DCCC And DSCC Forced Their Candidates To Sit On The Phone Raising Millions Of Dollars All Day-- And They Lost Anyway

 

I'm always complaining that the DCCC and DSCC are predisposed to oppose progressives. They recruit conservative Democrats from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party and when a progressive manages to win a primary, the two committees rarely offer them any support. But there's another context besides ideology at work here. Both the DSCC and the DCCC insist on candidates who will spend most of their energy on fund-raising-- dialing for dollars-- rather than on persuading voters by doing actual campaigning. This has been catastrophic for the Democratic Party. It winds up selecting really shitty candidates who don't know how to help voters understand issues and understand the inherent dishonestly of Republican attacks. And... the money doesn't make nearly as much difference as that ability to persuade does.

All but 3 of the House incumbents who lost (or are in races still too close to call) out-raised their Republican opponents:

• CA-21

Rep. T.J. Cox (New Dem)- 48.2%-- $4,798,088
David Valadao (R)- 51.8%-- $3,721,619

• CA-39

Rep. Gil Cisneros (New Dem)- 49.5%-- $3,779,013 (self-funded $9,252,762 in 2018 and didn't want to spend his own money again-- only gave his campaign $370,887 this time)
Young Kim (R)- 50.5%-- $5,319,367

• CA-48

Rep. Harley Rouda (New Dem)- 49.2%-- $5,426,654 (although the DCCC spent $10 million to try to save his ass)
Michelle Steel (R)- 50.8%-- $5,627,779

• FL-26

Rep. Debbie Mucarsel-Powell (New Dem)- 48.3%-- $6,178,239
Carlos Gimenez (R)- 51.7%-- $1,946,504

• FL-27

Rep. Donna Shalala (D)- 48.6%-- $3,405,420
Maria Salazar (R)- 51.3%-- $3,126,831

• IA-01

Rep. Abby Finkenauer (D)- 48.7%-- $5,308,465
Ashley Hinson (R)- 51.3%-- $4,601,403

• MN-07

Rep. Collin Peterson (Blue Dog)- 40.1%-- $2,284,742
Michelle Fischbach (R)-53.3%-- $2,205,150

• NM-02

Rep Xochitl Torres Small (Blue Dog)- 46.1%-- $7,509,987
Yvette Herrell (R)- 53.9%-- $2,498,130

• NY-11

Rep Max Rose (Blue Dog)- 43.1%-- $8,350,467
Nicole Malliotakis (R)- 57.9%-- $3,052,007

• NY-22

Rep. Anthony Brindisi (Blue Dog)- 43.4%-- $5,359,636
Claudia Tenney (R)- 54.5%-- $2,053,931

• OK-05

Rep. Kendra Horn (Blue Dog)- 47.9%-- $5,465,349
Stephanie Bice (R)- 52.1%-- $3,089,972

• SC-01

Rep. Joe Cunningham (Blue Dog)- 49.4%-- $6,278,942
Nancy Mace (R)- 50.6%-- $4,891,696

• UT-04

Rep. Ben McAdams (Blue Dog)- 47.8%-- $5,137,258
Burgess Owens (R)- 47.2%-- $4,021,248

• VA-07

Rep. Abigail Spanberger (Blue Dog)- 50.6%-- $7,806,646
Nick Freitas (R)- 49.4%-- $3,182,940

Maybe if Max Rose didn't spend so much time on the phone begging rich people for money-- and instead talked to his constituents about programs the Democrats want to implement that would make their lives better, he would still be a congressman after January. Oh, but he can't talk about this things... he opposes them all.

And it was the same thing in the Senate, only worse. Schumer and the DSCC hammer it home several times a week that candidates must be on the phone raising hundreds of thousands of dollars. It's dehumanizing-- part of why none of their candidates seem human. Schumer-selected Democrats lost almost everywhere... but raised bucketfuls of money. In most cases they raised double, triple or quadruple when their Republican opponents raised:

• South Carolina

Jamie Harrison (D)- 44.2%-- $107,568,737
Senator Lindsey Graham (R)- 54.5%-- $72,690,495

• Iowa

Theresa Greenfield (D)- 45.2%-- $47,004,93
Senator Joni Ernst (R)- 51.8%-- $23,536,707

• Maine

Sara Gideon (D)- 42.8%-- $68,577,474
Senator Susan Collins (R)- 50.5%-- $26,511,555

• Montana

Steve Bullock (D)- 44.8%-- $42,773,128
Senator Steve Daines (R)- 55.2%-- $27,017,875

• Kentucky

Amy McGrath (D)- 38.1%-- $88,098,919
Senator Moscow Mitch (R)- 57.9%-- $55,500,67

• Kansas

Barbara Bollier (D/R)- 41.5%-- $24,265,420
Roger Marshall (R)- 53.6%-- $5,926,110

• Texas

MJ Hegar (D)- 43.8%-- $24,024,713
John Cornyn (R)- 53.6%-- $30,754,633

• Alabama

Senator Doug Jones (D)- 39.7%-- $26,377,442
Tommy Tuberville (R)- 60.1%-- $7,415,639

• North Carolina

Cal Cunningham (D)- 47.0%-- $46,795,495
Senator Thom Tillis (R)- 48.7%-- $21,474,728

• Arizona

Mark Kelly- 51.3%-- $88,856,406
Senator Martha McSally- 48.7%-- $55,772,809

• Colorado

John Hickenlooper (D)- 53.4%-- $39,303,249
Senator Cory Gardner (R)- 44.4%-- $26,063,229

All that financial firepower didn't do it for the Senate candidates. And now the Democrats are going to run the exact same kind of race (2 of them) in Georgia... money, money, money and not much messaging for working families. I guess it took 5 minutes for Schumer to forget that "money did not prove decisive for Democrats in hotly contested Senate races, despite a combined Democratic fundraising advantage over $200 million. Democratic candidates raised a whopping $626 million in 14 highly competitive races, vastly overshadowing Republican collections of $386 million in the same contests."

“We just got completely slaughtered on Election Day. There truly was a red surge,” said a Democratic operative who worked closely with the Harrison campaign. “Turnout was just incredible, which isn’t necessarily a good thing for us, in red states.”

Democrats who had hoped to easily oust the 53-47 Republican Senate majority have instead won a net gain of only one seat so far. They could reach a majority, if they win two Georgia Senate seat runoffs on Jan. 5. Such a result would give them a 50-50 split, if Democrat Joe Biden is declared president and Kamala Harris vice president, allowing her to cast a tie-breaking vote.

