Election Reform, Fraud, & Related News, Monday 06/30/08

Election Reform, Fraud, & Related News, Monday 06/30/08

Esteemed DUer's, please consider taking a moment (or more)
to graciously participate by posting Election Reform, Fraud, & Related News on this thread.


If you can:
1. Post stories and announcements you find on the web.



2. Post stories using the new Spring 2006 Edition of "Election Fraud and Reform News Directory" listed here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x407240

3. Re-post stories and announcements you find on DU, providing a link to the original thread with thanks to the Original Poster, too.



4. Start a discussion thread by re-posting a story you see on this thread.




Please "Recommend" for the Greatest Page!

Alabama Attorney General Troy King said Sunday that voter fraud is rampant in the Yellowhammer State.

"I am shocked to realize that we're willing to commit soldiers to the field of battle to protect the rights of others to vote and right here, back home in Alabama, there is this shameful election fraud," King said in an appearance on Fox News.

The Republican attorney general said that voter fraud in Alabama has gone to new heights, with "systemic corruption" occurring particularly in Democratic-leaning counties, such as Perry County.

In the June 3 primary, which attracted about 16 percent of the state's registered voters to the polls, more than 50 percent of the eligible voters in Perry County cast ballots.

More:
http://www.legalnewsline.com/news/213861-king-laments-voter-fraud-in-alabama

Today, Alabama Attorney General Troy King and Fox News’ Eric Shawn collaborated on live television to combat the scourge of vote-buying in King’s home state, and nationwide.

In the exchange, King observes, on questioning from Shawn, that investigations have revealed that fraud and “systemic corruption” are occurring in Democratic counties in Alabama, but at the same time can’t be pinpointed to one particular political party.

According to King, absentee ballots are being sold for cash, and even gravel.

“You think this is political?” Shawn asks.

“Absolutely, I believe it’s political,” King responds after a long pause.

More:
http://rawstory.com/news08/2008/06/29/fox-news-alabama-attorney-general-team-up-against-voter-fraud/

FOX News, right on schedule, has started the reports of voter fraud by the Democratic Party. Eric Shawn interviewed the Alabama Attorney General, Troy King, who claimed people have been selling their votes. When Shawn finally asked him to identify the Party responsible, King said Democratic counties were involved but stopped short at flatly blaming one party. However, the message was clear.

King noted that the investigation into voter fraud has been going on for four years. He pinpointed Perry County as most problematic and there was a quick clip of voters walking into the polls assumed to be Perry County's and all were African-American. Notice King's stammering when he lays blame on Democrats.

Video:
http://www.newshounds.us/2008/06/29/fox_news_reports_alabama_voter_fraud_by_democrats.php

I was watching one of the Sunday morning news shows and caught a portion of an interview with Alabama Attorney General Troy King. He was talking about a potential voter fraud investigation in the western portion of his state, which seems to tie into this report from Alabama.com from this week. There were numerous allegations, including reports of absentee voter ballots being sold for $40 each.

More (plus comments):
http://themoderatevoice.com/politics/legitimacy/20704/whats-wrong-with-alabama/

Allegations of improper voting procedures and violations of polling-place regulations in the June 12 Lincoln Heights Neighborhood Council election are being made in a complaint filed Tuesday with the Los Angeles City Clerk.

“We’re in the position right now that we’re trying to get the city clerk to check the election,” said Carmen M. Serrano, who ran for secretary of the council and lost. Other submitters of the complaint include her husband, Frank A. Serrano, who ran in the election as a community representative for a community-based organization (Sacred Heart Catholic Church) and lost, Jose Aguilar, who ran for an at-large area seat and won, and Hugo Pacheco, who ran for council president and lost.

The complaint alleges that there was no inclusive bilingual voting information and materials for the election, that voters 18 and over were discriminated against by the allowing of minors as young as 14 to vote, that campaign flyers advocating a slate of candidates were on display within the Lincoln High School auditorium polling location, that a memo with a Lincoln High School letterhead about the election was sent to Lincoln High School staff, and that some stakeholders were not provided with ballots, among other allegations. The complaints were to be sent to the City Clerk for review for violation of municipal, state, and federal voting laws. It has not been verified whether the City Clerk has received the complaint.

More:
http://www.egpnews.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=browse&pageid=658&id=34210

In anticipation of record turnout during November’s election, the Registrar of Voters is looking for additional help at the polls.

