Yes, Rubio Is A Dangerous Little Worm, But Supporting Patrick Murphy Is Just As Damaging To The Country-- There Is No Lesser Evil In This Race

Obama was in Miami Thursday, lying to low-info Democratic voters in order to paint Patrick Murphy-- a Republican masquerading as a quasi-Democrat-- as some kind of a progressive. Murphy doesn't have a progressive bone in his body and when he got to Congress, he immediately joined the New Dems and ran up one of the worst voting records of any Democrat in the House, voting with the GOP countless times, even once to remove Obama from the Keystone XL Pipeline decision-making, once to condemn Obama for the Bowe Bergdahl prisoner swap and once to set up the witch hunt against Hillary Clinton via the so-called Benghazi Committee. But Murphy's slimy financial backers are promising big bucks to Obama's Presidential Library Committee if he can get the hapless and undeserving Murphy into the Senate. Pretty scummy, huh? That's establishment politics.

As you may recall, that last May we started looking into the family of Saudi billionaire Nasser Al-Rashid, one of the most powerful advisors to the Saudi royal family. Nasser gave between a million and 5 million dollars to the Bill Clinton Presidential Library Fund. His 4 sons have been very strategically funding the career of Patrick Murphy and the careers of sleazy congressmembers like Wasserman Schultz, Steve Israel, Ami Bera, Joe Garcia, Alcee Hastings and other members with notoriously corrupt reputations, willing to sign on to Team Murphy.

Yesterday Brent Scher, writing for right-wing mouthpiece, the Washington Free Beacon, brought up Murphy's Saudi connections. "Florida Democrat Patrick Murphy’s political coordination," he wrote, "with a wealthy Saudi Arabian who has been accused of orchestrating an illegal straw donor scheme to support Murphy began prior to Murphy’s official entrance into politics." Abraham Al-Rashid went to a private prep school in New Jersey, the Lawrenceville School, and the Saudi family worked hard for years to get the simpleminded and drunken Murphy into Congress and onto the House Intelligence Committee. And the Saudis started before Murphy even ran for office.

Campaign finance records indicate that Murphy and al-Rashid made political donations in tandem as part of an effort to gain favor with prominent Florida Democrats whose support Murphy needed to launch his political career.

The large donations to Florida Democrats occurred early in 2011 after Murphy hired a political consultant to map out a congressional run.

On January 20 and January 21, 2011, Murphy and his father each contributed $2,400 to Sen. Bill Nelson (D., Fla.). Budman, al-Rashid’s wife, made an identical $2,400 contribution to Nelson on January 20, with “homemaker” listed as her occupation on the report.

A week later, on January 27, Murphy and his father each contributed $4,800 to Florida Rep. Ted Deutch (D.). Al-Rashid and Budman made identical $4,800 contributions to Deutch that day.

The following week, on February 2, Murphy contributed $4,800 to Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D.). Al-Rashid and Budman also donated the maximum to Wasserman Schultz that day.

Wasserman Schultz benefited from additional $2,400 contributions from al-Rashid’s two brothers, Mohammed al-Rashid [who uses the fake name "Moose" when he makes many contributions] of Los Angeles, California, and Salman al-Rashid of Austin, Texas.

In a single week in February, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee received $30,000 from Ibraham al-Rashid, $3,500 from Mohammed al-Rashid [Moose], $2,500 from Salmon al-Rashid, and $2,000 from Murphy.

The Senate Leadership Fund, which filed the straw donor complaint that is now being reviewed by the Federal Election Committee, said in a statement to the Free Beacon that the coordinated donations are further evidence that Murphy was aware of al-Rashid’s straw donor operation.

“Patrick Murphy may try and separate himself from the apparent straw donor scheme that helped launch his political career, but this new revelation seems to show he was 100 percent involved with that political money laundering scam,” said Ian Prior, a spokesman for the group.

The complaint laid out evidence that a network of donors was contributing the maximum allowed amount of money to both Murphy and Florida Gov. Charlie Crist (D.) on behalf of al-Rashid.

Al-Rashid is the son of a Saudi Arabian billionaire who has donated between $1 million and $5 million to the Clinton Foundation.

The complaint identified a number of donors in Pennsylvania who were related to al-Rashid through Budman who made large contributions to Murphy and Crist on nearly identical dates as al-Rashid himself.

The complaint also pointed out large contributions to Murphy and Crist from a woman who was listed as a “property manager” but has since been identified as Ibrahim al-Rashid’s “cleaning lady.”

Murphy’s spending to law firms that specialize in congressional investigations spiked following the FEC complaint, though the exact reason for the increase remains unclear.

Budman left al-Rashid in February 2014 after she told police that he “grabbed her by the wrist, struck her about the head and face with a closed fist then threw her to the ground” during an altercation at their Miami home.

