The campaign treasure Romney has been...

[elbamba]

for those against obama, still havnt come up with a legitimate reason they want him out....

wtf is he going to do when his party doesnt control the senate to ask for more money than they willing to lend, but have no problem bailing out the banks then focusing on govt programs to stimulate the economy....

I can think of plenty of reasons:

Passing a health care bill that doesn't begin to solve the problems with health care despite having a democrat controlled house and senate.

Raising my taxes without implementing a plan to pay down the deficit.

Failing to lead and working with republicans to compromise and actually pass a budget even though he controls 2/3 of the necessary parties to passing a bill.

Having about 100-150,000 jobs a month open while instantly increasing the the workforce by a few million with his regulation version of the Dream Act. This hurts the middle class, not the wealthy.

And of course the worst of all, he is 50% black.

Seriously though, I can get you arguing that he doesn't control the HOR, but his party controls the senate. Bill Clinton got plenty done without owning one house in congress. Obama has no excuses here.

[boutons_deux]

Never Mind Super PACs: How Big Business Is Buying the Election

Before Citizens United, API had gone to battle with the president over his efforts to address global warming. It took out issue ads, hired lobbyists from K Street, and financed dubious studies to claim that even the most piecemeal legislative fixes, such as the Waxman-Markey bill designed to cap carbon emissions, would lead to economic ruin. The group spent $7.3 million on federal lobbying during the year the bill was being debated.

But as the 2010 midterm elections loomed, Citizens United handed API an additional arrow for its quiver. The group could now funnel undisclosed corporate donations directly to campaign en ies. Among the oil executives leading API at the time [1]—and still to this day—was Tofiq Al-Gabsani, a registered lobbyist for the Saudi government [2]. Al-Gabsani is the chief executive of Saudi Refining Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of the Saudi Arabian Oil Company, the government-owned Saudi oil giant better known as Aramco.

Aramco, by means of its US subsidiary, is understood by insiders to be one of the top donors to API, where, according to the Washington Post, membership dues for the largest firms can be as much as $20 million a year. API has roughly 400 member firms, but only a small group of oil and gas industry CEOs sit on its board of directors, which oversees the trade association’s major political campaigns, according to API state business filings and two former API executives. Alongside the top officials of such major American firms as ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips, one of those directors for the past three years has been Al-Gabsani.

US law still bans foreign corporations from participating directly in elections. But after Citizens United, trade associations like API—whose influential members include foreign corporations—are free to spend as they wish, unburdened by disclosure requirements. And these groups have taken full advantage of their new freedoms. While other campaign committees, from labor unions to Super PACs, face strict transparency rules, trade associations enjoy unparalleled power to covertly manipulate elections using corporate money.

API-funded groups were a force behind the tidal wave of negative advertisements to hit Democrats in the midterms. Pennsylvania Representative Joe Sestak “voted for Pelosi’s job-killing cap-and-trade plan,” intoned one election-season TV ad from Americans for Tax Reform, one of several groups financed by API in 2010. Sestak’s vote for a bill to put a price on carbon pollution, the ad continued, cons uted “a great big tax that would make utility bills skyrocket, gas prices soar.” Sestak lost his bid for the US Senate, and his Congressional seat was one of sixty-three taken by the Republicans.

The ads bankrolled by en ies like API helped deliver one of the greatest midterm election upsets in American history. For the first time, outside spending groups eclipsed party spending. The young president, with his party’s ranks decimated and the House flipped into the hands of the far right, was forced to abandon much of his domestic agenda.

Perhaps the most profound aspect of the Democrats’ defeat that year: the window for confronting global warming all but closed. With extreme weather events convulsing the globe, 86 percent of incoming freshman Republicans signed an oil industry–sponsored pledge to oppose all climate regulation. As John Boehner lifted the House speaker’s gavel, any chance of passing climate legislation collapsed. In this way, the Democrats’ defeat was a resounding victory for the oil companies represented by API—and for Saudi Arabia, the world’s largest exporter of crude oil.

