Tag Archives: republican

Jeb Bush Just Got His Big Chance to Impress the Koch Brothers

by TerenceBuchholz Posted on June 22, 2015

Mother Jones

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

Jeb Bush will finally get his chance to audition for the Koch brothers.

For months, there has been speculation about which GOP 2016 hopeful will win the backing of the billionaire brothers and their donor network, but the former Florida governor has been conspicuously absent from the conversation. In January, Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Rand Paul (R-Ky.), and Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), as well as Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, attended the winter conference organized by the conservative brothers in California, but Bush did not make an appearance. And in April, David Koch was reportedly spreading the word that he liked Walker—or even a Walker-Rubio ticket. This was not surprising. The Kochs and their lieutenants were not major fans of the George W. Bush administration, and they may well be reluctant to see another member of the Bush dynasty occupy the White House. But representatives of the brothers said the door was not closed to Bush and he still has a chance to win their dollars.

In a matter of weeks, that opportunity will come. Bush, it was announced on Monday, will give the keynote address on August 21 at the “Defending the American Dream” summit organized by Americans for Prosperity, the advocacy group founded and partly funded by the Kochs. At this event, Bush will have his shot to impress the Kochs and their inner circle. He won’t be singing for his supper; he’ll just be auditioning for millions of dollars—perhaps hundreds of millions of dollars—in support.

Continue Reading »

Link – 

Jeb Bush Just Got His Big Chance to Impress the Koch Brothers

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Jeb Bush Just Got His Big Chance to Impress the Koch Brothers

America’s Election Watchdogs Are Literally Arguing Over Whether FEC Commissioners Are People

by CharlaHarpster Posted on June 18, 2015

Mother Jones

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

The Federal Election Commission hit a bizarre new low on Thursday when its three Republican commissioners declared during a contentious meeting that two of their Democratic colleagues aren’t, legally speaking, people when it comes to petitioning their own agency.

Confused? Let me explain: Last week, FEC chair Ann Ravel and commissioner Ellen Weintraub, both Democrats, took the unusual step of filing a petition to their own commission, complaining that the agency is not doing its job of enforcing campaign finance law. The petition asked the commission to consider making new rules on several key issues, including the regulation of foreign money and the coordination between super-PACs and campaigns, arguing that currently the FEC is shirking its duty by not addressing these concerns. Weintraub said at the time that she didn’t have high hopes for substantive change but thought filing a petition highlighting the issue of deadlock might at least force a public discussion of the problem.

At Thursday’s meeting, the approval of four of the agency’s six commissioners was needed to move the petition to the next step in the process, opening it up for public comment.

Ordinarily, this is a pro forma vote, but instead the three Republican commissioners objected to the petition on the grounds that Ravel and Weintraub, as commissioners, don’t have legal standing as “interested persons.” The petition procedure is meant for citizens and members of the public, they said.

“I cannot believe that you are actually going to take the position that I am not a person,” Weintraub responded. “A corporation is a person, but I’m not a person?”

Facing off with GOP vice chairman Matthew Petersen, Weintraub asked, “You want to insist that I am not a person?”

“That’s right,” Petersen responded.

“That’s how bad it has gotten,” Weintraub scoffed. “My colleagues will not admit that I am a person. That’s really striking.”

Citing concerns about legal procedure, the commission put a vote on hold on whether to allow the commissioners’ petition to move forward to the next step in the process.

Source: 

America’s Election Watchdogs Are Literally Arguing Over Whether FEC Commissioners Are People

Posted in alo, Anchor, Citizen, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on America’s Election Watchdogs Are Literally Arguing Over Whether FEC Commissioners Are People

TPP, TPA, and TAA: Explaining the Unexplainable

by ConcepcionHargis Posted on June 18, 2015

Mother Jones

Even granting that I haven’t followed the TPP treaty debate all that closely, the latest maneuvering to get it passed is a little puzzling. As you may recall, the original strategy was to pair up TPA, which most Democrats oppose, with TAA, which most Democrats like, in hopes of attracting enough Democratic votes to pass the whole package. With these preliminaries out of the way, Congress could then vote on TPP itself. It didn’t work. Dems voted heavily against TAA anyway, because they knew it would sink TPA too. So what’s next?

