Tag Archives: elections

Celebrating Our Metrosexual, Baby-Kissing, Gun-Toting Presidents

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

Happy Presidents’ Day! Why not celebrate by browsing MoJo‘s archives of presidential-themed photos, music, and trivia?

Q: Which president suffered from severe sleep apnea and was known for falling asleep in public?

A: Find out the answer when you take our quiz about our sickest* presidents. (*Sick as in ill, that is.)

Q: Which president owned Jesse James’ original pistols?

A: See these 13 photos of presidents holding guns.

Q: Which less-than-cuddly president is thought to have invented the tradition of politicians kissing unsuspecting babies?

A: Read up on the history of presidential child-smooching.

Q: Which presidents were name checked in a song by They Might Be Giants?

A: Listen to the answer in this musical roundup of 44 songs for 44 presidents.

Q: Which president’s tax returns revealed a $60 dividend from a frozen yogurt chain?

A: Search for frozen assets in this review of presidential tax forms.

Q: Which fashion-conscious future president was once called “Jane-Dandy” and “Oscar Wilde” by his colleagues?

A: Dig the most metrosexual presidents of all time.

Q: Which recent president has inspired thousands of Americans to name their baby girls after him?

A: Check out these charts on baby names honoring presidents (and Sarah Palin).

Bonus: See if you can make it through this video without experiencing motion sickness.

Original article:  

Celebrating Our Metrosexual, Baby-Kissing, Gun-Toting Presidents

Posted in GE, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Celebrating Our Metrosexual, Baby-Kissing, Gun-Toting Presidents

Georgia Legislators Propose Ending Direct Election of Senators—Why Not Just Get Rid of the Senate?

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

It is a matter of public record that the United States Senate is a terrible place where serious policy issues are ignored; routine votes are occasionally delayed over concerns about non-existent terrorist groups; and proverbial cans are proverbially kicked down the proverbial road of sadness, gridlock, and despair.

What’s less clear is why the Senate is such a congress of louts. Is it the endless pressure to raise money? The never-ending campaign? The fact that Americans hold lots of substantive disagreements on important things and are themselves—it’s been said—somewhat dysfunctional?

Actually, according to Georgia state Rep. Buzz Brockaway, the biggest problem with the Senate is that it’s democratically elected. Brockaway, a Republican, has introduced a bill in the state legislature to repeal the 17th Amendment, which provides for the direct election of senators, and instead restore the responsibility of choosing members to state legislatures (as was the process until 1913).

The bill, HR 273, laments that “the Seventeenth Amendment has resulted in a large federal government with power and control that cannot be checked by the states,” and suggests that “the original purpose of the United States Senate was to protect the sovereignty of the states from the federal government and to give each individual state government representation in the federal legislative branch of government.”

If the bill passed, Georgia would be the first state to endorse repealing the 17th Amendment, but the idea has gained traction among conservatives over the last few decades. Texas Gov. Rick Perry supports it; so do GOP Sens. Mike Lee of Utah and Jeff Flake of Arizona. (Republican Indiana Sen. candidate Richard Mourdock endorsed the idea during his campaign last year, before, in an ironic twist, losing the popular vote.) As Salon’s Alex Seitz-Wald noted in 2012, conservatives blame the 17th Amendment for trampling over the rights of states by changing the constituency to which senators are accountable.

Of course, introducing a bill is the easy part. Getting voters to agree to give up their right to vote will probably be a tough sell.

Read original article: 

Georgia Legislators Propose Ending Direct Election of Senators—Why Not Just Get Rid of the Senate?

Posted in GE, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Georgia Legislators Propose Ending Direct Election of Senators—Why Not Just Get Rid of the Senate?

Penny Pritzker, Longtime Obama Fundraiser, May Finally Get Her Cabinet Position

Early in President Barack Obama’s reelection campaign, when it looked as if he would be buried in an avalanche of money by Republican super-PACs and dark-money nonprofits, I talked to a lot of Democratic strategists and fundraisers who were fretting over the potential cash imbalance between Obama and Rove, the Kochs, and the rest of the GOP. Thinking about how to beat back that tide of cash, many of them raised the same question: Where is Penny Pritzker?