...

http://www.thenation.com/print/artic...uying-election

Human-Americans' are LIED by Corporate-Americans so they elect the C-A's stooges and shills who will ALWAYS vote C-A interests (profits) over H-A interests.

America is ed and un able. Lawyer Lewis Powell's strategy has won.

[boutons_deux]

The US Chamber of Commerce's Multimillion-Dollar Attack Plan

Watchdog groups believe the strategy in 2012 is similar to that of 2010: the Chamber goes into a district, blitzes it with attack ads to soften up the opposition and then steps back to let other deep-pocket groups come in. The intent is to force Democrats to play defense across the board, thus spreading their resources thin. According to the liberal online publication ThinkProgress, twenty of the twenty-one ads the Chamber released in May were hostile to Democratic candidates.

“The Chamber has spent about $600,000 attacking me,” Tester, the farmer turned Democratic Montana senator, told me in April. “I’ve got a great small-business record. I’ve carried bills the US Chamber has advocated for in the past. [But] they see Montana as a state that they can pick up. They’re dishonest, painting me as something I’m not. They’re trying to paint me as Wall Street, as somebody who’s ‘gone DC.’ It’s about as crazy as anybody can get.”

The organization is maintaining its longstanding policy of not officially taking sides in presidential elections. But even though it has not directly funded anti-Obama or pro-Romney ads, that doesn’t mean its leaders wouldn’t dearly love to oust Obama. Robert Weissman, president of the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen, says the Chamber hopes to influence the presidential election indirectly—by shaping the contours of the public debate in the months leading up to election day and by bringing conservative voters to the polls.

It is also reportedly coordinating with the top conservative Super PACs to craft a unified message and spending strategy. US Chamber Watch has do ented a series of meetings between the Chamber’s counsel and GOP strategists dating back to 2009, when they conceived the notion of creating American Crossroads, the Super PAC headed by Karl Rove. Since then, the watchdog group believes, the Chamber has been holding regular meetings with Crossroads, which claims that it will be able to bring $300 million to the 2012 election fight, and with Koch brothers–backed organizations (including Americans for Prosperity), which have bandied about the figure of $400 million as their target. Further evidence of cross-pollination: Chamber strategist Scott Reed previously worked for the GOP, and former Chamber counsel Steven Law is president of Crossroads GPS, the Rove-affiliated 501(c)(4) “social welfare organization.”

According to the Washington Post, the key players in this alliance have been meeting every couple of weeks to strategize. In May, Mike Allen and Jim Vandehei reported in Politico that the Chamber, Crossroads, Americans for Prosperity and the conservative Congressional Leadership Fund had joined together in a pledge to raise an unprecedented $1 billion to influence the upcoming elections.

Compared to these figures, the $100 million that the Chamber hopes to spend could seem almost paltry. But to view it as such would be a huge mistake—for if recent years have proven anything about the role of money in the country’s politics, it’s that a group with a sizable budget for carefully targeted advertising can exert outsize influence on election day.

All of this adds up to a ton of bad news for the country’s democratic system. Pay-to-play makes it that much harder for ordinary people to get a fair hearing. It wrecks the notion of good governance, and it undermines the idea that the public interest can be well represented by the state and its elected officials.

And yet there are signs that the Chamber has overplayed its hand. Historically, the organization has been careful to camouflage its right-wing economic agenda, claiming it simply champions a “common sense” approach to the country’s problems. But these days the Chamber is struggling to tame the Tea Party beast it helped to unleash, whose destabilizing extremism was on display during last year’s debt ceiling debate. And the Chamber is facing increased scrutiny into its questionable spending of charitable funds for political purposes as well as its alleged misuse of money ponied up by anonymous donors. The Citizens United ruling gave corporations a free pass to influence elections, but with the flood of money has come heightened attention to the organizations that are bundling and spending it, often playing fast and loose with established federal election requirements. That puts the Chamber in an unwelcome—and possibly damaging—spotlight.

http://www.thenation.com/print/artic...ar-attack-plan

America is ed and un able. Lawyer Lewis Powell's strategy has won.

