Sign the 'Fair Elections Now Act' Petition! It's the key to making government work for the people.

[flpoljunkie]

Sign The Fair Elections Now Act Petition!

I support the Fair Elections Now Act (S.752, H.R.1826), the bipartisan bill introduced in both chambers of Congress, that would allow congressional candidates to run for office using small donations and limited public financing, and not take any large contributions. Elections should empower voters and volunteers instead of campaign donors and wealthy special interests.

Sign Petition: http://www.fairelectionsnow.org/

The House bill, H.R. 1826 was introduced by Rep. John Larson, D-CT, the same day and has 12 co-sponsors.

Video of Senator Dick Durbin speaking after he introduced the bill on March 31, 2009:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMXOzv68toE&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Efairelectionsnow%2Eorg%2F&feature=player_embedded

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. Sam Waterston is on board with this

and has been talking about it on various shows. Only reason I mention it is because I monitor a Sam Waterston fan board. This got a lot of folks talking, and there was support from both liberals and conservatives there (we get along pretty well despite our political differences, and I count my blessings that we do).

[flpoljunkie]

2. Yes, Waterston is featured on Public Campaign's website. They're one of the groups working for this.

http://www.publicampaign.org/

The others are listed here: http://change-congress.org/partners/

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

4. Thanks for the information

This is one cause I'm enlisting conservatives to support as well--and they are doing it.

[flpoljunkie]

5. That is terrific to hear!

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

3. k - r nt

[flpoljunkie]

6. Kick!

:kick:

[seanparnell]

7. No Thanks

I would strongly recommend NOT signing this petition, or any other that endorses this welfare for politicians scheme.

First, it doesn't 'get special interest out of politics' or whatever euphemism is being used to promote this idea. Sorry, but who exactly do you think is going to be able to raise the 1,500 contributions of $100 or less needed to get this bailout for politicians, and how are they going to do it?

Well, if you're an incumbent, no problem, because you've already got a big donor list and the backing of your party. Send a few letters to the list, ask party activists to pass the hat at meetings, and you've got your money.

What if you're not an incumbent and don't have the backing of the party establishment? Well, you've only got one shot to qualify, and that's to turn to organized interest groups who have their own membership lists, volunteers, and staff, who are more than happy to solicit your contributions for you. So most Republicans are going to go to the NRA, the right to life groups/social conservative groups, Chamber of Commerce, business groups, etc, while Democrats go to the unions, environmental groups, pro-choice/feminist groups, trial lawyers, etc.

This is getting special interests out of politics?

Of course, there's another option if you aren't an incumbent or strongly backed by organized interest groups (or a celebrity): try and do it on your own, with whatever group of volunteers you can muster. Good luck with that, finding 1,500 people willing to give to your campaign when you can't hire staff or pay for mailings, because you can't take more than $100 from anyone.

This scheme, like almost all campaign finance "reforms," is about protecting incumbents while limiting funds from flowing to those who would criticize and challenge those in office. So no, thank you, I don't think I will be signing this petition, nor should anyone who cares about the First Amendment.

Sean Parnell
President
Center for Competitive Politics
http://www.campaignfreedom.org
[e-mail]

[acmavm]

9. Is this you?

<snip>

Run for U.S. House of Representatives
On March 14, 2008, Parnell announced that he would take on embattled 18-term Congressman Don Young in the August 26 Republican Primary.<2> The margin between the two was very narrow and the winner was not immediately clear. Eventually, final results on September 18 showed Young winning by 304 votes, and Parnell announced that he would not seek a recount. According to Parnell, the odds of overturning Young's victory were too small to warrant the "expenditure of taxpayer funds" involved in a recount.<3>

Parnell has been endorsed by Governor Palin,<4> National Review magazine.<5> and the Club for Growth<6>.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_Parnell

[flpoljunkie]

11. Surely look and smells like it. 'Welfare for politicians?' It's the Rethug 'free speech' crowd.'

There's always the petition route, too. Rep. Kendrick is taking that route in Florida, altho he is ahead in fundraising for the open Senate seat of the retiring Mel Martinez. Bill Clinton has done a fundraiser for him, as well.

As for the Center for Competitive Politics, it was founded by former Commission, Vice-Chair and Chairman of the FEC, Bradley A. Smith, to promote deregulation of campaign finance.