Pritzker, the Chicago businesswoman whose family owns the Hyatt hotel chain, chaired Obama’s national fundraising operation during his 2008 campaign, helping the campaign raise nearly $750 million. Post-election, she was rumored to be Obama’s top pick for secretary of the Department of Commerce. Yet the job ultimately went to someone else, and Pritzker went on to play a lesser role for Obama in 2011 and 2012, relinquishing her role as chief fundraiser (although she still bundled several hundred thousand dollars). Unlike mega-donors Jeffrey Katzenberg and Fred Eychaner, Pritzker irked Democratic fundraisers by not supporting the pro-Obama super-PAC Priorities USA Action. “The word was she wanted Commerce and didn’t get it and is all pissed off,” one well-connected Democratic strategist complained to me last summer.

Now, it looks like Pritzker might get her commerce gig after all. Bloomberg News quotes three anonymous sources saying Obama could soon name Pritzker as his new commerce secretary. A president naming one of his top fundraisers to a cabinet position is not uncommon in Washington; fundraisers and donors are often rewarded with ambassadorshipsâ&#128;&#148;or, in a few cases, cabinet jobs. This is how a winning presidential candidate thanks his biggest supporters. Indeed, folks who fundraise for a presidential campaign often go into the process eyeing a plush gig on the other sideâ&#128;&#148;if their candidate wins, of course. “You always have people that are interested in what’s next for them” in political fundraising, a former senior Obama campaign staffer says.

None of this is to say Pritzker lacks the qualifications for the job. She has years of experience in the private sector, having run a real estate company and served on the boards of Hyatt, the credit-reporting company TransUnion, and the Wm. Wrigley Jr. Company. That business experience, though, has caused her problems in the political world. Her family partially owned a bank that was ensnared in the subprime mortgage debacle, a blemish on her resume that hurt her chances of securing the commerce secretary job after the 2008 campaign.

But the subprime debacle is in the rear-view mirror in Washington, and Pritzker appears to be on the cusp of finally joining the Obama administration. If she does go to the Department of Commerce, it will mark a milestone in a decades-long friendship between Obama and Pritzker. In the 1990s, Pritzker met the future president through his brother-in-law, Craig Robinson, on a YMCA basketball court in Chicago. From the Y to the White House: that is quite a journey.

See original article:

Penny Pritzker, Longtime Obama Fundraiser, May Finally Get Her Cabinet Position

Posted in GE, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Penny Pritzker, Longtime Obama Fundraiser, May Finally Get Her Cabinet Position

Karl Rove’s New Super-PAC: Republicans Attacking Republicans!

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

No more Todd Akins. No more Richard Mourdocks. No more Republican primaries that produce divisive, gaffe-spewing GOP candidates.

That’s the aim of a new super-PAC, the Conservative Victory Fund, spearheaded by Karl Rove and his big-money juggernaut, American Crossroads. Rove’s new project plans to raise millions of dollars from the biggest GOP donors and then spend it on hard-hitting television ads and mailers during GOP primaries in marquee Senate races. The goal, as the New York Times reported this weekend, is blocking future Akins and Mourdocks from winning Senate primaries, while paving the way for less-divisive candidates with broader appeal and better odds of winning the general election. “We don’t view ourselves as being in the incumbent protection business, but we want to pick the most conservative candidate who can win,” Steven Law, the president of American Crossroads and a force behind the Conservative Victory Fund, told the Times.

Law singled out Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), who could run to replace outgoing Democratic Sen. Tom Harkin, as a controversial candidate the Conservative Victory Fund might target. King has a penchant for howlers: He’s hinted at questions about President Obama’s US citizenship, claimed minority students all “feel sorry for themselves,” insisted that the idea of diversity making American stronger “has really never been backed up by logic,” and compared illegal immigrants to dogs. “We’re concerned about Steve King’s Todd Akin problem,” Law said. “All of the things he’s said are going to be hung around his neck.” (King, for his part, said choosing the candidate to replace Harkin “is a decision for Iowans to make and should not be guided by some political staffers in Washington.”)