Hold on. That probably barely sounded like English to some of you. Here’s an acronym primer:

TPP = Trans Pacific Partnership, a trade treaty between the United States and bunch of other countries around the Pacific Rim. It’s been under negotiation for years and will be ready for a ratification vote soon.

TPA = Trade Promotion Authority, aka “fast track.” This comes before the TPP vote, and guarantees that the treaty text will be submitted to Congress for an up-or-down vote with no amendments allowed. Without it, the treaty is dead, since obviously all the other countries won’t allow the US to unilaterally makes changes.

TAA = Trade Adjustment Assistance. Trade agreements with poor countries often lead to job losses in the US, as jobs get moved overseas. TAA is a laundry list of measures designed to help workers who lose their jobs because of the treaty, and it’s supposed to make trade treaties more tolerable to organized labor. It very decidedly failed to do so this time.

Now go read the first paragraph of this post again.

Right. So where were we? Oh yes: The TPA+TAA package bombed with anti-treaty Democrats, and it needed at least a few Democratic votes to pass. So what’s next?

On Thursday the House will vote on just the fast-track portion—also known as Trade Promotion Authority, or TPA—on the understanding that the workers’ aid would be approved later.

….In a renewed push to win support for the fast-track bill, Mr. Obama huddled Wednesday at the White House with pro-trade Democrats. House Speaker John Boehner (R., Ohio) and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.), meanwhile, said they would find a way to separately pass legislation renewing the workers’ aid program, also known as Trade Adjustment Assistance or TAA, hoping to shore up the Democratic support necessary for the new plan.

Hmmm. TPA actually passed the House last week, even though TAA had already been voted down earlier in the day. So I guess the idea here is that pro-treaty Democrats will vote for TPA as a standalone bill too. I mean, if they were willing to vote for it last week after TAA had been defeated, why not vote for it this week with no TAA? Following that, it’s just a matter of sending the standalone TPA bill to the Senate and finding out if a few Democrats there will still vote for it even without TAA.

It’s all a little weird and desperate, but it might work. Republicans are swearing that if TPA passes, they’ll bring up TAA for a vote later, which is supposed to appease Democratic concerns about job losses. Dems only voted against TAA in order to kill TPA, so if TPA has already passed there’s no longer any reason for them to vote against TAA.

Of course, even if Republicans allow a vote on TAA, it also needs a few Republican votes to pass, and the problem here is the opposite: Republicans have little reason to vote for TAA once TPA has already passed and there’s no longer any need to appease Democrats. But Democrats can’t pass it alone. They need some Republican votes too. So do they trust the GOP leadership to deliver those votes?

Jesus. What a rat’s nest. If you didn’t understand any of that, try reading it again. And then again. If it still doesn’t make sense, just forget the whole thing and eat a quart of ice cream. You’ll be better off.

Visit source:  

TPP, TPA, and TAA: Explaining the Unexplainable

Posted in alo, ATTRA, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on TPP, TPA, and TAA: Explaining the Unexplainable

Dear Rick Santorum: Sorry, the Pope Actually Did Study Science. So He Might Know About Science.

by ElliottRundle Posted on June 16, 2015

Mother Jones

“I am not a scientist!” is now the standard escape hatch through which Republican climate deniers slither to avoid talking about climate science or evolution. From Sen. Marco Rubio, asked how old the Earth is: “I’m not a scientist, man.” Rick Perry whipped out the same “I’m not a scientist” line last year in DC while questioning the consensus around climate change. Jeb Bush said the same thing back in 2009.

Now at least one GOP presidential hopeful is turning the talking point into an attack on the pope, ahead of his landmark encyclical on the environment, to be released Thursday. (A draft of the document has already leaked). Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, a Catholic with a history of criticizing Pope Francis, says the pope should leave science to the scientists. “The church has gotten it wrong a few times on science,” he told Dom Giordano, a radio host in Philadelphia, earlier this month. “And I think that we are probably better off leaving science to the scientists and focusing on what we’re really good at, which is theology and morality.”

