Even Former Republican Leader Bob Dole Thinks We Need To 'Stop All This Money In Politics'

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2015/jun/04/how-money-runs-our-politics/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/04/23/bob-dole-says-the-republican-party-is-way-more-conservative-than-it-was-even-20-years-ago-hes-right/

http://talkingaboutmoneyin2016.tumblr.com/candidates

You know things are not right when a former majority leader and Republican Senator from Kansas thinks we should stop this money in politics. He said he is troubled by the amount of money that is being spent on political campaign. Dole, the GOP's presidential nominee in 1996, said in a recent interview for AARP Bulletin that campaign spending gone out of hand.

(this is from the interview)

What has been the biggest change in presidential politics since you were the Republican nominee in 1996? 

Money. Now they talk about raising $1 billion to run for president. It's unreal. We need to do something to stop all this money in politics. I've always believed when people give big money, they — maybe silently — expect something in return. 

Do you think you could have been the nominee if money had played such an important role back then? 

I don't think so. And I might not be conservative enough to be the nominee today.

Whether you agree with his politics or not, he is right about the current state of the presidential campaign. Not only that, he also concerns about the recent polarization within the congress and how his Republican Party is no longer the party that he used to know as we can see this editorial written by The New York Times staffs:

“It seems to be almost unreal that we can’t get together on a budget or legislation,” said Mr. Dole, the former Senate majority leader and presidential candidate. “I mean, we weren’t perfect by a long shot, but at least we got our work done.”

The current Congress can’t even do that, thanks to a furiously oppositional Republican Party, and that’s what has left mainstream conservatives like Mr. Dole and Senator John McCain shaking their heads in disgust.

Senators Marco Rubio and John McCain last month, two Republicans at odds over how to deal with the federal debt.Approach to Debt Widens Rift Among G.O.P. SenatorsMAY 24, 2013

The difference between the current crop of Tea Party lawmakers and Mr. Dole’s generation is not simply one of ideology. While the Tea Partiers are undoubtedly more extreme, Mr. Dole spent years pushing big tax cuts, railing at regulations and blocking international treaties. His party actively courted the religious right in the 1980s and relied on racial innuendo to win elections. But when the time came to actually govern, Republicans used to set aside their grandstanding, recognize that a two-party system requires compromise and make deals to keep the government working on the people’s behalf.

The current generation refuses to do that. Its members want to dismantle government, using whatever crowbar happens to be handy, and they don’t particularly care what traditions of mutual respect get smashed at the same time. “I’m not all that interested in the way things have always been done around here,” Senator Marco Rubio of Florida told The Times last week.

Tom Mann of the Brooking Institute and Norm Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute released a book in the spring of 2012 called: "“It’s Even Worse Than It Looks: How the American Constitutional System Collided With the New Politics of Extremism". In an essay taken from the book, the duo wrote:

We have been studying Washington politics and Congress for more than 40 years, and never have we seen them this dysfunctional. In our past writings, we have criticized both parties when we believed it was warranted. Today, however, we have no choice but to acknowledge that the core of the problem lies with the Republican Party.

The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise;unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.

When one party moves this far from the mainstream, it makes it nearly impossible for the political system to deal

(You could read more further on how polarization got so heavy in Washington in this article here)

All of them have this connections between big donors' demands in Washington and their endorsed candidates from both parties. Republican Presidential candidate Lindsay Graham sponsored a bill that will ban internet gambling in the Senate when his big supporter and donor, Sheldon Adelson, a billionaire casino owner, asked him to do so in order to get rid of competitors. Big donors like Alice Walton of Walmart and big Israel supporter Haim Saban from Democratic side, in other hand, already got Hillary Clinton in their pocket and push her to have policies that could benefit them not only financially, but also their personal interest like agreeing with her political opponents' Israeli policies.

This is one big disconnect between their voters and candidates. They spent most of the time through raising campaign money form their big donors and only meet their voters through the candidate's donor-sponsored small speeches, rather than talk with them face to face. That's what Bernie Sanders did with his supporters: gathering up ten thousand people in Madison, Wisconsin last week - maybe the biggest in 2016 election.

Big money in politics is one of biggest issues we must talk about during 2016 elections. Candidates from both parties have discussed about reforming the government and some of them, including Republicans, willingly support campaign finance reform.

This is not a partisan issue - but BIPARTISAN issue. We must act now. We must return to the time Bob Dole used to familiar with. 

Wealthy Individuals and Corporations Having Too Much Influence is the #1 Concern Among Registered Voters, According to Recent Polls

In this article that's surfacing around the net about the recent polls among voters show that there are too much influence from wealthy individuals within the elections and, of course, money in politics. 

American voters say their top concerns about the upcoming presidential election are wealthy individuals and corporations who might have too much influence who over wins, as well as campaigns that spend more time on negative attacks than proposing solutions, according to a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.