The Murphy campaign did not respond to a request for comment on the donations. Attempts to reach Budman and members of her family were unsuccessful.

Murphy has attempted to distance himself from al-Rashid since his assault on Budman.

“There is no excuse for domestic violence,” Murphy said earlier this year. “Both Morgan and Ibrahim have been long time friends and supporters of mine. Morgan even worked on my first campaign.”

“This incident is personal for me,” Murphy said. “I was heartbroken when I found out, and I condemn Ibrahim’s inexcusable actions. Over the past year I have prayed for Morgan and her family to find healing.”

Republicans have called on Murphy to donate $100,000 to charities that address domestic violence to offset the money that al-Rashid gave to liberal super PACs that support him.

Nancy Smith did a very similar piece about the Murphy-Saudi connection for Florida's Sunshine State News.

We've reported on al-Rashid's connection to Patrick Murphy before. But this is the first we've seen of the donation scheme that started as long ago as five-plus years to keep Murphy climbing the ladder to candidacy.

   ...Here's how the contributions flowed to prominent Dems:

• Jan. 20 and Jan. 21, 2011: Murphy and his father each contributed $2,400 to Democratic Sen. Nelson. Budman, al-Rashid’s wife, made an identical $2,400 contribution to Nelson on Jan. 20, with “homemaker” listed as her occupation on the report.
• Jan. 27, one week later: Murphy and his father each contributed $4,800 to Florida Rep. Ted Deutch, D. Al-Rashid and Budman made identical $4,800 contributions to Deutch that same day.
• Feb.2, the very next week: Murphy contributed $4,800 to Wasserman Schultz, D. Al-Rashid and Budman also donated the maximum to Wasserman Schultz that day.
• Wasserman Schultz benefited from additional $2,400 contributions from al-Rashid’s two brothers, Mohammed al-Rashid of Los Angeles, Calif. and Salman al-Rashid of Austin, Texas.

In a single week in February, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee said "thank you very much" to $30,000 from Ibraham al-Rashid, $3,500 from Mohammed al-Rashid, $2,500 from Salmon al-Rashid, and $2,000 from Murphy.

Both pieces left out that the al-Rashids illegally provided thousands of dollars to their servants and in-laws to also contribute to Murphy's campaigns and SuperPACs, something that could land them and Murphy in prison. I've taken out formal complaints against Murphy and his financiers with the Department of Justice and we'll let you know as they wend their way slowly through the judicial system.

Moose al-Rashid has never been photographed 

Gun Nut DSCC Chairman Jon Tester Goes To War-- Against Alan Grayson

Jon Tester, the disappointing senator from Montana and Schumer's puppet chairman of the DSCC, had a busy Monday. He voted with the Republicans-- as he often does-- against the bill to pass meaningful background checks for gun purchases. That's the HEAD of the DSCC. AND, he authorized a million dollar spend against Alan Grayson in the Florida Senate primary-- a spend meant to help elect Wall Street whore Patrick Murphy. (I remember when Tester used to whime to me on the phone every day about how Chuck Schumer was working to defeat him in his first Senate race, on behalf of a Wall Street shill not even as bad as Murphy, John Morrison. Tester sold out within microseconds of winning his primary, morphing into Morrison and becoming Schumer's lap dog, giving New York a third vote in the Senate.



Judging by the disclaimer in the ad above, which has Murphy approving it with a "paid for by the DSCC" disclaimed, this shows Tester and Schumer spending 441a(d) money, which is party money that is spent in coordination with the candidate.  There is a limit on that money in each election cycle.  If you spend it in the primary, you can’t spend it in the general election.  The only time that I’ve ever heard of the DSCC wasting this money during the primary before this year was when they ineffectively wasted money on "ex"-Republican Arlen Specter to harm Joe Sestak in 2010. Sestak won the primary anyway but the DSCC had no money left they could spend on helping him beat Pat Toomey, who won the general election by the narrowest margin of any Republican running for Senate that November. Now Tester and Schumer won't have money to spend against Rubio in November.

That money spent against Sestak in 2010 also featured Obama claiming Specter was a better candidate than the independent-minded Sestak. This nonsensical ad with Obama's voice claims Murphy has had his back in the House. The only thing Murphy did with Obama's back in the House was to stick knives in it. He was one of only a tiny handful of Democrats (all from the New Dem Republican wing of the party) to have not just voted for the Keystone XL Pipeline every time it came up but to vote for the disgraceful and unconstitutional GOP scheme to remove Obama from the decision-making process! Is that having his back? Grayson, coincidentally, was the congressman who began court proceedings to defend Obama's authority in the matter!

