“Americans’ favorable rating of the Democratic Party dropped to 41% in the latest USA Today/Gallup poll, the lowest point in the 18 year history of this measure.”[i] USA Today/Gallup poll, April 8, 2010 Archbishop Desmond Tutu, winner of Nobel Peace Prize for his work to end apartheid in South Africa, told the following story when he spoke
[More…]
“Americans’ favorable rating of the Democratic Party dropped to 41% in the latest USA Today/Gallup poll, the lowest point in the 18 year history of this measure.”[i] USA Today/Gallup poll, April 8, 2010
Archbishop Desmond Tutu, winner of Nobel Peace Prize for his work to end apartheid in South Africa, told the following story when he spoke last May at the graduation
ceremonies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill: A traveler walking through the countryside stopped to admire a beautiful field of corn. He said to the farmer, “My, you and God have surely created a beautiful field of corn.” The farmer thanked the traveler and then said, “You should have seen it when God had it by Himself.”
Tutu built his entire commencement address on the notion that no problem is ever going to be solved unless someone steps up and does the hard work. “God allowed apartheid,” he said, “Apartheid was not ended by God. It was ended by His helpers.”
This year, we are faced with many great challenges … especially economic. However, the emerging greatest challenge is leadership … deciding whose ideas we are going to trust with the problems of the day. Ultimately, the ideas instituted will be those advocated by citizens who step up and do the hard work of winning campaigns. In 2008, it was the Obama camp. Today, it’s the Tea Party folks who are stepping up. These folks are tea’d. They are sick and tired of politicians pushing artificial sweetener on them in the form of government programs.
Continue reading »
“In the time of Joseph McCarthyism, celebrated in the Pogo strip by a character named Simple J. Malarkey, I attempted to explain each individual is wholly involved in the democratic process, work at it or no. The results of the process fall on the head of the public and he who is recalcitrant or procrastinates in
[More…]
“In the time of Joseph McCarthyism, celebrated in the Pogo strip by a character named Simple J. Malarkey, I attempted to explain each individual is wholly involved in the democratic process, work at it or no. The results of the process fall on the head of the public and he who is recalcitrant or procrastinates in raising his voice can blame no one but himself.”[i]
Walt Kelly, Pogo Papers, 1952
Healthcare reform was inevitable because the necessity for change was greater than the fear of change. The insurance industry has simply jerked too many Americans around too many times and done nothing about the cries for relief other than raise rates and lower coverage.
In the March 11 report I wrote, “Obama is smart enough to come out of the healthcare reform debate with a win. He has to. His entire agenda is at stake. He will make whatever sacrifices are necessary to declare a victory.” Well, he gave up the public option and agreed to a pro-life presidential decree. He won.
I also wrote in March that by the time the May primaries roll around in North Carolina, the healthcare debate will be old news. “Obama will be directing his energies to the other problematic issues for Democrats by then: the economy, jobs, and big government spending. There will be an uptick in the job approval numbers for the President and the Congress, and most incumbents will win their primaries.”
I’m sticking with that forecast, and adding this one: Financial regulatory reform is inevitable because the need is greater than the fear of change. The banking industry and Wall Street investment houses have simply jerked too many Americans around too many times and done nothing about the cries for relief other than raise fees and lower services.
If Republicans stand with Wall Street in the upcoming financial reform debate, they will wind up on the losing end of that legislation as well.
Continue reading »
“Basnight often gives campaign money to the state Democratic Party, which can give unlimited amounts to legislative candidates.” AP, March 18, 2010 1 Last Thursday night, former Democratic Gov. Jim Hunt hosted a fundraiser for Democratic Senate President Pro Tem Marc Basnight at the State Fairgrounds in Raleigh. According to the Associated Press, 300 to 400 people
[More…]
“Basnight often gives campaign money to the state Democratic Party, which can give unlimited amounts to legislative candidates.” AP, March 18, 2010 1
Last Thursday night, former Democratic Gov. Jim Hunt hosted a fundraiser for Democratic Senate President Pro Tem Marc Basnight at the State Fairgrounds in Raleigh. According to the Associated Press, 300 to 400 people paying $100-$4000 were expected to show up in order that the good senator from Dare County would have the war chest needed to continue the 114-year winning streak of the Senate Democratic caucus.
