Some Awesome/Creepy/Unintentionally Funny Pol Ads

I have a student (I'll call her "Brigitte," because that's her name) who is working on the relative influence of TV vs Youtube as an effective medium for political campaigns.  An interesting topic, though a hard thing to measure accurately.

But the great thing (for the present) is all the truly strange and/or wonderful ads she has come across.
Here's a sampling:

Chuck Grassley's twitter

Beware the Insider-asuarus

Hosed

Hotdog

Big Bad John

Economics for Five Year Olds

But then I can't resist adding my own effort, from 2008.

Jump in the Ocean  (notice the campaign sign.  That kind of production value is what really makes a video.  Okay, not.  Thanks to Barbara H for all that driving, and filming.)

Your Blog is a PAC. Now Pay Up.

Amazingly, even after that horrible McCain-Feingold law got gobsmacked, we are still getting stuff like this. A case regarding...(adapted from source below)... Ed Corsi, an activist and blogger in Ohio. He called his blog the Geauga Constitutional Council, and he paid for the website and any printed material out of his own pocket. Ed's not rich, so he didn't spend much money. A local official who was criticized by Corsi's blog and pamphleteering didn't like what he was up to and complained to the Ohio Election Commission (OEC).

Too often such laws enable government officials to retaliate against critics by throwing them in legal quicksand. Ohio law defines a political action committee (PAC) as two or more persons if their "primary or major purpose . . . is to support or oppose any candidate." This sounds like the law was written so as to comply with the landmark Supreme Court case, Buckley v. Valeo. In that case, the court said groups could be regulated as PACs only if they were "under the control of a candidate or [had] the major purpose" of expressly advocating the election or defeat of candidates.

Unfortunately for Ed, the OEC interpreted the law in a very strange manner. The OEC ignored the vast majority of his blogging on issues and local concerns. Their analysis, if you could dignify it with that word, could be summed up this way: you had people help you with your blog, so you have two or more persons. You endorsed a few candidates. Therefore, you are a PAC, and you violated the law by failing to register as a PAC and report all your activity.

 More after the jump

So was it a $10 million Contribution, Then?

So, everybody was all excited that the Dems were going to have their convention in Charlotte.  NC is a key state and all (though the Dems ended up losing the state, in every way possible).

And there was some "formality" about guaranteeing a small loan, just $10 million (gulp!).  As we were told in the Democrat-owned press (i.e., McClatchy, the company tasked with writing ads for the Democratic party, thinly disguised as editorials or news stories):


Duke Energy Corp., whose CEO is leading the fundraising for the Democratic National Convention, is guaranteeing a $10 million line of credit for the event. 

The credit line from Fifth Third Bank is apparently the first time such an arrangement has been used by any Democratic convention organizers. A Duke spokesman said stockholders, not rate-payers, would be on the line if the convention's host committee defaults. 

But the head of the committee said it may never have to draw on the money. "It is just security in the event of a cash shortfall," Will Miller, acting executive director of the Charlotte organizing committee, said Friday. "The host committee is obligated to pay it back, and the host committee will pay it back." 

Some suggest the arrangement is tantamount to a large corporate contribution at a time when the party is touting new rules that bar corporate cash and individual contributions over $100,000. Democrats have pledged "a people's convention" and say the line of credit doesn't violate the new rules.

More after the jump... 

Montana: You're not good

Surprising pretty much no one, Montana was told that it cannot make its own separate campaign finance laws.  "First Amendment Incorporation" is a b***h, I suppose.  Almost all US campaign finance law is simply an attempt to shield incumbents, who are ALREADY CORRUPT, from the scolding winds of scrutiny and competition.

As CCP's Brad Smith put it:

“Few serious people really think that Montana’s limit - a total contribution of $160 to a state senator’s campaign committee over his four years in office - is going to corrupt anybody," said CCP founder and Chairman Brad Smith. "It is clear that the purpose of the many contribution limits is not to prevent corruption or its appearance, but to smother speech. We’re pleased to see a district court take the Supreme Court’s admonition in Buckley and Randall seriously. The state’s and the federal government cannot just assert an anti-corruption interest – their limits have to be actually tailored to address a real problem.”

For more....

We Get Letters: Campaign Finance

Chateau writes:

Here's something to chew on:  When Obama set a precedent for campaign funding by breaking his promise in 2008 to accept public funding for the general election he may have done more than Congress or “reformers” ever could to reduce the impact of SuperPACs in the 2012 general elections. 

The public funding option in 2012 would constrain a campaign to roughly $90 million in total spending, a tiny fraction of the $1 billion the president hopes to raise privately for his campaign.  If the Obama campaign could only spend $90 million we can only imagine how much money would flow into SuperPACs to make up the difference.  Don’t for a minute think that there will be no SuperPACs supporting Obama, but it is the case that we will hear relatively far more directly from the campaign than from 3rd parties this fall (a good thing for our democracy, I believe, to hear more from candidates directly).  The same goes for the GOP, whose candidate I cannot imagine agreeing to public  funding. 

Bottom line:  If you don't like what SuperPACs are doing to election messaging then (have yet one more reason to) be happy that the public funding system has collapsed…

Disclosure is Not as Good as You Think

New report from IJ, and KPC friend David Primo.

Disclosure: not as good as you think.

Grand Game: NYT Ed Page

This is a remarkable piece of innuendo.