Also, most of these issues the voters concern about were election issues. Most people concerns about what's behind the curtain rather than the candidates.

Thirty-three percent of voters say the influence of wealthy individuals and corporations is their top concern, while 25 percent say they're more worried about negative attacks.

Another 16 percent are more concerned that nothing will change no matter who wins, and 12 percent believe that too many wealthy candidates don't understand the economic problems of average Americans.

But only 4 percent of voters say their top concern are dynastic candidates — like Jeb Bush, Hillary Clinton and Rand Paul — who are from families who have run for the presidency before.

I have seen more people grew interests in joining the campaign finance reform and its causes. Whether its Wolf-PAC or Ben Cohen's Stamp Stampede movement, people demands more voices in the government rather than the megaphone-level of voices from corporations. 

I'm back!

Hello everyone. You all been wondering where have I been for few weeks?

As I told you before, I moved out to my new apartment with a help from my family and now we are in Seoul, South Korea staying at my dad's home.

Without any Campaign Finance Reform activity in this country, I feel bored. I can't stamp on Korean currency, so I begin to feel frustrated. 

I'll come back to United States this August. I could do more activities later. 

Can Bernie Sanders Make It?

Yesterday, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, a self-described democratic socialist, kicked off his Presidential campaign against former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who announced her candidacy since April 12th.

Speaking from Burlington, Vermont, where Sanders served as mayor from 1981 to 1989, he declared a revolution for the middle class family and laid out his progressive agenda. "Today we stand here and say loudly and clearly: Enough is enough. This great nation and its government belong to all of the people and not to a handful of billionaires."

You could go to his campaign website right now and see what happened in Burlington.

Actually before photos and videos from his campaign launch released in online, the website gotten 404 error and Sanders posted up this video of himself explaining the error message.

It is interesting to see more people begin to prefer Bernie Sanders over Hillary Clinton, who is too conservative for mainstream liberals and progressives' taste and tries way too hard to pander left-wing bases.

In fact, she has a lot of campaign money from big businesses and corporate banks like Goldman Sachs. Believe it or not, her family's charitable Clinton foundation faces so much scrutiny for accepting donation from foreign countries and oil companies.

Bernie Sanders made his public image as some sort of an antithesis of President Barrack Obama's 2012 Republican opponent Mitt Romney. Or just an opposite of President Obama himself. People, especially liberals and supporters of Occupy Wall Street movement, wanted Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren to ran for the President of the United States. However she declined the challenge, so her supporters decided to endorse Sanders as an alternative to Warren.

The problem is: can Sanders make it?

First, I like his campaign model. He accepts public donation rather than Super PAC money as many candidates usually accepts. His Presidential goal is to overturn Citizens United and restore democracy back to the people. Second, throughout his political career, he is honest. Even one of conservative politicians in Washington will admits that Sanders is one of the most honest politicians in the house. And finally, he openly declared war on billionaires and oligarchs and constantly spread his populist message. He will expand medicare and improve healthcare system, give larger tax  to the rich, and make college tuition free.

However, here are possible problems along the way as a long shot candidate.

Billionaire donors like the Koch brothers would public smear him through negative ads produced by their own Super PACs and bring down his campaign. Good thing is, this won't deters Sanders, and he said he will not do attack ads and decided to play fair. Also, he is open about his socialist view and considering how United States of America had a negative attitude toward Marxian idealism and left-wing views in the past (look up McCarthyism), people won't easily accept his message. But that doesn't worries Sanders. He even replied to George Stephanopoulos's concerns about upcoming Republican attack ads that Sanders will turn America to Scandinavia, by saying, "What is wrong with Scandinavian countries?" (By the way, socialism is now popular among millennials.)

Most importantly: the cost. Any candidates with public-financed campaign and supported by the Occupy Wall Street movement will never make it due to the cost of being in televised debate. According to former Governor of Louisiana Buddy Roemer, who tried to ran as Republican in the last Presidential election, the broadcasting network won't invite him to the televised debates between other Republican candidates because he didn't have enough money. When Roemer ran for Louisiana governor, he had seven televised debates. He liked being in debate because he liked the "fire and the passion." That was when he had a million and half dollars and won the election while others have more money than him. The problem for him now, if he wants himself to be in people's living room television, he have to raise more money and be on the debate. He had both Washington and state political experience, but he never invited to national debate.

If Bernie Sanders could make himself to the televised debate, then he better pile up all money he could. Fortunately his campaign able to raise more than 1.5 million dollar in less than 24 hours, more than any other current Republican candidates in the first 24 hours after their announcement. 4 days later, his campaign raised 3 million - a building anticipation.

