US General Election 2016

Things are starting to get interesting as candidates declare themselves.  But this sideswiped me: who would have thought Jeb Bush could be so devious?


Bush preparing to delegate many campaign tasks to super PAC
By THOMAS BEAUMONT


DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) — Jeb Bush is preparing to embark on an experiment in presidential politics: delegating many of the nuts-and-bolts tasks of seeking the White House to a separate political organization that can raise unlimited amounts of campaign cash.

Should Bush move ahead as his team intends, it is possible that for the first time a super PAC created to support a single candidate would spend more than the candidate's campaign itself — at least through the primaries. Some of Bush's donors believe that to be more than likely.

The architects of the plan believe the super PAC's ability to raise unlimited amounts of money legally outweighs its primary disadvantage, that it cannot legally coordinate its actions with Bush or his would-be campaign staff.

"Nothing like this has been done before," said David Keating, president of the Center for Competitive Politics, which opposes limits on campaign finance donations. "It will take a high level of discipline to do it."

The exact design of the strategy remains fluid as Bush approaches an announcement of his intention to run for the Republican nomination in 2016. But at its center is the idea of placing Right to Rise in charge of the brunt of the biggest expense of electing Bush: television advertising and direct mail.

The campaign itself would still handle those things that require Bush's direct involvement, such as candidate travel. It would still pay for advertising, conduct polling and collect voter data.

Bush's plans were described to The Associated Press by two Republicans and several Bush donors familiar with the plan, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the former Florida governor has not yet announced his candidacy.

Bush spokeswoman Kristy Campbell said: "Any speculation on how a potential campaign would be structured, if he were to move forward, is premature at this time."

The strategy aims to take maximum advantage of the new world of campaign finance created by a pair of 2010 Supreme Court decisions and counts on the Federal Election Commission to remain a passive regulator with little willingness to confront those pushing the envelope of the law.

The main limitation on super PACs is that they cannot coordinate their activities with a campaign. The risk for Bush is that his super PAC will not have access to the candidate and his senior strategists to make pivotal decisions about how to spend the massive amount of money it will take to win the Republican nomination and, if successful, secure the 270 electoral votes he will need to follow his father and brother into the White House.

Super PACs got their start in presidential politics when former aides to GOP nominee Mitt Romney set one up to support him at the outset of the 2012 campaign. The group, called Restore Our Future, raised and spent more than $142 million. By comparison, his formal campaign raised $446 million.

The primary complication is the ban on coordination. For example, if the campaign decided to change its focus from one issue to another, it could not share that decision with the super PAC.

One way Bush is already addressing the coordination ban is by frontloading his efforts inside Right to Rise. Because he is not yet a candidate, he can now spend time raising money for the super PAC and take part in strategic campaign planning under its auspices.

Critics also believe that coordination can take place surreptitiously, and such illegal activity isn't punished by an FEC comprised of three Democratic and three Republican members unable to agree on most anything.

Former FEC commissioner Scott Thomas, a Democrat, doubts the Justice Department would ever look at such a case because the FEC has been so precise in detailing what is allowed and what is not.

"You'd have to show a true smoking gun, showing the candidate controlling the campaign and the super PAC," said Thomas, a lawyer now in private practice in Washington. He can't see campaign operatives being that clumsy: "It would have to be a smoking gun left by someone who had the intelligence of an advanced fern."

Halfwise wrote: But this sideswiped me: who would have thought Jeb Bush could be so devious?

I'll give Jeb some credit. I don't think he's devious enough to have dreamed this up himself, so I'm betting he hired the best weasels money could buy to do the dirty work. That would be the Bush way.

This is a new level of scumminess but I kinda feel that it was inevitable after SCOTUS gutted the McCain-Feingold Act. Seems more like a formalization of what candidates have been experimenting with for the past few years. But yeah, it's disheartening.

Eldorion wrote:but I kinda feel that it was inevitable after SCOTUS gutted the McCain-Feingold Act.

I'm afraid that will be the legacy of the Roberts Court, and it just reflects one moment of weakness on Chief Justice Roberts' part.

Citizens United had only asked if they should be able to show "Hillary:The Movie" in the 30 days leading up to the election. The decision was 5-4 that they should. Then

Wikipedia wrote:Chief Justice John Roberts, per the privilege of that office when in the majority, was in charge of assigning the majority opinion, and chose to do it himself. He drafted a narrow opinion, holding that the BCRA allowed the showing of the film. A draft concurrence by Kennedy argued that the court could and should have gone much further. The other justices in the majority began agreeing with Kennedy, and convinced Roberts to reassign the writing and allow Kennedy's concurrence to become the majority opinion.

I bet Roberts loses sleep over that.

Election time is always exciting, but I hate it, but it's exiting, but I hate it.

