"Almost everyone raising the big money these days will tell you: You start your fundraising network by thinking of people . . . who can't say no."
Check out last week's Washington Post article detailing the newly popular method of bundling for campaign fundraising.
"One of my dear clients asked me if I would help contribute and I said yes, even if I don't think McCain's going to win," Mingolelli said. "And to be honest, if it came down to McCain and Romney, I'd probably go with Romney."
Bundlers' source of employees, clients, and subordinates for campaign contributions shows just how off-base our democratic system has become. Even worse is the image this creates that raising the most money translates into being the best candidate.
Here's a worrisome story that has roots in big political money. Contrary to all logic, the USDA filed an appeal yesterday to block Creekstone Farms, a Kansas-based meatpackaging firm, from their efforts to mandate testing for Mad Cow disease in all their cattle. The USDA's appeal on a March 2007 court decision to allow Creekstone farms access and use of the tests was not a surprise. Since Creekstone farms first proposed to test 100% of their cattle, the Department of Agriculture has stood in opposition, citing that "The Agriculture Department regulates the test and argued that widespread testing could lead to a false positive that would harm the meat industry."
The reality, of course, probably has little to do with a worry about a false positive.
"Larger meat companies feared that move because, if Creekstone should test its meat and advertised it as safe, they might have to perform the expensive tests on their larger herds as well."
Well, gosh, why would we want these megafirms--who already dominate the industry--to spend extra money for something as trivial as protecting consumers' health?
The allegations reported by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review against Rep. Tim Murphy (R-Pa) back in 2006 have yet to be fully investigated by the House Ethics Committee. Murphy was accused in November 2006 for using his congressional staff to help him in his campaign for re-election.
Seeing as
"House ethics rules prohibit members of Congress from using their offices, staff, equipment and supplies for campaign purposes,"
one would assume that an investigation into his unethical use of staffers' time would have occurred within the the past 6 months.
Accusations against the congressman made by several of his staff members included things such as the use of his congressional office for campaign-related activities and the instruction of his staff(during the work-day) to address, stuff, and mail greeting cards to Muphy's campaign contributers. One staffer recalled that "Congressman Murphy would very often say, 'Don't you people care about your jobs? If I'm not re-elected, you don't have jobs."
Although Murphy denied the allegations and was re-elected in November, the lack of investigation into these reports is outrageous.
The North County Times, a California newspaper serving San Diego and Riverside Counties, reported that money can talk, especially in San Bernardino County, at all levels of government. San Bernardino's Bill Postmus spent an outrageous $2.4 million dollars on his campaign to win the seat of county assessor in his local 2006 election.
In California, where the majority of its 58 counties and 478 cities do not cap individual contributions to candidates running for local offices, special interests such as developers and casino-operators are spending thousands to buy political influence at the expense of the community.
Common Blog