(That's what we need--more deregulation!)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_A._Smith

[seanparnell]

13. "Rethug?"

I'm sorry, I wasn't aware the First Amendment applied only to Democrats, or that only Democrats could have a perspective on this issue?

Or are you suggesting that only "Rethuglicans" (or whatever cute phrase you like to use) support de-regulation (yes, I'm happy to use that word - I happen to think that government regulation of speech is a terrible idea, perhaps you'd like to take the other side on that debate?) and greater freedom for citizens to support candidates and causes they believe in?

If that's the case, you might want to check out those stalking-horses for the radical right over at the American Civil Liberties Union: http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/cfr/index.html

Oh, and I note that you didn't bother to refute or challenge any of the statements I made about the general inadvisability of "clean elections" or "fair elections" or whatever they're calling the scam these days. I guess in some quarters it's enough to simply shriek "rethuglican!" and then scurry away without having to actually weigh the relative merits and deficiencies of a proposal. I tend to like evidence myself, but to each their own.

Sean Parnell
President
Center for Competitive Politics
http://www.campaignfreedom.org
[e-mail]

[flpoljunkie]

14. Your 'free speech' argument is weak bullshit. Those with money have a huge megaphone.

The average American, not so much.

[seanparnell]

17. Average American?

Which "average american" are you talking about? The ones who agree with, say, Rush Limbaugh, or the ones that agree with Rachel Maddow? The ones that agree with George Soros, or Sheldon Adelstein? The ones that agree with Nancy Pelosi, or John Boehner?

You seem to be under the illusion that there is some large monolithic bloc of Americans that have interests and perspectives dramatically different from those who fund campaigns, and that their voices are excluded from the political system. This is rubbish. There are some voices that are largely excluded, the KKK and the Communist Party come to mind, but that's just because very few people are willing to sink their money into supporting such garbage, and very few Americans support those ideas (at least I fervently hope so).

Yes, those with more money to give are able to do more to support their favored causes and candidates. This would be a problem if there was a consensus among political donors on whom to support, but every election cycle we have billions of dollars being contributed, much of it by wealthy individuals, to candidates with sharply contrasting views.

You also are under the delusion that somehow political contributions are the only way to have a "megaphone." The editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal and New York Times would seem to rebut this, as would the grassroots legions of the National Rifle Association and the Sierra Club, and the millions of Americans who check out RedState.com and the DailyKos.

But perhaps you can share with everybody here which voice of the "average american" is being shut out?

Sean Parnell
President
Center for Competitive Politics
http://www.campaignfreedom.org
[e-mail]

[flpoljunkie]

21. You know exactly what I mean despite your disingenuous bullshit response.

How about those who credit card interest rates have been increased though no fault of their own so help refill the cofers of the credit card companies?

Who is speaking for them?

I stand with Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt who understood the power of money on our politics--especially corporate money.

"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. . . . corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed."

-- U.S. President Abraham Lincoln, Nov. 21, 1864

(letter to Col. William F. Elkins)

Ref: The Lincoln Encyclopedia, Archer H. Shaw (Macmillan, 1950, NY)

[seanparnell]

24. Platitudes get you no where.

What a nonsensical argument. "Something happened I don't approve of, so it must mean nobody was speaking for the average American..."

Please. Some "average americans" aren't happy about what's happening with credit card interest rates, while others are. It's kind of what drives the ideological split in this country, with roughly one third of the American public regularly saying things like "Yay Capitalism" and "family values!" while another third can be heard regularly responding "boo capitalism" and "we need social justice," with another third going back and forth or being all over the map.

Face it - we live in an ideologically diverse nation. What you call the interests of the "average american" are rejected by a sizeable number of your fellow countrymen, and the reverse is true as well.

A quote, by the way, is useful to illustrate a point already proven, or at least that evidence has been supplied for. As a stand-alone, it doesn't carry much weight.

Sean Parnell
President
Center for Competitive Politics
http://www.campaignfreedom.org
[e-mail]

[flpoljunkie]

25. Only corporate toadies are concerned about money & 'free speech.' Who funds your organization, Sean?

[seanparnell]

29. namecalling, fabulous

The ironic thing is that I'm going to guess you're one of those people that pride themselves on being tolerant and open minded (correct me if I'm wrong, my powers of telepathy have been on the wane recently), yet when you find yourself confronted by an idea that you don't agree with all you can do is insult the person advocating it and assert that they must be somehow in the pocket of a corrupt entity.