One problem with Santorum’s retort? The pope, while obviously not a climate scientist (he’s the pope), actually did study science and therefore might have a better grasp of fundamental scientific processes than most people who have not studied science.

The National Catholic Reporter and the Official Vatican Network both report that Francis, then Jorge Bergoglio, earned a technician’s degree in chemistry from a technical school in Buenos Aires before joining the seminary. Sylvia Poggioli from NPR also reports Francis worked as a chemist. Listen to her report from Morning Edition, below, from Rome:

And for good measure, here’s a video my Climate Desk colleagues—Tim McDonnell and Suzanne Goldenberg (from the Guardian)—put together last week. They asked a bunch of climate change deniers at the annual Heartland Institute conference in Washington, DC, what they think of the pope’s calls for action on climate change:

See the article here – 

Dear Rick Santorum: Sorry, the Pope Actually Did Study Science. So He Might Know About Science.

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, Landmark, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Dear Rick Santorum: Sorry, the Pope Actually Did Study Science. So He Might Know About Science.

Every Four Years, We Vote For Our Heart’s Desire

by HelenaHastings Posted on June 13, 2015

Mother Jones

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

After listening to Hillary Clinton’s official announcement speech, Ezra Klein has a question:

Clinton name-checked almost every center-left policy idea in existence: universal pre-k, guaranteed paid sick days, massive investments in clean energy, rewriting the tax code, raising the minimum wage, and so on….Many of these ideas are good. But there’s a Democrat in the White House right now. He supports these ideas, too. And yet, they languish in press releases and stalled legislation. How will Hillary Clinton make them law?

Well, yeah, that’s a good question. It’s also a good question for the Republican nominee, who will probably have to face a Democratic Senate, and at the very least will have to face Democratic filibusters. That means a Republican president might be able to cut taxes, but not a whole lot more.

I dunno. Maybe that’s enough for Republicans. Get in a few tax cuts, appoint some conservative judges, and prevent anything new from happening. Nobody’s ecstatic, but everybody’s satisfied.

In any case, I doubt it’s an issue for Hillary either. As near as I can tell, Americans seem to vote for president based almost solely on affinity. That is, they vote for whoever says the right things, with no concern for whether those things are obviously impossible or little more than self-evident panders. It’s kind of amazing, really. Most voters seemingly just don’t care if presidential candidates are lying or stretching or even being entirely chimerical. They merely want to hear the desire to accomplish the right things. Every four years, they really do take the word for the deed.

I suppose it’s like that everywhere, not just America.

More:  

Every Four Years, We Vote For Our Heart’s Desire

Posted in alo, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Every Four Years, We Vote For Our Heart’s Desire

Take that, Trans-Pacific Partnership! Enviros celebrate as Obama’s trade agenda takes a blow

by HaiNorrie587230 Posted on June 12, 2015

Take that, Trans-Pacific Partnership! Enviros celebrate as Obama’s trade agenda takes a blow

By on 12 Jun 2015commentsShare

Environmental groups and a host of allies won a major victory on Friday when House Democrats derailed Obama’s “free trade” agenda — at least for now.

Through some congressional maneuvering, House Democrats threw a critical roadblock in front of a plan to give the president trade promotion authority (TPA) that he could use to push through the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a trade deal that many environmentalists, among others, are deeply skeptical about. (Look out for more acronyms below!) TPA would “fast track” the trade deal, constraining Congress to a “yes” or “no” vote on it and allowing Obama more leeway to negotiate what the deal would contain.

Both TPA and TPP have found favor with most Republicans, but they’ve also brought together a broad coalition in opposition. Tea Partiers who oppose Obama’s authority more or less on principle came together with a whole range of progressives. Many fear the TPP would send domestic jobs overseas — some progressives have called the deal “NAFTA on steroids.” Environmental groups say the agreement would also set back efforts at conservation, tackling climate change, and improving public health. The TPP is currently being negotiated in secret between the U.S. and nearly a dozen other countries along the Pacific Rim.