Money flows to those with power. Those with power use the money to keep their power. Those with money use those with power to keep their money. Many of those in attendance at the fairgrounds represented large corporations who claim to be champions of the free market system of economy; a system whereby private interests compete for profit with little governmental intervention. Truth be known, many of those large corporations … like Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina … use government intervention to gain a competitive advantage over their competition; a role government leaders like former Sen. Tony Rand are happy to play … provided you pay … at events like the fundraiser last Thursday night.
Continue reading »
“There’s no real financial infrastructure under the [state] Republican Party, and I reckon building one will take a long time,” he said. And doing so will be “sort of like straightening out a train wreck.” — Carter Wrenn, NC Republican Consultant This is a very fragile time for North Carolina House Democrats and Republicans. They all
[More…]
“There’s no real financial infrastructure under the [state] Republican Party, and I reckon building one will take a long time,” he said. And doing so will be “sort of like straightening out a train wreck.” — Carter Wrenn, NC Republican Consultant
This is a very fragile time for North Carolina House Democrats and Republicans. They all know that to some extent their political fortunes this year are tied to the results of President Obama’s reform agenda, beginning with healthcare legislation. If he prevails, the value of his stock as a reform leader will rebound and the tarnished image of the Democratic Party will be polished up a bit. If he fails, all bets are off. Republicans will have a huge surge in momentum which will yield more investors making larger investments, an event that would be devastating for Democrats who have always been able to count on a financial advantage to win the close races.
I am persuaded that Obama is smart enough to come out of the healthcare reform debate with a win. He has to. His entire agenda is at stake. He will make whatever sacrifices are necessary to declare a victory, “… a victory for the uninsured and the underinsured who can’t afford care.”
The greater likelihood is that by the time the May primaries roll around, the healthcare debate will be old news. Obama will be directing his energies to the other problematic issues for Democrats by then: the economy, jobs, and big government spending. There will be an uptick in the job approval numbers for the President and the Congress, and most incumbents will win their primaries. There have only been two states with primaries thus far: Illinois and Texas. All incumbent members of congress seeking reelection won their races.
Continue reading »
“Republican candidates who win independents will take the oath of office — period.”1 — Glen Bolger and Neil Newhouse, Public Opinion Strategies I am stunned. How is it possible that the fortunes of the Democratic Party could plummet so far so fast? One year ago they were enjoying the spoils of victory after riding the
[More…]
“Republican candidates who win independents will take the oath of office — period.”1 — Glen Bolger and Neil Newhouse, Public Opinion Strategies
I am stunned. How is it possible that the fortunes of the Democratic Party could plummet so far so fast? One year ago they were enjoying the spoils of victory after riding the crest of an anti-establishment wave created by the Bush administration’s low approval ratings and the inspirational candidacy of Barack Obama and his message of “change we can believe in.” For the first time in 40 years, they claimed the state’s top three political prizes in the same election year, President, U.S. Senator and Governor, and held a majority in both houses of the legislature.
Now, it’s the Democrats flailing about in a stormy sea of angry voters and in danger of losing many of the partisan advantages they gained in 2008. It’s the Democratic brand that’s tarnished.
Continue reading »
Citizens United Seminar Speakers Lead the Way for Corporations and Trade Associations “Today, the days of Alice in Wonderland budgeting in Trenton end.” –Chris Christie, newly elected GOP Governor of New Jersey, Joint Session of Legislature, Feb. 11, 2010 The Highest Risk Option for Business in 2010 is Unilateral Political Disarmament Leveling NC’s Political Playing
[More…]
Citizens United Seminar Speakers Lead the Way for Corporations and Trade Associations
“Today, the days of Alice in Wonderland budgeting in Trenton end.”