[Th'Pusher]

I can think of plenty of reasons:

Passing a health care bill that doesn't begin to solve the problems with health care despite having a democrat controlled house and senate.

Raising my taxes without implementing a plan to pay down the deficit.

Failing to lead and working with republicans to compromise and actually pass a budget even though he controls 2/3 of the necessary parties to passing a bill.

Having about 100-150,000 jobs a month open while instantly increasing the the workforce by a few million with his regulation version of the Dream Act. This hurts the middle class, not the wealthy.

And of course the worst of all, he is 50% black.

Seriously though, I can get you arguing that he doesn't control the HOR, but his party controls the senate. Bill Clinton got plenty done without owning one house in congress. Obama has no excuses here.

Are you a smoker? What specific taxes has Obama raised?

[elbamba]

Are you a smoker? What specific taxes has Obama raised?

You are right. I should have said repeatidly insulting my 10 -12 hour workdays that I have been putting in for the last six years of my life by telling me that I am not covering my fair share. President has taken a lot more golf days than I have.

Now proposing to raise my individual tax rate as well as increase taxes on my small business which employs around 30 people, not including the other small businesses we use every day.

I can live with the insults if he extends the Bush tax cuts like Clinton suggested.

[Th'Pusher]

You are right. I should have said repeatidly insulting my 10 -12 hour workdays that I have been putting in for the last six years of my life by telling me that I am not covering my fair share. President has taken a lot more golf days than I have.

Now proposing to raise my individual tax rate as well as increase taxes on my small business which employs around 30 people, not including the other small businesses we use every day.

I can live with the insults if he extends the Bush tax cuts like Clinton suggested.

Thanks for the clarification. I understand the argument for your individual tax-rate, but when you say "as well as increase taxes on my small business which employs around 30 people", can you be more specific? Is this through his health care law, because you file business as schedule C and therefore personal income tax?

[boutons_deux]

Obama has more campaign money to spend than Romney

At the end of August, President Barack Obama had about $88.8 million to spend on the final months of the campaign, nearly twice as much as Republican rival Mitt Romney, according to campaign fundraising reports released Thursday.

While Romney's report showed he had $50.4 million to spend as of Aug. 31, he also owed $15 million on a $20 million loan taken that month.

The loan helped Romney pay for mailings, staff salaries and TV advertising — and it helped his finances appear healthier on paper. It also boosted his cash-on-hand total from $35.4 million — a number that's closer to a third of Obama's haul.

While Romney raised about $66.6 million in August to Obama's $84.7 million, the $20 million loan boosts Romney's total receipts to $86.6 million, slightly higher than his Democratic opponent's take.

Both Romney and Obama spent about as much as they raised during the month of August. Romney spent about $66.4 million, while Obama spent about $83.7 million.

Romney and the Republican Party raised more than $111 million combined. That was less than Obama and the Democrats, who raised more than $114 million.

Romney took out a $20 million loan in late August, in the days before his campaign had access to funds they had raised for the general election because he was not yet the official nominee. He used general election money as collateral for the loan.

The new report shows he paid back $5 million before the end of August. The campaign said it had paid back an additional $4 million in September, although that data won't be publicly recorded until next month.

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-more-cam...-election.html

[boutons_deux]

Low on Cash, Romney Tries to Rally Donors for Final Phase

Mitt Romney entered the final months of the presidential campaign with a cash balance of just $35 million, racing to find new large donors and rally low-dollar contributors in August even while he raised tens of millions of dollars for the Republican Party.

Mr. Romney's campaign took in $67 million that month but also spent about that much, twice the rate of spending as in any prior month, according to reports filed Thursday with the Federal Election Commission. More than half of what Mr. Romney raised in August was money he could not spend until after his party convention at the end of the month. And he grew so short of available cash that his campaign borrowed $20 million and sharply curtailed advertising, even while doling out post-convention bonuses to a handful of senior staff members.

The new numbers, along with disclosures filed by major "super PACs" supporting the two candidates, challenge the appearance of financial strength that had burnished Mr. Romney over the summer, and show unexpected strengths for President Obama going into the fall.