But that was just one of scores of examples of Murphy stabbing Obama in the back. Can you imagine a Democrat voting with the Republicans to establish the Benghazi witch hunt against Hillary Clinton? That was Patrick Murphy. The only other Democrats still in the House who voted for the establishment of the Benghazi Committee are two ultra-reactionary Blue Dogs, Kyrsten Sinema (AZ) and Collin Peterson (MN)-- just those two proto-Republicans and Murphy.

And then there's Obama's back in terms of Dodd-Frank. There is no House Democrat who's worked more diligently-- if not all that effectively, given his lack of talent-- on behalf of the banksters than Patrick Murphy. He is the go-to chump among House Financial Services Committee memberswhen they need a patsy to make their pro-bankster legislation appear "bipartisan" by adding a Democratic schnook as a co-sponsor. Ironically, it wasn't #DebtTrapDebbie Wasserman Schultz who co-sponsored the pay day lending scheme, it was Patrick Murphy, who has taken more money from the payday lenders than anyone else running for the Senate. In fact-- at $1,413,950 and counting-- Murphy has taken more money this cycle from the Finance Sector than any non-incumbent running for the Senate. The banksters have given him more loot than they've given to vulnerable Republican incumbents who have beens erving their interests in the Senate already, like Ron Johnson (R-WI), Mark Kirk (R-IL), Richard Burr (R-NC), John McCain (R-AZ) and Roy Blunt (R-MO)-- and nearly double what they;ve given any other non-incumbent from either party.

Wall Street sure wants Patrick Murphy in the Senate. And so does the powerful billionaire Al-Rashid family of Saudi Arabia, which has helped Murphy's father finance little Patrick's political career (and spot on the House Intelligence Committee). Papa Al-Rashid, one of the Saudi king's top advisors, donated over a million dollars to the Clinton Library and is giving even more to the Obama Library. A Joe Biden staffer, who has asked for anonymity, has also told us that Obama cut the spot for Murphy in return for a promise from Patrick's crooked parents to "help" with the presidential library. Nice... maybe that's what Obama meant by Patrick having his back!

On more thing... in 2013, the Shark Tank reported that "Boehner granted Patrick Murphy’s request to a private meeting to discuss Murphy’s possible defecting to the Republican Party" and then turned down his conditions and told him to stay with the Democratic Party. Help Grayson fight back against this Republican masquerading as a Democrat:

Why Is President Obama Lying About Patrick Murphy's Record?

The TV spot targeting African-American voters in Tallahassee and Jacksonville that Obama cut for Patrick Murphy's drowning Senate primary campaign puts the president's credibility dangerously on the line. Murphy's record in the House is unquestionably one of the most reactionary and blatantly anti-progressive of any Democrat serving in the House. He has been an unabashed advocate for cutting Social Security and Medicare, an unflinching ally of Wall Street and payday loan predators and a consistent backer of Republican initiatives against the environment and, in fact, against the Obama administration itself. Murphy was one of just 4 Democrats still in the House to have voted with the GOP to establish the anti-Hillary Clinton witch hunt they called Benghazi and he was one of the only Keystone XL Pipeline supporters among the Democrats who actually voted to unconstitutionally remove Obama himself from the decision-making process. He even voted with the Republicans for oil drilling off Florida's pristine beaches!

"Patrick," lied Obama in the TV ad, "is a strong progressive." Obama is entitled to back whichever reactionary, corporate whore whose parents are bribing him with a donation for his presidential library he wants to, but to call Murphy "a progressive," is just monstrous and makes one wonder what else is Obama lying to the public about. He claims, falsely, that Murphy has "fought special interests on behalf of working families and won." Wall Street has given more money to Murphy than to any non-incumbent running for the Senate this cycle-- $1,413,950-- which is also more money the banksters gave any Member of the House other than Speaker Paul Ryan and Republican Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy. There is no other Democrat in even in the top 10! Obama knows better than most that isn't to reward him for standing up to special interests-- exactly the opposite in fact.



Obama cut similar spots to influence African Americans to vote for fracking lobbyist Katie McGinty in the Pennsylvania primary (and against Joe Sestak and John Fetterman) and has campaigned in Miami for Debbie Wasserman Schultz with the same distortions he's using to help Murphy. This week, he came out explicitly in the California primary race for murky, unproven Democrat Kamala Harris in her Senate race against fellow Democrat, Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez. (To my eye neither is remotely qualified for the Senate, Harris being merely mediocre and Sanchez nearly as bad and almost as reactionary as Patrick Murphy.)

Sanchez-- mindful not to offend low-info Obama supporters-- struck back tepidly. "I am disappointed," she wrote in response to the Obama-Biden endorsement, "that President Obama chose to endorse in an historic Senate race between two Democrats. I would think the leader of the Democratic Party would be focused on defeating Donald Trump and supporting Democratic Senate candidates against Republicans. I believe that California voters are deeply concerned about the entrenched political establishment which has failed to work for them. Yet, it has been clear for some time that the same political establishment would rather have a coronation instead of an election for California's next U.S. Senator. California's Senate seat does not belong to the political establishment-- it belongs to the People of California, and I believe California voters will make their own independent choice for U.S. Senate in November."

