New Carol Same As The Old Carol

Just cleaning Up the CSP detritus so let us call this Carol-SEIU Saturday morning.

This tidbit fell in my lap while I was looking for the photo in a previous post.  It is a clip of the top six donors to Carol's 2012 re-election campaign from OpenSecrets.org.  While it is still early in the funding season you may notice some similarities to all her previous efforts. Unions!

I realize this is another captain obvious moment for activists who pay attention to such things but we are all quick to forget; not how Democrats demonize opponents they claim are owned by some special interest but who owns them and how much they will work to distract us from that.

One other point the left obsesses over when it comes to funding election: 53% of Carol's dollars in this cycle are already from out of state.

Pass the popcorn please.

Cross Posted: New Carol Same As The Old Carol

Top-100(?) donors to Political Candidates and Parties. And the Winner is...?

I'm not sure why this is titled the Top-100 donors to political candidates and parties?  I only see twenty-nine.  But we can make the case we want to make none the less.

What point?  Even if I could find the Koch brother in there, I don't think they can compete with one particular "special interest" donor and their overwhelming support one party.  Actually no one can. They are a violent, noisy, sliver of the electorate, and they are still outspending not just every other group, but most or all of them added together; that's right, labor union donations to democrats.

So as we celebrate our independence think about who is dependent on labor unions and how it affects their behavior?  And note to left wingers on campaign finance rhetoric...take your "Koch" brothers talking points and shove them up your...

 

The Sweet Stench Of Left Wing Hypocrisy

This morning the Union Leader (UL) nails Zandra Rice Hawkins and Granite State Progress to the very cross on which she intended to crucify her Republican opponents.  Seems Hawkins has made a stink about a recent special election and the odor of "out of state money" used to influence elections. 

The Union Leader wastes no time, exposing Hawkins connection to money she received May 11th from America Votes (out of state left wing donation), which Hawkins/Granite State Progress then used to support the Democrat in the special election she is squawking at Republicans about, specifically to elect that democrat, in that election.

Did she forget?  No, she just has major character flaw.  It is called "progressive democrat."

And she is not alone.  New Hampshire democrats do this all the time.  They have collected millions from outside the state.  Ray "out of state money" Buckley brags about how he out fund-raises the Republicans (by factors of two or more would be my guess) in every election cycle, with tons of cash coming from outside the state.  The entire democrat apparatus from the paid out of state union AstroTurf they send to Concord, all the way up to the party leadership, to the democrat Governor of New Hampshire, demagog the issue of Republicans using out of state money while they proudly use more of it to affect in-state elections than (probably) the entire Republican take from all sources in any given year.

This hypocrisy is a foundation for the maxim, "If democrats are bitching about it, it is because they are already guilty of it."  And when or where has this not been the case? (Free speech, for example, is "protected" by intimidating or eliminating the kinds of speech or press democrats object to.)  I've written so many articles about their various hypocrisies that rarely a week goes by without one, and only then because there are so many to choose from I just don't bother.

So Zandra Rice Hawkins is just following the template of the democrat machine. That is why she took out of state money for that race, filed her required public paperwork to declare it, proceeded  to spend it to elect the democrat, (who won) and can then attack her losing opponents for what she just did without as much as a second thought.

Think about that.  She knows what she did, and still a public attack on her opponents is the next step for what?  To focus attention on your own hypocrisy?  Of course not.  She does not believe that she, nor any democrat for that matter,  will ever have to be held to account for this or any other hypocrisy they perpetrate.  And there are plenty of them.

So this is not so much about money as it is about character.  Hawkins obviously has none.  The state democrat leadership has none.   Nor do the democrats who condone, defend, excuse, or support this behavior, nor the independents and RINO's who refuse to acknowledge it by continuing to vote for  and elect into power members of a political party that expect to be able to almost daily misrepresent the truth in broad daylight and not suffer any consequence from it.  Will someone, anyone on the left step up and call her out?

This is what the democrat party has become.  This is why they cannot be trusted to run a lemonade stand, let alone your government.  It's why I call them Hypocrats.