The San Bernardino County Registrar of Voters started a new program, Partners in Democracy, this election season to staff polling places with businesses or community groups, said Kari Verjil, the county’s registrar. The county plans to open more polling places for the Nov. 4 election and anticipates needing more help than those who volunteer through the regular poll worker program.

Through the program, a business, service organization or other community group can sign up to staff a polling place on election day. The county will provide training before the election, and fully staffed polling places will be paid $885.

“It gives groups a chance to work together,” Verjil said.

More:
http://www.desertdispatch.com/news/record_3704___article.html/business_run.html

Once again in Florida, a write-in candidate for public office is taking advantage of a damaging loophole in state law that threatens to leave more than 100,000 voters with no voice in an election.

This latest abuse is occurring in Pasco County, where week before last a registered Republican filed as a write-in seeking the District 1 county commission seat.

John Taylor - whose residency is also being questioned - has a selfish motive: He doesn't want anyone outside the party voting in an Aug. 26 GOP primary that would have been open to all because the only two true candidates for the office are Republicans - Commissioner Ted Schrader and Tampa firefighter John Nicolette.

Taylor's candidacy, should it stand, amounts to a scam. No candidate should be allowed to manipulate an election system and violate the spirit of the Florida Constitution.

More:
http://www2.tbo.com/content/2008/jun/30/na-strip-write-in-candidates-of-power-to-close-any/

St. Paul lets voters petition to put a measure on the ballot. This year, the requisite number of voters signed petitions to put Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) on the ballot. The city attorney wants to keep it off, and the city council might just vote to deny the petitioners their chance to bring IRV to a vote. The issue is neatly defined in a Park Bugle article.

Proponents of IRV say it will offer voters more choices and open up races to third parties shut out of the current system, as well as save money by eliminating the need for primaries.

Detractors say voters will only be confused by longer ballots and the need to memorize more candidate choices, and that there’s nothing wrong with electing candidates by a plurality rather than a majority.

Instant-runoff voting lists all candidates on a single ballot and lets voters rank their choices. A voter can rank only a top choice, rank all the choices or stop anywhere in between.

More:
http://www.tcdailyplanet.net/article/2008/06/28/irv-dead-or-alive.html

City councils are not courts. It isn't the role of a council to settle disputes over constitutionality.

It also shouldn't be up to council members to keep charter amendments that originate via petition off the November ballot. That would defeat the purpose of allowing charter changes to spring from the people by petition, as well as from charter commissions and city councils. Designers of the petition option for city-charter changes recognized that sometimes, councils and commissions are hostile to worthy new ideas.

That's why the Better Ballot Campaign, which backs instant-runoff voting, is right to threaten legal action if the St. Paul City Council this week blocks its petition-generated charter amendment from the November ballot.

More:
http://www.startribune.com/opinion/editorials/22131889.html?location_refer=Editorials:highlightModules:5

LONG BEACH (Mffais.com) - Diebold Inc (DLD.BE) is number 580 for all United States stocks ranked by number of funds that dumped the company. The total number of funds selling every share owned of Diebold Inc (DLD.BE) is 62.

Sample of funds that recently helped in this particular ranking by their recent buying/selling include:

More:
http://www.mffais.com/newsarticles/2008-06-28/2389014.html

As I've been on the road this week, Steve Heller (a.k.a. the "Diebold Document Whistleblower") was kind enough to step in for me during my regular Friday guest stint on the Peter B. Collins Show.

While it's perhaps a bit of a busman's vacation, I made the mistake of quickly checking out the podcast of yesterday's hour from my motel room after I got off the road last night, and though I've heard (and even told ) Heller's remarkable and heroic story a million times, I couldn't stop listening to the interview. Heller --- who, in addition to putting his life on the line for fair elections, is also now a colleague of mine, helping to head up our Velvet Revolution Election Strike Force --- is a helluva gifted and articulate spokesman on the issues of Election Integrity.

More:
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=6120

Zimbabwe's longtime ruler Robert Mugabe was sworn in as president for a sixth term Sunday after a widely discredited runoff in which he was the only candidate. His main rival dismissed the inauguration as "an exercise in self-delusion."

Just hours after electoral officials said Mugabe won Friday's presidential runoff, which observers said was marred by violence and intimidation, the 84-year-old leader sounded a conciliatory note.

"Sooner or later, as diverse political parties, we shall start serious talks," he said in a speech following his swearing-in. He also had promised talks on the eve of the vote.