Neither Harris, Sanchez, McGinty nor, especially, Patrick Murphy, belongs anywhere near the U.S. Senate. Obama is wrong and he's making himself less credible by endorsing blatantly unqualified candidates, especially in primary elections. It's what you'd expect from a lifelong party hack like Biden-- a member of whose staff confided in us several months ago that Obama is trolling for presidential library money. The reason this is especially grievous in Florida is because by pushing the incompetent Murphy forward, Obama is diminishing one of the most iconic and accomplished progressives in Congress, Alan Grayson, and is making it far easier for Marco Rubio to win in November, since the unaccomplished and fatally flawed Murphy would be a complete push-over for an experienced politician like Rubio.

Please consider helping Alan Grayson win this one by contributing what you can to his campaign at the thermometer below. The Florida Democratic Party Senate nomination isn't the property of Beltway insiders like Schumer, Reid and Obama/Biden. Only Florida Democratic voters can decide this issue. Grayson has earned their trust and devotion; Patrick Murphy certainly hasn't.

UPDATE

A very progressive and well-loved Member of Congress just e-mailed me her worries about Obama losing credibility just when the Democrats need him most in the battle against Trump. "What he says about all of the candidates he endorses is completely untethered from reality," she wrote. "He just says whatever he thinks will sound good. It’s very revealing about his own mental processes."

Why Does Obama Always Endorse The Worst Candidates In Democratic Primaries?

When notorious drama queen #DebtTrapDebbie Wasserman Schultz set her hair on fire and went screeching to the White House that Bernie's political revolution was coming for her, Obama shut her up with a cynical endorsement of her reelection. It's no secret he wishes she would just disappear off the face of the earth already. In fact, I was on a top secret call recently (ssshhhhh...), discussing a major Beltway group's congressional endorsements, when I decided to throw the Wasserman Schultz/Canova race into the discussion. Everyone on the call-- no one more than myself-- was shocked when the White House representative backed my proposal for a Canova endorsement. They hate her; but Obama endorsed her anyway. She is, after all, his DNC chair. She's become the symbol of Democratic Party disunity but she's his symbol of Democratic Party disunity. Besides, party hacks stick together. And, no matter if you think Obama is the greatest president since FDR or the worst president since Ronald Reagan, no one can accuse him of not being a party loyalist (whether you want to think of that as a "hack" or not).

So, yes, Obama endorsed one of the most reviled and detested Democrats in the country, one even he reviles and detests. And he's been on a roll of truly terrible primary endorsements. He allowed Schumer and Reid to dictate endorsements for the weak Katie McGinty in Pennsylvania and the incredibly corrupt and incredibly Republican Florida candidate, Patrick Murphy, presumably to help him with funding for his overly costly presidential library. I mean, Murphy, who not only voted for the Keystone XL Pipeline every time it came up but who was one of the only "Democrats"-- and I use the term lightly-- to back a Republican scheme to remove Obama from the Keystone XL decision-making process!?!?! Murphy, the so-called Democrat to back the Republican witch-hunt against Hillary Clinton by voting for the Benghazi Committee? That Murphy?!?!? Oh, yes-- the Murphy who has been gung-ho on rolling back the Wall Street regulations Obama beats the GOP up over and the Murphy who came into Congress braying like an idiot that cutting Social Security and Medicare benefits had to be on the table. That Murphy.

And the latest inferior candidate to go running to Obama for a rescue endorsement is the little brother of South Jersey machine boss, George Norcross-- dirty li'l Donald, a Democrat literally financed by the Trump family!! Alex Law and candidates like him are the future of a vibrant, progressive Democratic Party. But Obama went for the gutter garbage. Thanks, Barack. In fact, his endorsement statement was a laughably ironic lie. "Donald has been there with me on critical issues before Congress in the last two years-- and has always stood up for what's right." Donald's very first vote in Congress was for the Keystone XL Pipeline-- and that was just the beginning. Norcross opposed Obama on 39 key votes in the short time he's been in Congress. He has the most Republican voting record of any New Jersey Democrat. He also opposed-- and voted against-- Obama's nuclear treaty with Iran, which Obama said at the time was a big deal. And when Obama opposed the GOP's SAFE Act to reject Obama's plans to take in a small number of Syrian refugees, Norcross voted with the Republicans and against Obama. I wonder how much brother George is getting Obama for his library fund.