Citation: Union Leader, Editorial Page:

Relevant Portion of Text from UL Editorial (Digital Edition)

In the latest state campaign finance report we could find, dated in 2008, every contributor to America Votes-NH lived outside of New Hampshire.

In the May 17 election, America Votes gave Granite State Progress $1,500 to defeat Kucmas. Granite State Progress filed as a political action committee for this race on May 11 — the same day it received America Votes’ $1,500. America Votes filed as a PAC on May 10. So in the last week before the election, these two PACs appeared and dropped $1,500 to defeat the Republican.

Rice-Hawkins, who gave $50 to Jennifer Daler, Kucmas’ opponent, might have limited her complaint to possible violations of election law. Instead, she spun it as principled opposition to out-of-state interests trying to affect New Hampshire elections, something she is clearly not opposed to, as her work in New Hampshire politics is funded by out-of-state interests. What hypocrisy.

 Find it here

Stephen Colbert's Campaign Finance Lesson

Michelle Malkin has a great post on one of the Left's premier water carrier's, Stephen Colbert, on one of their signature hypocrisies--corporate campaign finance reform.

Colbert set out to create a PAC so he could accumulate gobs of cash to prove a point about the abuses of campaign finance reform, only to discover just how hard it is to do that. From the Wall Street Journal, quoting Colbert...

"Why does it get so complicated to do this? I mean, this is page after page of legalese," Mr. Colbert lamented. "All I'm trying to do is affect the 2012 election. It's not like I'm trying to install iTunes."

Well, that's pretty much what the nonprofit group Citizens United said to the Supreme Court in the case that Mr. Colbert is trying so hard to lampoon.

Campaign-finance laws are so complicated that few can navigate them successfully and speak during elections—which is what the First Amendment is supposed to protect. As the Supreme Court noted in Citizens United, federal laws have created "71 distinct entities" that "are subject to different rules for 33 different types of political speech." The FEC has adopted 568 pages of regulations and thousands of pages of explanations and opinions on what the laws mean. "Legalese" doesn't begin to describe this mess.

Emphasis mine.  What Stephen also does not realize, perhaps, is that state rules make it even harder in some cases, for regular people to be politically active on their own without running afoul of speech limiting regulations.  And most of us do not have Mr. Colbert's resources.

He has had to hire powerful lawyers to wade into the regulations in search of a way to get a waiver or exemption.  But that's not happening.  WSJ again...

How's that for a punch line? Rich and successful television personality needs powerful corporate lawyers to convince the FEC to allow him to continue making fun of the Supreme Court. Hilarious. 

This is Democrat party talking points meet reality.  One wonders if he will next take on the hypocrisy of foreign contributors and even challenge Mr. Obama's appearance on impropriety on the matter? I'm guessing not.  Colbert thought he had an easy gag he could milk for 18 months, heading into the 2012 election.  He's probably not in this to be an investigative reporter. though I'd applaud any honest look at either issue on his part.

So welcome to the real world where democrats really do exaggerate (lie) to impede political speech they object to and things are never what the party hacks make them out to be.

Cross posted all over, including here

Low Road To China

Our very own Moonbat Shea-Porter has responded to comments she made about about Chinese influence peddling, specifically that she was implying that the Chinese may have cost her re-election.

“It’s not taken out of context, it’s a lie,” Shea-Porter said. “I never said the Chinese defeated me. I never said anything of the sort.”

To Carol's credit this is about a lie but not the one she imagines.  The real lie is the same lie she and most of her party have been selling as truth since the Supreme court ruling on Citizen United.  That this ruling changed how international contributions are handled. 

Carol believes what she has been told by Nancy Pelosi and the influence peddlers in her own party, believes it so strongly that she could never be bothered to accept that the truth was anything more than the opposition "pushing back."

The ruling did not touch regulations on foreign contributions.  And all the rules for legal contributions apply equally to all parties.  So Shea-Porter's endless screed on special interest foreign money is the rambling of an idiot, posing as a lawmaker, who is either ignorant of the law, or so blinded by ideology as to be incapable of seeing the truth.

The real lie is the one she keeps telling and the irony is that special interests did cost her the election.  Her own.

Cross Posted