(Reuters) - The Federal Election Commission has declined to investigate the funding of a campaign to defeat a Los Angeles County ballot initiative by an international conglomerate, raising fears among campaign finance reform advocates that foreign funds may flood into U.S. elections.

The 2012 ballot initiative required adult film stars to wear condoms while filming movies.

After the initiative passed, a California HIV-AIDS advocacy group filed a complaint charging that $327,000 in donations made by two pornography distributors tied to Manwin International SARL, a global pornography and advertising firm, violated the Federal Election Campaign Act, which prohibits foreign nationals from donating to U.S. campaigns.

The FEC's three Democratic commissioners, including Chairwoman Ann Ravel, voted to investigate the source of the funds and assess whether or not to fine the California committee that opposed the ballot measure for accepting the funds, according to documents released on Thursday.

But the FEC's three Republican commissioners voted not to pursue an investigation, agreeing with the FEC's Office of the General Counsel that the ban on foreign donations does not apply to local ballot initiatives.

A deadlock at the FEC, a common occurrence, means that no probe will ensue.

Democratic Commissioner Ellen Weintraub told Reuters the decision could open the door to more foreign money in U.S. votes.

"Imagine, for example, a foreign billionaire who was dissatisfied with U.S. immigration policy and decided to try to change it more to his own liking, one statewide ballot measure at a time," Weintraub said.

Republican members of the commission were not immediately available for comment.

Manwin International was founded by Fabian Thylmann, a German-born software engineer who became famous for consolidating massive amounts of pornography online and turning a profit, even on free "tube" sites.

In October 2013 Thylmann sold his stake in the company, then the world's largest adult entertainment operator. It subsequently changed its name to MindGeek.

Craig Holman of Public Citizen, a reform group, said the FEC deadlock on banning foreign money in U.S. elections raises concerns that foreign influence in American candidate and ballot measure campaigns could rise.

"The 'dark money' phenomenon that has flooded elections since the 2010 Citizens United decision has made it easy for foreign interests to secretly launder money into candidate elections," he said.

"The unwillingness of the FEC to enforce the law in ballot measure campaigns, even when the influence of foreign money is in the open, makes our elections open season for foreign intervention."

Aren't any of the candidates so far worth a shit....makes me wanna move over with Petty to be honest

Welcome as you are Sin I am not sure how you'd feel about living in a country with strict gun controls, a nationalised health service and a big government approach- so no smoking in public places, or even in your own car if you have kids onboard for example, those type of social laws.

On the otherhand you can look at those as- almost no-one gets shot, you never have to worry about a medical bill ever in your life, and kids dont develop breathing or cancer issues form second hand smoke in a confined space (and so dont cost money later on the health service your taxes have to pay for- this is an aspect of national health rarely considered- once a government has to pay for it, they start to wonder what they are paying for, then they notice a lot of it is self inflicted and preventable, and so then they start legislating health laws to make whatever it is more prohibitive to do, so reducing long term costs)

Well at this point what is the USA going to end up. We're either going to have (eventually) just as strict gun laws or full out bloodshed in the streets over defending those gun laws. As far as the health care goes I could live with that, and the other I don't smoke anyways lol

In terms of gun control I'd like to see pretty much every big ass machine gun banned. People don't need those. Hunting guns and pistols for conceal and carry are okay by me. All the ridiculous crap has to go.

I'm actually more concerned about handguns.  Those are far and away the most deadly kind of gun, at least in terms of homicides.  Suicides and accidental deaths don't see to get broken down by type of gun in the statistics that much, but handguns are just as lethal in those situations and arguably more dangerous in the case of accidental handling by small children.  I don't know which type of gun is most commonly used in suicide; I think it'd be handguns, but I haven't found any evidence to back that up yet (and it's pretty morbid Googling).

Big-ass rifles in the hands of enthusiasts (other than hunters and farmers) are basically just toys.  I don't get it, but I don't get stamp collecting either.  That said, anyone who thinks that their personal gun collection is going to keep the government at bay (or "preserve their liberty", if you want to put it like that) is delusional.

I just don't care for the government telling what i can and can not do that does no harm to others. The government IMHO should keep its big fat nose out of everyone's business and just let people live as they want to. All their supposed gun control does is take guns away from the law abiding citizens that actually follow the rules. Whens the last time you heard of a criminal following the law? It doesn't happen. That's where i find fault with what the government wants to do, its not about protecting the people its about making them defenseless. Sounds pretty socialist to me rather than a democracy. Although I'm not really sure you can call the USA a democracy anymore either. It's all about big business and what they want and who they want to run things anymore. The little people have become nothing as far as American government is concerned IMO

All their supposed gun control does is take guns away from the law abiding citizens that actually follow the rules. Whens the last time you heard of a criminal following the law?- Sin

But how do you know who the criminals are? Some kid goes nuts shoots up his school or a cinema- how do you know beforehand he is going to be a criminal until he does it.
Problem is your country is awash with guns so those who do want to use them for something criminal don't have much trouble getting their hands on a weapon it seems.