Oh, I hope you don't have an ACLU card anywhere on your person, as they're among the corporate toadies who are concerned about money and free speech. http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/cfr/index.html

And I told you who funds the organization - American citizens who share our perspective on the First Amendment. Just as every organization in America (well, most, at least) is funded by those who share their agenda. Why does it matter?

Sean Parnell
President
Center for Competitive Politics
http://www.campaignfreedom.org
[e-mail]

[RandomThoughts]

53. Interesting conversation

But perhaps you can share with everybody here which voice of the "average American" is being shut out?

Money buys advertisement time, news papers, and tv networks.

Average Americans, or the majority of them, have a very small percent of the disposable income to influence or outright buy those organizations to have their voice heard. In this definition, average is defined as middle class based on wealth or social status.

So the voice is shut out by a system that says the more money you have the bigger your voice is.

There are exceptions to this, many people with a little can equal a few with alot, but for the most part the system is not democracy, it is plutocracy.

This is why people want to find a way to limit the amount of money in politics, yet as long as individual people are willing to do or say things that might be bad because they are given a big check, in other words allow a dominance of money over a system, money does find its way into the system.

Simply put, you can not stop money from politics by limiting the way it is spent, because as many know free speech allows groups to just find other ways to support a candidate. However, a people, many millions of them, can get together, literally take the money from the people with lots (thats called taxation) then use that money for ideas that the many people want to see done, and part of getting those ideas done would be to get representatives elected that support those ideas.

So here is an idea, it actually is democratic, and really makes sense to most people, but those with money would scream like crazy at it, since it takes power from those that currently claim to have power only because they have the money.


Does free speech mean that one person can buy all the TV air time, and that can not be stopped? would that be free speech? Or would that be bought speech. how about government take a large part of that rich persons money, then give it to people that show they have valid ideas to share by paying for there ideas to be heard on TV. Wouldn't that be free speech? Since it is available to everyone based on quality, not just money. But who decides the quality, currently it is decided by how much money you have, not how many people agree with the concepts.

Why not a government journalist project, where citizens can send in ideas of things they want investigated, how those ideas are picked would be the hard part, if centralized, then it returns to power, so small groups in many local areas can send in ideas, any group with 50 signatures can send in an idea. Ideas are picked randomly, then government pays a journalist to research the idea, then that is payed for to be put on prime time tv right after or before a talking head on TV. Some ideas would be bad, and useless, because there was no merit to investigation, some would be silly, but it is a shot gun approach to spread journalism from control based on money. (And big money would try to sink the system by paying people to send in ideas to control direction of investigations. So that would have to be illegal under a form of bribery since signatures would have a citizen governmental role.)

Now take this idea into politics, if someone gets enough signatures, not some huge amount, he gets air time paid for by government to introduce his ideas to many people. not buried on a channel people rarely watch, but right along side the shows paid for by big money. Or at a minimum advertisements are paid by government to the content and air time of the show.

State funded journalism! State funded campaigning! What a terrible thing they would scream. Why because state funded is really taking the money from the few, to fund the ideas of the many that do not have lots of cash, and big money obviously would not like that.

Its comically simple, once you realize that people with money only get to keep their money as long as a group of people do not walk up and say it will be used how the 'many' want it used, until that time, money has power. Taking taxation from wealth for things like information exchange, is in the interest of the many, and is therefore not wrong. The reason all the argument about how people with money should rule and should be allowed to pick who runs for office exist, is they have the money to push these ideas, not because those ideas are always valid. You even learn these ideas in school, by text books that speak of how great it is in our system. You hear it when capitalism, that is actually hard to defend when unregulated or untaxed, is talked of like it means freedom itself, or is in some way in its self good. Not just a system that can be good or bad for people.

But they would scream, the money is mine it's mine, it's mine.

Tax big money and actually use that money to fight big contributors that way. Thats my answer to the problem.

[Jim Sagle]

54. Even though you're gone, fuckface, this comment still needs answering.

You moan about the term "Rethuglicans"? Fine - then clean up your own party and have them stop using the hateful "Democrat Party" label.