The Conservative Victory Fund’s creation threatens to stoke an already fiery internal battle over the future of the Republican Party. There are the Roves and Laws of the GOP, the pragmatic Beltway operators who backed Mitt Romney and who believe the party must tone down the demagoguery on immigration and social issues if they ever want to control of Congress and the White House again. On the other side are the ideologues, the GOP’s conservative wing, the Koch-backed groups and tea partiers and Grover Norquist acolytes who believe the party’s future lies in veering hard to the right and doubling down on pure conservative ideals.

With Rove’s new super-PAC in the mix, the GOP’s slate of 2014 primaries will be even nastier than expected in states such as Iowa, Georgia, and Kentucky, among others. The GOP needs to win six seats in 2014 to take back control of the Senate, and if that requires some intraparty combat, the Conservative Victory Fund looks ready to go to war. By the end of 2014’s primary season, don’t be surprised, to borrow a phrase from Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, to see quite a lot of blood and teeth left on the floor.

Continue reading: 

Karl Rove’s New Super-PAC: Republicans Attacking Republicans!

Posted in Citizen, GE, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Karl Rove’s New Super-PAC: Republicans Attacking Republicans!

The 2012 Election’s Price Tag: $7 Billion

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

The final campaign filings are in, and we can now put a price tag on the 2012 elections: $7 billion.

That’s how much candidates, parties, PACs, super-PACs, and politically active nonprofits spent last year to influence races up and down the ballot. As Politico reported, Ellen Weintraub, the chairwoman of the Federal Election Commission, announced the $7 billion figure this week. Candidates spent the bulk of the 2012 total, at $3.2 billion, while parties spent $2 billion and outside groups $2.1 billion.

The FEC’s $7 billion figure is about a billion dollars more than what transparency groups had projected for 2012. It’s the most money ever spent during one election cycle in US history, a cycle in which Barack Obama became the first $1 billion candidate, both Obama and Romney rejected public financing, and outside spending soared to levels never before seen in the post-Watergate era.

Here’s more from Politico on 2012’s $7 billion price tag:

“It’s obviously only an estimate,” Weintraub told Politico. “It’s really hard to come up with ‘the number.'” And Weintraub said future elections could see even more spending.

“It’s a lot of money. Every presidential election is the most expensive ever. Elections don’t get cheaper,” she added. Spending in the first post-Citizens United presidential election exploded as the FEC remained gridlocked on critical issues. Three years after the Supreme Court ruling that changed the campaign finance system, the FEC has yet to change its regulations to address the decision.

The agency also found that despite the proliferation of super PACs, traditional political action committees outspent the new breed. Of the total spending by outside committees, $1.2 billion was spent by traditional PACs and $950 million was spent by super PACs.

This article:

The 2012 Election’s Price Tag: $7 Billion

Posted in Citizen, GE, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on The 2012 Election’s Price Tag: $7 Billion

Retiring Senator: Congress Doesn’t Work Because We Fundraise Way Too Much

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

After 40 years in Congress, Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), a graying liberal lion, is calling it quits. He announced over the weekend that he won’t seek reelection in 2016.

In an interview with the Washington Post, Harkin was asked whether US Senate was “not as fun for him as it used to be.” No, it’s not, Harkin offered, and he pointed to, of all things, the spiraling cost of elections as a major reason why:

It’s not as much fun in that we’re so consumed with other things. Here’s what I mean: we used to have a Senate Dining Room that was only for senators. We’d go down there and sit around there, and Joe Biden and Fritz Hollings and Dale Bumpers and Ted Stevens and Strom Thurmond and a bunch of us—Democrats and Republicans. We’d have lunch and joke and tell stories, a great camaraderie. That dining room doesn’t exist any longer because people quit going there. Why did they quit going? Well, we’re not there on Monday, and we’re not there on Friday. Tuesday we have our party caucuses. That leaves Wednesday and Thursday—and guess what people are doing then? They’re out raising money.

The time is so consumed with raising money now, these campaigns, that you don’t have the time for the kind of personal relationships that so many of us built up over time. So in that way, fun, I don’t know, there needs to be more time for senators to establish personal relationships than what we are able to do at this point in time.