I know Patrick Murphy's biggest and sleaziest fundraiser, Saudi billionaire Ibrahim Al-Rashid, has a pappy back in Riyadh, ole Nasser Al-Rashid, who gave between one and five million dollars to the Clinton presidential library. That was nice of one of the top 3 advisors to the Saudi royal family, a family that spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to make sure dumbbell Patrick Murphy was on the House Intelligence Committee. Now why would they want their guy on the House Intelligence Committee? (And today Obama will be helping Privileged Patrick raise money in Miami and then golfing up in Murphy's congressional district tomorrow.) If you don't have $5 million to help Obama with his library, contribute what you can to help him accomplish his new goal of expanding Social Security by electing Alex Law, Alan Grayson and Tim Canova (at the thermometer):

The Corruption Around Presidential Libraries Is A Bigger Deal Than You Probably Think It Is

I don't know if Anthony Clark reads DWT or not. He's an author and the former legislative assistant for Congressman Lacy Clay (D-MO). He responded to a tweet of mine yesterday implying that Obama's coddling of the Saudi murderers may have something to do with a quest for funds for his presidential library.

I don't know if that's actually something Obama is doing. But I do know that he's been endorsing conservative candidates in Senate races tied to funds for his library. How do I know? A top Biden staffer was dismayed enough to mention it. I was dismayed enough myself to have mentioned it several times since early March here at DWT. Clark's tweet included a link to a late January History News Network story he wrote about the inherently corrupt nature that surrounds presidential libraries.

Last week the House of Representatives passed the Presidential Library Donation Reform Act, which sponsor Rep. John J. Duncan, Jr. (R-TN-2) has introduced in almost every Congress since 1999. Those few good-government groups that were paying attention hailed passage of the bill.

The legislation would require that presidential library support organizations-- the private foundations that presidents set up to raise money for and build their libraries-- disclose all donations of more than $200. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), the federal agency that administers the libraries, would be charged with publishing those donations in a timely manner.

Supporters tout the disclosure requirement as a major leap forward in reforming the largely unregulated system that commemorates former presidents and their families.

It is not.

Disclosing donations-- which, under current law, are secret, as well as unlimited, even while a president is in office-- is, at best, a minor step, though one in the right direction. Of course we should know who is donating, and how much they give, whether the money is ostensibly for a re-election campaign or for a presidential shrine.

But simply forcing disclosure of donations isn’t nearly enough. No matter how large the sum, no matter how direct the connection to a presidential action on behalf of the donor (or someone close to the donor), disclosure alone will have little to no effect. When it comes to learning just how brazen, shameless, or corrupt our leaders are, the American public has shown a great ability to, at the one extreme, pretend to be shocked (for a shockingly limited period of time), and, at the other, yawn in complete indifference.

For those opposed to a given president, such “scandalous” discoveries only add fuel to their already-raging fire (“Told you them foreigners was givin’ him millions!”); for supporters, they’re just more opportunities to rationalize and excuse (“Well, do you know how much money it takes to build one of those things?”).

Our concern should not be on who or how much, but on why. What is a one, or ten, or twenty-five million dollar donor after, exactly? Hometown civic pride? From the limited information that has come out about earlier presidential libraries, many of the megadonors don’t even live in the United States, much less the city in which the library was built. Bragging rights? How could that be, when the donations are secret? That warm, fuzzy feeling that comes from helping the less-fortunate soon-to-be-former presidents among us?

What many assume to be a nefarious quid pro quo will not be eliminated or even reduced by donation disclosures. What we need is not just the revelation of donations to presidential library foundations, but a limit on their amount – for at least the same time period as the bill requires of disclosures (either a president’s last day in office or the date on which the Archivist of the United States accepts the library). Limits would not only help reduce the likelihood of purchased pardons, or pay-to-play solicitations, but might also fix a major problem of the system: that the libraries are getting bigger and bigger, in both dimension and ambition.

Some claim that donation limits might restrict the size of new presidential libraries, by starving foundations of those gigantic donations.

If so, good.

For decades after Franklin Roosevelt dedicated his decidedly modest fieldstone archive, these institutions increasingly became monumental…well, monuments. They are increasingly expensive for the government to operate. And they increasingly have allotted more and more space to the private foundations to continue conducting ever-widening business, far past their original goal of building and handing over the library to NARA.

In 1986, Congress tried to rein in these excesses by strictly limiting their size and requiring an endowment from the foundation to offset the cost of maintenance and operation. (Originally set at 20 percent of the total cost to build and equip a library, Congress increased the endowment during George W. Bush’s term, to 60 percent; that new amount first applies to President Obama.)

In the 1990s, foundations began to skirt this new law’s letter and spirit – with the active participation of NARA officials-- by no longer donating the entire building to the government. George H.W. Bush, the first president from whom an endowment was required, built a library far exceeding the 70,000 square-foot limit established by Congress, then donated only 69,999 square feet to the government.