The Obama administration has been pushing hard for trade promotion authority and the TPP deal. The president himself even turned up to distribute White House–brewed beers and persuade legislators at a congressional baseball game yesterday where Democrats were playing Republicans. Republicans started chanting “TPA! TPA!” when Obama arrived. Yeah, this stuff actually happens. Obama also addressed House Democrats for 45 minutes this morning.

The administration has been saying that the TPP would give the United States the power to write the rules of international trade before China starts doing so. With the reins in America’s hands, the administration argues, globalization might be able to move forward in a manner that TPP’s opponents don’t find quite so odious.

But the opponents are not convinced. In a letter to Congress yesterday, 40 environmental groups urged rejection of the “fast track” TPA bill. “A new model of trade that delivers benefits for most Americans, promotes broadly shared prosperity, and safeguards the environment and public health is possible. To achieve such goals, however, fast track must be replaced with a new system for negotiating and implementing trade agreements,” the letter read. Many of the signatories on yesterday’s letter signed another one, back in April, with 2,000 other groups who opposed fast track authority.

As for the TPP trade deal itself, environmental groups oppose many of the provisions that are rumored to be in it, including ones that would allow foreign corporations to sue governments over their environmental and public health policies. And then there’s the principle of transparency: “After more than five years of negotiation, we still have to rely on WikiLeaks for our information,” Ilana Solomon of the Sierra Club’s Responsible Trade Program told The Guardian.

When it came time for the vote today, Democrats, by a 3-to-1 margin, voted against a provision to provide aid for workers who lose their jobs as a result of trade deals. Though Democrats supported the specific provision, called Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA — another acronym!), they chose to vote it down in order to scuttle the entire legislative process on fast track authority. At the last minute, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who had not previously been clear about her position, told her follow House members that she would vote against TAA, and some undecided Democrats followed her lead.

When the Senate passed its trade bill last month, it included both TPA and TAA. So if the House bill doesn’t also include TAA, then there’s no final version that can be sent to Obama’s desk. Still, even though the failure to pass TAA made a House vote on TPA a moot point, the Republican leadership decided to press ahead with the vote anyway. TPA passed 219 to 211, and Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) asked to bring TAA back up for a vote next week. If TAA passes then, today’s TPA vote will stand.

That means the TPA — “fast track authority” — isn’t quite dead yet. Obama has more time to twist arms in an attempt to get Democrats to do an about-face. But the president would have to change quite a lot of minds, so, for now, advocates are celebrating.

“This is a major victory for everyone who thinks trade should be fair and responsible,” the Sierra Club’s Michael Brune said in a statement. “The era of free trade deals that harm workers and the environment is coming to a close.”

Some of those celebrations are more cautious than others.

“Today’s victory, while important, is not decisive,” said Friends of the Earth President Erich Pica. “Friends of the Earth and others will remain vigilant to ensure that future efforts to pass Fast Track and climate-destroying trade agreements are defeated.”

Share

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Get Grist in your inbox

Original link: 

Take that, Trans-Pacific Partnership! Enviros celebrate as Obama’s trade agenda takes a blow

Posted in alo, Anchor, Citizen, Everyone, FF, G & F, GE, ONA, organic, OXO, Radius, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Take that, Trans-Pacific Partnership! Enviros celebrate as Obama’s trade agenda takes a blow

Chuck Schumer Is Not Working the Refs Very Well

by MairaSiler Posted on June 10, 2015

Mother Jones

This is kind of fascinating:

After almost six months in the minority, Charles E. Schumer says Senate Democrats aren’t afraid to be obstructionists, detailing a strategy of blocking appropriations bills and other Republican agenda items until they get what they want….Schumer (D-N.Y.) said they are joining with President Barack Obama behind a plan to try to force Republicans to the negotiating table over everything from domestic and defense spending to highway funding and international tax reform.