Mugabe, Zimbabwe's leader since independence from Britain in 1980, was expected at an African Union summit that opens Monday in Egypt, where he was to face fellow African leaders who want him to share power with his main rival, Morgan Tsvangirai.

Tsvangirai, leader of the opposition Movement for Democratic Change, told Associated Press Television News that Sunday's inauguration was "meaningless."

More:
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i4kT7pJlnuzY_vpKdTACcQYIPcvQD91K72S80

The African National Congress Youth League (ANCYL) has called for the outcome of Zimbabwe's one-man presidential election to be set aside.

ANCYL president Julius Malema described last week's election, in which long-time leader Robert Mugabe was the only participant, as a "joke of the worst order". "The conditions on the ground in Zimbabwe were never conducive to a free and fair election, and the credibility of this election is seriously wanting," Malema said in his closing address at the ANCYL annual congress yesterday evening.

"To recognise its outcome would be a betrayal of not only our own values, but also of the aspirations of the people of Zimbabwe. What was meant to be a presidential run-off election deteriorated into a joke of the worst order."

More:
http://www.sabcnews.com/politics/the_parties/0,2172,172387,00.html

In his first visit to the Marine Headquarters in Fort Bonifacio as military chief on Monday, Yano told officers and soldiers that turning against government was like embracing someone, before stabbing him in the back.

"We have taken an oath, and what is that oath, to defend the Constitution, to adhere to the chain of command and the duly constituted authority, all the way to the commander-in-chief, whoever he is," Yano said.

"Duly constituted, this means was elected, was proclaimed, regardless," Yano said before breaking into a pause, then added, "Because there are processes, legal and democratic that proclaim, indeed it is not for us to proclaim."

Yano was apparently referring to allegations of election fraud that almost brought down President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo's government.

More:
http://www.asianjournal.com/?c=186&a=28707

The Public hearing of the Electoral Reform Committee (ERC) held in Owerri, Imo State capital from June 16 to 18, 2008 to enable stakeholders from Imo and Abia States to make their presentations towards producing a credible and acceptable electoral system for the country in order to meet international standard. In line with the committee’s objective which is to provide further opportunity for members of the general public, particularly those who could or had not submitted memoranda, to make their inputs to the reform process, the large hall of Sam Mbakwe Conference Hall of the Imo Concorde Hotel was fully occupied with very enthusiastic presenters ready to address the committee.

The sitting aptly provided the needed opportunity for aggrieved members of the public to make available their views as it concerns national issues. People of diverse opinion on how the country could attain greatness through quality and credible elections bore their minds to the applause of the public who were present at the three-day event. Notable personalities that made presentation included the former Governor of Abia State, Dr. Orji Uzor Kalu, Governor of Imo State, Chief Ikedi Ohakim, Ohanaeze chieftains, political parties, politicians, civil society organizations, the Media and individuals.

More:
http://www.thisdayonline.com/nview.php?id=115527

snip

Mamata accused the government and the state poll panel of tampering with the electronic voting machines. “I had told the Election Commission in Delhi after the panchayat polls that elections in Bengal should be conducted with paper ballots. The state government is the custodian of the machines and there are chances of them being rigged,” she alleged.

Trinamul sources expressed apprehensions about the results not because of the machines but for lack of an “understanding with the Congress” unlike 2003 and Mamata’s half-hearted efforts. She had held only two rallies, in Diamond Harbour and Midnapore.

More:
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1080630/jsp/bengal/story_9482887.jsp

It has been six months since the start of the Government-driven Voter Re-Confirmation exercise but new and re-confirmed voters have not yet received their National Identification Card as promised by the Douglas Administration. Voters are becoming increasingly uneasy and suspicious with the delay in the issuance of the ID Cards bearing in mind that they can get their Driver’s License and Social Security Card the same day that they applied for them.

Last December, persons were given the assurance that the new National ID Card was due in a few weeks time. Minister Nigel Carty had indicated that “the law states that we have to put a mechanism in place that articulates how the issuance of the Card is going to work,” and that such mechanism “may happen in early in January February … and once those regulations are in place we will begin to issue the ID Cards.” What has become of those regulations?

The delay in the issuance of the National ID Cards seems to suggest that the Government has some sinister plan afoot for the next General Election.