Senate Democrats are already calling on supporters to send campaign contributions to Georgia candidate Raphael Warnock. Warnock, far more progressive than any of Schumer's candidates, is one of the only Democrats who was out-raised by his Republican opponent-- although in that case, his opponent, Kelly Loeffler, is both a well-documented crook and a billionaire. She out-raised him by $7 million, although "out-raised" might be the wrong word, since she contributed $23,345,292 out of her personal piggy-bank, so far.

Is One Party's Politicians More Or Less Corrupt Than The Other's?

Hard Ball by Nancy Ohanian

In terms of political parties, it was once clearer who the good guys were and who the bad guys were in the Dark Money world or legalistic, systemic bribery. Now... not so much. Poke a Democrat about taking legalistic bribes and he or she will start screeching about "unilateral disarmament." But as new report by Alex Seitz-Wald for NBC News makes it clear that if the Dems were once the party opposed to Dark Money, they are now the party getting the most out of it. Progressives tend to reject corporate PAC money, for example, but corrupt Democratic Party leaders like Pelosi and Hoyer scoop it up with alacrity and then buy loyalty within the House caucus by spreading it around. Seitz-Wald may be a fool but he's correct when he writes that "Democratic super PACs are spending more than Republican ones" and that Democratic Super PACs outspent conservative Super PACs in 2018. Russ Feingold's prediction has come true that Democrats would "lose our soul" if they allowed Big Money into the party. Just look at Chuck Schumer. There isn't a person on earth who would say he has anything even resembling a soul-- and he's one of (many) go-betweens connecting the Wall Street banksters with the Democratic Party.

Advocates are concerned with super PACs, which can accept donations of unlimited size but have to reveal the names of their donors and regularly disclose their activity. But they're more worried about dark money groups: nonprofit organizations that can't be as explicitly political as super PACs, but can keep their donors secret forever and don't have to reveal much about activities before elections.

While concerns about campaign finance reform that once animated Democratic voters have been eclipsed by the desire to oust President Donald Trump, advocates are left to wonder if the party can really be trusted to follow through on its promises to dismantle a system that may help them get elected.

"If Democrats were to win the Senate and the White House, there is reason to be concerned that they may not carry through with their commitments," Holman added. "I have no doubt that we are going to have to hold their word over their head."

The Democratic National Committee adopted a platform last month calling for a ban on dark money, and Joe Biden says one of his first priorities as president would be signing the sweeping reform bill House Democrats passed last year that would, among other things, match small donations 6-to-1 to encourage grassroots giving.

But his campaign also says they'll take all the help they can get for now and that bill, known as H.R.1, would have to compete for limited legislative bandwidth with efforts to address the coronavirus pandemic, the economy and much more.

Republicans, who generally oppose major campaign finance reform efforts, cry hypocrisy.

"It's just like everything else Biden stands for. He believes it until it's of political benefit to reverse himself," said Trump campaign communications director Tim Murtaugh.

Democrats, however, argue that the only way they can rein in big money in politics is to first use big money in politics to win.

"We aren't going to unilaterally disarm against Donald Trump and right-wing conservatives, but look forward to the day when unlimited money and super PACs are a thing of the past, even if it means putting our own PAC out of business," said Guy Cecil, the chairman of Priorities USA, the super PAC first founded to support Obama's re-election.

On principle, Democrats opposed Citizens United, the Supreme Court's landmark 2010 decision that opened the floodgates to virtually unlimited money in politics. But they also were against it because they were sure Republicans and their big-business allies would outspend them.

At first, Obama set the example for his party by trying to keep his hands clean of the super PAC game. "It was just this slog to try to get Democrats to think there was any benefit at all to giving to outside groups," said a Democrat involved in early efforts to raise money for a super PAC.

Quickly, though, party leaders concluded their position against unlimited donations and dark money wasn't tenable, and it turned out there was plenty of it flowing on the Democratic side, too. Obama eventually blessed Priorities USA, which helped kick off a proliferation of liberal big-money groups.

"If Democrats don't compete, it would be like preparing for a nuclear war by grabbing your fly swatter," said Jesse Ferguson, a Democratic operative who has worked for both campaigns and outside groups.

Democrats at first said they felt sick about doing it and vowed to hold themselves to a higher standard. They would support super PACs, which publicly disclose their donors, but railed against dark money groups, which don't. But that standard eventually eroded, the apologies grew more perfunctory and they ended up diving in head-first, looking for new loopholes to exploit. And Trump's election has supercharged the spending.

...Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics, which runs the campaign finance data warehouse OpenSecrets.org, said her group has tracked liberal groups "taking dark money in politics to a new level of opacity" and caught them trying new tricks, such as creating faux news sites to make their attack ads seem more credible.

While overall dark money spending is roughly even between the parties right now, Democrats have a clear edge in congressional races, Krumholz said. Around 65 percent of dark money TV ads in 2020 Senate races and 85 percent of dark money TV ads in House races are sponsored by liberal groups, according to Krumholz.

"Unfortunately, there has been comfort with this that has grown over time on both sides of the aisle," Krumholz said. "Nobody wants to be the sucker that is playing by the rules when someone is getting away with murder."

One large dark money group, the Sixteen Thirty Fund, has funneled millions of dollars to more than 100 liberal groups, accepting individual donations as large as $51.7 million and $26.7 million, all without having to reveal any information about who is behind those donations.

Amy Kurtz, the Sixteen Thirty Fund's executive director, said they're just playing by the rules.

"We support and have lobbied in favor of reform to the current campaign finance system (through H.R. 1), but we are equally committed to following the current laws to level the playing field for progressives in this election," Kurtz said in a statement.

Now, many super PACs, which disclose their donors, are routing money through allied nonprofits, which do not have to make their contributors' names public, further obscuring the ultimate source of the cash.

"For a voter who simply wants to know where the money is coming from and going to, you almost have to be a full-time researcher or investigative reporter to connect all the dots," Krumholz said.

Meanwhile, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) remains one of the fiercest opponents of campaign finance reform, not only blocking bills like H.R.1 and disclosure measures, but even intervening in legal battles to overturn state campaign finance rules.

He sees it as a free speech issue, hailing the Citizens United decision as "an important step in the direction of restoring First Amendment rights."

All this leaves campaign finance reform advocates dependent on Democrats winning in November-- even if it takes some dark money to get them there.

"We are on the cusp of having the best opportunity to repair the campaign finance system since the Watergate scandal of the 1970s," said Fred Wertheimer, a veteran good-government advocate and president of Democracy 21. "But that depends on how the elections come out."