Let's play the Grand Game! What is the most nonsensical, unsupported assertion here in the op-ed?

For me, it's the claim that "Wall Street" and "Republicans" are on the same side. If you look at the contributions to Obama, and the contributions for the past decade to Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, that is a LOL miscue. And that is just what was disclosed: Goldman basically bought its own bailout, by paying off Obama and his boys.

Even Michael Moore got THAT part right (I was screaming and laughing during the movie, because the smackdown on Dodd and Frank was so brutal!)

Good One By Ken

Ken at Popehat speaks sensibly about some things where nonsense reigns.

Markets in Everything: Democratic Prices Edition

There's a big election today in Venezuela, one that has prompted Hugo Chávez to get into the restaurant business!

Really:

Tucked into a corner on Plaza Bolívar is Café Venezuela, part of a chain of open-air restaurants established by the government this year. The cafe serves Venezuela-grown coffee and Venezuelan snacks like cassava bread at so-called solidarity prices, half or less than what customers would pay elsewhere.

Ideology is also on the menu. The cafes were created by Comerso, a state holding company for socialist enterprises, which also manages stores that sell everything from subsidized arepas, the crispy corn cakes that are the staple of the Venezuelan diet, to inexpensive Chinese cars. The branch in Plaza Bolívar replaced a clothing store that once occupied the same spot and was expropriated live on television by Mr. Chávez.

The planners behind the cafes have multiple objectives: to provide food and conviviality at democratic prices, to serve as commercial linchpins to renew some of the city’s most run-down districts and, not incidentally, to remind satisfied patrons of the government’s populist program in an election year.

Note that it is the Times reporter, and not a Chavista (at least not a Venezuelan Chavista) who coins the phrase "democratic prices"!

The absolute best part of the story was this though:

Doris, 20, said she still planned to vote for Mr. Chávez and his list of congressional candidates. “Supporting Chávez is the best way to get a job,” she said. She is studying petroleum production and hopes the correct political views can help her land a job at the national oil company.

Good luck Doris, you're going to need it.

Supremes Decline Hearing for RNC v. FEC

The Supreme Court decides not to hear RNC v. FEC.

Leaving us in the bizarre situation that corporations have more political speech rights than parties. Regardless of how you view Cit Untd, that is strange.

We are Clean!

After a thorough investigation, the Munger 2008 Gov campaign can breathe a sigh of relief. There were no additional unreported donations of private jet rides to the campaign, the candidate, or its staff.

Partly because there were no donations of private jet rides.
Partly because there were no private jet rides.
Partly because there were no airplane rides. We used the thing called "the car."

Bev Perdue, the people's choice, had 42 unreported private plane rides donated to the campaign, as part of the $19 million she spent for a job that pays $130k. Pat McCrory spent less than half that.

Makes me wistful. Maybe someday I'll get someone to donate a trip in the air, so I can report it. Maybe something like this:

Congress tries a hostile takeover of Obama Motors!

So the Obama administration takes over GM, hammering bondholders, handing over huge chunks of taxpayer money and more or less calling the shots in GMs restructuring.

GM decides to reduce the number of models it offers and close down a bunch of marginal dealerships (2000 or so).

Local dealerships support local congress people, and apparently many of these marginal dealerships want to stay in business with GM even though GM doesn't want to be in business with them.

Congress then passes a law requiring an appeals process for dealers who want to keep the family together.  

1100 dealers appealed!

GM has now decided to re-instate 600 or so of them on the grounds that it's less costly to put up with unprofitable dealerships than it is to fight Congress about closing them.

Meanwhile, the Obama management team for GM opposes the legislation and appeals process because (obviously) it is going to make it that much harder for GM to get a chance at someday being profitable.

So the executive branch tosses billions to bail out GM and the UAW and Congress then mandates that some of that money flow (indirectly) to unprofitable dealerships as well.

AAAAAAARRRRRRGGGGGGHHHHHHH!!!

I feel like Casey Stengel wondering "can't anybody here play this game"?

  

 

Video on Cit United V FEC: Munger v. Nichol

Video in link; took out embed because it was annoying since it restarted every time you load the blog.

(It's an hour long, including Q&A. I speak last...starting about 22:30)

Liberty Wins! Liberty Wins!

That's my Harry Caray imitation.

The Supreme Court comes through. Stupid freakin' campaign finance law! Yay! Here's the ruling. I can't believe our side actually WON for once.

"My" amicus brief in the case, if you are interested....(Allison wrote it; I just signed it).

UPDATE: For you half-wits commenting (i.e., everyone who disagrees with me), check this!

Institute for Justice Study

A new IJ study, one that I was privileged to write. Lots of good support in editing and packaging from the IJ folks, I have to admit. They do a first rate job.

Americans were once free to speak about politics without asking permission from the government or being forced to document their political activities for the authorities. But under the guise of “campaign finance reform,” government regulation of political speech has metastasized, spreading far beyond the mere financing of campaigns to monitor and control everyday political speech by ordinary citizens.

The latest wave of such regulation is state and federal laws targeting so-called “electioneering communications.” The term is most closely associated with the federal Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, known popularly as McCain-Feingold, and describes broadcast ads that merely mention a federal candidate and that air shortly before an election. For the first time in American history, federal law brought such speech and the groups that engage in it under the regulatory control of the government.