Indications of the last two months are that the privatized presidential election corporation called Americans Elect is shuttering its state operations while maintaining a nominal national presence. The latest Americans Elect state affiliate to go defunct is that of Maine; an annual report from Americans Elect in Maine was due at the end of May but despite Americans Elect’s extensive investment of money in Maine’s U.S. Senate race this past fall, no report has not been filed.

As Americans Elect continues to wind down, Richard Winger of Ballot Access News brings our attention to a new political corporation on the horizon “1787 for America,” also known as the “1787 National Committee, Inc.”

As of today, the 1787foramerica.org website of this Section 527 corporation is hidden behind a password-protected wall, but some information has been leaking out in advance of a public rollout. Thanks to Chairman Emily Mathews’ filing with the Federal Election Commission, the corporate bylaws have been published — read their full text here. In those bylaws, the 1787 National Committee, Inc. shows a clear intention to field a candidate for President of the United States in 2016, running under a corporate model very similar to that of Americans Elect. As with Americans Elect, Americans will be able to sign up as “members” of the 1787 National Committee and are supposed to be able to cast votes for candidates for President, but also as with Americans Elect these “members” will not have any say in the actual governance of the 1787 National Committee. Instead, as with Americans Elect, the self-appointed corporate board of directors (and any board-appointed successors) will have sole power in the running of the “1787 for America” process — including making changes to the bylaws that determine how the presidential election will be run.

For now, there are elements in the tentative presidential election process of “1787 for America” that are improvements over the Americans Elect process. Any candidate who is constitutionally qualified to run for president will be supposedly eligible to run under the 1787 for America system. All meetings are according to the bylaws supposed to be open, without secret ballots, and with all minutes posted online for the public to see within 15 days of their occurrence.

Of course, according to Chairman Emily Mathews, “the Board of Directors has met ten times,” and yet all information on the 1787foramerica.org website is hidden from the public behind a password wall. Maybe that’s about to change — wait and see.

Also wait and see what kind of platform or agenda the “1787 National Committee” will or will not be rolling out before you jump on the bandwagon. This may or may not be influenced by the agenda of its organizers. For now, it may be helpful for you to know that the official address of “1787 for America”, on New York City’s famed Madison Avenue, is the same as the official address of Mathews Global Consulting LLC, a firm also headed by Emily that specializes in strategy, risk management and public relations for its clients.

As the 2014 and 2016 elections gear up, expect political organizers to try and learn from the successes and mistakes of groups like Americans Elect in the 2012 election. What will be emulated? What will be improved upon? Who and what may newly imperil the integrity of American politics? Watch and wait. Wait and watch. Always watch.

Hillary Clinton aside, the big talk for the 2016 presidential election is centered around Martin O’Malley, the Democratic governor of Maryland. What do Democratic voters know about him, though?

O’Malley gave a speech at last years Democratic national convention, praising Barack Obama. It was an acceptable speech, but not particularly great in any way. It didn’t surprise anybody with new insights, or facts, or ways of communicating ideas. Still, O’Malley seemed nice enough.

omalley president 2016“Swiss bank accounts never built an American bridge. Swiss bank accounts don’t put cops on the beat or teachers in our classrooms. Swiss bank accounts never created American jobs. We are Americans. We must act like Americans. We must move forward, not back,” O’Malley said. “There is a powerful truth at the heart of the American dream: The stronger we make our country, the more she gives back to us, to our children and grandchildren.”

Okay enough with the platitudes. Let’s get to the specifics. What has Martin O’Malley actually stood for?

Martin O’Malley began his political career as an aide to Senator Barbara Mikulski, a middle-of-the-road Democrat who is neither very liberal nor very conservative on the whole. O’Malley then moved on to the Baltimore City Council before being elected mayor of the city. He was first elected Governor in 2006, and again in 2010.

Governor O’Malley has not responded to Project Vote Smart requests for his positions on key political issues. However, O’Malley’s position on gun issues is made fairly clear by his grade from the National Rifle Association: An F.