Its very hard however to go on a bloody massacre with an automatic weapon in a country where almost no-one has eve seen a real one.
But to get to that stage you need strict gun control first.

It comes down fr me to what you will accept in the name of your own rights versus the collective rights of wider society.
If for every 10,000 people who will safely and responsible own a gun you have to accept there is 1 nutter who will go use theirs to go on a killing spree and kill a dozen or so innocent people, then its down to personal morality if your right to own a gun is worth those lives. Even if its 1 in a million I don't think it is. thats why I am very happy to have had the luck to be born somewhere where guns are something you will most likely see on tv and in films, and where you cant go buy one in a shop. That just seems mad to me.

What about for hunting? That was a big part of my dad's life and my grandpa's. I believe people have the right to own hunting fire arms. There was even a story in the paper the other day about how trap shooting is becoming something of a sport in some schools, which I think is great.

Sorta forgot about this with the recent events in Baltimore, but the big marriage equality case of Obergefell v. Hodges has begun arguments before the Supreme Court.  Audio for the first half of the day is up, with a transcript on its way.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2014/14-556-q1

There is a very strong chance that the Court's ruling on this (due sometime over the summer) will legalize same-sex marriage throughout the entire country.

What about for hunting? That was a big part of my dad's life and my grandpa's. I believe people have the right to own hunting fire arms. - Bungo

In Scotland at least you need a hunting license- so you need to prove thats why you need a gun, be a member of an official gun club, the weapon needs to be kept under strict conditions, and you can only hunt what you are licensed to which is almost nothing as almost everything is a protected species, and even then only in designated areas- you can shoot deer, but only at certain times of the year as part of the organised cull.

You couldn't just take a gun and head off out into the woods to find something to kill on a whim, that would be breaking all kinds of laws.

Eldorion wrote:Sorta forgot about this with the recent events in Baltimore, but the big marriage equality case of Obergefell v. Hodges has begun arguments before the Supreme Court.  Audio for the first half of the day is up, with a transcript on its way.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2014/14-556-q1

There is a very strong chance that the Court's ruling on this (due sometime over the summer) will legalize same-sex marriage throughout the entire country.

Audio for the second question in the case.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2014/14-556-q2

Edit: and some context

http://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/supreme-courts-simple-marriage-case-questions-lead-to-comple

Pettytyrant101 wrote:What about for hunting? That was a big part of my dad's life and my grandpa's. I believe people have the right to own hunting fire arms. - Bungo

In Scotland at least you need a hunting license- so you need to prove thats why you need a gun, be a member of an official gun club, the weapon needs to be kept under strict conditions, and you can only hunt what you are licensed to which is almost nothing as almost everything is a protected species, and even then only in designated areas- you can shoot deer, but only at certain times of the year as part of the organised cull.

You couldn't just take a gun and head off out into the woods to find something to kill on a whim, that would be breaking all kinds of laws.

We have similar restrictions in the US for hunting, I'm sure every state is different. However, here's Minnesota's hunting and trapping regulations for last season.

http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/rlp/regulations/hunting/2014/full_regs.pdf#view=fit&pagemode=bookmarks

It's not like the wild west out here...

At a glance it doesnt seem hugely different in general outline than the laws here for hunting- save for the availability of guns and the laws around having one in the first place-

http://www.woodlands.co.uk/buying-a-wood/fishing-and-hunting-rights-in-scottish-woodlands/


Getting a gun is a whole other matter though-

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/scotland

Go, Bernie, go!

http://digital.vpr.net/post/bernie-sanders-announce-presidential-run

Glad to see at least one challenger arise, even if he's running a "get my issues in the conversation" campaign. I'll probably vote for Sanders in the primary.

Speaking of the Democratic primary though, I wonder how much the Baltimore riots will affect Martin O'Malley's chances (not that they were ever very good). He first came to prominence by being a tough-on-crime mayor, but that might not be as popular anymore, at least not among Democratic primary voters.

I was in Baltimore when O'Malley was first elected. Didn't get the impression he was a tough on crime mayor so much as a can-do mayor. He got most of the black vote, which doesn't usually happen with tough on crime mayors.

Fair point. I was five when O'Malley won his first term, so I can't really comment on the perception at the time. Most of the conservative people I know from school seem to absolutely loathe him though and I've been entirely sure why, though I can't imagine it would be because they thought he was too tough on crime.

Follow-up to the Jeb Bush campaign finance scumbaggery that started this thread off (though it's bigger than just Bush).

http://americablog.com/2015/05/jeb-bush-says-hes-running-wont-follow-fec-rules-for-candidates-who-say-theyre-running.html

Fuck the Bush family. Hasn't done anything good for this country. The sad thing is that I would like to think that the murican people are smarter than this: "Fool once shame on you....." Well here's your third time to fuck it up America!