[seanparnell]

12. No

This is me: http://www.campaignfreedom.org/about_ccp/page/ccp-staff

Sean Parnell
President
Center for Competitive Politics
http://www.campaignfreedom.org
[e-mail]

[flpoljunkie]

15. Who is funding your organization?

[flpoljunkie]

16. These organizations are working to change Congress by supporting the Fair Elections Now Act

Fair Elections Now Coalition

Brennan Center for Justice • Change Congress • Common Cause • Democracy Matters • Public Campaign • Public Citizen • U.S. PIR

[seanparnell]

18. Well, duh.

Americans who share my organization's perspective on the First Amendment.

Sean Parnell
President
Center for Competitive Politics
http://www.campaignfreedom.org
[e-mail]

[flpoljunkie]

19. Surely you can you be a bit more specific than that, Mr. Parnell.

[seanparnell]

26. Why?

I don't happen to be someone who believes that the money behind an idea or perspective is an especially valuable way of evaluating a public policy. It may not be your approach, of course, but I've found it helps me to avoid knee-jerk responses.

As a general rule, I find the "who funds you" argument to be indicative of someone who can't actually argue the merits of an issue, but who hopes to somehow discredit your idea by associating it with some perceived bogeyman.

Sean Parnell
President
Center for Competitive Politics
http://www.campaignfreedom.org
[e-mail]

[flpoljunkie]

27. What are you hiding? It's obvious you're trying to hide who funds your organization.

[seanparnell]

31. If by hiding...

You mean respecting our donors privacy, I guess so. By the way, most 501(c)3 organization in the country "hides" their donors, for a variety of reasons.

One of those reasons was on full display out in California, where donors to both the pro- and anti-Prop 8 campaigns have been harrassed by, shall we say, incensed individuals. You can read more at: http://www.campaignfreedom.org/blog/detail/brad-smith-and-john-lott-in-wall-street-journal-on-some-downsides-to-disclosure

Sean Parnell
President
Center for Competitive Politics
http://www.campaignfreedom.org
[e-mail]

[flpoljunkie]

32. First your organization hides behind 'free speech.' Now you hide behind 'privacy.'

Not buying it! Money corrupts politics and, most of all, politicians.

[seanparnell]

36. Yes, privacy

It applies to people you disagree with as well as your allies, you know.

And the ability to endlessly repeat a mantra is not the same as making an argument.

Define "corruption." I suspect you mean it's when they vote for something you disaprove of, but that's not "corruption" by politicians, that's what happens in a democratic republic - sometimes, you lose. And sometimes, losers whine that it isn't fair, if only they could rig the system to silence their foes then all will be fair!

Sean Parnell
President
Center for Competitive Politics
http://www.campaignfreedom.org
[e-mail]

[Sebastian Doyle]

33. So now you're defending homophobes too?

Sure your last name isn't Hannity? Or do you just worship him?

[seanparnell]

38. Not much of a Hannity fan

Or talk radio in general. Too hyperbolic, not very enlightening. Now, if talk radio were dominated by economists discussing and debating issues, I'd be in heaven!

And I'm not really sure what you mean about defending "homophobes." I happen to think NO American should be subject to harrassment and intimidation because they wish to support a controversial or unpopular cause. Perhaps you're familiar with NAACP v. Alabama, circa 1958? As a "good government" measure the state demanded the member and donor lists of the NAACP, then involved in bringing Jim Crow to its well deserved end. Do you have any thoughts on why that might be a bad idea? Thankfully the Supreme Court slapped that one down.

Sean Parnell
President
Center for Competitive Politics
http://www.campaignfreedom.org
[e-mail]

[Sebastian Doyle]

40. So you think a repressed cult from Utah should be allowed to overide law in California?

That they should be able to spend tax free millions to invalidate the civil rights of others?

[seanparnell]

44. Close

If by "repressed cult" you mean American citizens, and by "allowed to override law in California" you mean contribute to a cause they believe in that's on the ballot, then I guess the answer is "yes." But I fail to see your point, because ALL Americans enjoy the same right - and I happen to know of a few non-California citizens who excercised their right to contribute to the "no" on Prop 8 campaign as well.

Look, there was a vote. Citizens went to the polls on whether or not to amend their Constitution. You can scream and protest all you want about the injustice of it all, but unless you're willing to say that "the people" shouldn't be allowed to vote on important issues or for who is to govern them (this doesn't have a good track record in history, btw: see "Cuba, the Castro Years" and "North Korea, post WWII - present"), you really don't have much of an argument.

