Subject: [big campaign] The vote next week to put elections more squarely in the hands of big money.
From: David Donnelly <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2011 12:52:24 -0500
List-Id: <bigcampaign.googlegroups.com>

All,

Sorry for cross-posting. Here are some talking points and research on the House vote next week to repeal the presidential public financing system.

This is not about policy - it's about defining the Republicans as on the side of big money and corporate interests.

DD

MESSAGES THAT WORK MEMO

To:            Interested Parties
From:            Public Campaign Action Fund
Date:            January 21, 2011
RE:            Vote to eliminate presidential public financing

Introduction

The scheduled vote in the House next week to eliminate the presidential public financing program is an opportunity to push back aggressively to define Speaker Boehner and his leadership team as on the side of corporate and special interest donors to whom they own their elections. It is also an opportunity to put a vision of what progressives think our elections ought to be about - everyday voters and their ability to speak and be heard in our political system.

The eight cosponsors of the measure to repeal the presidential system, it should be noted, have secured $80 million more in earmarks in the past few years than what they hope to save by cutting the program.

Talking Points and Research

*     Americans want elections of, by, and for the people, not paid for and bought by corporate interests. By eliminating the presidential finance system instead of fixing it, the Republican leadership has shown that they want elections to be only about big money, not voters.

*     Instead of focusing on jobs and the economy, the Republican leadership is pushing to place control of our elections more squarely into the hands of corporate donors. That will decrease the ability of everyday Americans to have their voices heard in the political process.

*     The presidential system worked well for both Democrats and Republicans for decades until campaign costs and practices outstripped it. It's time to modernize it, not eliminate it.

*     In the wake of the one-year anniversary of the Roberts Courts' extreme decision to allow corporations to directly impact elections, a vote by Republicans in Congress to eliminate a reform instituted after Watergate, one of the greatest scandals in American history, is plain wrong. Congress ought to be fixing the presidential system along the lines of the Fair Elections Now Act so that everyday voters are in charge for a change.

*     Opponents of the presidential system will claim that Americans don't support it, and they'll measure that support by the low participation rates on the tax form check-off. That's a false measurement, and the wrong way to determine the worth of a public policy.

*     Cosponsors of the repeal bill (H.R. 359) claim they are pursuing it to save taxpayers money. But just these eight Republican members have received more in earmarks over 2008-2010 - $601.6 million[i] <#_edn1> - than what they claim will be saved - $520 million.

*     The cosponsors of this bill are part and parcel of the current pay-to-play system. A few examples:

o   The sponsor, Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.), was appointed to the Ethics Committee in 2005 in order to protect former House Majority Leader and convicted felon Tom DeLay, and even donated $5,000 to his legal defense.[ii] <#_edn2>

o   Rep. John Campbell (R-Calif.), a cosponsor, pushed an amendment last year to exempt car dealers from consumer protections even though he received hundreds of thousands of dollars in rent from dealers and $280,000 in campaign donations from the automotive industry.[iii] <#_edn3>

o   Rep. Rob Bishop (R-Utah) was formerly a lobbyist for the National Rifle Association, and was called "the king of earmarks" by the Deseret News in Utah for requesting $6.5 billion in project funding, 95 percent of which was connected to political donors, the paper said.[iv] <#_edn4>

Additional research on cosponsors is available upon request.

________________________________
[i] <#_ednref> Analysis by Public Campaign Action Fund of data found at http://www.legistorm.com/earmarks.html

[ii] <#_ednref> http://www.commoncause.org/site/pp.asp?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=476747

[iii] <#_ednref> http://www.publicampaign.org/pressroom/2009/10/21/rep-campbell-s-amendment-to-consumer-legislation-a-blatant-conflict-of-interest, http://www.opensecrets.org

[iv] <#_ednref> http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705297284/Utah-Congressman-Rob-Bishop-is-king-of-earmarks.html?pg=1

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "big campaign" group.

To post to this group, send to [email-masked]

To unsubscribe, send email to [email-masked]

E-mail [email-masked] with questions or concerns
 
This is a list of individuals. It is not affiliated with any group or organization.