–Chris Christie, newly elected GOP Governor of New Jersey, Joint Session of Legislature, Feb. 11, 2010
The Highest Risk Option for Business in 2010 is Unilateral Political Disarmament
Leveling NC’s Political Playing Field: How to Use New Business Free Speech Rights, was the topic for a seminar hosted on Monday by Longistics. Four experts addressed the legal and practical application of the new rights to corporate-funded independent expenditure ads, recently granted by the U.S. Supreme Court. Speaking to the law were attorneys Robert S. LaBrant, Sr. VP, Political Affairs & General Counsel, Michigan Chamber, and Stephen B. Long, a partner with Williams Mullen, Raleigh. Speaking to the practical application of the law were political consultants Chris Sinclair, Cornerstone Solutions, and Neal Rhoades, Southeast Strategies.
Continue reading »
“I am a life-long Independent, registered Unaffiliated, and consider myself a radical moderate.” -John Davis, John Davis Political Report A Letter to Rob Christensen, Political Reporter, The News & Observer Note: Today’s N&O carried a front page story titled, Perdue: SEANC speaks for state workers. In the story, political reporter Rob Christensen quoted me in writing,
[More…]
“I am a life-long Independent, registered Unaffiliated, and consider myself a radical moderate.” -John Davis, John Davis Political Report
A Letter to Rob Christensen, Political Reporter, The News & Observer
Note: Today’s N&O carried a front page story titled, Perdue: SEANC speaks for state workers. In the story, political reporter Rob Christensen quoted me in writing, “Very clearly this state is moving toward unionization of public employees and collective bargaining rights,” said Davis, a pro-business Republican. What follows is my reply to Rob, a seasoned political writer who I respect very much, correcting his characterization of me as a “pro-business Republican,” followed by a defense of radical moderation, and the need for a balanced, two-party state.
Continue reading »
“[Executive Order 45] means that we can discuss the terms and conditions of our employment.”1 –Dana Cope, Executive Director, SEANC (SEIU Local 2008), Jan. 25, 2010 The State of the Union Money in North Carolina Politics In last Sunday‟s News and Observer, the editorial page carried a misleading op-ed piece written by Gene Nichol, a
[More…]
“[Executive Order 45] means that we can discuss the terms and conditions of our employment.”1
–Dana Cope, Executive Director, SEANC (SEIU Local 2008), Jan. 25, 2010
The State of the Union Money in North Carolina Politics
In last Sunday‟s News and Observer, the editorial page carried a misleading op-ed piece written by Gene Nichol, a law Professor at UNC-Chapel Hill. Professor Nichol was spitting mad about last week‟s US Supreme Court decision that gave unlimited independent political free speech rights to corporations and unions. “I find no words to convey adequate outrage over Friday’s US Supreme Court decision, in the Citizens United case, to radically untether corporate spending in our electoral politics,” fumed Professor Nichol, “It is bizarrely anti-democratic.”2
Why misleading? If Professor Nichol had taken the time to read the decision before regurgitating his sanctimonious ire, he would have discovered that the ruling applies to both corporations and unions. Yet, not once in his editorial, titled Supreme corporations, did Professor Nichol include “unions” as he decried the corrupting influence of money. The Citizens United case can be found on the US Supreme Court‟s web site.3 The phrase “corporations and unions” appears 26 times in the opinion. Everything corporations can now do, so can unions.
While Nichol assails corporate political spending, he fails to mention that unions contributed over $5 million in 2008 to North Carolina politicians; 98% of their money going to Democrats.