As Governor, O’Malley has refused to include Maryland in the federal health care reform exchange program, setting up a health-care exchange system that is unique to Maryland itself.

o'malley 2016 campaign pinEnvironmental groups have expressed concerns that the Shale Advisory Commission set up by O’Malley is biased in favor of companies intent on beginning fracking for natural gas in Maryland. “Despite citizen concerns and warnings from independent scientists and public health officials about the negative impacts of fracking, our state government seems intent on finding rationales for issuing permits,” says local environmental group Patuxent Riverkeeper. “The Governor’s own task force echoes those same concerns, yet inexplicably presumes that fracking should happen in Maryland.” On the other hand, O’Malley has supported an increase in gasoline taxes. On climate change, O’Malley opposes regulations, and favors a scheme for businesses to trade government permissions to continue polluting the air.

On social issues, O’Malley supports funding for abortions, supports equal marriage rights regardless of sexual orientation, and opposes efforts to drain public school budgets to provide government money to private schools.

Most recently, O’Malley has signed legislation approving the expansion of gambling in Maryland, another bill expanding wind farms.

This is just a preliminary sketch of Martin O’Malley’s political identity, of course. What else do you know about Martin O’Malley? What have you concluded about his worth as a potential candidate for President of the United States? Why do you think some Democrats are eager for O’Malley to run for President in 2016?

Speculation over the potential 2016 presidential candidacy of former senator and secretary of state Hillary Clinton is interesting up to a point. It certainly carries the will she/won’t she element of drama, and there’s little question that some portions of the Democratic rank-and-file would be interested in a 2016 Clinton for President campaign.

From another point of view, however, the concept of a Clinton for President campaign is rather stale. Bill Clinton was elected President in another century, and ever since then, there’s been speculation about whether Hillary Clinton would follow her husband to become President. Hillary Clinton’s politics are also a bit old – she has lagged behind progressive Democratic shifts, rather than leading them, and her support for many of George W. Bush’s policies leaves many Democrats cold.

With that in mind, I think it’s time for some new names to be added to the consideration for the 2016 presidential election – and to counter Hillary Clinton’s right-leaning vision, I offer the list of prominent liberal members of Congress. They are the six most liberal members of the U.S. House of Representatives, as measured by the That’s My Congress legislative scorecard of the 113th Congress.

In alphabetical order, the are: John Conyers, Raul Grijalva, Mike Honda, Barbara Lee, James McGovern, and Chellie Pingree.


John Conyers is a prominent member of Congress with extensive leadership experience, and is generally well-recognized and respected by the liberal base of the Democratic Party. Conyers represents a district in Michigan, a state that has seen a diminishment of its influence in recent years, though it remains closely linked to organized labor, which remains a vital constituency in the Democratic Party. Conyers’ age may be seen as a liability, though, as he will turn 84 years old in about a month from now.


Raul Grijalva has gained recognition as a leader of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. Before Grijalva ascended to leadership of the caucus, it was poorly organized and largely inactive. Under Grijalva, however, the Progressive Caucus has become a consistent, coherent voice for liberal principles in Congress. Grijalva represents a district in Arizona, and presents a strong liberal alternative to the failed anti-immigration policies of the Republican Party.


Mike Honda began his life as a prisoner, in one of the internment camps that Japanese Americans were forced into during World War II, so he has a particularly useful perspective on the claims that people make about setting up special prisons where constitutional rights aren’t recognized. Honda worked as a science teacher and school administrator for decades before coming to Congress, representing the area of high-tech innovation that is commonly referred to as Silicon Valley.


Barbara Lee was the only member of Congress to speak out critically of the hurried invasion of Afghanistan, without any plan for political or military success. The war in Afghanistan has become our nation’s longest, at 12 years and running, and the Taliban have still not been defeated. Barbara Lee’s willingness to speak important truths, even at moments when they contradict the national mood, would bring a character not often seen in the White House.


One of the themes of the 2008 presidential campaign was that it would be great to have Barack Obama as President because Obama had been a professor of constitutional law, and so would respect Americans’ constitutional rights in a way that George W. Bush had not. The truth was that Obama taught constitutional law briefly, as a sideline, and as President he has largely continued the unconstitutional policies of George W. Bush. James McGovern, on the other hand, has worked all of his 16 years in the U.S. House of Representatives as a dedicated proponent not just of constitutional rights in the United States, but as an advocate for human rights around the world. For McGovern, fundamental legal rights aren’t a sideline or a rhetorical ornament. They’re at the core of his political career.


