About
Learn More about our progressive online community for the Granite State.

Create an account today (it's free and easy) and get started!
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


Search




Advanced Search


The Masthead
Managing Editor
Mike Hoefer

Editors
elwood
susanthe
 William Tucker
The Roll, Etc.
Prog Blogs, Orgs & Alumni
Bank Slate
Betsy Devine
birch paper
Democracy for NH
Granite State Progress
Mike Caulfield
Miscellany Blue
Pickup Patriots
Re-BlueNH
Still No Going Back
Susan the Bruce
New Hampshire Labor News
Chaz Proulx: Right Wing Watch

Politicos & Punditry
The Burt Cohen Show
John Gregg
Landrigan
Pindell
Primary Monitor
Scala
Schoenberg
Spiliotes

Campaigns, Et Alia.
NH-Gov
- Maggie Hassan
NH-01
- Andrew Hosmer
- Carol Shea-Porter
- Joanne Dowdell
NH-02
- Ann McLane Kuster

ActBlue Hampshire
NHDP
DCCC
DSCC
DNC

National
Balloon Juice
billmon
Congress Matters
DailyKos
Digby
Hold Fast
Eschaton
FiveThirtyEight
MyDD
Open Left
Senate Guru
Swing State Project
Talking Points Memo

50 State Blog Network
Alabama
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Rhode Island
Tennessee
Texas
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin

"For the Rest of Us" No Empty Slogan

by: Dean Barker

Sat May 28, 2011 at 07:37:03 AM EDT
Ever wonder why government often seems so slow to respond to the needs of We the People, despite who's in charge?

Here's one fundamental reason, perhaps THE reason:

In an election year where more congressional incumbents were ousted from power than any time since 1948, political action committees were quick to switch allegiances from one party to the other in the aftermath of the historic Democratic losses.

A total of 352 PACs in 53 U.S. House races and two U.S. Senate races gave money to incumbents prior to Election Day only to begin funding the winning challengers immediately after their preferred candidates went down to defeat, according to research by the Center for Responsive Politics.

That's double the number of PACs that flipped support following the 2008 election.

Ever wonder why Carol Shea-Porter seemed so different from (big) business as usual in Washington?
New Hampshire's 1st Congressional District, where Republican Frank Guinta defeated Democratic incumbent Carol Shea-Porter, ranks as the only House district where an incumbent was unseated where no PAC that supported Shea-Porter has since invested in Guinta, according to the Center's research.
There is a simple reason behind that remarkable fact: Carol Shea-Porter did not accept business PAC money, and so the list of Telecoms, Banksters, and Military Industrial bigwigs that so shamelessly pump money into other officeholders didn't get a space at the front of the line instead of you.  "For the rest of us" was no empty slogan.

Too bad one half of New Hampshire is now represented by Frank Guinta, who gladly takes business PAC money like the rest of the Washington establishment.

Done right, this information could be the basis for a remarkably effective 30-second TeeVee ad.

(find me > 140 on birch paper; on Twitter < 140)
Dean Barker :: "For the Rest of Us" No Empty Slogan
Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
"For the Rest of Us" No Empty Slogan | 7 comments
Carol accepting PAC $ for 2012? (0.00 / 0)
not sure exactly what made the difference?

note to close readers: this might be sarcastic so think twice before reading to candidates for use in their attacks on each other
nothing has changed from the previous campaigns (0.00 / 0)
In her past campaigns, Congresswoman Shea-Porter accepted $$$ from some PACs but not others.  What the quoted story is saying is that there was no overlap between the PACs who gave to Guinta and those who gave to Shea-Porter.
[ Parent ]
She doesn't accept business PAC money. (4.00 / 2)
But did accept from Labor and liberal coalition PACs.

--
Hope > Anarch-tea
Twitter: @DougLindner
[ Parent ]
The point is that in every other House district (4.00 / 1)
the biz PAC money flowed from old incumbent to new incumbent.

The special interests work both sides of the aisle hoping to get what they want.

With NH-01, the floodgates opened only after Guinta was sworn in, because Carol refused that kind of "help."

birch paper; on Twitter @deanbarker

[ Parent ]
The public ignored Carol's courage (4.00 / 3)

CSP won her first election on a shoestring as everyone knows.

When she won her second term she had the help of Union and non profit pacs that would NEVER throw in ( cynically) with a Jeb Bradley or a Frank Guinta.

Unfortunately the public ignored Carol's commitment. As a matter of fact her detractors simply claimed that she was "in the pocket" of unions.

Voters don't always award candidates for taking the high road and in Carol's case that went double because of the coming backlash against unions. (Now the public is waking up but Guinta is still in Washington trying to tear down unions.)

The bottom line is this: It was harder ( impossible really) to defend her seat in 2010 because money was short when the Citizens United debacle arrived in NH.

Going into the next election cycle the cold hard realities of raising money are upon us. Many "Carol supporters" are terrific and innovative campaigners, but by and large we are not fund raisers.

Our convictions haven't changed, but Citizen's United has forced some of us ( myself included) to bite the bullet.

It's a sad state of affairs, but even the most talented grass root activist can't win the next election without bags of money.

Just to be clear (0.00 / 0)

I'm speaking for myself here.

I have shared these same thoughts elsewhere on many occasions since the last election.  

[ Parent ]
I think we've got it wrong about where the private corporate connection (0.00 / 0)
originates.  We assume that corporations aim to suborn Congress to do their bidding, but, in fact, corporations are beholden to and dependent on legislators to "regulate" or not their enterprise. So, it make more sense that it's the legislators, whose longevity in office depends on the voters who are employed by corporations, who rely on their corporate "buddies" to deliver the vote.  The monetary contributions merely keep advertisers and media people happy.
So, what CSP did in not "accepting" contributions from corporate political action committees was to reject the extortion racket engaged in by many of her colleagues.  And that's what made her a dangerous person to have around. She served her corporate constituents as she did the rest of us, without expecting a quid pro quo, and that set a bad example.  
What did Guinta have to recommend him and rally the establishment to his side? He's not reluctant to be dishonest.  In certain circles, being cagey about where money comes from is considered a feather in one's cap. Not to mention that having something to be guilty about is a good handle for external control. The Mafia has new recruits commit a senseless crime just to have something to hold over their heads.
Why was CSP attacked? Because she's an honest person.  Victims are almost always innocent, but we make the distinction because we don't want to think that doing good makes one vulnerable to evil. We prefer to think that innocent victims are the exception, rather than the rule, because the alternative is frightening. But, when you come to think of it, there's not much to be gained by evil people attacking their own kind.
"For the Rest of Us" No Empty Slogan | 7 comments

Connect with BH
     
Blue Hampshire Blog on Facebook
Powered by: SoapBlox