And we’re not talking about just office space for the foundation in some back corner of the building; integral parts of the Bush Library, including the enormous entrance rotunda, gift shop, meeting space, offices, and orientation theater, were not donated, and are-- for now-- controlled by the foundation.

Bush also found creative ways to avoid actually paying 20 percent of the $83 million it took to build the library (he ended up paying only $4 million; it helped to have Archivist of the United States Don Wilson, who had resigned while under investigation for misconduct, jump from running NARA to running Bush's presidential library foundation).

As the years pass and fundraising slows, and presidents and their most ardent supporters pass away, foundations struggle to raise enough money to maintain and operate the curiously-carved-out areas of the libraries that are “theirs.”

In a few decades (or, in some cases, alarmingly sooner), the libraries that are now flush with post-presidency cash will become mostly-empty tombs (as have their predecessor libraries), depleting both the government and the ever-dwindling foundations of their resources. Sooner than we think, taxpayers will have to take responsibility for operating those “extra” areas of presidential libraries, including the boyhood home, and larger-than-full-size East Room replica, at the Nixon Library; the George W. Bush Institute at the George W. Bush Library; and the 90,000 square-foot Air Force One Pavilion at the Reagan Library.

In addition to the drain on our budgets that bigger and bigger libraries represent, the foundations themselves pose great risks. These hyper-partisan organizations are controlled by presidents and their families, billionaire donors, high-ranking former government officials, and, in the case of the Reagan Library, the publisher and CEO of the Washington Post, Fred Ryan. They regularly hold political events at the libraries, promoting the agenda not only of their president, but of candidates and their respective national parties as well. And they use their substantial influence to pressure the National Archives to do what is in the best interests of the foundations, not what is right.

In just the last decade, the presidential library foundations have used their considerable political power to cancel congressional hearings about their role; set (extremely favorable) terms for a Republican presidential primary debate; place a Senate hold on President Obama’s nominee for Archivist; force out qualified federal employees who direct libraries; redesign exhibits to make them considerably more flattering to (and considerably less accurate about) their presidents; veto personnel decisions made by the Archivist; threaten to withhold (and actually withhold) promised funding from NARA for joint projects; and delay public access to tens of millions of presidential records.

Simply disclosing donations is not enough; the law must seek to protect against the dangers that are endemic to other parts of the political process-- of which, sadly, the presidential libraries are now a major part.

And trusting the federal agency that is financially and politically beholden to the foundations with the responsibility to promptly and accurately publish those donations is plainly wrong. Reform of our broken presidential library system must be comprehensive, and include stronger oversight of NARA to insure that the long-troubled agency is properly administering the law, and no longer under the control of these powerful, secretive, private foundations.

So what does this have to do with Patrick Murphy's parents giving money to the Obama Foundation for his library endowment (which is, by law, required to be three times more than any previous president's)? I asked Anthony Clark if he thought these accusations about Obama sound like they could be true. "Presidents who are raising money for their libraries," Anthony Clark told us yesterday, "don't see red or blue. They see green."

TPP, the Democratic Party, and Obama's Presidential Library

by Gaius Publius

[W]e were told by a high up staffer who works for Joe Biden that Obama did it [endorsed Patrick Murphy] to get contributions to his uber-expensive presidential library, ostensibly from Murphy's rich, crooked father, from the super-wealthy Saudi family that sponsors Murphy (the notorious Al-Rashids) and from Schumer's Wall Street patrons. (source)

There's always a question about who politicians are primarily working for. Are they working mainly for the country and its people, for their political party and its access to power, or for their own personal fortunes? In the case of Obama and his headlong rush to pass the billioinaire-written TPP, I think we have a perfect petri dish for isolating the answer, at least in this one case.

Again, the questions are:

• Does Obama want to pass TPP so badly because Americans need it?
• Does he want to pass TPP because his party needs it?
• Or because he needs it personally?

Obviously, the answer could be Yes to all three. In the case of the TPP, however, we're going to find two No answers, leaving just one candidate. I'm going to keep this as brief as I can. It's really not a hard question to answer.

Does the Country Need TPP?

No. It's been documented here and a great many other places that the country not only doesn't need TPP to pass, it desperately needs it not to pass. It really will be a NAFTA-style job killer, as well as a killer of national sovereignty (see also here). If you doubt me, check the links, or read anything from Public Citizen's Eyes on Trade pages.

Does the Democratic Party Need TPP?

Again, no. In fact, the Democratic Party also needs TPP not to pass. As Mark Weisbrot, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, wrote recently in The Hill (my emphasis):

Obama's TPP campaign could drag down Democrats

How much is President Obama willing to harm the Democratic Party in order to win approval for the deeply unpopular Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) "trade" agreement? We may soon find out.