Ben & Jerry Ice Cream founders Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield jumped into his support as well along with actors Mark Ruffalo from The Avengers and Patton Oswalt. While other people in Washington and in Hollywood publicly endorse Hillary Clinton, Sanders managed to bring ragtag group of idealists on his side.

For me, I would personally endorse him. In fact, he is one of my favorite politicians in Washington. If I live in the most chaotic moment in the history of mankind and lists out three people I could forever trust with, one of them would be Bernie Sanders (the others are Paul Krugman and Glenn Greenwald).

Even before his campaign launch, I flirted with democratic socialism and admired Nordic model of democracy. Scandinavian countries like Norway or Sweden tends to have less political corruption and all political campaigns are public financed. Also, they don't have income inequality and anyone can live like their ideal capitalist while the state provide appropriate amount of welfare at the same time. If their way democracy proven to be efficient, why can't United States of America learned anything from them?

How many times do we have to listen political ads from candidates how pro-family they are or how much moral they have. I am tired of this "one guy with big megaphone on a soap box" way of election. It is time for people to get up and vote for candidate who can represent their voters, not billionaire donors.  

(UPDATE) Where have I been lately???

Update: forgot to post up the video.

Hey there folks.

If you are a loyal reader of my blog, you've been wondering why I haven't updated blog for a long time.

I got busy with final exams for couple of weeks, and I got no times to make any blog post on recent money in politics news.

If you are following me on twitter, you see I tends to post up The Young Turks videos of money in politics news (and other random stuffs). 

Recently I am part of this Stamp Stampede Millionaire Club and I am top of the chart right now (I was #1 for a while, now I am like #2 or so). I even made a music video of myself stamping every twenty dollar from my bank account and they just approved it and shared it to their website. If you Stamp Stampede stampers out there, if you want to beat me, then come join the fight.

At the same time, I was also named as Super Stamper of the Month, which is awesome. James Earle, the Outreach Coordinator, contacted me and we had a phone conversation about how I got introduced into campaign finance reform movement and how do I feel about winning Super Stamper of the Month. It's interesting how much I am close with the community.

Next month, my family and I are going to South Korea over the summer. I will still blogging there and report money in politic stories. Even better, I could update this blog more frequently than before, rather than bi-weekly as usual. So look forward to more stuffs later in the future.

(Stamp Stampede-related) Banks Would Likely to Silence Your "Speech" If They Don't Like The Message

Here's an anecdote I would like to share it with you.  

There is a small bank called US Bank at the Student Center in University of Missouri - Columbia. I came here to get more five dollar bills to stamp on by exchanging with a twenty dollar. When I handed my stamped twenty dollar to a bank lady, she told me I shouldn't stamp on it anymore because I am defacing it. 

Now keep in mind that this lady worked at the bank for more than 20 years and she have seen stamped bills like 'where's George' many times before. When I gave a stamped bill to her for the first time, she said it reminded her 'where's George' dollars she got from the past. 

After she said I am defacing it, I replied to her it is legal to stamp on money and also a "free speech." However, she also said that the bank can "silence" my "free speech" if they don't like it.

This reminds me of this story about how Senator Elizabeth Warren met JP Morgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon. It was featured in the afterwords from Warren's autobiography A Fighting Chance. When Dimon demanded more risky bank deregulation in front of her, Warren was furious and call him off for a possibly illegal act. Dimon laughed off and said, "So hit me with a fine. We can afford it." Which means Jamie Dimon already bought many legislators in the House of Congress and literally he runs the government. You can check out The Young Turks's report below:

Now, US Bank is nowhere near big or corrupted as JP Morgan Chase, but it seems like within a banking industry, bankers doesn't like when people speak out against money in politics and demand for prosecuting bankers who were part of the 2008 economic recessions. As you can see an image from the top, this guy mentioned how his bank shreds Stamp Stampede dollars whenever they ends up in ATM. 

This is outrageous. The banking industry knew we are coming after them. They are afraid we are turning money into weapons against them, even though Citizens United ruling (or Buckley v. Valeo) technically allowed us to speak out against money in politics through "free speech."

I am not going to make any speculation whether the banking industry would pressure the Congress to propose some restrictions on stamping dollars, but I feel like they would most likely to do so in order to "silence" our "speech."

The campaign's founder Ben Cohen's lawyer already prepared a legal opinion regarding the issue of stamping dollars and you can read and download the it right here. And when the bank tells you something about "defacing" dollars, just show them this legal opinion and tell them how it is not illegal. But just to be clear: it is ILLEGAL to destroy paper currency or deface it so much that it’s no longer recognizable. What we are doing is a legal and we want our dollars to be circulated as much as possible! 

I have seen many people on Instagram founded Stamp Stampede bills all over the country. Even within Columbia, Missouri! So don't give up. The point of this campaign is to spread the message much as possible.

As Marshall McLuhan said, "the medium is the message."

Whatever Happened to Sen. Bob Menendez?