What a crock of crap. "Depends on how the elections come out?" Why? Are the corrupt conservatives the DCCC and DSCC recruited going to suddenly become reformers? It takes real effort and real talent-- of a kind most politicians don't possess or even strive to develop-- to raise campaign cash without resorting to criminality. Two grassroots progressives who are not owned an operated by the DC Democrats are Kara Eastman in Nebraska and Julie Oliver in Texas. Neither accepts Dark Money and both are likely too be in Congress next year. It's worth contributing to womanlike Kara and Julie (which is what I included the thermometer below.

Last night Julie told me that she doesn't take a dime from any PAC, unlike Roger Williams. We need to get corporations and big money out of our politics and out of our democracy, and that's why it's so important that we're taking this stance."

Kara's campaign has been very much driven by a desire to get dark money out of American politics. Her opponent reeks of corruption. "Don Bacon must be spooked because the Republican dark money machine recently went into overdrive in Nebraska’s Second. We’ve seen dark and grainy TV ads accusing me of all sorts of hellfire and brimstone in the Omaha suburbs, paid for by secretive groups like “Defending Mainstreet” (ironic name from a DC-based right-wing Super PAC). When I talk to voters in the district they tell me the ads aren’t landing. My concern is that, like another right wing authoritarian once said, “if you repeat a lie often enough it becomes truth.” Unlike the dark money ads propping up Bacon, my voter communications are all based on fact and the Congressional record. It’s easily to do since Bacon votes with Trump 94% of the time."

Most Big Corporations Don't Mind Funding GOP Racism And Homophobia-- As Long As They Get Their Tax Breaks And Special Favors... And Congress Refuses To Call It Bribery

A few days ago, the NY Times published an essay by Andrew Sorkin, A Company Backs a Cause. It Funds a Politician Who Doesn’t. What Gives? He wrote that "At a time when Corporate America is speaking up on some of the most important issues of our time, there is a contradiction between companies’ words today and the role they played in helping create the moment we find ourselves in. An examination of political spending over the past decade shows how those companies-- and dozens of other Fortune 500 corporations-- quietly funded political efforts that are antithetical to their public stances. They financed state attorneys general seeking to undo the Affordable Care Act, which has provided health insurance for millions of Americans during the pandemic; they provided funds that backed local legislators who tried to roll back L.G.B.T.Q. rights; and they gave money that supported candidates challenging federal climate change initiatives."

Uniquely, public companies are the biggest benefactors of key political committees supporting the campaigns, donating more than individuals or other groups.

...Walmart is among the companies that donated money to the Republican Attorneys General Association, which supported a group of state attorneys general including Ken Paxton of Texas, who was narrowly re-elected in 2018 and is now leading a group of Republican-run states in a Supreme Court case that seeks to overturn key aspects of the Affordable Care Act.

AT&T, which says its policies prohibiting discrimination against employees based on sexual orientation date back to the 1970s, provided funds to the same group, which helped elect Pat McCrory in North Carolina in 2012. Mr. McCrory, the former governor, signed the “bathroom bill,” which required transgender people to use public bathrooms corresponding to the gender listed on their birth certificates (and was later overturned).

Microsoft, which says it supports sustainability, provided money to the Republican Governors Association, which funneled money to help elect Tom Corbett in Pennsylvania in 2010, who reduced emissions standards for the oil and gas industry.

These corporate donations to state-level political groups go to associations known as “527s,” named after a section of the tax code. The 527 designation allows companies to channel money to candidates without giving to specific individuals. The donations, which come from corporate treasury departments-- not via company political action committees-- can be tracked by following the money paid to a 527 and examining how it is distributed.

The numbers tell the story: Of the $1.3 billion raised over the past decade by the Democratic and Republican governors associations, state legislative campaign committees and attorneys general associations, 46 percent-- or nearly $600 million-- came from public companies and their trade associations, far more than the 22 percent share from individuals and 16 percent from private companies, according to the Center for Political Accountability. Two-thirds of the corporate and trade association money, around $390 million, went to Republican-affiliated groups.

...[C]ompanies are motivated to make such political donations because it potentially buys them access-- and they hope, favor-- with politicians who can directly affect their businesses. They may want to bend a politician’s ear on a tax treatment, government contract or regulatory action. During the pandemic, having a direct line to the governor’s office has been critical in how some businesses have sought to influence reopening plans.

Yesterday, Judd Legum and Tesnim Zekeria, writing for Popular Info shined a light in the direction of Minnesota neo-fascist Congressman Jim Hagedorn and the companies that bankroll his racism-- while claiming to support Black Lives Matter. Hagedorn, an extreme right freshman who represents a district just about an hour south of where a police officer murdered George Floyd, wrote that the Black Lives Matter movement is "at war with our country, our beliefs and western culture." He's campaigning for reelection on a Trumpist platform and insists that Americans must oppose the Black Lives Matter movement to defend the nation’s "Judeo-Christian values" and "way of life."

Last cycle Hagedorn barely defeated-- 146,200 (50.2%) to 144,885 (49.8%)-- conservative Democrat Dan Feehan for the open seat in southern Minnesota. Feehan spent $4,117,708 to Hagedorn's $1,584,057. (Right wing outside groups, like corporately funded America First Action and the Congressional Leadership Fund, threw $6,911,780 in independent expenditures into smearing Feehan.) So far this cycle, Feehan, who wants a rematch, has raised $2,102,934 and Hagedorn has raised $1,579,022. In 2016 Trump had won MN-01 with 53.3% against Hillary's 38.4%. In 2018, Amy Klobuchar's reelection campaign won the district without breaking a sweat and, though with a smaller margin, so did Tim Walz, the former congressman from the district who was seeking the governor's job (which he won). It's likely that in November Feehan will oust Hagedorn and his ugly racist, Trumpist, homophobic politics. Legum and Zekeria wrote that "major corporations that publicly champion racial justice, equality, and inclusion-- including UnitedHealth Group, U.S. Bank, Intel, and Best Buy-- have donated thousands of dollars to Hagedorn's reelection campaign." Other corporations funding Hagedorn's politics of hatred and support for fascism include General Mills, Boston Scientific, Bayer, and Bank of New York.