The "tax-free" is problematic, however. Generally, tax-exempt funds can't be used for partisan purposes, but they can be used by churches to speak out on issues that are on the ballot. Frankly I'm not an expert in this area, and the case law is all over the place, but from what I have heard the support the Mormon Church provided to the Yes on 8 campaign probably conforms with the law, but I'm sure there's going to be a great deal of examination on that question and what exactly happened.

If you want, of course, you can endorse an end to voter involvement in government. Might be a bit of a backlash on that, though.

Sean Parnell
President
Center for Competitive Politics
http://www.campaignfreedom.org
[e-mail]

[Sebastian Doyle]

46. If civil rights were left up to a popular vote, you'd probably still be living in a slave state

Being a Republican, you probably would be OK with that though.

[seanparnell]

47. More with the open-mindedness?

That's a pretty stunning statement. Do you automatically assume that everyone who disagrees with you must be a hate-filled bigot desiring to return to the days of slavery? That says a lot more about you than me, and your ability to accept the notion that a person might honestly, sincerely have a different perspective than you on an issue that isn't motivated by hatred and malice.

Just for fun, tell me - do you pride yourself on being "tolerant" and "open-minded" regarding other people.

Sean Parnell
President
Center for Competitive Politics
http://www.campaignfreedom.org
[e-mail]

[Sebastian Doyle]

48. If you have a "sincere honest different perspective" that some people are lesser than others

you're welcome to have those horribly mistaken views. However, you are NOT welcome to write them into the law. And most definitely not welcome to write them into the laws of a state you don't even live in, as the LDS church elders in Salt Lake City did to the State of California. Or Collieforneea, as your hero Herr Gropenator calls it.

Damn, where's the pizza delivery guy tonight? Way past 30 minutes on this one.......

[flpoljunkie]

22. Obviously, you and your organization feel threatened by the Fair Elections Now Act.

You still have not answered where your finding comes from--the big bucks contributors.

[seanparnell]

28. More annoyed, really

See previous posts - what does it matter?

Either my critiques of taxpayer financed political campaigns are appropriate and worth consideration, or they aren't. Some, I suppose, are incapable of distinguishing between good policies and bad policies, or at least what the relative merits and shortcomings of a given policy are. Such people tend to rely on shortcuts - "ooh, look, big labor is supporting this, it must be bad!" "Oil companis favor this, so I can't be for it." "Can't trust anything the Jews are behind."

I kind of hate that sort of knee-jerk intolerance. My approach isn't for everyone, I suppose.

Sean Parnell
President
Center for Competitive Politics
http://www.campaignfreedom.org
[e-mail]

[flpoljunkie]

30. Annoyed? Campaign contributions amount to legalized bribery. Now that's annoying!

Our members of Congress ought to be required to wear patches on their suits like race car drivers--so we know to whom they are beholden.

[seanparnell]

34. evidence, please

I realize it's a popular slogan/platitude, but there's very little real evidence of this (with a handful of exceptions, of course).

Generally, what people mean by "corruption" is "my side lost the debate/vote." So when a bill goes through that, say, the AFL-CIO thinks is swell, you have Republicans moaning about "Oh, the Democrats gave a special favor to their paymasters in Big Labor" while Democrats whine that "Big Oil got their money's worth in the special interest bill that just passed."

Really, you have to come to grips with the fact that Americans fundamentally disagree with one another on nearly everything. It may perplex and even anger you that such a thing as "conservative" or "free market" ideology exists and that a large number of your fellow countrymen endorse such things and vote for candidates who promise to pursue such policies, but I can assure you that such people do exist in numbers large enough to frequently elect to public office who share their values, and occasionally they can even elect majorities. Or did you forget Reagan and the '94 - '06 Republican majority in Congress? Or perhaps you thought people voting for them really wanted higher taxes on the rich, more regulation, and the enactment of the Kyoto protocols?

If it's any consolation, many on the right are equally confused about the existence of people like you, and loudly demand that their elected officials 'stop taking bribes' from the unions, environmentalists, trial lawyers, etc.