More:
http://www.pamdemocrat.org/Newspaper/Details.cfm?Nz=%247GIJ2%20%20%20%0A&Iz=%24(BLH%22P%20%20%0A

President Yoweri Museveni has assured Ugandans living in the diapora that government will amend the elections Act to enable Ugandans aboard to vote during Uganda's presidential elections and referenda.

The President made the assurance yesterday while meeting Ugandans living in Rwanda at Prime Holding Bulding in Kigali.

Museveni was concluded his official duties in Kigali where he attended and addressed the first ever East African Community Investment Conference.

He said that the election law will be amended to allow Ugandans in the Diaspora to exercise their constitutional right to vote.

More:
http://www.ugpulse.com/articles/daily/news.asp?ID=6020

Andrea Gibson was anxious to vote. The Grade 5 teacher, who dedicates parts of her classroom instruction to discussing world wars and the fight for freedom, likes to practise what she teaches.

Voting is a democratic privilege, Gibson says. She considers it her civic duty.

On March 3 -- provincial election day -- the 29-year-old educator arrived at the voting station in her Calgary-West constituency, jumping in line on a mild winter day. By the time she walked out of the polling facility, Gibson joined the ranks of 1.3 million Albertans -- nearly 60 per cent of eligible voters -- who did not cast a ballot.

"I was really discouraged," she recalls.

Gibson was left off the voters' list, despite having been enumerated for the 2006 federal and 2007 civic elections.

More:
http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/story.html?id=adda3e3f-9743-4390-b817-53332dba0c2a

In the weeks following last month’s scintillating primary election, Hoosiers had the opportunity to reflect on Indiana’s election process. A number of astute and insightful observations were available for consideration, including one in particular from the editorial board of Indianapolis Star.

A Star editorial opined that in order to improve voter turnout, Indiana needs to reform its election system.

“Voter participation in Tuesday’s primary, while strong, didn’t meet expectations of a record-setting turnout, “ the Star editorial stated. “About 39 percent of the state’s registered voters completed a ballot. That’s the best turnout for a primary in 20 years but still below the 42 percent who voted in May 1988.”

More:
http://www.tribstar.com/cnhi/tribstar/editorials/local_story_180205516.html

From the "know your enemies" department.....

If you don't know what ACORN (the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) is all about, you better bone up.
Advertisement

This left-wing group takes in 40 percent of its revenues from American taxpayers — you and me — and has leveraged nearly four decades of government subsidies to fund affiliates that promote the welfare state and undermine capitalism and self-reliance, some of which have been implicated in perpetuating illegal immigration and encouraging voter fraud.

A new whistleblower report from the Consumer Rights League claims that Chicago-based ACORN has commingled public tax dollars with political projects.

Who in Washington will fight to ensure that your money isn't being spent on these radical activities?

More:
http://www.statesmanjournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080630/OPINION/806300307/1049/OPINION

So basically what we can assume is 99.5% of this piece is untrue, just because she wrote it. I love the snarky smears she manages to slip in about Obama. Gads, she's a horrible thing. I wrote her once about some hideous piece she had published. I corrected her "errors" and pretty much just scolded her for being so nasty and ugly in temperament. Never did get a response.

She makes me ill.

Add another drawback of mail voting to the big one. I didn’t hear about it until a few weeks after the primary last month, so here it is now.

The big drawback of voting entirely through the mail, as we do in Oregon, is that there is no ceremony, nothing to teach children the importance of taking part in a democratic election. The monthly magazine of AARP took note of the importance of this American ritual, especially for children, in its current issue. In Oregon, though, in this regard at least, the next generation will have to look after itself.

But we already know about that, and Oregon voters have said they don’t care. So what if kids grow up thinking that from outward appearances at least, voting is about the same as sorting through the rest of the junk mail?

The other, newly discovered defect is that your vote may just be discarded if you’re not careful about maintaining the same signature throughout your voting life.

The case I hard about goes like this:

More:
http://www.democratherald.com/articles/2008/06/29/news/opinion/2edi01_vote.txt

When Barack Obama decided last week to throw off the constraints on campaign spending that go with the acceptance of public financing, he was rightly criticized for rigging the system in his own favor.

That was a predictable response. For the better part of four decades, the press and public-interest groups have focused on campaign spending as the most serious distorting force in our elections.

Meantime, they have paid much less attention to what may well be a larger problem -- the way that district lines are drawn to create safe havens for one party or the other, in effect denying voters any choice of representation.