Up the road apiece is MN-05-- Minneapolis. It's a deep blue district that Trump lost with just 18.5% in 2016. Two year later, state Rep. Ilhan Omar won the open congressional seat by a landslide against Republican vanity candidate Jennifer Zielinski, 267,703 (78.0%) to 74,440 (21.7%). This cycle Ilhan faces a crowded primary field in less than a month, on August 11. There are 5 Democrats challenging her, but AIPAC has rallied its forces around one mystery meat candidate, Antone Melton-Meaux, who has "raised" $3,690,827 out of the blue and now has more cash on hand than Ilhan-- $2,016,669 to $1,111,861. Andrew Perez, reporting for Too Much Information, wrote that Melton-Meaux "has paid nearly $1.2 million-- 65 percent of his overall spending-- to three anonymous companies, a move that circumvents traditional campaign finance disclosure standards." One, WCPA (or perhaps WPCA) is a company on paper only that started just over a month ago, seemingly to help Melton-Meaux-- who funneled $1.3 million of his contributions into the firm-- defeat Ilhan. Since the the DCCC "has threatened to punish vendors who work for candidates who run primary challenges to Democratic incumbents, Melton-Meaux’s financial maneuver keeps hidden the vendors who are working for his campaign against Omar, a first-term Democratic incumbent." Two other brand new companies-- North Superior Consulting LLC and Lake Point Consulting-- seem to be playing the same role, one for communications and one for polling and strategic consulting.

“The law requires campaigns to report their spending so that the public can know how political campaign money is being spent,” said Brendan Fischer, a lawyer at the Campaign Legal Center. “When 65 percent of a campaign's spending is flowing through anonymous Delaware LLCs, the public is kept in the dark. Schemes like this hide which individuals or companies are working for the campaign, the nature of the work, and how much they are being paid.”

While Omar’s polling shows she’s popular in her district, Melton-Meaux raised $3.2 million between April and June and has been blanketing the airwaves with ads. Omar brought in less than $500,000 in the same time. The first Somali refugee elected to Congress, Omar has been a frequent target of Israel supporters for her criticisms of the country’s influence over U.S. policy. Pro-Israel political action committees have raised more than $400,000 for Melton-Meaux’s campaign.

A super PAC funded by frequent GOP donors last week disclosed spending $228,000 on mailers opposing Omar. The group-- which is called Americans for Tomorrow’s Future-- recently bankrolled a Democratic pro-Israel super PAC that has been weighing in on Democratic primary races.

“There are people who are invested in keeping that status quo, people who don’t want these structural changes to take place, and those are really the people who have the resources to oust someone like me,” Omar said on Sunday.

Melton-Meaux’s TV ad buys have been placed by Canal Partners Media, according to filings with the Federal Communications Commission. Canal Partners Media isn’t listed in Melton-Meaux’s latest FEC report, suggesting that some of the WCPA spending has been subcontracted. Canal Partners Media has reportedly placed ad buys for the Biden campaign under the name “Media Buying & Analytics.”

Canal Partners Media didn’t respond to a request for comment.

  “The FEC has generally said that if a campaign hires, for example, a consulting firm to produce its ads, and the consulting firm subcontracts with a videographer to film the ads, the campaign need only report the payments to the consulting firm, and not separately itemize the payments to the videographer,” Fischer said. “But if a vendor is just acting as a conduit to hide the ultimate recipients of the campaign's spending, then the campaign is violating the law.”

Which corporations are funding these quasi-criminal manuevers to defeat Ilhan Omar? It's going to take months-- long after the election results are in-- to unravel all the opaque reporting and figure out which corporations and which billionaires are putting the big bucks behind AIPAC's effort to end Ilhan's career. If you'd like to help thwart that effort, please contribute to Ilhan Omar's reelection campaign by clicking on the 2020 Blue America Worthy Incumbents thermometer on the right. There aren't enough members with her spirit and courageousness; let's not let a flood of Dark Money remove her from a Congress that desperately needs more women like her, not fewer.

Since They All Do It, Republicans Refuse To Make It Explicitly Illegal To Take Foreign Campaign Cash-- What Kind Of A Banana Republic Have They Created Around Us?

The Democrats are corrupt enough, but the Republicans are on another planet entirely-- or at least in another culture, a culture of corruption. It's no wonder Trump thinks he can get away with giving the Russians a tacit green light to pay bounties on American soldiers stationed overseas. The Republicans have no intention of holding him to account and no matter what the House Democrats do, Moscow Mitch McConnell will not allow any accountability for Trump-- let alone the Russians-- in the Senate. And that's not all. Today, Senate Republicans made sure Republicans taking illicit campaign cash from Russia or China or Saudi Arabia or Israel-- or any flea-bitten country offering a bribe to a corrupt president or presidential candidate-- will face no consequences. Hard to believe, right?

CNN's Jeremy Herb: "The Senate will incorporate the annual intelligence policy legislation into the National Defense Authorization Act-- but only after stripping language from the intelligence bill that would have required presidential campaigns to report offers of foreign election help. Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, said Tuesday that Senate Republicans forced the removal of the election reporting provision as a condition to include the intelligence bill on the must-pass defense policy legislation." Here's the back story:

Earlier this month, the Senate Intelligence Committee approved an amendment on an 8-7 vote from Warner and GOP Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, which added a provision to the Intelligence Authorization Act requiring campaigns to notify federal authorities about offers of foreign election help.

That bill, however, was unlikely to get Senate floor time on its own, which is why it's being included in the National Defense Authorization Act. The effort to strip the foreign election help provision from the intelligence bill was not a surprise, as acting Senate Intelligence Chairman Marco Rubio, a Florida Republican, predicted earlier this month it would be removed before the bill was on the floor, because of an objection from the Senate Rules Committee.

Warner bemoaned what he called a "back-room deal" to strip out the provision.

"If my Republican colleagues want to strip this legislation out of the NDAA behind closed doors, then I'm going to offer it up as an amendment to force an up-or-down vote and put every member of this body on the record," Warner said on the Senate floor.

The amendment approved by the Intelligence Committee was an adopted version of Warner's FIRE Act, which he introduced last year. It would require all presidential campaign officials report to the FBI any contacts with foreign nationals trying either to make campaign donations or coordinate with a campaign.

Warner tried to bring up his bill on the Senate floor several times over the past year, but Republicans objected each time. When Sen. Marsha Blackburn, a Tennessee Republican, blocked the bill in June 2019, calling it a "blatant political stunt." President Donald Trump applauded her efforts on Twitter.

It's not clear if Warner's amendment will get a vote. The Senate is debating the defense authorization legislation on the floor this week.