Unrestrained Spending by Public Employee Unions
Perhaps the reason Professor Nichol, a public employee, overlooks big union money in North Carolina politics is because almost all of the union money comes from public employee unions. Of the $5,032,908 spent by unions in 2008 on North Carolina candidates, $4,532,540 was spent by public employee unions and their affiliated unions. Here are the facts:4
- SEANC (State Employees Assn. of NC) contributed $243,706 to NC candidates
- Democratic candidates received $218,956 of SEANC money, or 90%
- Republican candidates received $24,750 of SEANC money, or 10%
- SEANC is Local #2008, affiliated with SEIU (Service Employees Int‟l Union)
- SEIU invested $1,810,566 in NC candidates in 2008
- Democrats enjoyed $1,760,556 of SEIU‟s money, or 97%; Republicans 3%
- SEIU gave the North Carolina Democratic Party over $1 million
- NCAE (NC Association of Educators) contributed $265,330 to 200 NC candidates
- Democratic candidates received $245,980 of NCAE money, or 93%
- NEA (National Education Association) invested $2,212,936 in NC candidates
- 100% of NEA‟s $2,212,936 went to help Democrats; Republicans 0%
- NEA ran a $1.7 million independent expenditure campaign for Bev Perdue
Additional union funds invested in 2008 and conveniently overlooked by Professor Nichol:
- United Auto Workers union gave the North Carolina Democratic Party over $100,000
- DRIVE, the Teamsters union, contributed $361,617 to NC Democrats
- IBEW (International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers) gave $36,500 to Democrats
- UFCE (United Food and Commercial Workers) contributed over $100,000 to the Democratic Party of North Carolina
UNC law Professor Gene Nichol writes, “A system of government in which those who seek certain policies are allowed to spend unrestrained sums on behalf of those who make the policies can be called many things. „Democratic‟ and „fair‟ are not among them.” Why is Nichol only including corporate “unrestrained sums?” What‟s “fair” about excluding unions?
If UNC law Professor Gene Nichol would go to the website, www.opensecrets.org, and do a search on the largest political independent expenditure groups, he would discover that SEIU is #1 on the list of the Top 100 all-time biggest spenders.5 In 2008, SEIU spent $85 million to influence the outcome of elections, and was rewarded by President Obama with support for the Employee Free Choice Act legislation and top White House jobs including political director, and positions on the National Labor Relations Board and the president‟s Economic Recovery Advisory Board.6
In 2006, SEIU spent $635,000 in North Carolina elections on TV and radio ads, mailings, opinion polls, and Get-Out-The-Vote phone banks – more than ANY BUSINESS PAC in NC. SEIU also contributed more than 10% of the total budget of FairJudges.net to run ads statewide for NC Supreme Court candidates in 2006. In 2004, SEIU spent $650,000 just on NC legislative races.
Perhaps it was just an oversight. Surely Professor Nichol intended to include unions among those who have rendered our system of government undemocratic and unfair because of their unrestrained spending. And surely he intended to include the UNC-Chapel Hill PAC.
According to Democracy North Carolina, the state’s leading campaign finance watchdog, “A group of UNC-Chapel Hill boosters called Citizens for Higher Education gave $479,000 to legislative candidates during the 2008 election, more money than any other PAC.”7 Oh well, just another one of Nichols‟ inadvertent exclusions from those who have rendered our system of government undemocratic and unfair because of their unrestrained spending.
Governor Bev Perdue‟s Executive Order #45
On May 3, 2008, the State Employees Association of North Carolina (SEANC) voted to officially affiliate with Service Employees International Union (SEIU). SEANC is now known as SEIU Local 2008, and is the South‟s leading state employee association with its 55,000 members.
During the 2008 election cycle, SEANC and SEIU invested $2,054,271 in North Carolina politics. They, along with fellow public employee unions NEA and the NCAE, invested $1,846,219 to help Beverly Perdue win the governor‟s race in 2008.
Last Friday, Governor Perdue signed Executive Order #45, a move characterized by The Insider on Tuesday this way: “Gov. Beverly Perdue has issued an executive order that pushes state employees a little closer to collective bargaining rights.”8 Dana Cope, Executive Director of SEANC, SEIU Local 2008, sees it similarly. “[Executive Order 45] means that we can discuss the terms and conditions of our employment.”9
UNC law Professor Gene Nichol writes, “A system of government in which those who seek certain policies are allowed to spend unrestrained sums on behalf of those who make the policies can be called many things. „Democratic‟ and „fair‟ are not among them.” Like it or not, as of last Friday’s US Supreme Court decision, in the Citizens United case, unrestrained independent expenditures by corporations and unions is the law.