It is not a new problem. The original gerrymander was a creation of 18th-century Massachusetts, and politicians have been using ever more sophisticated tools to rig the game ever since. With computer technology, their ability to design districts that meet the legal requirement for equal population, while guaranteeing their fellow partisans easy passage into office, has never been greater.

More:
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/services/newspaper/printedition/monday/opinion/orl-broder3008jun30,0,5234895.story

The article forwarded by Karen Kwiatkowski hits a very sensitive nerve of the statists. Voting is essential for maintaining the illusion that "democracies" are run by "the people" (in the same way that "theocracies" are run by "God"). Those who refuse to vote are walking sandwich boards for the proposition that people can function in society without political direction and oversight. Non-voters must be stigmatized as "lazy" or "irresponsible" - and certainly not be seen as men and women who reject the entire logic of the state.

The threat that the principled non-voter has to the system was illustrated in a conversation I had, decades ago, with the writer George Boardman. He lived in a very small town in Arizona. The man who was running for re-election as the county prosecutor, had gone door-to-door soliciting the support of voters. When he got to Boardman's house, George informed him that he did not vote and would not vote, an expression that so troubled the candidate that he returned to Boardman's house a few more times to ask him why he refused to vote, and to try to persuade him to participate, even if he wanted to vote for his opponent. (This is the same kind of nonsense one hears from the League of Women Voters: "it doesn't matter who you vote for, but vote!"

George asked, rhetorically, why this candidate was so concerned with his one non-vote. In a county of tens of thousands of residents, why would any politician care whether one man chose to stay home on election day as a matter of principle. He never got an answer from the candidate. George already knew the answer, of course, and it lay in the above-stated mindset offered by the League of Women Voters. It is the article of faith so proudly worn on his lapel by Boobus, as he emerges from the polling place: "I voted!"

More:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/021743.html

Among the world’s democracies, the United States is uniquely unforgiving in denying ex-offenders the right to vote. Nowhere is the problem worse than in Florida, where criminal justice experts estimate that as many as 950,000 felons are barred from the voting booth.

Last year, Gov. Charlie Crist pushed through new rules that made it easier for some ex-offenders to become full citizens and helped restore voting rights to more than 100,000 former prisoners. But this is well short of what’s needed — a complete overhaul of a wildly illogical system.

In most states, inmates win back their voting rights as soon as they are released from prison or when they complete parole or probation. One big reason that does not happen in Florida is that state law requires felons to first make restitution to their victims. And until their voting rights are restored, former prisoners are barred from scores of state-regulated occupations for which the restoration of voting rights is listed as a condition of employment.

Quite apart from the fact that it is undemocratic to bar people from the voting booth because they owe money, the system is transparently counterproductive since it prevents people from landing the jobs they will need to make restitution. Denying ex-offenders a chance to make an honest living is a sure way to drive them back to jail.

More:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/30/opinion/30mon3.html?ref=opinion

Our country badly needs some major electoral reforms. Here are just a few of the ones with which I hope most people will agree.

•We need to get rid of electronic voting machines. There were many stories in 2004 of people unable to vote because the machines had technical problems.

Even when the machines work, there is no way to verify that the total vote count that they output in the end actually matches what voters entered. The only way to guarantee they match is to have the machines produce paper receipts that are counted as well.

But if we have to count the paper receipts, too, then why do we need the machines in the first place? Is it just so we can count votes faster?

I think people are willing to wait a day or two for results to make sure we get the count right.

More:
http://www.kansascity.com/273/story/684648.html

It is unlikely anyone will be prosecuted for the violations of civil service laws in the hiring of career lawyers in the U.S, Justice Department, but that does not diminish the seriousness of what occurred.

An internal investigation of the hiring practices, triggered by last year’s political firing of eight federal prosecutors, lays out in shocking detail how the Justice Department under President Bush went beyond past practice in establishing a litmus test for securing employment. The test was based on a simple proposition: Liberals need not apply.

Neither the inspector general nor members of the ethics office who are conducting the internal probes contends that all hirings must be apolitical.

Indeed, U.S. attorneys are political appointees and work at the will of the president. They thus can be terminated at any time, without cause. It is not unusual for each administration to put its stamp on the Justice Department by bringing in new people.

But what the Bush administration has done, not only with the firings of the eight last year, but in the screening of applicants for civil service positions is set a new standard for politicizing hirings at Justice.

More:
http://www.vindy.com/news/2008/jun/30/bush8217s-justice-department-bowed-to-partisan/

Can citizen's elections be truly free and fair where there is any meddling - partisan or not - from election officials?