America is a nation in decline-- and the national response to the pandemic is just a symptom, not a cause. You feel it in your gut, don't you? Early yesterday morning Noah Smith laid out the whole sordid mess for Bloomberg News, pointing how we just gradually slid into it without even noticing. Our national decline, he wrote, "started with little things that people got used to. Americans drove past empty construction sites and didn’t even think about why the workers weren’t working, then wondered why roads and buildings took so long to finish. They got used to avoiding hospitals because of the unpredictable and enormous bills they’d receive. They paid 6% real-estate commissions, never realizing that Australians were paying 2%. They grumbled about high taxes and high health-insurance premiums and potholed roads, but rarely imagined what it would be like to live in a system that worked better." He pointed out that this seeping "decline in the general effectiveness of U.S. institutions will impose increasing costs and burdens on Americans. And if it eventually leads to a general loss of investor confidence in the country, the damage could be much greater."

Do you really want to be part of a country where your countrymen elected a blob like Donald Trump president? Moscow Mitch Senate Majority Leader? A country where the less bad choice will be Amy McGrath, Joe Biden, Collin Peterson, who, this week, joined Republicans to vote against expanding healthcare during the pandemic and against protecting renters from eviction for the duration?

The most immediate cost of U.S. decline-- and the most vivid demonstration-- comes from the country’s disastrous response to the coronavirus pandemic. Leadership failures were pervasive and catastrophic at every level-- the president, agencies such as the Centers for Disease Control and the Food and Drug Administration, and state and local leaders all fumbled the response to the greatest health threat in a century. As a result, the U.S. is suffering a horrific surge of infections in states such as Arizona, Texas and Florida while states that were battered early on are still struggling. Countries such as Italy that are legendary for government dysfunction and were hit hard by the virus have crushed the curve of infection, while the U.S. just set a daily record for case growth and shows no sign of slowing down.

This utter failure to suppress a disease that most other countries managed to contain will have real economic costs for Americans, as fear of the virus drives people back into their homes and businesses suffer.

...But the consequences of U.S. decline will far outlast coronavirus. With its high housing costs, poor infrastructure and transit, endemic gun violence, police brutality and bitter political and racial divisions, the U.S. will be a less appealing place for high-skilled workers to live. That means companies will find other countries in Europe, Asia and elsewhere a more attractive destination for investment, robbing the U.S. of jobs, depressing wages and draining away the local spending that powers the service economy. That in turn will exacerbate some of the worst trends of U.S. decline-- less tax money means even more urban decay as infrastructure, education and social-welfare programs are forced to make big cuts. Anti-immigration policies will throw away the country’s most important source of skilled labor and weaken a university system already under tremendous pressure from state budget cuts.

Almost every systematic economic advantage possessed by the U.S. is under threat. Unless there’s a huge push to turn things around-- to bring back immigrants, sustain research universities, make housing cheaper, lower infrastructure costs, reform the police and restore competence to the civil service-- the result could be decades of stagnating or even declining living standards.

And a biggest danger might come later. The U.S. has long enjoyed a so-called exorbitant privilege as the financial center of the world, with the dollar as the lynchpin of the global financial system. That means the U.S. has been able to borrow money cheaply, and Americans have been able to sustain their lifestyles through cheap imports. But if enough investors-- foreign and domestic-- lose confidence in the U.S.’s general effectiveness as a country, that advantage will vanish.

If capital begins to abandon the U.S. and the dollar in large amounts, the currency will crash and Americans will find themselves paying much more for everything from cars to televisions to gasoline to imported food. Interest rates will be raised in an attempt to lure back investment capital, and the country might undergo a period of stagflation worse than the 1970s. Large-scale unrest would undoubtedly result and-- in the worst-case scenario-- the U.S. could collapse like Venezuela.

This is an outcome to be avoided at all costs. But it’s an outcome that is no longer out of the realm of possibility, thanks to the complacency, arrogance and misplaced priorities of U.S. leaders and the deep and bitter divisions among U.S. voters. If the U.S. goes from rich, world-straddling colossus to floundering dysfunctional developing nation in just a few decades, it will be one of the most spectacular instances of civilizational decline in world history. Every mind in the country should be bent towards the task of reversing the decline and restoring national competence.

What the Democratic Party should be offering now is a bold, vigorous, reformist leader with a vibrant vision to drag the country out of this existential morass and to inspire the whole country and persuade it that turning to fascism is not the solution. Instead... well, you already know. A young filmmaker, less than a third my age, asked me if I ever consider going to live in another country. I did that while Nixon was president. I loved it and it was the best thing I ever did. I'm too old to do it again. He and his wife should consider it, though.

Traitor by Chip Proser

It's All The Rage For Candidates To Say They Won't Take Corporate Cash-- While Taking It

Would you guess this came from Gideon or Collins? Or one of their corporately-funded super-PACs?

Over the last week I've had a running argument with some centrist Democrats about the bullshit pledge-- bullshit in some cases, heartfelt in others-- Democratic candidates routinely take to eschew corporate PAC money. Why bullshit? Three reasons:

1- corporate PACs tend to spend on incumbents, not challengers, especially not Democratic challengers.
2- when the challengers get to Congress-- especially the ones who join the New Dems or the Blue Dog caucus, they forget they ever took the pledge.
3- corporate PACs gives loads of money to leadership PACs which then use it to buy loyalty from candidates by laundering the corporate cash into their campaigns.

Although the Democratic Party establishment grifter/sham/scam outfit, End Citizens United, makes excuses for the practice, candidates from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party benefit from corporate cash by getting it via the DCCC and from leadership PACs run by corrupt Democrats like Schumer, Pelosi, Hoyer and other corporate shills.

Late last year Open Secrets took a deeper dive into the sneaky way centrist candidates get around the pledge. The report is by Karl Evers-Hillstrom, who focused on the Senate. "The top Democratic challengers," he wrote, "want voters and donors alike to know they are rejecting corporate PACs. It’s a central talking point for Democrats in competitive races like Sara Gideon in Maine, Mark Kelly in Arizona and John Hickenlooper in Colorado. 'I am not taking a dime in corporate PAC money during this campaign, because it will always be clear who I’m working for in the U.S. Senate,' Gideon, currently speaker of the Maine House, says in a campaign ad.

For non-incumbents, the pledge to reject corporate PACs is a largely symbolic gesture to indicate a candidate wants to get big money out of politics. The pledge doesn’t become a sacrifice until they’re elected to Congress, as corporate PACs give almost all of their money to incumbents to curry favor with lawmakers. [And notice Gideon's sleazy wording, "during this campaign," a good example of why Schumer likes her so much.]

Symbolic as it might have been in 2018, the pledge may have helped land dozens of Democrats crucial House wins. After getting thwacked by those no-PAC Democrats last year, Republicans intend to portray Democratic Senate hopefuls as hypocritical and dishonest with voters on the subject of corporate PACs in 2020, according to a GOP official familiar with the party’s plans.

Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) aired an advertisement [below] last month attacking Gideon over her pledge to reject corporate PACs. The ad notes that Gideon’s state-level PAC received money directly from major corporations and corporate PACs. The ad also says that her Senate campaign receives money from Democratic leadership PACs that accept money from corporate PACs.





Gideon has not taken money from corporate PACs. But she has received $53,500 from leadership PACs that take money from PACs associated with major corporations.

Some of the largest checks, $10,000 each, came from leadership PACs affiliated with Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Martin Heinrich (D-NM) both of which receive roughly half of their money from corporate PACs.

Top Democrats, like Republicans, fund their leadership PACs partly from PACs representing powerful corporations. One-third of money going to Democratic leadership PACs comes from business PACs associated with corporations, trade associations and other business interests.

Four out of the top five most generous corporate PACs to Democratic leadership PACs, Honeywell International ($179,000), Lockheed Martin ($137,000), General Dynamics ($122,000) and Northrop Grumman ($107,000), are major defense contractors.

End Citizens United, the political group that encourages Democrats to reject corporate PACs, says leadership PAC contributions don’t violate the spirit of the pledge.

“Corporate lobbyists and c-suite executives decide where corporate PAC contributions go and corporate PACs give money to gain access and influence in the halls of power in Washington,” said Patrick Burgwinkle, the group’s communications director. “Leadership PACs give money to help elect more Democrats or Republicans to Congress and the decision on who to donate to resides solely with the member of Congress affiliated with the leadership PAC.”

Major corporations’ PACs regularly give to members of Congress or their less-scrutinized leadership PACs as they push their preferred policies to lawmakers. If a contribution from a corporate PAC to a leadership PAC was meant to be routed to a specific candidate, it would have to be marked as so in FEC filings.

Gideon’s campaign told the Bangor Daily News that the difference in PAC money between the two candidates is one of the “clear differences” in the race. Collins has raised $1.4 million from PACs associated with corporations, businesses and trade groups. That’s compared to one $5,000 contribution to Gideon from PACs labeled “business” by OpenSecrets, the American Association for Justice.

Democrats are hoping Theresa Greenfield can take down Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA), pouring $186,000 into her campaign from leadership PACs. Greenfield, a real estate executive, was endorsed by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee right after announcing her bid.

Senate Democrats also threw their weight behind Mark Kelly, an astronaut and gun control activists who is the husband of former congresswoman Gabby Giffords. Having raised an unprecedented $13.9 million through September, Kelly has a huge cash advantage over Sen. Martha McSally (R-AZ).

Business PACs give upwards of 90 percent of their money to incumbents, so these Democratic challengers aren’t losing much of anything by rejecting their checks. Still, their incumbent opponents certainly have an advantage by being entrenched lawmakers.

In Colorado, Sen. Cory Gardner’s campaign has received a stunning $2.6 million from business PACs, just behind Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) for the top spot. Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) is right behind him with $2.4 million as he engages in a big money battle with Democrat Cal Cunningham.

The incumbent advantage goes for some Democrats too. Sens. Gary Peters (D-MI) and Mark Warner (D-VA), both top targets of Republicans, each received more than $1.8 million from business PACs. Sen. Tina Smith (D-MN) has taken in nearly $2.6 million from PACs, half of which comes from business PACs.

By End Citizens United’s count, 47 House Democrats and 11 Democratic senators have taken the no-corporate PAC pledge.

That growing list includes some incumbent senators facing reelection in 2020, including Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) as well as Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) and his primary challenger Rep. Joe Kennedy (D-MA).

And many of the House candidates who rejected corporate PACs in 2018 are now incumbents, meaning they are passing up hundreds of thousands of dollars to stick by their pledge. Many of them are top recipients of leadership PAC money, including California Reps. TJ Cox ($104,300) and Katie Porter ($101,105), who face hungry Republican challengers in 2020.

So far this cycle, Democrats overall have taken $7.2 million from leadership PACs, compared to $9.2 million for Republicans. That’s a closer margin than in previous cycles where Republicans have historically given far more through their leadership PACs.

Everyone knows Trump hates dogs-- except Blue Dogs like Jeff Van Drew

Did Google Just Bribe Devin Nunes? Business As Usual For Google And Nunes

California’s 22nd congressional district is one of the dwindling 7 still left in Republican hands-- and likely one of the next to fall. The relatively compact Central Valley district, starts up in the northern and eastern parts of the city of Fresno, includes Clovis, Reedley, Dinuba, Visalia, Exeter, Lindsay and Tulare. The district is primarily rural and includes parts of two counties, Fresno and Tulare. The PVI is R+8, the least red of the districts still held by a Republican in the state. There are only 3 California congressional districts with Republican PVIs held by Democrats-- CA-45 (R+3, Katie Porter), CA-48 (R+4, Harley Rouda) and CA-49 (R+1, Mike Levin).

By the numbers, it’s nearly impossible for a Democrat to win an R+8 district. There are just too many Republican voters and too few Democrats. CA-22, however could break the mold because of the controversial nature of the incumbent, crackpot and Trump patsy Devin Nunes. The district gave Obama (both times) and Hillary around 42% of its vote, but McCain took 55%, Romney got 56.6% but Trump just 52.1%. It’s not especially popular in the district.

Last cycle, the DCCC couldn’t have found a worse candidate-- a worthless, anti-charismatic conservative who is barely a Democrat, Andrew Janz, someone, had he won, may have joined Jeff Van Drew in jumping ship-- yes, another DCCC pile of garbage. The reasons he got any votes at all was:

• 2018’s anti-red wave
• The insane pro-Putin incumbent
• an obscene $9,064,633, entirely raised against Nunes

The Central Valley has been largely ignored by a Democratic Party controlled by coastal elites, both state-wise and nationally. Hispanics have not been registered and political organizing has been minimal and decidedly not progressive. The area needs a lot of help, the kind of work Kim Williams is doing in the blue 16th district, a Blue Dog stronghold where voters are just becoming aware of what the difference between a Democrat and a Republican even is. The DCCC found themselves a clone of Janz for 2020-- actually Janz recommended him-- Phil Arballo, a guy who is never going to beat Nunes unless someone finds a hi-def video of Nunes raping that cow he sued. So far this cycle Nunes has raised $5,678,450. The 3 Democrats taking him on are lucky to have raised a tenth of that combined:

Phil Arballo (DCCC conservative)- $380,762
Bobby Bliatout (moderate liberal)- $204,599
Dary Rezvani (progressive)- $76,886

Arballo is running an identity politics campaign on Republican-lite platform that is word-for-word all the pablum the DCCC feeds it’s dumb-bell candidates who can’t write their own pablum. Bobby Bliatout’s isn’t as bad, but isn’t that much better either-- just garden variety Democrat. Day Rezvani’s priorities page is the only one that could actually generate any of the kind of enthusiasm needed to win this kind of district by inspiring young people and non-voters.

