August 8: Americans Elect Starts Collecting $$ for Angus King. August 20: Americans Elect Says it Supports No Candidate

November 21st, 2012 | Posted by Jim Cook in Alternative Parties | Americans Elect | Election 2012 | Ethics | Mysteries | Politics - (6 Comments)

Take a look at pages 5 and 6 of this excerpt of the Americans Elect Mission Report. As you can see from that excerpt, the report features a letter signed by Peter Ackerman and dated August 20. August 20 is a full 12 days after August 8, the day an FEC report shows Ackerman gave $250,000 to Americans Elect for the purpose of spending money “independently” to promote Angus King’s bid for the U.S. Senate.

At the bottom of each of the pages of the report appear the words “Americans Elect is not affiliated with and does not support or oppose any candidate or candidate’s committee.”

But at the top of page 9 of the Americans Elect Mission Report, Americans Elect Chairman Peter Ackerman finishes his letter by writing:

Peter Ackerman praising the Senate candidacy of Angus King in an August 20 letter published in the Americans Elect Mission Report

"An external force must precipitate change. Angus King, the former two-term independent governor of Maine, who is now running for the Senate to succeed Olympia Snowe, offers some hope."

This was written 12 days after Americans Elect Chairman Peter Ackerman donated $250,000 to Americans Elect to be spent promoting the Senate candidate of Angus King — Federal Election Commission records tell us so.

Before Americans Elect published a Mission Report declaring that it “does not support any candidate,” it had already started collecting money to spend in support of candidate Angus King.

Ed. note, 4:35 pm: This article originally also noted the continued identification of Angus King campaign Chair Eliot Cutler as an Americans Elect member of the Board of Directors in the August 2012 Mission Report, published after Americans Elect Peter Ackerman provided the first $250,000 of contribution money for pro-King spending. See the comments for Eliot Cutler's response, which is backed by an affidavit. Upon emergence of the affidavit, that portion of the article is retracted.

Peter Ackerman's contribution of $250,000 to Americans Elect to be spent supporting Angus King's Senate candidacy, before publishing a Mission Report declaring that Americans Elect supports no candidate, remains unexplained.

, , , , , , ,

Using Americans Elect as Instrument, 3 Wall Street Tycoons dump another $420K into Maine Senate Race

October 28th, 2012 | Posted by Jim Cook in Alternative Parties | Americans Elect | Economy | Election 2012 | Ethics | Politics | State and Local - (3 Comments)

In the 1980s and 1990s, a bitter argument raged among political researchers between “state autonomy” theorists who asserted that the American state could at times act independently and “power structure” theorists who asserted that America was dominated by a social network of moneyed people and their associates interacting and coordinating through social bodies. Both theoretical camps took pains to distance themselves from “mere instrumentalism,” the idea that the wealthy simply buy political access through the crude application of money. Lately, the evidence for mere instrumentalism is making a comeback.

Earlier this month, the 501c4 corporation Americans Elect broke its pledge to refrain from supporting or opposing any candidate and another pledge in its bylaws that “All Delegates and persons registered to vote in Americans Elect have a fundamental right to fully and meaningfully participate in the business and affairs of Americans Elect without any monetary encumbrance.” The violation: taking $1.75 million from three tycoons of Wall Street — John Burbank III, Michael Bloomberg and Peter Ackerman — and spending it on advertisements that directly support U.S. Senate candidate Angus King and directly oppose U.S. Senate candidate Charlie Summers. The candidates are running in Maine, where the cost of running a media campaign is low. Through direct mailings and television advertisements, Americans Elect is overwhelming the state of Maine with pro-King and anti-Summers messages.

There hasn’t been a lick of news coverage of Americans Elect’s spending in the Maine Senate race for over two weeks now, but that doesn’t mean Americans Elect has stopped spending its Wall Street money. Federal Election Commission records show that on October 23, Americans Elect spent $44,847.55 on direct mail from an address inside the Washington, DC beltway to voters in Maine, mail telling them to vote for Angus King for Senate. FEC records also show that on October 26, Americans Elect spent $375,050 on TV advertisements to be played on nine stations from the northern tip to the southern edge of the state — advertisements that both promote Angus King and oppose the candidacy of Charlie Summers.

Americans Elect keeps right on breaking its explicit promises to its delegates and the American people, treating the political system as its instrument to play with. Why? Because it can. When hardly anyone even notices this behavior, Americans Elect can’t expect to reap a penalty for it. Under its current name or under a new name, expect the activities of Americans Elect to persist.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Obama Leaves FEC Short Staffed

October 25th, 2012 | Posted by jclifford in Activism | Americans Elect | Barack Obama | Election 2008 | Environment - (0 Comments)

I write this as an American liberal, more concerned about the need for honest government than I am about the fortunes of any particular politician. It’s alarming to me to see Democrats who blasted corruption in the Bush Administration give Barack Obama a free pass.