Sean Parnell
President
Center for Competitive Politics
http://www.campaignfreedom.org
[e-mail]

[flpoljunkie]

35. You mean those 100's of millions 'FIRE' gave to repeal Glass-Steagall? Talk about an exception!

[seanparnell]

39. Are you utterly unaware...

...of the fact that there is an idea floating around out there, let's call it "free market economics," that tends to support things like deregulation, including of the financial industry?

You may find such an idea to be terrible, but a majority of voters did, between 1994 and 2006, elect to the Congressional majority a party that, for better or worse, endorsed and believed in such things. They didn't need to be "bribed" to repeal Glass-Steagall, because they generally thought it should be repealed. It would be like "bribing" Barbara Boxer to support the Kyoto Protocol - not really necessary, now is it?

But, you've proved (or at least provided strong evidence) of my point: "corruption" is what happens when you don't get your way. Seems kind of narrow minded, don't you think?

Sean Parnell
President
Center for Competitive Politics
http://www.campaignfreedom.org
[e-mail]

[flpoljunkie]

41. That 'deregulation' thing worked out really well, didn't it? And, yes, both parties were 'bribed.'

Are you aware that money buys access, influence and votes? Even a child understands that.

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=F

[seanparnell]

45. no position on that

My organization doesn't take a position on de-regulation of anything (other than political speech, of course), including whether repeal of Glass-Steagal was a "good" or "bad" thing.

And I note you can't actually address the point I made, namely that while it may perplex you and even enrage you, a majority of voters did send to Congress people who generally endorsed the idea of a "free market," a tenet of which happens to be... de-regulation! A child might not understand this, but I'd hope an adult would.

You have yet to make an argument to the contrary of my points, simply a series of assertions. As our previous President learned (or maybe didn't), simply making assertions without providing supporting evidence or addressing critiques of those assertions is, well, worthless.

Sean Parnell
President
Center for Competitive Politics
http://www.campaignfreedom.org
[e-mail]

[Sebastian Doyle]

23. Gee Sean, it sure looks like you REPUKES are scared shitless about this.

How do I know you're a Repuke?

Well your own bio on this page seems rather deliberately obscured. But everyone else there is an admitted right winger.

http://www.campaignfreedom.org/about_ccp/page/ccp-staff

And even if you were a "token Democrat" in that crowd, it would be like Heath Schuler at the KKK rally. Just a formality.

[seanparnell]

42. How very open minded of you

And what a devastating critique! "You can't possibly be right on this issue because you're a right winger!"

And we've had Democrats, Republicans, and libertarians work for us, and work with members of both parties and praise or criticize them as seems appropriate based on their actions, statements, and positions, not their party.

And "scared" is too strong. More just annoyed. Like by the fact that I've yet to see a single challenge or rebuttal to a single thing I've said about taxpayer financed political campaigns.

Sean Parnell
President
Center for Competitive Politics
http://www.campaignfreedom.org
[e-mail]

[tabbycat31]

8. done

[flpoljunkie]

10. Thank you, tabbycat31.

[acmavm]

20. Done.

[flpoljunkie]

43. Thanks, acmavm!

[AtomicKitten]

37. K&R

thanks for posting this!

[flpoljunkie]

51. Thank you, AtomicKitten for the K&R.

[Sebastian Doyle]

49. OK, now that we took out the trash

We can keep kicking this thread for a GOOD reason. :kick:

[flpoljunkie]

50. Indeed! Thanks, Sebastian! Public financing will never happen if we do not demand it of Congress.

[Sebastian Doyle]

52. Oh my fucking God! I just realized who this piece of shit was!

Our dearly departed troll Sean Parnell is none other than Sarah Palin's fucking Lieutenant Governor. A genuine Repuke elected official got his ass handed to him right here in this thread. I didn't even realize it, until David Shuster mentioned his name on TV.

And if Sean is doing his pro-corporate financing lobbying on a computer owned by the state of Alaska, he's breaking the law. Unfortunately I doubt Moosealini would bust him for it. :evilfrown:

[flpoljunkie]

56. And, yet he denies it. See posts #9 and 12.

[Raineyb]

55. A bit late but done

Regards

[flpoljunkie]

57. Not too late! We're just getting started. Congress returns on April 20th. Send them a message.

Send them lots of messages!

Sign the petition here: http://www.fairelectionsnow.org/

Fair Elections Now Coalition

Brennan Center for Justice • Change Congress • Common Cause • Democracy Matters • Public Campaign • Public Citizen • U.S. PIRG