Monday morning, Popular Information, Judd Legum’s popular newsletter, published a piece called Google’s Holiday Gift To Devin Nunes, about the pernicious impact of how corporations buy American politicians. “In November,” wrote Legum, “Congressman Devin Nunes (R-CA) was in the spotlight— the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, which was leading the impeachment inquiry into President Trump. He used his star turn to push "fantastical conspiracy theories" about Democrats. Nunes falsely accused Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA) of trying to obtain nude photos of Trump. He promoted the discredited notion, advanced by Trump but rejected by the intelligence community, that Ukraine took significant steps to meddle in the 2016 election. The debunked contention is part of a broader Russian propaganda effort to absolve itself from hacking the DNC servers by pinning the blame on Ukraine. Nunes was warned during the hearings by Fiona Hill, a former member of the National Security Council, that he was legitimizing a Russian disinformation campaign. ‘I refuse to be part of an effort to legitimize an alternate narrative that the Ukrainian government is a U.S. adversary, and that Ukraine-- not Russia-- attacked us in 2016,’ Hill said. ‘In the course of this investigation, I would ask that you please not promote politically driven falsehoods that so clearly advance Russian interests.’ Nunes was undeterred.”

Nunes' antics during the impeachment hearings capped a year when he filed six defamation lawsuits, seeking hundreds of millions in damages from Twitter, a GOP political operative, media companies, a retired farmer, and a fictional cow. The suits were all filed by an attorney, Steven Biss, whose law license was suspended twice by the state of Virginia.

In response, Google quietly rewarded Nunes' behavior with a check for $5000 to help him get reelected. The donation was revealed in a little-noticed FEC report that was filed on December 20.

Google says its "mission is to make sure that information serves everyone." But it is supporting a Congressman who has emerged as one of the most powerful sources of disinformation in the country.

It is a vivid example of a much broader problem that Popular Information has documented extensively. There is a yawning gap between the publicly stated values of powerful corporations and their political activities. A paper published by Harvard Business School (HBS) this month concludes that corporations have "funded, perpetuated, and profited from political dysfunction."

Corporations have a massive influence on the electoral process. In 2018, corporate spending on federal elections was around $2.8 billion. At the state level, "public companies were the largest source of funding supporting partisan groups in state-level races, such as the Republican Governors Association and its Democratic counterpart."

One chapter of the Harvard paper surveyed HBS alumni and found a shocking level of ignorance about the influence of the corporations they work for on the political system.

When asked whether their own companies’ election spending distorted the democratic process, just 4% said yes, while 30% disagreed (27% strongly disagreed). A remarkable 61% responded to this question with “Not applicable” or “Don’t know.” 

The authors said the responses from HBS alumni "suggests either that many business leaders have little knowledge of their companies’ political involvement...or that alumni are unwilling or uncomfortable disclosing their companies’ involvement in elections."

But when asked about corporate involvement in politics generally, most HBS alumni agree that corporate political donations are deleterious and warp democracy.

[A]mong HBS alumni who were asked not about their own company but about business as a whole, 60% responded that companies should not have corporate PACs as a vehicle for employees to contribute to candidates the company supports. And 71% of these same alumni believed that the overall business community’s election spending distorted the democratic process.

In other words, HBS alumni believe that corporate political donations are a big problem-- but the company they work for is an exception.

Political donations are part of a corporate "playbook" of political activity that includes lobbying, spending on ballot initiatives, and hiring former government officials. Overall, HBS alumni view their own company's political involvement as largely positive while viewing the activities of all the other companies' political involvement negatively.

Notably, 62% of HBS alumni surveyed say that the business community overall "worsens the political system by advancing policies benefiting special interests," but just 21% are willing to say the same thing about their company.

While corporate influence campaigns are effectively securing tactical political victories that increase businesses' immediate bottom line, the Harvard study suggests that this strategy is backfiring over the long run. 

Based on our research, we believe that much of today’s business involvement in politics may actually be working against business’s longer-term interests. It is not enhancing our nation’s productivity and competitiveness, failing to put business’s weight behind sound public policies to enhance the U.S. business environment, advance shared prosperity among citizens, and improve the communities on which business depends.

This makes sense. Ingratiating yourself with people like Devin Nunes, for example, may help you preserve a valuable tax loophole for another year. After all, he has a vote. It's unlikely, however, that Nunes and his ilk will have any interest in creating a functional social, economic and regulatory environment.

Toward a new meaning of corporate responsibility

Nearly all corporations seek a positive public image, including demonstrating a commitment to creating social good. Up to this point, these efforts have "been in areas like reducing greenhouse gas emissions, improving employee health, and, more recently, paying a living wage and improving training and career development for lower-income workers." Politics has been separate. There is little effort to harmonize corporate political activities with commitments to public responsibility.

The Harvard study found a surprising willingness among HBS alumni to change the corporate political playbook. A strong majority of HBS alumni believe corporations should end political donations, spend less on lobbying, and stop trying to buy outcomes in ballot initiatives.

This circles back to a dynamic discussed earlier: most corporate employees are unaware (or unwilling to acknowledge) their own company's complicity in the problem. How many Google employees, for example, know their company gave Devin Nunes $5000 last month? Without that knowledge, an abstract willingness to change corporate practices overall will not translate to internal pressure for things to change at a particular company.

Knowledge is only part of the problem. Corporate insiders are often reluctant to speak out, believing that doing so could cost them their jobs.

The author of the Harvard study is proposing a "set of voluntary standards, which we believe every company should adopt when dealing with politics and government." But with so much money at stake, most corporations will not reorient their political activities without a fight. Change, if it does occur, will need to be a product of external and internal pressure.

Three Entitled Multi-Billionaires Think They Can Buy The Presidency

Trump may or may not be a billionaire. He claims he is and he certainly will be after he leaves office. But no one knows for sure because he hides his assets and transactions, most of which are unethical-- at best-- and criminal for the most part. But we’ll count him as a billionaire for the sake of this post. He certainly loudly and insistently claims he is. The other two are a Democrat, Tom Steyer, and a whatever serves his shifting interests, Michael Bloomberg, currently pretending-- laughably-- to be a Democrat. All three seem to believe they can buy elections. Bloomberg, and to a lesser extent Trump, have done so in the past.