Last Sunday, the Plain Dealer published the below editorial about SoS Brunner, written obviously from a Republican bias. If the facts stripped of bias are true, however, might this still be considered "too much" meddling from a state's chief election official, especially in a state where all election officials are legally to serve at the Secretary of State's pleasure?

Regarding OSU law Professor Foley's quote at the end : "Election management is an area where appearance is reality." - might it also be possible that a major difference in the public's perception of the fairness of one SoS administration to the next, lies not only in the party alignment of the perceivers, but also greatly in the administration's ability to create a convincing apparent-reality?

More:
http://citizensboe.blogspot.com/2008/06/in-truly-fair-citizens-elections-is-any.html

We rely on the secret ballot to prevent vote selling and voter intimidation, but the “secret” ballot isn’t always very secret. In this post I will discuss a problem that very few people know about or understand—one that allows us to give ourselves away using the very choices we make!

The problem is called pattern voting (PV), and it occurs when there are enough choices on a ballot to allow voters to identify themselves using a predetermined voting pattern. Whether or not this is possible is a function of the the number of unique choices on the ballot, the number of voters, and how ballots are counted.

The simplest PV example is an election with one voter. That voter identifies her choices simply by voting, but more realistic scenarios are simple to construct. Consider an election with 10 voters and 3 races with 2 candidates each. Assuming a two-party system, let us say the choices for each race are the democrat (D), republican(R), or no vote (N). If voters follow the rules, this situation leads to the following 27 possible voting patterns:

DDD, DDR, DDN, DRD, DRR, DRN, DND, DNR, DNN, RDD, RDR, RDN, RRD, RRR, RRN, RND, RNR, RNN, NDD, NDR, NDN, NRD, NRR, NRN, NND, NNR, NNN

This is simply a permutation with repetition (3^3). To identify a voter, all that is necessary is to agree before the election on an unlikely voting combination. Up to 9 voters could vote for the same candidate in a select race using unique patterns between them.

More:
http://punchscan.org/blog/2008/06/16/how-secret-is-your-secret-ballot-part-1-of-3-pattern-voting/

As explained in part 1, there are numerous ways for a voter to violate the principle of a secret ballot. In this post we discuss identifying marks (IMs). Such marks occupy a middle ground because the voter may or may not knowingly be giving away his identity.

Many states make IMs on ballots illegal but they rarely give a clear definition. In some cases it means serial numbers. In others it means writing outside of acceptable spaces. For our purposes, the definition of an IM is anything on the ballot that could potentially identify a voter after her ballot has been cast. As far as I know, only a small subset of such IMs could be considered illegal under most laws.

Simple Identifying Marks

Simple IMs are obvious and generally require voter complicity. These include marks that would generally be considered illegal under an IM law, such as arbitrarily signing your name or writing your address on the ballot.

Because they are legal, write-in candidate slots are the worst kind of simple IM. Voter’s can easily identify their ballots by voting for an agreed upon candidate. It might also be possible to identify voters through a handwriting recognition program (unlikely at this point, but possible in the future).

More:
http://punchscan.org/blog/2008/06/26/how-secret-is-your-secret-ballot-part-2-of-3/

The Philadelphia campaign finance limits that made it possible for a reform mayor to sweep into office last year haven't been up-ended yet, but they're under siege. So there's no time to lose mounting a defense.

Just days after a Philadelphia judge rebuffed a legal challenge to fund-raising caps aimed at preventing deep-pocket donors from driving city policy, the U.S. Supreme Court sounded what might be the death knell for another key provision of the city's campaign law.

On Thursday, the high court tossed out federal rules designed to level the playing field when rich candidates spend their own money. Under the so-called millionaire's amendment, candidates are permitted to raise over-the-limit donations against a big spender.

That same principal is enshrined in the city's campaign law, which triggered higher giving limits for Michael Nutter and three other candidates in 2007 when personal spending by mayoral contender Tom Knox rose into the millions.

More:
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/20080630_Editorial__Campaign_Finance_Ruling.html

The Supreme Court on Thursday struck down the "millionaire's amendment," a campaign finance law intended to level the field for House candidates facing wealthy opponents who spend lots of their own money.

The law says that when candidates spend more than $350,000 from their own pockets, opponents may qualify to accept larger individual contributions than normally allowed and can receive unlimited party expenditures.