If you want to understand where U.S. Representative Chellie Pingree stands on the issues, look at Common Cause, the organization she led before joining Congress in 2009. Pingree began her career as a political activist outside the system, working on the cause of ethics reform in government. In Congress, she continues to vote as an activist within the system, with one of the most consistently liberal voting records in the House of Representatives. Pingree promotes GLBT equality, local food networks, environmental sustainability, and progressive fiscal policy.

A week ago, without committing myself to one side or another, I asked readers whether they would support a campaign by Hillary Clinton for President in 2016.

This morning, I want to highlight one reason Democrats might want to hold back their enthusiasm from Hillary Clinton for a while: The Draft Hillary movement is getting itself started with corrupt machines of campaign finance.

Ready For Hillary is working to position itself as the dominant player in the movement – as a web site, but also as a Super PAC fundraising organization, capable of taking unlimited amounts of money from undocumented sources. The Ready For Hillary shadow money machine boasts two extremely close allies of the Clintons, Harold Ickes and James Carville, so it’s difficult for Hillary Clinton to say that she has no influence over the group’s unethical campaign finance ambitions. Still, she has not even attempted to distance herself from Ready for Hillary – a sign that if she were to campaign for President, she would eagerly participate in the dirty world of campaign-affiliated independent expenditures.

more of the sameReady for Hillary founder Allida Black says that she intends to disclose all the sources of the Super PAC’s funds, but such promises of transparency typically aren’t matched by what political organizations actually do – as voters duped by Americans Elect and Unity08 can painfully remember. Even if Ready for Hillary does disclose the sources of its money, it has not sought to distance itself from the other significantly corrupting aspect of Super PAC operations – the ability to collect unlimited amounts of money from wealthy individuals and organizations.

Two other pro-Clinton Super PACs have also formed: HillaryFTW and HillaryClintonSuperPAC. It’s possible that all this fundraising to promote the idea of a Hillary Clinton presidential campaign in 2016 won’t go anywhere. Perhaps it’s just a way for Democratic Party insiders to try to ingratiate themselves with the Clintons, who have much influence in Washington D.C., though for the first time since 1992, neither one of them holds a high position in the federal government. Such a possibility doesn’t reflect well upon Hillary Clinton, though, suggesting that she has built, with her husband, a culture of Democratic Party sycophantism in which flattery and money are valued over competence and good ideas.

So far, the movement to promote Hillary Clinton as a presidential candidate seems to be led by political elites, not by the any grassroots enthusiasm. The comfort of these elites with the dirtiest methods of campaigning suggests that those who would influence Hillary Clinton, as a candidate and as President, would rather maintain the flawed status quo in Washington D.C., than attempt to change it.

It seems like ages ago, back in the days when we were selling bumper stickers supporting the presidential campaign of John Kerry and opposing the presidential disaster of George W. Bush. Bumper stickers like the Please, Not Bush item you see here date back to that time. It’s been years since we sold one of those because, well, Bush has been of the table.


Please, Not Bush bumper sticker orange
Not any more. As I was looking around for information about the preparations for a 2016 Hillary Clinton for President campaign, I came across multiple references to similar preparations being made by Jeb, George W. Bush’s brother. Yes, it seems that we must brace ourselves for yet another Bush for President campaign.

Jeb Bush seems to be shadowing Hillary Clinton in many respects, even going so far as to schedule a public speech in Dallas on the same day that Hillary Clinton will appear there later this month.

not jeb bush 2016According to Time Magazine, Jeb Bush isn’t considered one of the top contenders for the 2016 Republican nomination at this point. However, such an assessment doesn’t mean much at this point. At the equivalent stage leading up to the 2004 presidential election, Senator Joseph Lieberman was being described as the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination. His campaign ended up stalling under the weight of its “Jomentum”.

Just a little over a year ago, Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann, Newt Gingrich each took their turn as frontrunners for the Republican nomination. Remember Herman Cain? No one is promoting any 9-9-9 policies these days. Jeb Bush is, however, attending a private political retreat hosted by Herman Cain this month.

Maybe Jeb thinks he can win with a 10-10-10 plan.

