« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
The Daily Muck
Norman Hsu, who yesterday was ordered by a Mesa County judge to be held on $5 million cash bail, is calling attention to an old fund-raising technique call "bundling." Bundling became important after the 2002 McCain-Feingold law limited the contributions individuals could make to political parties because bundlers can skirt the law by rounding up contributors and delivering contributions as a "bundle." According to the Times, Hsu enlisted 260 people to give a total of $850,000 to Hillary Clinton for President and delivered hundreds of thousands to other candidates. (Los Angeles Times)
Kim Long, author of The Almanac of Political Corruption, Scandals & Dirty Politics, reminds us that the "good old days" were full of the same political patronage, scandal and sleaze that we find today. His book goes back to colonial times but Long also notes a "close precedent" to the Larry Craig story from 1964 in which Walter Jenkins, LBJ’s chief of staff was caught by undercover officers in a sexual encounter with another man in the basement of the Men’s Room of a YMCA near the White House. Though Jenkins was a close friend of LBJ's, he was dumped within 24 hours because the election was one month away. The history lesson according to Long -- "it makes you wonder about the sensitivity of the public and the media to these types of things." (Harper's)
A report distributed to Congressional offices in March, but not made public until now, reveals that Department of Commerce employees have been indulging in unauthorized, improper first- and business-class travel. ABC News notes that, "Ironically, the inspector general responsible for discovering the improper travel, Johnnie E. Frazier, resigned in June, facing multiple investigations into numerous allegations of abuse and mismanagement, including that he fraudulently charged the government for improper travel." (ABC News)
Only Maine and Nebraska deviate from the winner-take-all electoral system in presidential elections. But California Republicans are looking to change that through a ballot initiative that has already won approval from California's Secretary of State. The plan, which proposes to divide California's electoral votes by congressional district and give two electoral votes to the statewide winner, would have given President Bush 22 of the state’s 55 electoral votes in the 2004 election. This math has Democrats scrambling to keep the initiative off the ballot. (CQ)
Comments (8)
Jeff Linder wrote on September 14, 2007 10:27 AM:The sad part here is I think Electoral Votes SHOULD represent the popular vote. The problem is it can't just be one state, it has to be all or none...So I find myself opposing something I support in principle!
TheraP wrote on September 14, 2007 11:07 AM:if the electoral votes should represent the popular votes, why have an intermediary? what's wrong with the popular vote by itself?
and if you're for democratic representation, how are gerrymandered districts democratic?
dewey wrote on September 14, 2007 12:51 PM:Not a problem at all - so long as the remaining 47 states follow suit.
Anonymous wrote on September 14, 2007 1:11 PM:Re:
"Department of Commerce employees have been indulging in unauthorized, improper first- and business-class travel."
We now know why New York's crime rate has declined in recent years. ALL of the crooks have now moved to Washington DC and are on OUR payroll.
Redshift wrote on September 14, 2007 1:34 PM:TheraP's point is that this *doesn't* change California's electoral votes to represent the popular vote, though that's undoubtedly the way they'll try to misrepresent it. It just takes the "winner-take-all" from the state level down to the congressional district level, where it can be manipulated by gerrymandering. So even if this were done nationwide, it still wouldn't be a good change. (You can bet Tom DeLay's mid-term redistricting would become standard practice every time a legislature changes hands.)
Election by popular vote: good
Richard M. Mathews wrote on September 14, 2007 4:25 PM:Election by congressional district: bad
It is extremely misleading for this report to say that this is "a ballot initiative that has already won approval from California's Secretary of State."
All that has happened is that the Sec of State has received the forms and written a calendar of filing deadlines and the Attorney General has accepted a fee and written a summary. The initiative is only beginning circulation of petitions. They need about 434,000 valid signatures by Feb 4.
Paul Revere wrote on September 14, 2007 6:02 PM:Why haven't the Democrats put this policy position on the Texas and Florida agendas? Strike back! Don't just respond in defense. Security code=fear... no don't exhibit fear, scare the shit out of THEM
Richard M. Mathews wrote on September 14, 2007 7:48 PM:"Why haven't the Democrats put this policy position on the Texas and Florida agendas?"
The bigger question is why have Republicans not put this idea forward in Texas? It is funded by a Texan (Bob Perry, who funded the Swift Boat attack ads). If it is such a good idea, why did they come to California to try it out. This proves their hypocrisy.
California Democrats are fighting back. See
http://www.cadem.org/fraudbusters