weapon” aimed at intimidating political critics. [...] The whole point of disclosure is allowing voters to know who is speaking and to evaluate the credibility of that person or interest. If disclosure were only about harassment and intimidation of political opponents, surely disclosure of donations to political candidates is just as likely to lead to such harassment of donors.”

House Republican Leadership Address The Media After Conference MeetingAnd the LA Times reports that now that contribution limits for campaigns are gone, Republicans are no longer interested in public transparency: “During their long campaign to loosen rules on campaign money, conservatives argued that there was a simpler way to prevent corruption: transparency. Get rid of limits on contributions and spending, they said, but make sure voters know where the money is coming from. Today, with those fundraising restrictions largely removed, many conservatives have changed their tune. They now say disclosure could be an enemy of free speech.”

Your choice in November is pretty clear: do you believe in greater transparency with regard to corporations, churches, and individuals donating hundreds of millions of dollars to political campaigns, Super PACs and politicians — or do you defend greater secrecy for the wealthiest donors? Vote your choice, knowing that billionaires and profitable corporations aren’t making these business investments (political donations) for nothing. And history, even as recent as the past 30 years, tells us they’re surely not working for the  betterment of our society but to enact laws to make themselves even wealthier.

Jon Stewart on Romney’s weekend retreat for his wealthy bundlers

 
 
 
 

Source: sandandglass

RelatedMitt Romney’s presidential campaign may be the greatest business decision the one percent ever made — the “First National Romney Victory Leadership Retreat”

How to buy a Romney White House: Foster Friess and The Daily Caller

Earlier I posted that both Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and Wyoming almost-billionaire businessman Foster Friess were at the Faith and Freedom Conference yesterday. McConnell spoke about wanting to protect Republican donors from more disclosure laws — to protect them from “public scrutiny.”  Friess talked about his plans to donate to Romney’s campaign ‘undercover,’ giving money to Romney superPACs through 501(c)4 organizations which wouldn’t disclose where the contributions came from.

After Neil Munro of the The Daily Caller heckled President Obama yesterday in the Rose Garden, during his address on immigration and the Dream Act, and Tucker Carlson (Munro’s boss) obviously approved, it’s worth noting that Foster Friess helped start the Daily Caller with $3 million in seed money — and continues to invest in it.

Video of the Day: In a serious breach of etiquette, Neil Munro heckled the president and was immediately condemned. This makes sense when you realize that the Daily Caller isn’t “reporting” news and isn’t a neutral media outlet in any way. The Daily Caller, Tucker Carlson, and Neil Munro take their marching orders from their owners like Foster Friess who have a clear political agenda and have enough money to make it happen.

CNN commentary:

Imagine the rending of garments on the conservative side, had this been done to a Republican president. Dixie Chicks, anyone?

We have exactly 155 days: Obama or Romney

Romney’s PR HQ (Buzzfeed politics) has a roundup of every emo firebagger they could find, who’s had a ‘sad’ since the 2010 elections (which they didn’t bother to vote in). They want us all to know that their shattered hopes and dreams are the reason they’re not contributing to Obama’s campaign this time around:

Most Obama Donors Not Giving Again

“In 2008, more than 550,000 gave more than $200 to Barack Obama, entering their names in the longest list of individual donors ever seen in American politics,” Ben Smith reports.

“But now, as Obama struggles to keep pace with his 2008 fundraising clip, that list offers a cross-section of Democratic disappointment and alienation. According to a BuzzFeed analysis of campaign finance data, 88% of the people who gave $200 or more in 2008 — 537,806 people — have not yet given that sum this year. And this drop-off isn’t simply an artifact of timing. A full 87% of the people who gave $200 — the sum that triggers an itemized report to the Federal Elections Commission — through April of 2008, 182,078 people, had not contributed by the end of last month.”

I don’t know if these people are actually ‘real’ or more like urban legends — like the woman quoted in the article who says she wanted a more expansive health care bill: “We were a little upset about healthcare. I really, really wanted that public option,” Mrs. Leitzinger said (Really?! Still? I guess Obama should’ve just put that law through himself–who needs Congress?) — but what I do know is that there will be only two choices on November 6: Obama or Romney. And, sorry kids, as much as you hate hearing it — not choosing IS choosing.

In the next five months because of Citizens United, corporate interests and the one percent are going to try to buy themselves a president by injecting $1 BILLION into super PACs for national advertising to sway independents and moderates over to Romney. And as sure as the sun will rise in the morning, every fundamentalist, teabagger, and rightwinger — all the social conservatives — will be in line to vote for the Republican. Serious question: just how far do you think your progressive ideals and beliefs will go with “President Romney”? Remember George W — multiply him by Tea Party.

We only have five months. I haven’t gotten everything I wanted from Obama — but who’s ever gotten everything they want from one person in the entire history of the world?  I am able to realize that I’ve been happier with what he’s done, with what he represents, and especially with his potential than I ever would have been with McCain/Palin (that still makes me shudder!). Four more years of Obama extends his potential — and ours. The fact of the matter is that Mitt Romney doesn’t care about the things I care about — he doesn’t even pretend to care. No, I don’t want to extend tax cuts for the wealthiest, paid for by cutting programs and services to the neediest, with austerity for the rest of us — the not-wealthy. There’s no way Romney would ever consider issues or policies that I think are important. And there’s the deciding factor for me.

Because of this article, I contributed today and will continue through November 5. Maybe you should think about it too.

Do you really want to take a chance of waking up on November 7 with Romney as the winner?

Taking a hard look at the SnowbillyGrifterPAC

Do Palin’s donors feel as used as Conor Friedersdorf thinks they should? Can you believe they send her enough money that she blew through $418,000 in the first 3 months of 2012, without spending a thin dime on candidates?