She voted in favor of George W. Bush’s rush to war in Iraq.

On the other hand, she says that she supports same-sex marriage.

On the other hand, she supported the right-wing Democratic Leadership Council.

hillary clinton for president logoiOn the other hand, Hillary Clinton is the only prospective candidate for President in 2016 who has been in the White House for 8 years already, but remains eligible to serve for two full terms.

On the other hand, the pro-Clinton web site Hillary is 44 writes, “Over the years even some Hillary Clinton supporters from 2008 are too angry with the corruptions of Barack Obama to support Hillary Clinton now.”

Mother Jones writes, “According to Clinton’s friends, fundraisers, and former campaign staffers, big Democratic money isn’t going anywhere until she makes up her mind about launching a second presidential campaign.”

Using a slogan that seems designed to provoke satire from Republicans who see a Communist hiding behind every telephone pole, Clinton’s allies have created a web site – and a super PAC – named Ready for Hillary.

So, what about you? Are you ready for Hillary 2016… or are you ready for Hillary Clinton to retire?

Conventional wisdom among political commentators has been that, in order to win the Iowa Caucuses, it’s necessary to make a special appeal to zealous religious voters. Barack Obama pandered to Christian Iowans in 2008, as did Republican caucus victor Mike Huckabee. Rick Santorum also won the Republican caucus in 2012 with a foundation of deeply religious voters.

Expect a different picture in 2016 – something less sanctimonious.

Recent surveys indicate that the stereotype of Iowa as a state thick with religion doesn’t match reality. A Gallup survey released just a few days ago, for example, finds that, in many Iowa communities, the number of “very religious” citizens is roughly matched by the number of citizens who are “not religious”.

In the area around Des Moines, the portion of people who describe themselves as “very religious” is only 38.9%, while “not religious” citizens follow close behind at nearly a third of the population: 31.5% The part of the Iowa-Nebraska border near Council Bluffs has a “very religious” population of 40.4% and a “not religious” population of 34.9%. The population of Cedar Rapids that is “very religious” is 37.2 percent, but 39.5 percent of people living in Cedar Rapids describe themselves as “not religious”.

In the caucuses and in the general election, the message for the prospective presidential candidates of 2016 is clear: A campaign strategy that appeals to religious Iowans while shunning the significant secular minority in the state is unlikely to succeed.

The political corporation called Americans Elect has made the act of getting sillier, and sillier, and sillier look like an art form. The latest act of Americans Elect is gallery-worthy.

Last week, Americans Elect leaders Doug Bailey (Unity08 cofounder and Americans Elect candidate recruiter) and Les Francis (Americans Elect Board of Advisors) wrote an editorial in which they declared their intention to reawaken Americans Elect for the presidential election season of 2016.

Why Americans Elect? What cure for nasty American politics can Americans Elect possibly bring to the table in 2016? Here’s the the cure Bailey and Francis articulate:

It seems inevitable that after this election — unless the victors show the necessary imagination and guts — that another independent effort will be renewed and essential for 2016…. Just imagine: A ticket in the middle that runs only positive ads like this:

“You won’t see many of these ads from us because we have ruled out all corporate gifts and super PAC sabotage of our democracy. We believe that we can make the American Dream real again for all our people by recognizing that we are all in this together and must work together to meet the challenges facing our nation.”

Americans Elect isn’t a Super PAC? Read the definition of Super PAC here: an “independent expenditure-only” group to which corporations and individuals can make unlimited contributions. Americans Elect accepted $1.75 million in unregulated money from just three people, all Wall Street tycoons. It’s been spending the money on independent expenditures to support the Senate campaign of Angus King and to oppose the Senate campaign of Charlie Summers. Americans Elect fits the definition of a Super PAC to a tee.

Americans Elect has ruled out all corporate gifts? $750,000 of Americans Elect’s $1.75 million windfall came in the form of a check written from the account of a hedge fund corporation called Passport Capital.

It would take a lot of guts to be a corporate beneficiary Super PAC condemning corporate beneficiary Super PACs…

… except that hardly anyone seems to notice or care any more. Americans Elect will have no reason to stop railing against corporate Super PACs while being one of them, not until its falsehood carries a price.