On Tuesday, Politico broke the story that the White House will be "making an all-out push to win passage of the deal in the lame duck session of Congress, organizing 30 events over the congressional recess." The effort will be designed to put pressure not only on Democratic members of Congress, but also on swing Republican votes, by lobbying important business interests in their districts.

Trump is far behind Clinton in the polls, and it seems unlikely that Obama would have launched a public campaign of this magnitude for the TPP in the heat of an election season if the race were looking like a serious contest. But there is more at stake: millions of potential Republican voters will stay home in November if Trump is losing by a wide margin. Many others will stay home simply because they don't like him.

And yet...

[M]any of these disaffected voters could be rallied to the polls if they think that Clinton, and her party, are going to bring them another failed "trade" agreement. (On the other side, some potential Democratic voters could abstain or switch sides for the same reasons). All this could make the difference between the Democrats taking the Senate, and in a big enough landslide, even the House of Representatives.

After looking at how close the Fast Track vote was, Weisbrot makes a striking point — to pass TPP, Obama will need the help of politicians in both parties who lost their jobs in the 2016 election, not those who won — politicians who can, in effect, trash their political futures and that of their party for lucrative personal next-jobs as lobbyists:

So [TPP] is looking like a very close vote. (For procedural and political reasons, Obama will not bring it to a vote unless he is sure he has the necessary votes). Now let's look at one special group of Representatives who can swing this vote: the actual lame-ducks, i.e., those who will be in office only until Jan. 3. It depends partly on how many lose their election on Nov. 8, but the average number of representatives who left after the last three elections was about 80.

Most of these people will be looking for a job, preferably one that can pay them more than $1 million a year. From the data provided by OpenSecrets.org, we can estimate that about a quarter of these people will become lobbyists. (An additional number will work for firms that are clients of lobbyists).

So there you have it: It is all about corruption, and this is about as unadulterated as corruption gets in our hallowed democracy, other than literal cash under a literal table. These are the people whom Obama needs to pass this agreement, and the window between Nov. 9 and Jan. 3 is the only time that they are available to sell their votes to future employers without any personal political consequences whatsoever. The only time that the electorate can be rendered so completely irrelevant, if Obama can pull this off.

But note, it's not just the electorate that will be "rendered completely irrelevant" — the fortunes of both political parties will be damaged as well. Including Obama's Democratic Party. Were Donald Trump to develop a surprisingly competent campaign, the push for TPP could lose the White House for Democrats, and with it, the Senate.

Obama is asking the Democratic Party to take a huge risk. Even if they win the White House in 2016, 2018 could shape up as brutal for them. Pushing for, and passing, TPP will spark another Sanders-like backlash, in both parties.

So Why Does Obama Need TPP?

For the final question, Weisbrot hints at the answer:

Why is Obama willing to risk so much to get the TPP passed this year? Many press reports insist that it is because he wants it for his legacy. It is strange to think that he would want such an unpopular agreement for his legacy. There are less flattering reasons that seem much more plausible.

I'll do a little more than hint. The Obama Library (and any future foundation he may launch with other people's money) is his ticket to the next phase of his life. Not his party's life; just his own and his family's. As Howie Klein wrote in the quote at the top of this piece:

[W]e were told by a high up staffer who works for Joe Biden that Obama did it [endorsed Patrick Murphy] to get contributions to his uber-expensive presidential library, ostensibly from Murphy's rich, crooked father, from the super-wealthy Saudi family that sponsors Murphy (the notorious Al-Rashids) and from Schumer's Wall Street patrons

TPP offers a much larger payday than endorsing Patrick Murphy, a mere senator. TPP is wanted by nearly every American industry with money, from Wall Street to Big Pharma to Silicon Valley to Hollywood and every stop in between. As Weisbrot said above about the Congress people Obama is targeting:

It is all about corruption, and this is about as unadulterated as corruption gets in our hallowed democracy, other than literal cash under a literal table.

As Weisbrot hints (and I'm willing to say), that statement is also true about Obama. The Big Money people who want Congress to pass TPP also want Obama to make it pass, even if he sacrifices his own party's future to do it, and they're clearly willing to pay to "make it so." (After all, what's the point of having too much money if you can't buy things with it.) Obama's obviously on board; his recent actions scream how eager he is. To see if I'm right, watch his presidential library list of donors, if he releases it.

Money doesn't talk, it swears. Though maybe its song is sweeter when Democrats listen.

GP
 

Chuck Schumer Is Still Trying To Ram Patrick Murphy-- Damaged Goods-- Down Florida Democrats' Throats

Please click on the picture to read the funny little ad

What a mess Wall Street's campaign to drag Patrick Murphy into the Senate has turned into! The Finance Industry has already poured more money into Murphy's campaign than into any non-incumbent running for the Senate from either party-- $1,403,150. But there are now so many campaign finance scandals that no one can keep up with them all-- although it does look like, at the minimum, Murphy's parents will be charged with some of the same criminal activities that Ami Bera's father is awaiting sentencing for. The even bigger scandal involves one of Saudi Arabia's richest and most powerful families financing Intelligence Committee member Murphy's political career, with hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes, some legal and some decidedy not legal. And let's not forget the EB-5 visa scandals and the flood of bribes from Nicholas Mastroianni.