An Open Letter to Sarah Palin: Why Do You Mistreat Your Donors?

Your supporters trust you. For all their cynicism about politics, they believe that you’re different: a faithful Christian with small town values and a commitment to doing right by regular Americans. You’ve used that trust to ask homemakers, retirees and small businessmen and women to send you their money. As the Web page of your official political action committee puts it, SarahPAC is “dedicated to building America’s future by supporting fresh ideas and candidates.”

But that isn’t how you’ve been spending the money.

[...] You’ve also spent $255,000 “on fundraising and a small team of political consultants.” And perhaps there’s a reasonable explanation for the $1,000 you spent at the Disneyland Resort in Lake Buena Vista, Florida.

What is it?

[...] Should people who give you money expect that you’ll make more videos about yourself that are totally unrelated to any campaign or issue? Do you think the money of rank and file conservatives is well spent building your personal brand? Why should anyone trust you as a steward of their money again? Did you think you’d get away with this just because the conservative media is curiously silent when popular movement figures shamelessly fleece the rank and file?

For the sake of your supporters, please do not reply by video.

Sincerely,

Conor Friedersdorf

Why does she mistreat her donors? Because she can. Palin lost the 2008 candidacy, along with McCain, and it’s been almost 3 years since she’s been a politician herself — and she quit that gig halfway through! She’s a failed reality-tv star (her first show had 5 million viewers but subsequent shows didn’t do as well so no second season), and until next year she still has a contract to randomly blather on Fox “News.” Oh, and she posts on Facebook a lot, has people write books for her, and talks to rightwing groups for a fee.

Who did she and Tawd endorse for the GOP candidate this year? Newt. And now who does she think would make a great vice presidential pick for Romney? Allen West, the guy who says he “heard” that up to 80 House Democrats are members of the Communist Party.  What could go wrong? I think everything she does at this point is for the lutz.

I wonder what the teabaggers think they’re getting for their money, exactly, when they send in their hard earned dollars to the ol’ PalinPACofGriftandSnowjob? Writing out the check to her ‘PAC’ might feel like you’re buying freedumb, or that you’re supporting Jesus and the American Flag, somehow. But the reasons are probably more along the lines of this image:

Rick “Secede With Me” Perry: Big Money donors and job creation in Texas

RICK PERRY HAS RECEIVED A LOT OF MONEY FROM THE RICH AND POWERFUL — and he’ll likely receive even more during his presidential campaign. What’s interesting is that if top donors like the wealthy and oil companies pay his way, which do you think Perry would be more likely to do away with for budgeting purposes: 1) tax breaks for the rich, 2) tax subsidies and loopholes for profitable corporations, or 3) Medicare and other services and programs for everyone else?

Perry has received a total of $37 million over the last decade from just 150 individuals and couples, who are likely to form the backbone of his new effort to win the Republican presidential nomination. The tally represented more than a third of the $102 million he had raised as governor through December, according to data compiled by the watchdog group Texans for Public Justice. Nearly half of those mega-donors received hefty business contracts, tax breaks or appointments under Perry… (via Los Angeles Times)

Think Progress reports on how much Perry has been funded by Big Oil:

Just Like former President George W. Bush, Rick Perry is heavily funded by the oil and gas industry. In fact, it has been Rick Perry’s very top source of funding:

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/BigOilHeartsPerry.png

Top oil company contributions include $189,188 from Exxon Mobil, $147,895 from Valero Energy, and $116,000 from Koch Industries.

But the big money rolling into Perry’s campaign coffers has ultimately been good for Texas, right? Isn’t there a ‘miracle’ going on with employment in Texas — don’t those tax cuts for the wealthy create jobs for everyone else? Marie Diamond comments on the employment situation in Texas:

Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY) is taking issue with the “Texas miracle” myth that Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX) is selling. This morning, Rangel told reporters that Perry’s record of job creation is nothing to be proud of because the jobs pay such low wages that “it’s one stage away from slavery.” Today, a New York Times review of Perry’s track record concluded, “Texas has one of the highest percentages of workers who are paid the minimum wage and receive no medical benefits.” Perry has also presided over a steady, decade-long decline in his state’s employment to population ratio. He inherited a ratio of more than 47 percent from George W. Bush, but now only 43.5 percent of Texans have a job, compared to 44.7 percent of the total U.S. population.

Who benefits from paying minimum wage without benefits do you suppose? Good bye, middle-class! Pat Garofalo points out unemployment numbers in Texas vs. the entire United States — Texas is worse:

Reuters’ Felix Salmon today highlighted data showing that Texas employment-to-population ratio — the percentage of the population that has a job — has plummeted under 2012 presidential contender Gov. Rick Perry’s (R-TX) watch:

THE LAST THING AMERICA NEEDS RIGHT NOW is Perry’s preferential treatment for Big Money donors combined with his ‘Texas miracle’ for our nation’s unemployment problem. Or as Paul Krugman says,

What Texas shows is that a state offering cheap labor and, less important, weak regulation can attract jobs from other states. I believe that the appropriate response to this insight is “Well, duh.” The point is that arguing from this experience that depressing wages and dismantling regulation in America as a whole would create more jobs — which is, whatever Mr. Perry may say, what Perrynomics amounts to in practice — involves a fallacy of composition: every state can’t lure jobs away from every other state.

In fact, at a national level lower wages would almost certainly lead to fewer jobs — because they would leave working Americans even less able to cope with the overhang of debt left behind by the housing bubble, an overhang that is at the heart of our economic problem.

So when Mr. Perry presents himself as the candidate who knows how to create jobs, don’t believe him. His prescriptions for job creation would work about as well in practice as his prayer-based attempt to end Texas’s crippling drought.