The emphasis is mine. Those of us who follow political money read reports and op-eds, listen to speeches and panels and testimonies, and often the criticism is that big money in elections “drowns out” the voices of everyday Americans. But rarely do we hear about the impact of all that money on members of Congress themselves and how they do their jobs (or don’t). Only when lawmakers like Sen. Harkin, with an eye on the exit, pipe up do we get that insider’s view of what’s gained—and lost—in today’s cash-soaked politics. To be clear, the disgusting amount of time lawmakers spend raising money doesn’t just stymie real friendships and make the Senate less fun; when few senators get along, it makes the Senate less functional.

Harkin is not the only senator to point this out. Last year another liberal stalwart, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), memorably told Alex Blumberg of NPR’s Planet Money that Americans “would be shocked—not surprised, but shocked—if they knew how much time a United States senator spends raising money.” He added, “And how much time we spend talking about raising money, and thinking about raising money, and planning to raise money.”

And how much time are talking about here? It varies from lawmaker to lawmaker, but here’s a PowerPoint slide prepared by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee that outlined the “model daily schedule” for incoming freshmen Democrats (the presentation was first obtained by the Huffington Post):

“Call time” means fundraising time: hours spent on the phone calling up current and potential donors and asking for campaign cash. The DCCC tells its freshmen to spend more time calling donors than they spend on anything else. Ezra Klein called it “the most depressing graphic for members of Congress.” I’m sure Tom Harkin would agree.

Taken from: 

Retiring Senator: Congress Doesn’t Work Because We Fundraise Way Too Much

Posted in GE, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Retiring Senator: Congress Doesn’t Work Because We Fundraise Way Too Much

In the Future, Everyone Will Have a Super-PAC

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

Charles Spies has seen the future of American elections, and it is drenched with super-PAC cash—much of it aimed at getting single politicians elected.

That’s what Spies told me recently when I asked him to peer into his crystal ball and venture a prediction about the future of big-money politics in America. Spies (rhymes with “cheese”) is a well-connected Republican lawyer and former top adviser to Mitt Romney’s 2008 campaign. For the last election cycle, however, Spies choose to support Romney’s presidential bid in a new way: He started a super-PAC.

Restore Our Future, the super-PAC Spies launched with two other Romney ’08 alums, strategist Carl Forti and ad man Larry McCarthy, spent $161 million—the most of any super-PAC—to help elect Romney president, mostly by blasting President Obama with negative ads. Spies’ candidate, of course, lost, but his experience running Restore Our Future taught him a thing or two about the strange, rapidly changing new world of super-PACs.

Super-PACs may have spent $635 million during the 2012 elections, but that’s chump change compared to what they’ll likely unload in the next presidential election. (Only 45 months away!) Ditto for the 2014 midterm elections compared to the 2010 midterms. Spies predicts at least 250 new super-PACs will spend serious money on races up and down the ballot in 2014. And he says voters should expect a lot of them to be devoted to promoting the fortune of a single House or Senate candidate, big-money bazookas firing away to nudge their preferred politician that much closer to Washington.

Continue Reading »

Originally from: 

In the Future, Everyone Will Have a Super-PAC

Posted in GE, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on In the Future, Everyone Will Have a Super-PAC

Gristedes Tycoon John Catsimatidis Launching New York Mayoral Bid Next Week

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

John Catsimatidis, the controversial billionaire Republican whose business empire includes real estate, an oil refining company, and the Gristedes supermarket chain, is running for mayor of New York City this year. For real. He told me Friday morning that he plans to officially announce his candidacy at a press conference on Tuesday.

Catsimatidis flirted with entering the 2009 mayoral race, going so far as to hire staffers and set up an exploratory committee. But he never jumped in, and Michael Bloomberg went on to narrowly defeat city comptroller Bill Thompson. (Bloomberg is term-limited and cannot run again.) Late last year, Catsimatidis started a campaign account for the 2013 race and talked publicly of exploring options, sparking speculation that he would again flash some leg before ultimately retreating.