On Christmas Day, Politico’s Maya King, looked at Bloomberg’s and Steyer’s obscene spending so far. They’ve poured around $200 million into broadcast and digital advertising so far-- and Bloomberg’s camp say he hasn’t even begun yet. The two of them have spent more than all the other candidates for 2019-- combined. Bloomberg’s and Steyer’s name recognition isn’t as high as the front-runners but Bloomberg is getting his name out there in. big way. He isn’t well-liked though. As Democrats get to know him better, they don’t like him at all. Only Tulsi has lower favorability ratings among Democratic primary voters at this point.

“We’ve never seen spending like this in a presidential race,” said Jim McLaughlin, a Republican political strategist who worked as a consultant for Bloomberg’s mayoral bids in New York. “He has a limitless budget.”

The question isn’t whether anyone else will come close to matching Bloomberg or Steyer’s ad spending. Rather, it’s whether all that spending is making any difference.

At present, the two remain mired in single digits in the polls. Steyer isn’t spending at the same stratospheric levels as Bloomberg, yet with $83 million in ad buys so far, he’s still far outpacing everyone other than his fellow billionaire. The next highest spender on ads is Pete Buttigieg at $19 million.

Unlike Bloomberg, who is attempting to jumpstart his campaign on Super Tuesday March 3, Steyer is largely focused on the four early voting states. He has spent nearly $37 million in Iowa, South Carolina, Nevada and New Hampshire-- much of it on digital ads. Since joining the race in July, he’s more than doubled the combined ad spending of Buttigieg, Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren in the early states.

In South Carolina, Steyer has plowed extensive resources into television spots and a flurry of mail while building up a sizable ground game. His 60-person team in South Carolina is the largest of his four state operations. He’s beginning to see some results: according to the most recent Quinnipiac poll, Steyer is now in 5th place there with 5%, one percentage point behind Buttigieg.

Just as important, he’s polling at 4% with black voters, who make up more than half the Democratic electorate in South Carolina. That places him slightly ahead of Sen. Cory Booker, who‘s made the state a focus, and Buttigieg.

“For someone who’s come in as late as he did in the game, he’s doing impressively well in that regard,” said Kate Franch, chair of the Greenville Democratic Party in South Carolina. “And that’s relative to everyone who’s not Joe Biden.”

Bloomberg is spending in all 50 states but is targeting the big, delegate-rich Super Tuesday states that can make or break his campaign. He’s spent more than $13 million on advertising in California, which offers 416 delegates, the single biggest haul in the primary. He’s also spent more than $13 million each in Texas, another Super Tuesday mainstay, and Florida, which votes one week after Super Tuesday and offers 219 delegates.

Bloomberg is also swamping smaller markets like Wilmington, N.C., where his ads have run up to 36 times each day, according to data from Advertising Analytics.

Bloomberg has also shelled out an additional $13 million in Florida, which votes one week after Super Tuesday and offers 219 delegates.

“We’re running out of ways to describe [the ad expenditures] at this point,” said Nick Stapleton, vice president of analytics at Ad Analytics, a television ad tracking firm. “It’s pretty difficult to make a comparison...You’re looking at one-third of Obama’s 2012 total [ad] spend through the general [election] in one month.”

Bloomberg is beginning to see incremental growth in national polls after his saturation-level spending. Since entering the race in mid-November, Bloomberg’s polling numbers have slowly climbed: in Monday’s Quinnipiac University national poll, he had his best showing yet, polling in fifth place at 7%.

Doug Wilson, a North Carolina-based political strategist, said he sees the former New York mayor’s advertisements “at least three times a day.”

“You still have to get a sizable portion of the African-American vote to be able to be competitive but with him running ads as he has it has increased his numbers nationally,” Wilson said, referencing his growing standing in the polls.

Christian Heiens, a political marketer with Saber Communications, a right-leaning media buying agency, said he isn’t convinced Bloomberg and Steyer can continue to rise through their spending. He compared their bids to Jeb Bush, the former Florida GOP governor who in 2016 spent close to $55 million on advertisements in early primary states but underperformed before finishing fourth in South Carolina and quitting the race altogether.

“After you see the same TV ad 10 times, it’s not going to have as big an impact,” Heiens continued. “And that’s not just in politics, that’s in anything in marketing.”

The rest of the Democratic field has also been critical of the billionaires’ spending, though for different reasons. Warren has accused Bloomberg and Steyer of trying to buy their paths to the nomination, while Biden and Andrew Yang have argued that the ad blitzes are more a waste of money than smart politics.

They’re not the only skeptics of how much Bloomberg and Steyer can accomplish with their saturation-level spending.

“I don’t sell anybody short, but rich white billionaires don’t have any real appeal to black voters in the South,” said Brad Coker, a pollster with Mason-Dixon Polling & Strategy. “Billionaires have never really done well with Southern voters.”

Except Trump, who won every single southern state against Hillary in 2016-- although almost entirely with white southerners.

In 2016, Hillary spent $563,756,928 and outside allies spent another $206,122,160 on her campaign. Trump spent $333,127,164 and allies spent another $118,217,367 for him. (The value of assistance for Trump from illegal foreign sources, primarily Russia, the Saudis and Israel, is not included in these figures.) Bloomberg, whose net worth is around $65 billion, is the wealthiest presidential candidate in history. He’s 33 times richer than Steyer and at least 14 times richer than Trump, maybe a great deal more than that.

There is no official FEC filing for Bloomberg yet, but the latest filings showed that Steyer had raised $49,645,130.22, of which $47,597,697.36 was self-funded. Of the non-billionaires, Bernie has raised the most-- $74,399,588.43-- although some of the other candidates are also financial contenders:

• Elizabeth- $60,339,946.81
• Mayo Pete- $51,549,046.28
• Status Quo Joe- $37,785,293.38

Biden and Mayo are being largely funded by billionaires and SuperPACs. If you'd like to contribute to Bernie's 100% grassroots campaign with no billionaires, no special interests looking for favors, and no SuperPACs, you can do so by clicking on the DownWithTyranny ActBlue thermometer above. Elections shouldn't be for sale to the wealthiest crooks, not in this country. Trump has certainly proven without doubt that the old line about not being able to buy very rich self-funders is absurd and utterly false. Trump may be the wealthiest person to ever occupy the White House and he also the most self-serving and dishonest.