UNC law Professor Gene Nichols‟ diatribe in last Sunday‟s News and Observer described untethered corporate spending in our electoral politics as, “bizarrely anti-democratic.” He said that he could not find words to adequately convey his outrage. Not including unions in his op-ed piece is bizarrely anti-accurate. Perhaps the next time he needs to try to find words that adequately interpret the law.
References
- http://www.seanc.org/news/homepagenews.aspx
- http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/columnists_blogs/other_views/story/299567.html
- http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf
- Union contributions and independent expenditures database provided by Civitas Institute
- http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/indexp.php
- The Wall Street Journal, SEIU Campaign Spending Pays Political Dividends, May 16, 2009
- Democracy North Carolina, Press Release: Friday, June 26, 2009; Special-Interest PACs Guard Tax Loopholes
- http://www.governor.state.nc.us/NewsItems/ExecutiveOrderDetail.aspx?newsItemID=884
- http://www.seanc.org/news/homepagenews.aspx
“They’re the men who served with John Kerry in Vietnam. Tortured for refusing to confess what John Kerry accused them of … of being war criminals. With nothing to gain for themselves, they have come forward to talk about the John Kerry they know.”1 Swift Boat Vets and POWs for Truth, TV ad excerpt, September
[More…]
“They’re the men who served with John Kerry in Vietnam. Tortured for refusing to confess what John Kerry accused them of … of being war criminals. With nothing to gain for themselves, they have come forward to talk about the John Kerry they know.”1 Swift Boat Vets and POWs for Truth, TV ad excerpt, September 2004
Below you will find a memo written by Patton Boggs, one of the leading campaign finance law firms in America, summarizing the implications of the new U.S. Supreme Court decision handed down on January 20, 2010, freeing corporations from campaign spending limits on independent expenditure advertising. Here are some of the highlights:
- Before last week’s ruling, corporate funds could not be used to fund independent ads that expressly called for the election or defeat of a political candidate. Now they can.
- Before the ruling, corporate funds could not be used to fund independent issue advocacy ads within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of the general election. Now they can.
Example: The famous Swift Boat Veterans ads never called for the election of George Bush or the defeat of John Kerry. Those ads merely disclosed questions about John Kerry’s war record. Corporations could have helped fund those ads up to 30 days before the primary and 60 days before the general election. However, as those ads were developed after the Democratic National Convention in 2004 and run only in September and October, within the 60 days before the general election, none of the $26 million raised to fund the ads was from corporate funds. Today, corporate money CAN be used to pay for the Swift Boat Veterans type ads all the way up to Election Day, and, you CAN call for the election or defeat of a candidate.
Continue reading »
“Governments at every level had become too cavalier about spending taxpayer money. Too often, bureaucracies were oblivious to the cost of their mandates. A lot of liberal rhetoric did seem to value rights and entitlements over duties and responsibilities.”1 — U.S. Senator Barack Obama, 2006 Hu-bris (hyoo’bris) n. Overbearing pride or presumption; arrogance. In his
[More…]
“Governments at every level had become too cavalier about spending taxpayer money. Too often, bureaucracies were oblivious to the cost of their mandates. A lot of liberal rhetoric did seem to value rights and entitlements over duties and responsibilities.”1 — U.S. Senator Barack Obama, 2006
Hu-bris (hyoo’bris) n. Overbearing pride or presumption; arrogance.
In his book, The Audacity to Win, President Obama’s campaign manager David Plouffe writes about Obama’s “significant self-confidence.” What Plouffe calls significant self-confidence is also hubris, excessive pride or arrogance; the trait most responsible for Obama’s failed first year.
The year was 2003. Plouffe was meeting with Obama in Chicago for the first time to talk about his 2004 race for U.S. Senate. He was trying to persuade Obama of the importance of allowing campaign professionals to run the campaign. “You just have to let go and trust,” Plouffe told him. “I understand that intellectually,” said Obama, “but this is my life and career. And I think I could probably do every job on the campaign better than the people I’ll hire to do it.”2
Continue reading »