While Mr. Romney's combined fund-raising apparatus began September with $168.5 million in cash, much of it was sitting in the accounts of the Republican National Committee, which reported cash on hand of about $76.6 million. While an estimated $42 million remains in his joint account with Republican Party committees, only some of it will be available to Mr. Romney for his general election campaign.

Mr. Obama and the Democrats, by contrast, began the fall campaign with less money over all, about $125 million. But federal law guarantees candidates, not parties, the lowest available ad rate in the days leading up to a general election. Thanks in part to his army of small donors, Mr. Obama gathered more money in his own campaign account than Mr. Romney, whose advantage lies in raising large checks that primarily benefit the R.N.C.

Mr. Obama began September with a balance of $86 million, even after spending $65 million on advertising. He raised over twice as much money as Mr. Romney in checks of under $200, which donors can give repeatedly without quickly hitting federal contribution limits.

Far less money went to the Democratic National Committee, which is playing less of a role for Mr. Obama at this stage in the race. Mr. Obama did not transfer to the committee any money from their joint fund-raising committee, which holds most of the cash Mr. Obama has raised for the party. Instead, the committee borrowed $8 million.

And while the Republican committee spent heavily on advertising in August, its Democratic counterpart spent most of its money on field efforts, including large transfers to state parties, ending the month almost $5 million in the red.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2012/09/21...58DEA84D7?f=19

[boutons_deux]

'Super PACs' Finally a Draw for Democrats


More than 40 individuals and couples had given at least $250,000 to the leading Democratic super PACs through the beginning of September, according to a New York Times analysis of campaign finance records, and dozens more have given $100,000 or more.

But the money is not coming from the expected places. Few of the wealthiest men and women closest to Mr. Obama have donated, even as the super PAC backing Mitt Romney raises millions of dollars from his friends and former colleagues. Only a few gay donors are among the biggest givers, despite Mr. Obama's embrace of same-sex marriage last spring. Most of the wealthy liberals who financed the party's last major outside spending effort, in 2004, remain on the super PAC sidelines.

The super PAC donor universe could expand rapidly in the coming weeks. Mayor Rahm Emanuel of Chicago, who was tapped to help the groups but was quickly sidelined by the Chicago teachers' strike, has resumed raising money for Priorities USA, a spokesman said.

And on Thursday, Bill Clinton will headline a lunch in New York to benefit Democratic groups. His audience will be members of the Democracy Alliance, a consortium of liberal donors, many of whom have been reluctant to make large contributions to super PACs this year.

The timing could be critical for Mr. Obama. Conservative super PACs and other outside groups are preparing a coordinated barrage of negative advertising for coming weeks, seeking to reverse Mr. Romney's recent slide in the polls. And Priorities has reserved significant amounts of airtime in advance, hoping to raise enough cash in the coming weeks to pay for it.

John Eddie Williams Jr., who made a fortune representing Texas in the 1990s tobacco litigation, has given close to half a million dollars. Labor unions have given more than $14 million to the Democratic groups, with the Service Employees International Union and the air traffic controllers' and the pipefitters' unions each contributing at least $1 million. The actor Morgan Freeman, the producer Jeffrey Katzenberg and Haim Saban, the Los Angeles media investor, have each given $1 million or more.

Unlike Mr. Obama's campaign, the super PAC supporting him is accepting money from lobbyists and political action committees, as are the two Congressional super PACs. Perennial Strategy Group, which has represented commercial banks and home builders, gave $600,000 to Priorities USA.

Tony and Heather Podesta, the Beltway lobbying power couple, gave $100,000 to Majority PAC, which supports Senate Democrats. The American Association for Justice, the trial lawyers' trade association, whose annual conference was attended by Democratic super PAC officials, has given more than $500,000 to the groups.