The justices ruled 5-4 that the law violates the First Amendment. "We have never upheld the constitutionality of a law that imposes different contribution limits for candidates who are competing against each other," Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the majority.

More:
http://www.startribune.com/politics/21862764.html?location_refer=Nation:highlightModules:4

The folks that created the constitution made the presidential spot open to whoever the public elected. This was a good decision, and one that has worked well for many years. In the 1970’s though we started to see a new trend. He with most money won.

Here we are in 2008, and the silliness has reached new peaks. Apparently Hillary Clinton is $20 million in the hole! And she isn’t even running any more.

I have no idea how accurate these numbers are, but according to Opensecrets.org almost one billion dollars has been spent on election ‘08.

What a waste of money, and a waste of time. The Clinton campaign apparently has spent almost $230 million. Obama is approaching $250 million, and hawkish McCain is still under $100 million. The other serious players add an additional $360 million. As the saying goes, a billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you are talking real money!

More:
http://www.bloggernews.net/116454

More than 30 years ago, following the Watergate scandal, the US provided for the partial public funding of presidential elections. Candidates would get public money to supplement cash they raised in return for accepting curbs on their spending. It worked, after a fashion: since 1976, every presidential candidate has taken public money for his general election campaign. Last week Barack Obama announced he would not. This understandable though hypocritical decision further undermines the country's campaign finance rules. In the end, however, this may be no bad thing.

Mr Obama's fund-raising prowess means he can spurn public money with strings attached. Left alone, he will have an enormous financial advantage over John McCain. He would have been foolish, no doubt, to surrender this - a rare prospect for a Democrat, since Republican contenders have typically been better funded. Unfortunately, before Mr Obama discovered his Midas touch, he said he would accept public funds and called for the system to be upheld.

Moreover, he has justified his new position dishonestly, complaining that special interests were financing Mr McCain's campaign. In fact, roughly 2 per cent of what Mr McCain has raised has come from lobbyists and political action committees (and the Democrats have usually relied on those sources more than Republicans). Mr Obama's reputation for plain dealing has suffered a setback.

More:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1902c49a-40bb-11dd-bd48-0000779fd2ac.html

Election law scholar Rick Pildes has two excellent posts explaining why the "Millionaires Amendment," which the Supreme Court struck down on Thursday was probably enacted by Congress for the purpose of protecting incumbent legislators against challengers (see here and here). As Pildes explains, laws restricting the ability of independently wealthy candidates to spend their own money on their campaigns benefits incumbents because they usually have much better access to other sources of funding than challengers do. Thus, even independently wealthy incumbents rarely need to spend their own money on reelection campaigns. By contrast, thanks to the existence of laws restricting the amounts which people can contribute to the campaigns of others, independently wealthy challengers spending their own money are "very incumbent's nightmare" because they can spend a lot more than challengers who must rely on difficult-to-raise outside contributions. Pildes compiles some impressive evidence (including statements by John McCain) indicating that Congress inserted the Millionaires Amendment into the McCain-Feingold Act for the specific purpose of reducing the risk of their own defeat.

I. Legislators' Incentives to Enact Incumbent-Protection Laws.

However, Pildes seems to believe that the Millionaires Amendment is at least somewhat exceptional, and that many if not most other campaign finance laws might promote political competition rather than undermining it. I find that conclusion implausible. After all, campaign finance laws can only be enacted if they have the support of incumbent legislators. And incumbents have very strong incentives to support "reforms" that entrench them against potential challengers and oppose any reforms that might make the challengers' task easier. Even if - in the abstract - it is possible to design a system of campaign finance regulation that creates a better electoral process than that which would exist in the absence of regulation, it is highly unlikely that real-world legislators would vote for such a system. Instead, they are likely to support reforms that entrench incumbents and oppose any that might have the opposite effect.

Allowing incumbent legislators to write campaign finance laws is somewhat like appointing a committee of wolves to develop new security arrangements for chicken coops. Even if the current security system is flawed, the wolves will probably make it worse rather than better. After all, the wolves' main interest is ensuring their own ability to gobble up the chickens, a goal that would be frustrated by the installation of better security measures.

More:
http://volokh.com/posts/1214628280.shtml

XPLANE, a global consulting and information design firm, has developed an infographic detailing how Barack Obama is the first major candidate to decline participation in the public funding system because of the support he has garnered through online social networks.