Barack Obama claims to oppose the Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court, which opened up unlimited independent expenditures to interfere in political campaigns for federal office – money that is largely impossible to trace. Yet, Obama has done nothing to actually end the corrupt influence of independent expenditures.

In fact, Obama has embraced independent expenditures. He has actively encouraged organizations and wealthy individuals to exert influence over his campaign. Corporate money has poured in to help Barack Obama get re-elected, and Obama has welcomed it.

What’s more, Obama has acted to ensure that the government body that has the job of ensuring that campaign finance regulations are complied with, the Federal Election Commission, is hobbled. According to Pro Publica, President Obama has decided not to ‘nominate anyone to fill five out of the six vacant positions at the FEC.

The consequence is that the FEC has been deadlocked, unable to take any significant action to protect the American people from corrupt campaigns for public office.

Yes, Mitt Romney has terrible ideas for eliminating campaign finance regulations to an even greater extent. It isn’t enough, however, for Democrats to find fault with Mitt Romney. There’s no space on any ballot for “Not Romney”. Democrats are asking us to vote FOR Barack Obama, and Obama has a rotten record on campaign finance reform.

Alternatives to both Romney and Obama exist. One of them is Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate for President. Jill Stein supports strong campaign finance regulation, and, unlike Obama, has not accepted support in the form of any big corporate independent expenditures.

, , ,

Americans Elect Completes Violation of Promise, Spending $$ to Oppose and Support Candidates w/o Democracy

October 23rd, 2012 | Posted by Jim Cook in Alternative Parties | Americans Elect | Election 2012 | Ethics | Politics | State and Local - (3 Comments)

In its official IRS Form 990, the 501c4 corporation Americans Elect asserted its freedom from campaign finance restrictions by declaring that “Americans Elect does not and will not support or oppose any candidate or candidate committee.” Click the image for the full Internal Revenue Service document:

Americans Elect Form 990 Excerpt

Americans Elect broke the “will not support any candidate” part of that pledge earlier this month when it started swamping the state of Maine with hundreds of thousands of dollars of advertisements promoting the Senate campaign of Angus King, funded by Wall Street tycoons John Burbank III, Peter Ackerman and Michael Bloomberg.

On Sunday October 21, Americans Elect quietly filed notice with the Federal Election Commission that it had broken the “will not oppose any candidate” part of its pledge. Americans Elect is now directing its money into negative advertisements against Angus King’s opponent, Charlie Summers. Click on the image for the full FEC report:

Americans Elect spends thousands of dollars to oppose Charlie Summers' candidacy and promote Angus King's candidacy

Less than six months ago, Americans Elect was portraying itself as the last hope for democracy. But Americans Elect’s Wall Street tycoons directed this cash into the Maine Senate race without holding a single vote.

, , , , , , , , , , ,

Independent Expenditures Overwhelm Efforts At Scrutiny

October 19th, 2012 | Posted by jclifford in Election 2012 | Media | Politics - (0 Comments)

This morning, I could look into one of the many independent expenditures that have been made recently. I could look at the short summary of the kind of spending, the candidate targeted, the organization that provided the money and the people or organization that received the money. The summaries of independent expenditures are short, and don’t offer much information. About 8 independent expenditure summaries can fit on a single page. Still, there’s often an interesting political connection, cultural quirk, or ethical lapse to be discovered through examining the details that an independent expenditure supplies.

There is no way, however, that I could provide you with a report on the political implications of all the independent expenditures being made each day. There are simply too many expenditures being made.

The FEC’s short summaries of the independent expenditures it received just yesterday was 503 pages long – and that’s with a 10.5 point font size. The summaries provided by the FEC for last week is 4,242 pages long. The document contains 1,117,183 words. That’s about twice the length of the infamously prolonged novel War and Peace. Reading through the entire thing would be like reading Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone fourteen and a half times.

It would take an entire office building of people to read through and investigate this material. No such office building exists – but there are many good political bloggers out there. Are there enough independent writer out there willing to get organized and commit to scouring through and checking out their own share of each day’s independent expenditures? Could such a group be organized quickly enough to be in place for the remaining days of this election?

It’s a project I’d like to see happen. Is anyone else out there interested?

, ,

No Labels PAC? No Follow Through.

October 3rd, 2012 | Posted by Jim Cook in Politics - (4 Comments)

In August 2012, the DC Beltway political corporation called No Labels announced that “We’re building a No Labels PAC in order to provide financial support for elected officials who are committed to problem solving. Stay tuned in the coming weeks for more details.”

But there have been no more details. No Labels has made no further communication on the subject. No PAC or independent expenditure committee appears in FEC registrations under any variant of the name of No Labels or operating at the two known addresses of No Labels (1070 Thomas Jefferson Street NW, Suite 202, Washington DC 20007 and 1680 Wisconsin Ave NW Washington D.C. 20007).

No Labels PAC? Despite the huge gobs of undisclosed money orbiting around the influence sphere of billionaire Peter G. Peterson, there’s been No Action.