But Catsimatidis now insists he’s all in. “I’m running,” he declares. His potential competitors in the GOP primary include Metropolitan Transportation Authority chairman Joe Lhota, Bronx Borough President (and ex-Democrat) Adolfo Carrion Jr., and newspaper publisher Tom Allon, who switched from Democratic to Republican for this election. Should he win the Republican contest, Catsimatidis could face Democrats City Council Speaker Christine Quinn, city comptroller John Liu, or New York public advocate Bill de Blasio in the November general election.

Catsimatidis, like Allon, used to identify as a Democrat. In the 1990s, he raised huge anounts of money for President Bill Clinton’s reelection campaign. But he jumped to the Republican Party in 2007 because, he explained at the time, doing so gave him clearer path to the general election, with several prominent Democrats rumored to be running. Since then, Catsimatidis has stuck with the GOP and blasted Barack Obama as an inexperienced, ineffective, anti-business president. In December, he drew a comparison between singling out wealthy Americans for tax increases and the Holocaust. “We can’t punish any one group and chase them away,” he asserted on a local teelvision show. “We—I mean, Hitler punished the Jews. We can’t have punishing the 2-percent group right now.” (He subsequently backed away from the Hitler analogy, adding, “I think the rich should pay more in taxes, I agree with that 100 percent, but everybody should feel the pain a little bit.”)

Catsimatidis, not surprisingly, backed Mitt Romney in 2012, raising millions in campaign cash in the New York area for the Romney-Ryan ticket. (He still attends fundraisers for Democrats, he says.)

This Sunday, Catsimatidis is hosting a fundraiser for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) at his apartment. Castsimatidis notes that this is his way of thanking McConnell for not impeding the $60 billion Hurricane Sandy relief bill that passed the Senate in December. Asked why he is fundraising for McConnell, who voted against the first Sandy relief bill, Catsimatidis says the Kentucky senator could’ve done much to kill the bill, but elected not to do so. “What should I do instead? Kick sand at McConnell for voting against the measure?” he asks. “No, I say thank you.”

Read this article: 

Gristedes Tycoon John Catsimatidis Launching New York Mayoral Bid Next Week

Posted in GE, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Gristedes Tycoon John Catsimatidis Launching New York Mayoral Bid Next Week

Republicans Might Be Outsmarting Themselves on the Electoral College

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

Republicans, apparently convinced that they really are facing demographic doom, have been taking increasingly desperate measures to ensure their continued existence. Does this include an effort to moderate their views in order to win more votes? Don’t be silly. Instead, they’re trying to game the mechanics of the voting system itself. The last two years, of course, have seen a raft of new voter ID laws designed to reduce participation by groups most likely to vote for Democrats: students, the poor, and minorities. But that’s not enough. The Electoral College is looking tougher and tougher for Republicans—especially for hardcore conservative Republicans, who are suffering declining support outside the South—so that’s their next target.

The plan is simple: There are half a dozen states that are controlled by Republicans but that often vote for Democratic presidents. Since most states (Nebraska and Maine are the only exceptions) use winner-take-all rules, this means that when Democrats win these states they get 100 percent of their electoral votes. So what would happen if these states instead divvied up their EVs by congressional district? Emory’s Alan Abramowitz does the arithmetic:

If the congressional district system had been used in these six states in 2012, instead of Obama winning all of their 106 electoral votes, it appears that Romney would have won 61 electoral votes to only 45 for Obama. As a result, Obama’s margin in the national electoral vote would have been reduced from 332-206 to only 271-267.

That certainly makes things closer. A result like that would mean that Republicans were still very much in the ballgame, just a single small state away from victory.

However, Republicans might be outsmarting themselves. If this system of divvying up electoral votes were adopted nationwide, you could make a case for it. But the unfairness of adopting this system only in states that Democrats usually win is palpable. States in the deep South, for example, have no intention of adopting a similar system, and will continue awarding 100 percent of their electoral votes to Republican candidates. Republicans are picking and choosing different systems in different states, with not even a pretense that they’re doing it for any reason aside from choosing whichever system benefits Republicans the most in each state. This is so obviously outrageous that it’s likely to prompt a backlash.

