News Copy, New York

Running For Congress Like Buying A House: Midterm Elections To Cost at Least $3.7 Billion

According to the Center For Responsive Politics (opensecrets.org), getting elected to Congress will cost a total of $3.7 billion by November 2nd.

It does not include a projection for how much money could come directly from corporations, unions, trade associations or other special interest groups in advertisements stemming from the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision that reversed the ban on independent expenditures by corporations. These groups are now free to spend unlimited sums on such advertisements -- and there is no precedent on which to base an estimate of how much money corporations and organizations will spend through this new political money mechanism.

The numbers over the past twelve years went from $1.6 - 5.3 billion.  2008 was a presidential election cycle, explaining the $5.3 billion.

One million, two million to run for Congress is for the average American the equivalent of winning the lottery.

It would buy a house, a few houses depending on the section of the country.  Congressional runs have bankrupted wealthy individuals, ruined marriages, fractured families and scandalized Mr. Smith trying to get to Washington, D.C.

Who would want to do it?

Go ahead by making it more difficult to give people money, why don't you ...

The Wall Street Journal explained that "Democrats are proposing to repeal the First Amendment, at least for some people ... " -- Yeah, capitalists.

"The Democrats don't include unions in their speech bans, though the Supreme Court recently liberated unions from campaign-finance rules too. As former Federal Election Commission member Hans von Spakovsky points out, the Service Employees International Union often boasts of its hefty percentage of Canadian members. Should it be barred from donating to President Obama?"

Senator Chuck Schumer of New York and Representative Chris Van Hollen of Maryland are going to war against free speech, with legislation pending this week that will:

• Prevent any company with more than 20% of foreign shareholders from spending money in U.S. elections.
• Ban TARP recipients and government contractors from campaign spending.
• Require CEOs to pop up at the end of television commercials to "approve this message" just like politicians

Barbara Streisand got in on the act, preaching on The Huffington Post that "Elections Should Be Won, Not Bought"

"In Citizens United v. FEC, a narrow majority of the Roberts Court gave corporations nearly identical rights as you and I to participate in elections -- a radical departure for a Chief Justice who pledged not to legislate from the bench! I have always been a fierce advocate for the First Amendment, but giving corporations unlimited ability to influence our elections is not the "free speech" our Founding Fathers had in mind."

Democrat Donna Edwards and Michigan Democrat John Conyers are going further and proposing to amend the Constitution so it bars corporate free speech.

Didn't you hear the news?  Money is evil!

New York Congressman John Hall On Freedom of Speech: SHUT UP!!!

A liberal Democrat in New York's Hudson Valley wants a law to undermine a Supreme Court ruling allowing corporate involvement in elections.

New York Congressman John Hall wants to sidestep the recent high court ruling on free speech by discriminating against investors in American corporations.

"Foreign nationals who have partial ownership or management of American corporations do not have the right to use that control to swing American elections."

John Hall has no problem with Democrats socializing parts of the U.S. economy -- and letting its special interests donate in excess to the same Democrats -- but evil capitalists can't Constitutionally advocate a free market system?

The Freedom From Foreign-Based Manipulation in American Elections Act would block campaign advertising by any corporation with foreign nationals making up 5% or more of their shareholders, foreign nationals on its board of directors, or a foreign national employed as a senior executive. regulations.

Five percent?  Hall should check his own stock portfolio and donor list for foreign entanglements before he throws stones.  The truth is that Hall wants to penalize foreignors who believe in capitalism and America's form of government.  The two-term Democrat is just reaching for this xenophobic excuse to knock down American corporations.

He doesn't care one bit where the money comes from.

Next, Rep. Hall will start singing The Internationale ...

Psst!!! Don't Raise Any Money. It's Spoiled. Pass It On.

James Taranto of The Wall Street Journal gives the Grey Lady a spanking, admonishing The New York Times for its scorn of last week's Supreme Court's ruling on campaign finance.

It's as much a ruling on free speech, on capitalism and on allowing a laying playing field between Democrats and Republicans with campaign finance.

In a carefully researched story entitled "Censorship, Inc.", Taranto ably noted the hypocrisy employed by the Times -- as if their free speech smells better than anyone else's.

"It's lucky for the New York Times Co. that the Supreme Court upheld its First Amendment rights. Otherwise, it could not have exercised its First Amendment right to denounce the court for upholding its First Amendment rights."

The New York Times is demonstrating its lack of liberal free speech, the control freak game that has defined news coverage for over 40 years.

The point of the Court is that unfair regulation of corporate media companies inhibits freedom of speech, whether they broadcast or print newspapers (or build a network of blogs).

The problem is that all liberal news providers want is a monopoly and less free speech, rather than competitive free speech.