….The White House-backed plan to get Republicans to support more spending for domestic programs by blocking floor consideration of appropriations bills was developed in a series of closed-door meetings held over the course of several weeks.

….To maintain their leverage, Democrats have decided to block all spending bills starting with the defense appropriations measure headed to the floor next week. Durbin told reporters on Tuesday that there is also no ruling out a blockade of program authorizations, like upcoming votes on highway funding.

It’s not the substance of Schumer’s comments that’s fascinating. By now, even the checkout clerks at the local Safeway know that Democrats plan to obstruct everything and anything. It’s time for Republicans to get a taste of their own dog food.

No, what’s fascinating is that Schumer is so open about it. As I recall, ever since 2009 Republicans have adamantly refused to ever publicly admit that this was their strategy.1 And there was sound thinking behind that. The rules of objective journalism prevent reporters from just flatly attributing something to a party unless they have a party leader on the record fessing up to it. So instead they have to tiptoe around the subject, or quote liberal activists accusing Republicans of obstructionism, or something like that. This leaves things a little fuzzy or “controversial” in a lot of people’s minds, which means they never really accept the whole obstructionism story. Hey, maybe each individual filibuster really is a matter of principle.

But if a party leader just comes out and admits it, then that’s that. No one will ever believe that Democrats are being principled because Schumer has already given the game away. Republicans were obstructionist, so we’re going to be too.

That’s a mistake. It may seem dumb to keep up a pretense that everyone knows is baloney, but there really is a reason for it. It won’t fool all the people all the time, but who cares? It will handcuff the press, and thereby fool some of the people some of the time. That’s worth a lot.

1This is why President Obama keeps talking about “working” with Republicans and “finding common ground” even though he knows perfectly well by now that this isn’t going to happen. He knows the press has to report it regardless of whether they think he really believes it. This means people see it on the news, and some of them will continue to believe that this is what he’s trying to do.2

2Which, admittedly, he is trying to do in a few special cases. But not many.

More here:  

Chuck Schumer Is Not Working the Refs Very Well

Posted in alo, Everyone, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Chuck Schumer Is Not Working the Refs Very Well

Louisiana Republicans Now Wish They’d Never Heard of Grover Norquist

by HassanE54kqinqhe Posted on June 9, 2015

Mother Jones

It’s hardly surprising when Democrats criticize Grover Norquist, the godfather of the anti-tax movement. But following like sheep behind Norquist’s demands to lower taxes always and everywhere has gotten states in so much trouble that even some Republicans are now begging him to be a little less obstinate. Sadly for Louisiana, Norquist is having none of it:

A group of self-described “conservative” Republican state representatives took their complaints to Norquist himself, asking him to give them some wiggle room on raising taxes and to shoot down some Jindal-backed legislation that they say would set a “dangerous precedent” in how government could mask revenue hikes.

….Sunday’s letter — signed by Louisiana House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Joel Robideaux (R) and 10 other state Republican representatives — asked Norquist to take into account the previous tax cuts Louisiana has passed in recent years and the effect they will have in the future when assessing whether the state is in compliance with the no tax pledge….Furthermore it asked Norquist to weigh in on the so-called SAVE proposal, which they said would allow governments in the future to raise billions of dollars in revenue in the guise of a revenue-neutral budget.

….However, Norquist refused to take the bait. While declining to come out for or against the tax credit proposal, he said it qualified as an offset and asked the lawmakers, “If you don’t like the SAVE Act, why not find other offsetting tax cuts that are more to your liking? “Norquist also scoffed at the Republicans’ plea that their past tax cuts be taken into account, writing “under that logic, President Obama could argue he didn’t raise taxes.”

In other words, go pound sand. But then, what did they expect? Norquist has one and only one thing going for him—thou shalt never raise taxes, no how, no way—and Bobby Jindal is still delusional enough to think he’s running for president. So no taxes are going to be raised in the Pelican State. And if that causes massive pain and dislocation? Well, that’s just tough, isn’t it?

