Special Interest Group?

There's no doubt that many "liberal" stances echo those of Common Cause, and perhaps that makes people who don't like "liberals" biased against them. But personally, I always thought Common Cause was trying to bring accountability and transparency to government: regardless of party. If that's what you would like to call a special interest, then so be it I guess. The middle and working-class people of this nation seem to be the group that doesn't have enough of a bank account to lobby Capitol Hill, so Common Cause fills that void.

Do you have any particular problems (converative slant or not) with making sure that peoples' votes are counted properly, or that a registered voter with a full-time job who pays his taxes has as much access to government as a large corporation?
Personally, I am an Unaffiliated (our version of Independent) voter from Rhode Island who votes for the candidates that I believe will do the best job for me in office... I have no "party affiliation", and I don't believe that either party fully represents my interests. And yet, I try to help out Common Cause because I believe that they are specifically working for people like me... people who aren't attached at the hip to the Democratic or Republican parties. I personally believe that's an extremely important job.

As to your other points:
1) ALL TV news is sensationalized and biased these days, no? If you've seen a car chase on the "news", it's sensationalized. That includes CNN, ABC, BBC, or whomever else you might think is liberal in slant. I just have a particular problem with Fox News because they blatently lie by saying they are "Fair and Balanced", when that one statement couldn't be farther from the truth. I support their rights as Americans to espouse their own views... I just wish they wouldn't call it unbiased.

2) Ann Coulter is a reactionary, much in the way Michael Moore is. While Mike decided it would be a good idea (that I consider in extremely poor taste) to bring a picture of a dead child to Charlton Heston's house, as if he had something directly to do with it... Ann sells her book by spouting lines like "The widows of 9/11 victims enjoyed their husbands' deaths". They both want to make money off of sensationalism. Do you find that to be in particularly good taste?

Anyways, I'm glad you are here to discuss things, and I am all for people being transparent and honest about their political affiliations. Of course, they have the right to choose not to do so, but as you say, that could cost them credibility with some.

Again, it's not that I don't believe in political parties... it's just that I've seen MORE than my fair share of corruption on the Democratic side in my home state of Rhode Island, where I worked with Common Cause's office there http://www.commoncauseri.org/ , to help pass the Separation of Powers ammendment to our constitution, which will prevent the Democrat-controlled General Assembly (our version of Congress) from appointing its own members to paid positions on executive boards. Does that not seem non-partisan to you?

Of course, personally, on the National side of things, I am appauled by the excesses, incompetence, and corruption within the Bush Administration and Republican-controlled Congress. So in closing: my personal views run the gambit of party-politics, but Common Cause seems to do its best (to me) to keep the ordinary American "looking over the shoulder" as it were, of ALL politicians across the nation.

Perhaps they aren't perfect, but it's people who are willing to engage in intelligent and open-minded debate that will only help them get better at it, eh?

It's not media bias

I don't think you can call it media bias that I don't quote articles criticizing Common Cause and our issues.  It's common sense -- this blog is here to promote and expand support for the public interest issues we advocate; why in the world would I potentially harm our advocacy efforts by showcasing people who disagree with us?

I also want to reiterate the fundamental disagreement I seem to have with you, La Perla.  You see our issues as "left-leaning" and "liberal," while I (and the rest of Common Cause) see them as in the public interest, which includes everyone.  People should realize that the work we do often necessitates criticizing those in power, because those are the people making the decisions.  When Democrats controlled the government, Common Cause was accused of being a Republican front group because we were so often at odds with the Democrats.  Now with Republicans in power, we are accused of being Democrat hacks.  I don't expect this to necessarily change, but I do wish people would open their minds more to our position that the reform issues we work on are to the benefit of the public as a whole, not just a single political sector.

My bad