Portland, OR, June 23, 2008 -- XPLANE, a global consulting and information design firm that clarifies the complex through visual communication, has developed an infographic detailing how Barack Obama is the first major candidate to decline participation in the public funding system because of the support he has garnered through online social networks. The work, which is released under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License, can be downloaded from the XPLANE web site at http://www.xplane.com/obama/

Recognized for its visual communication pieces, XPLANE won a bronze medal in 2008 at the 16th Malofiej International Infographics Awards, which is known as the most important and respected infographic contest in the world. This marked XPLANE's first time entering an infographic into the competition.

More:
http://www.freepressreleases.co.uk/Press_Releases/Business/Obama_Reinvents_Campaign_Finance_-_Xplanation_by_XPLANE_2008062823599/

Recent media criticism of Barack Obama’s decision to forego public financing of his general election campaign for president has missed the potentially historic nature of Obama’s decision— and the fact that his will be the first campaign in modern American political history to be funded overwhelmingly by small contributors.

In a sense, Obama’s remarkable success in attracting unprecedented numbers of individual contributors (over 1.5 million so far) has created his own form of public financing, and a model that future candidates will no doubt attempt to emulate.

In the media dustup over Obama’s decision, commentators seem to have forgotten that public financing wasn’t implemented as an end in itself. It was simply a means of getting special interest money out of campaigns. For years, corporate political action committees, or PACs, and wealthy donors have used hefty political contributions to gain access to politicians.

While campaign finance laws limit the size of those contributions to individual campaigns, the law provides gaping loopholes that allow much larger contributions to the party organizations themselves and special interests have taken full advantage of those gaps in the law.

More:
http://www.timberjay.com/current.php?article=4468

Is Election Day voter registration a good idea? Yes, says Tim Russert’s son, Luke — especially as a means of increasing young voter turnout.

Luke argued this week on CNN that if it was easier for young people to vote, more of them would do it.

Yes, they would. But would that necessarily be a good thing for the country?

I say no.

I once believed that Americans should be required to vote. Regular readers out there know how I feel about citizens’ responsibility to participate in their government. But I no longer believe in compulsory voting — and it’s because of how I feel about citizens’ responsibility to participate in their government.

Voting isn’t like going to the corner store to pick up milk (or, in the case of some college students, beer), or downloading this week’s No. 1 song to your iPod.

More:
http://www.oanow.com/oan/news/local/article/jennifer_foster_young_people_voting_is_your_right_and_your_responsibility/21795/

The gap between some things is amazing. Gas prices three years ago. Gas prices now. The credibility of a babysitter on "Jon & Kate Plus 8." The credibility of Michael Jackson as your neighborhood nanny. Left tooth in my mugshot. Right tooth in my mugshot. You get the point.

By the time you cast your vote in the November election, both presidential candidates will have celebrated their August birthdays. Sen. Barack Obama (Aug. 4) will turn 47, and Sen. John McCain (Aug. 29) will turn 72. Now that's a gap.

Plenty of stuff gets dragged into politics' mainstream, but little of it helps the public make an informed decision: "W" the President didn't want to be in the military. Clinton got blazed and kept a mistress in addition to the missus… as if he's the only president to perform an illegal search and seizure on a female. (Theory: Bill may have been high that day and got a little sloppy in covering his tracks, but whatever. If he's in town for the debate, keep extra security at the marijuana fields and Sorority Row.)

You don't hear much about the candidates' ages, but it's very easy to see why both candidates want to be president. McCain and his college roommate, Benjamin Franklin, reportedly spent many nights developing ground breaking governmental frameworks. As one of the original signers of the Constitution, he wants the country to head in the direction envisioned by him and the rest of America's forefathers. He also takes issue with the accuracy of "National Treasure 2: Book of Secrets."

Obama, for whom McCain was a regular babysitter, has wanted to be in the Oval Office since he was a young boy. He even spoke about it last week at his high school's Future Leaders of America meeting. I have to say that it was very moving.

In all seriousness, age can add to or subtract from the candidates' popularity. A USA Today/Gallup Poll reveals that Obama is a 2-to-1 favorite in the 18-to-29 demographic. McCain leads Obama 49 percent to 40 percent with seniors 65 and older.

More:
http://media.www.thedmonline.com/media/storage/paper876/news/2008/06/30/Opinion/Age-A.Big.Factor.In.Election-3386478.shtml

Thanks for the rec! :hi:

A few more for the news, please?

:kick: