Author Archives: CarmeloPerkinson

The History of Self-Funded Candidates is Littered With Losers. Sad!

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Following the latest reports of Donald Trump’s dismal presidential fundraising, the self-professed billionaire insisted he could bail himself out. “If need be, there could be unlimited ‘cash on hand,’ as I would put up my own money,” he said in a statement. Trump has been insisting that he can single-handedly finance his campaign for months. “I’m self-funding my own campaign,” he boasted in February.

So far, more than 70 percent of his campaign’s funds have come from loans he’s made to himself. (Among the top recipients of his campaign spending are his and his family’s businesses.) If Trump’s really going all the way on his own dime—which is unlikely—he’ll have to beat the historically poor showing of self-funded candidates.

Ross Perot

Spent $72 million running for president, 1992/1996
The Texas billionaire dipped deep into his pockets to finance his ill-fated runs, including spending $2.9 million in 1992 to air 30-minute TV ads such as the chart-laden infomercial called “Chicken Feathers, Deep Voodoo, and the American Dream.”

Michael Huffington

Spent $28 million running for the US Senate in California, 1994
Huffington, then married to future napping guru and media mogul Arianna, spent a record amount on his Senate race, prompting another Republican to decry the “increasing power on the part of moneyed interest.” The naysayer: Mitt Romney, who later pumped $45 million into his 2008 presidential run.

Meg Whitman

Spent $144 million running for California governor, 2010
The ex-eBay CEO bid high for the Golden State’s top job but was shut out by Jerry Brown, who spent 80 percent less.

Michael Bloomberg

Spent $250 million running for New York City mayor, 2001/2005/2009
Bloomberg has spent more of his personal wealth in (successful) pursuit of office than any other American. When he floated the idea of a 2016 presidential bid, sources said he was willing to spend at least $1 billion.

Linda McMahon

Spent $99 million running for the US Senate in Connecticut, 2010/2012
McMahon, the former CEO of World Wrestling Entertainment, got body-slammed in back-to-back races in which she put up more than 95 percent of her campaign budget. “It’s an incredible amount of money to spend on a campaign,” she conceded after her second loss.

Richard Tarrant

Spent $7 million running for the US Senate in Vermont, 2006
In the annals of self-funded candidates, Tarrant is a small fry. But the Republican will be remembered for blowing his wad on negative ads and still getting burned by Bernie Sanders.

Steve Forbes

Spent $76 million running for president, 1996/2000
George W. Bush scrambled to raise more than $100 million in 2000, partly out of fear of the flat-tax advocate and Forbes editor’s family fortune. Yet Forbes gained little traction in his runs, proving once again that self-funding your political career may be, in the words of his eponymous business mag, “the worst political investment.”

Visit source:

The History of Self-Funded Candidates is Littered With Losers. Sad!

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The History of Self-Funded Candidates is Littered With Losers. Sad!

Two Questions About Hillary Clinton’s Email Server

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Lots of people have asked lots of questions about Hillary Clinton and her email server. That’s fair enough. But I’ve got a couple of questions for the people with all the questions. There might be simple answers to these, but they’ve been bugging me for a while and I still don’t really understand them. Here they are:

One of the most persistent suspicions is that Hillary set up a private server in order to evade FOIA requests. But this has never made any sense to me. What could possibly have led either Hillary or her staff to believe this? There’s simply nothing in either the statute or in the way it’s been applied in practice to suggest that official communications are beyond the reach of FOIA just because they’re in private hands.

On a related note, what was going on in the State Department’s FOIA office? They received several FOIA requests that required them to search Hillary’s email, and responded by saying there was no record of anything relevant to the request. But the very first time they did this, they must have realized that Hillary’s email archive wasn’t just sparse, but nonexistent. Did they ask Hillary’s office about this? If not, why not? If they did, what were they told? This should be relatively easy to answer since I assume these folks can be subpoenaed and asked about it.

Generally speaking, the reason I’ve been skeptical about this whole affair is that the nefarious interpretations have never made much sense to me. What Hillary did was almost certainly dumb—as she’s admitted herself—and it’s possible that she even violated some regulations. But those are relatively minor things. Emailgate is only a big issue if there was some kind of serious intent to defraud, and that hardly seems possible:

Hillary’s private server didn’t protect her from FOIA requests and she surely knew this.
By all indications, she was very careful about her email use and never wrote anything she might regret if it became public.
And it hardly seems likely that she thought she could delete embarrassing emails before turning them over. There’s simply too much risk that the missing emails would show up in someone else’s account, and that really would be disastrous. Her husband might be the type to take idiotic risks like that, but she isn’t.

School me, peeps. I fully acknowledge that maybe I’m just not getting something here. What’s the worst case scenario that’s actually plausible?

POSTSCRIPT: Note that I’m asking here solely about FOIA as it applies to the Hillary Clinton email server affair. On a broader level, FOIA plainly has plenty of problems, both in terms of response time and willingness to cooperate with the spirit of the statute.

Source – 

Two Questions About Hillary Clinton’s Email Server

Posted in FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Two Questions About Hillary Clinton’s Email Server