Democrats don’t have the votes to fight back with anything similar, but they do have another weapon in their back pocket: the National Popular Vote interstate compact, an agreement among states to award all their electoral votes to whichever presidential candidate wins the popular vote nationwide. If states with more than half of all electoral votes sign up for this, it goes into effect.

So far, only nine states with a total of 132 electoral votes have signed up. But if Republicans continue their patently shameful effort to game the Electoral College system, it might spur more states to sign up. That’s what a sense of outrage can do. Republicans might want to think about that as they move forward. If they keep going, the end result might be a system even less favorable to them than the current electoral college.

Original post:  

Republicans Might Be Outsmarting Themselves on the Electoral College

Posted in GE, LG, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Republicans Might Be Outsmarting Themselves on the Electoral College

Why An Unknown Senator Named CeCe Is a Breakthrough in the Campaign Money Wars

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

You probably haven’t heard of Cecilia Tkaczyk—CeCe to her friends. But the nation’s leading activists fighting to get big money out of politics want you to hear her story. After months in court, Tkacyzk squeaked out the second-narrowest win in the history of New York’s state Senate, a win progressives are hailing as a potential turning point in the fight to clean up Albany’s noxious politics. And if they can pass reform in New York, the front line of the campaign finance wars, activists believe they can pressure other states to do the same.

Liberals love Tkaczyk because she made the public financing of elections a central issue, if not the issue, in her campaign. The underdog in a race against GOP state Assemblyman George Amedore, Tkaczyk proposed replacing New York State’s lax campaign finance system with a voluntary program that matches small-dollar donations with taxpayer money. The idea: nudge candidates to court lots of less wealthy individual donors instead of wooing a handful of rich ones. Throughout the campaign, Tkaczyk pressed Amedore on the campaign cash issue, and in the final weeks of the campaign, Amedore turned around and attacked her specifically over public financing, ripping it as too costly and unnecessary.

Strange, right? Two candidates locking horns over…campaign finance? Yet in the Amedore-Tkaczyk race, the dry, unsexy issue of money in politics was front and center.

After the ballots had been counted, and a few dozen votes separated Amedore and Tkacyzk, the election headed to the courts. The two sides fought over which ballots to count and which to exclude, Amedore briefly took a 37-vote lead, but then, more than two months after the election, the court’s decision to count a few more ballots tipped the race to Tkacyzk. According to the current count, she won by 19 votes. Campaign reformers point to her victory as proof, albeit on a small scale, that corruption and the influence of money in politics resonates with voters, and that an anti-big-money candidate can win by running on this specific issue. “Her victory shows that voters will support candidates who champion real campaign finance reform, including citizen-funded elections,” says Jonathan Soros, who runs Friends of Democracy, which he calls an anti-super-PAC super-PAC.

Yes, Tkaczyk had lots of help. Progressive groups such as Citizen Action of New York and the Working Families Partner phone-banked and knocked on doors. Soros’ super-PAC spent $265,000 on polling, TV ads, and phone calls to elect Tkaczyk, focusing on the campaign finance issue. And Protect Our Democracy, another pro-reform super-PAC started by investor Sean Eldridge, the husband of Facebook cofounder Chris Hughes, spent thousands more to back Tkaczyk while highlighting the campaign money issue. If all that spending sounds a tad ironic to you—outside groups spending big to support an anti-big-money candidate—that’s because it is.

But Soros and Eldridge say they want to build a coalition of pro-campaign-reform candidates in New York State, and they argue that it takes money to do so. They focused on New York State Senate races because Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo has repeatedly signaled his support for public financing—but he needs the legislature to send him a bill. Tkaczyk’s win adds another pro-reform Democrat to the state Senate. Now, in a divided state Senate, the hard work begins. “It’s now up to Ms. Tkaczyk,” the Albany Times-Union wrote in an recent editorial, “and all those politicians from Gov. Andrew Cuomo on down who say they stand for campaign reform to live up to their promises to do it.”

See the original article here – 

Why An Unknown Senator Named CeCe Is a Breakthrough in the Campaign Money Wars

Posted in Citizen, GE, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on Why An Unknown Senator Named CeCe Is a Breakthrough in the Campaign Money Wars