, , , , , ,

How the 1% Welcomed Obama to Boston, at $40,000 a pop

June 26th, 2012 | Posted by Jim Cook in Activism | Barack Obama | Democrats | Election 2012 | Ethics | Media | Politics | State and Local - (4 Comments)

This morning, Boston’s two main newspapers saw a bit of sniping after a protest event on the left against President Barack Obama, who visited the city for multiple fundraising events on June 25. The conservative Boston Herald gleefully noted the muffing of the story by the Boston Globe:

In his apparent eagerness to pump up the president, a Globe reporter goofed on the meaning of a protest sign hoisted last night outside Symphony Hall, where President Obama was holding a fundraiser.

Globe scribe Brian MacQuarrie, serving as the local pool reporter, wrote that the president was met by adoring fans — “many held signs in support of the president, including one that read: ‘The 1% of Boston Welcomes Obama.’”

Whoops. Time to brush up on your Occupy Wall Street insults.

MacQuarrie admitted to the Herald in an email he messed up.

“Yep, that’s mine … I’ll fix,” he wrote.

Neither newspaper substantively reported on the protest or even mentioned the name of the organizing group, Occupy Boston, which brought dozens of people out to protest the President’s policies. I saw the protesters myself, along with their signs, which make the critical context of their presence clear. One photo I took of the event happened to contain the “1% of Boston Welcomes Obama” sign:

The 1% of Boston Welcomes Obama protest sign, along with another that reads "Don't legislate Wall Street -- Hang Wall Street!" From a protest outside Symphony Hall in Boston on June 25 2012

It’s not like Occupy Boston was secretive about its plans — organizers had made public announcements of their intention to protest the Obama appearance — yet the Boston Herald refused to report substantively on the protesters’ presence while the Boston Globe did worse, converting the protesters into “many holding signs in support of the president.” That’s an inversion of the truth.

The sign “The 1% of Boston Welcomes Obama” is an ironic statement directed at two aspects of the Obama presidency. First, in its policy the Obama administration has repeatedly favored the interests of big business over the health and well-being of the American people. Second, in its campaign activities the Obama administration has courted big money donors, people who’re able to give as much money in one night as it takes most Americans to earn in one year. At the swanky Back Bay Hamersley’s Bistro yesterday, Barack Obama held a special gathering with just 25 supporters, each of whom contributed $40,000 — the U.S. median annual personal income — for the privilege of meeting with the president in an intimate setting. Later that night, at the home of Judith and Douglass Krupp, couples who were willing and able to shell out $35,800 to the president got their chance to meet with him.

“Wait a minute,” you may be thinking to yourself. “How can that be legal?” After all, according to the Federal Election Commission individuals may give only $2,500 to a candidate or candidate’s committee in an election. The answer is supplied in the invitation to the event that The Sunlight Foundation was able to get its hands on:

The first $5,000 of a contribution to OVF 2012 will be allocated to Obama for America (with the first $2,500 designated for the primary election, and the next $2,500 for the general election.) The next $30,800 of a contribution will be allocated to the Democratic National Committee. Any additional amounts from a contributor will be divided among the State Democratic Committeees as follows…

That big check gets spread around. At events for the very rich, who can hand over checks for most Americans’ annual income as if it was all Monopoly money, President Barack Obama converts himself into a bundler on behalf of his own campaign, but also on behalf of the state and national Democratic parties, who note that “contributions will be used in connection with a Federal election.” The wealthy get to share their ideas with the most powerful person on the planet. You don’t. Barack Obama gets to distribute largesse to the Party and its candidates, creating debts that must be repaid. You don’t. The wealthy 1% welcome Barack Obama to Boston and sit down for a talk. You’re on the sidewalk across the street.

, , , , , , ,

Document: “Grassroots” Committee to Draft David Walker for President intends to take Big Money

May 5th, 2012 | Posted by Jim Cook in Alternative Parties | Americans Elect | Economy | Election 2012 | Ethics | Politics - (8 Comments)

The Committee to Get Walker Running — a draft committee trying to get David Walker on the presidential ballot through Americans Elect — calls itself a “grassroots and youth-driven initiative” in public:

The Committee to Get Walker Running is a non-partisan, grassroots and youth-driven initiative to get our country...

Grassroots?
In private, the committee informed the Federal Election Commission on April 24 that “This committee intends to make unlimited independent expenditures, and consistent with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit decision in SpeechNow V. FEC, it therefore intends to raise funds in unlimited amounts”:

Declaration by the Draft David Walker committee that it intends to get big money donations in unlimited amounts. Not very grassroots.

Obtaining operating funds from big-money donors is not grassroots.

The official FEC designation of the Draft Walker Committee is C00519702. You can periodically check for FEC reports on contributions and expenditures here. But don’t hold your breath; by registering in April, the Draft Walker Committee has ensured that its first quarterly report of big money contributions won’t appear before the public until July, long after the Americans Elect nomination has been settled when the question of that big money will be moot.

, , , , , , , , ,