Source – 

Louisiana Republicans Now Wish They’d Never Heard of Grover Norquist

Posted in FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Louisiana Republicans Now Wish They’d Never Heard of Grover Norquist

Yet Again, Congress Is Too Scared to Assert Its Warmaking Powers

by Eloise74Kurnfy Posted on June 4, 2015

Mother Jones

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

Our Congress is really a piece of work when it comes to national security. In 2011, President Obama announced that he could go to war against Libya without congressional approval. Congress hemmed and hawed, but in the end was unable to agree to do anything about it. Two years later members of Congress were vocal about Obama’s lack of action against Syria when it was revealed that the Assad regime had been using chemical weapons. Obama eventually responded and asked Congress for approval to take military action. Congress did nothing. Now we have yet another war, this time against ISIS, and Obama asked for congressional approval months ago. Result: nothing. Members of Congress would rather be free to lambaste Obama on the campaign trail than to actually commit themselves to a strategy.

So now what? HuffPo’s Jennifer Bendery reports that Rep. Barbara Lee (D–Calif.) added a clause to the 2016 defense spending bill stating that “Congress has a constitutional duty to debate and determine whether or not to authorize the use of military force” against ISIS. It passed, but only barely. Steve Benen is acerbic:

Right. So, the Obama administration launched airstrikes in August 2014. The president called on Congress to authorize the mission in December 2014. Obama devoted part of his State of the Union address to this in January 2015. The White House even sent draft legislative language to Capitol Hill in February 2015.

And in June 2015, a committee was willing to endorse a non-binding measure that said Congress really should, someday, do something to meet its constitutional obligations.

That’s it. That’s as far as lawmakers have been willing to go.

Indeed, much the committee didn’t even want to even go this far. When Barbara Lee urged members to support her proposal, the committee chairman held a voice vote and deemed it defeated. When Lee insisted on a roll call, it passed 29 to 22, overcoming Republican opposition. (All 22 “no” votes came from GOP members.)

In other words, nearly half the committee wasn’t even willing to go this far.

Ladies and gentlemen, this is your Congress. Makes you proud to be an American, doesn’t it?

Taken from – 

Yet Again, Congress Is Too Scared to Assert Its Warmaking Powers

Posted in FF, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Yet Again, Congress Is Too Scared to Assert Its Warmaking Powers

Congress Slyly Changed Campaign Finance Rules. Now the GOP Is Cleaning Up.

by BonitaIliffe Posted on June 4, 2015

Mother Jones

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

After watching the biggest donors increasingly shun the major political parties and send their six-figure checks to super-PACs and other outside spending groups, Republican and Democratic leaders in Congress made a sly bid last December to bring billionaires and millionaires back into the party fold. They slipped a provision into an omnibus spending bill that rewrote campaign finance rules to raise contribution limits for donations to the national parties. Under the old rules, an individual could give up to $33,400 a year to the Republican or Democratic national committees. The new rule allows donors to give 10 times that amount. And just months into the new election cycle, the effort is paying off—at least for Republicans. The RNC is pulling down big money from a who’s who of conservative megadonors. Democrats? Not so much.

To date, the Democratic National Committee hasn’t had a single donor contribute the maximum amount of $334,000 or even crack six figures. But five major GOP donors have maxed out in donations to the RNC, and more than a dozen others have ponied up at least six figures. And that doesn’t count donations to other GOP committees, such as the National Republican Congressional Committee or the National Republican Senatorial Committee, each of which can now collect a maximum of $233,800 a year from donors. In the first four months of the year, the RNC raised more than $5 million through donations now permitted by the recently changed rules. The DNC, meanwhile, has reported $213,000 in similar donations. The largest donors gave $33,400.

Continue Reading »

Link: 

Congress Slyly Changed Campaign Finance Rules. Now the GOP Is Cleaning Up.

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta, Vintage | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Congress Slyly Changed Campaign Finance Rules. Now the GOP Is Cleaning Up.