Unexpectedly big givers for Democratic super PACs are building trade unions, which have combined to donate at least $6 million. The unions lobbied Mr. Obama aggressively to approve the full Keystone pipeline project connecting Canadian oil sands production with Gulf of Mexico refineries. They failed, at least temporarily, but the administration agreed to a southern section of the pipeline, guaranteeing thousands of jobs for their members.

"In many parts of the country in Congressional and Senate races, we don't have much member density, so it makes sense to use other tools, like super PACs," said Richard Greer, a spokesman for the Laborers' International Union of North America.

The Democratic super PAC donor world remains far less robust than the Republican one. Total giving to their four groups reached $74 million through the beginning of September, not including donations to two affiliated tax-exempt groups that do not have to disclose their donors and fund-raising to the Federal Election Commission.

That is far less than the $300 million that two groups co-founded by the Republican strategist Karl Rove are aiming to raise.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2012/09/27...crats.xml?f=19

ATTN: Kock Bros/Rove/Perry Swift-Boating to be extremely intensive and dishonest, exactly like Gecko and Ryan

[boutons_deux]

Soros, other wealthy liberals commit $10 million to Dem 'super PACs'

Wealthy liberal donors -- including billionaire George Soros -- together pledged on Thursday to donate at least $10 million to a group of Democratic “super PACs,” which are enjoying a burst of new giving in the waning weeks of the 2012 campaign.

Soros plans to contribute $1 million to Priorities USA Action, the super PAC backing President Obama – his first donation to that group. He also pledged to give $500,000 to two super-PACs supporting congressional Democrats, according to people familiar with his plans.

The contributions mark a significant boost in investment by the hedge fund guru, who earlier this cycle donated $1.275 million to Democratic-allied outside groups, most of which went to American Bridge 21st Century, an opposition research group.

His donations still far substantially short of the $27.5 million Soros gave in 2004 to groups such as the voter mobilization organization Americans Coming Together in an effort to defeat President George W. Bush. But they underscore a shift in at ude by liberal donors toward helping Democratic super PACs, which have overall lagged behind their conservative counterparts in fundraising in this election.

That dynamic appears to be changing. Last month, pro-Democratic super PACs raised $19.7 million, besting the $18.3 million brought in by conservative super PACs, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. The fundraising numbers do not include the unreported money being raised by nonprofit 501(c)4 groups such as Crossroads GPS and Americans for Prosperity, but they underscore how groups on the left are picking up momentum.

Those donations could prove to be a double-edged sword: while the money will allow groups such as Priorities USA to continue pounding Republican challenger Mitt Romney, the big contributions also undercut Obama’s argument that his campaign is powered by small donations, not a cadre of rich donors like those who have pumped tens of millions of dollars into pro-Romney groups.

“There's no billionaire donor or lobbyist waiting around to write a $10 million check,” the president wrote in a fundraising pitch to supporters on Thursday.

http://touch.latimes.com/#section/40.../p2p-72571985/

[cheguevara]

LOL Ryan for VP. was Charles Manson unavailable?

[ploto]

Interesting story today on how the money in PACs does not go nearly as far as people think when compared to money raised directly for the campaign. The TV stations are required to give political campaigns the lowest advertising rate while the Super PACs do not get the same break. Sometimes an ad for the PAC runs 6 times what a campaign pays. So while Romney may have lots of Super PAC money, it does not buy the airtime that people think.

[boutons_deux]

Interesting story today on how the money in PACs does not go nearly as far as people think when compared to money raised directly for the campaign. The TV stations are required to give political campaigns the lowest advertising rate while the Super PACs do not get the same break. Sometimes an ad for the PAC runs 6 times what a campaign pays. So while Romney may have lots of Super PAC money, it does not buy the airtime that people think.

Maddow covered this last night. SuperPACs buy ads for $900 that cost the candidates only $100 or so.

and all the money people can switch their money away from any candidate who is losing, including Repug SuperPacs and "social welfare" shams switching money even away from Gecko to House/Senate races.

and obscenely long and wealthy campaigns are really just another business:

Flooded With Campaign Cash, Local TV Stations Ignore Big Story: The Campaign Cash

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/09...ions-ig/190142