Looks like someone got indicted for bribery related to Super PACs. This is such a rare thing ever happened in politics. In a country where political bribery is legal, Senator from New Jersey named Bob Menendez indicted last Wednesday afternoon for 14 criminal counts of bribery, conspiracy, and making false statement. 

He has a friendly but sketchy connection with this millionaire eye doctor named Salomon Mengel, who became rich through Medicare. 

This is what The Daily Beast described the behind the scene curtain:

Three years ago, prosecutors began looking at the New Jersey Democrat’sfriendship with Salomon Melgen, an ophthalmologist who became filthy rich, much to the ire of the government, because of Medicare. Melgen was suspiciously generous to Menendez: providing him with luxury hotel suites in Paris, stays at his vacation home (called Casa de Campo, of course), and hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions. In return, Menendez seemingly acted as Melgen’s personal advocate in the federal government.

Menendez claims this is typical friendly behavior. Prosecutors, he snapped on Wednesday, just “don’t know the difference between friendship and corruption.”

And sure, who among us hasn’t—as the indictment specifies—personally called an ambassador to get visas approved for three of our friend’s girlfriends, or intervened when that friend was accused of Medicare fraud, or tried to prevent a foreign government from screwing up a contract with that friend’s business—all while that friend financed our reelection campaign? It’s just what friends do.

Menendez’s defense hinges in part on the sheer length of his friendship with Melgen: 20 years. Of course, 20 years ago, Menendez was a congressman rising rapidly through the ranks in the Democratic Party. No matter, Menendez says, because the cigar-loving duo are so close that they know each other’s families.

Some may say this is the tipping point of political corruption from Super PAC. The author of the article went on and making connections with Citizen United case.

I've written about why such an outcome for Menendez might feel inevitable: New Jersey is, The Washington Post’s Philip Bump calculated, the No. 1 state in the country when it comes to politicians who also are criminals. But it also was arguably inevitable that it wasn't just New Jersey that provided the culture of corruption, but the Citizens United decision.  

Paul S. Ryan, senior counsel for the Campaign Legal Center, said the most interesting part of the indictment has to do with Melgen's $600,000 donation to Menendez, funneled through a super PAC run by former and current aides to Harry Reid, the intention of which was to maintain the Senate majority for Democrats.

“It shows how misguided the Supreme Court, in Citizens United, was when it declared that independent spending can’t or doesn't pose any threat of corruption,” he said. “In fact, we see now, a very direct instance of corruption flowing from contributions made to an independent expenditure group.”

“I think this was all very predictable,” Ryan went on. “The court was completely out of touch with how politics works and this Menendez indictment reflects precisely how politics does work and influence-seekers are going to be exerting their corrupting influence through super PACs just as they used to do it through political parties and soft money. Super PACs provide the same exact types of threats and avenues for corruption.

“The court was wrong and now we have, at least, the first bit of alleged evidence about how wrong the court was in Citizens United.”

Trevor Potter, former chairman of the Federal Elections Commission, agreed. On the Acela from Washington to New York City on Thursday afternoon, Potter told me that “the reality” is “that of course, candidates and officeholders are in the middle of the super PAC world.” He said it was a predictable outcome, although “the court claimed it wasn't going to happen.”

The whole idea of Citizens United was that huge sums of money injected into politics wouldn't cause corruption because the politicians themselves wouldn't be involved in the super PACs—but what about Menendez and Melgen, so close that the latter selected hotel suites for the former?

“It’s possible that [Melgen] did that without anyone talking to the Menendez world,” Potter said, an eyebrow raised skeptically.

Funny how the author mentioned how politicians in New Jersey are also criminals. Look at Governor Chris Christie and the BridgeGate debacle. 

The New York Times went on details of how this corruption came about. You can read the article here. 

This is the big deal because it is contrary to what Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy said about the Citizen United decision, that independent expenditures “do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.”

Even though this is the rarest moment that many had warn to the Supreme Court, why it is so overlooked and why the evidence never matters to them?

“The court’s position is pretty simple, and it is not that independent expenditures can never create gratitude in an officeholder,” said Bradley A. Smith, a professor of law at Capital University Law School. “Rather it is that as a constitutional matter, they do not pose a threat of corruption sufficient to justify the invasions of First Amendment rights that the ‘reformers’ crave.”

Even worse, they would probably overlooked at it more. By the time I am writing this blog, Menendez pleads not guilty to bribery accusation (well, according to the headline).

I'm gonna leave you some links to more articles on this case. 

The Robert Menendez Corruption Charges Undermine the Supreme Court

Menendez indictment marks first big corruption case involving a super PAC

And please, if you want to fix the system and get corruption out of politics, then join us at Wolf-PAC.
Sign the petition and join as the member.
http://www.wolf-pac.com/sign_petition?recruiter_id=63374