Murphy has a way of getting his friends and allies into trouble. After voting to establish the Benghazi Committee/witch hunt against Hillary, he managed to bring to the country's attention that Saudi Royal family top adviser, shady billionaire Nasser Al-Rashid, gave between one and five million dollars to the Clinton Library, the same Al-Rashid family that is funding Murphy and many of his crooked congressional cronies. Those crooked congressional cronies have been sending back Al-Rashid's tainted money as fast as they could-- even Dirty Harry Reid returning a $100,000 check from Ibrahim Al-Rashid that he gave Dirty Harry to help Murphy's primary against Alan Grayson. Ibrahim was found guilty of brutally beating up his wife, who just happened to be... Patrick Murphy's Finance Director. The scandal has spilled over to tarnish Nancy Pelosi (who insists on holding onto the $150,000 Ibrahim gave her PAC), Joe Garcia, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Lois Murphy, Steve Israel, Eric Swalwell, Charlie Crist, Alcee Hastings, etc. The list of congressmembers the Al-Rashids have donated to reads like... a list of Patrick Murphy endorsers.

And, as though this wasn't enough for Privileged Patrick, the Miami Herald broke a story this week about how he bullshitted voters about his academic credentials-- or lack thereof. He lied when he claimed he earned "degrees in accounting and finance" from the University of Miami, a school where he is remembered as someone who was drunk and stoned every day. The Herald calls his premeditated lie "an exaggeration," pointing out that he earned a single degree in business administration.

That’s not the same as the “dual degrees” Murphy claimed to have earned in the biography on his U.S. House website or the “degrees” he mentioned in his campaign biography... Internet archive records show how Murphy’s descriptions of his education evolved in recent years.

Murphy first falsely claimed “earning dual bachelor’s degrees” during his first U.S. House race in 2012. After he took office, Murphy’s House and re-election campaign biographies were correct and had accurate descriptions of his single bachelor’s degree.

But the embellishment resurfaced-- on both biographies-- when he announced his bid for U.S. Senate in March 2015... Shortly after Murphy was first sworn in to Congress in 2013-- as the chamber’s youngest member at the time at 29 years old-- his official House biography correctly described him as having “earned his B.S. in business administration from the University of Miami, graduating with dual majors in accounting and finance.”

It remained that way for more than two years, until at least Feb. 22, 2015, internet archives show. But by a month later-- March 24, a day after Murphy launched his U.S. Senate campaign-- it changed, sounding slightly more impressive.

“He earned his B.S. in business administration from the University of Miami, graduating with dual degrees in accounting and finance,” reads an archived copy of the webpage captured that day.

About six months later-- sometime between September and October last fall-- the biography was amended once again with a simpler, but more inaccurate, description:

“He graduated with dual degrees in accounting and finance from the University of Miami,” Murphy’s House website read. It still had that claim as of Monday morning, before his staff amended it to read “dual majors.”

I guess this explains why Joe Biden, whose own presidential hopes were dashed when he was caught plagiarizing a speech by British Labour Party Leader Neil Kinnock in 1988, called Murphy the "real deal" while campaigning for him recently. Biden was confused at first, thinking Murphy was the former working class congressman and Army vet from Pennsylvania, also named Patrick Murphy, but just went with the flow anyway since he was already down in Orlando. And this story in yesterday's Tampa Bay Times about Murphy's dishonesty, is just the tip of the iceberg. Florida is abuzz with the major scandal about to break over the serial liar who his father, the Saudi ruling class, Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer decided should represent Florida in the U.S. Senate. He long bragged about helping clean up the BP oil spill. But he didn't. He didn't do a damn thing but get drunk, party and chase hookers. And then lie about it to invent a fictitious résumé.

If you want to help keep this kind of garbage out of the Senate-- don't we have enough corrupt conservatives in the Senate already, please consider contributing to Alan Grayson's grassroots campaign by tapping the thermometer:

Patrick Murphy Had A Bad 33rd Birthday

Yesterday was Wall Street errand boy Patrick Murphy (New Dem-FL) celebrated his 33rd birthday on daddy's yacht. The sometimes business-partner of Donald Trump had something to celebrate too: he just surpassed the one million dollar mark in direct-- not county his sleazy SuperPACs-- cash from the Finnace Sector. He is the only non-incumbent from wither party running for the Senate, who the banksters have already gone over $1,000,000 for. Florida voters who are unaware of Murphy's shameful record in Congress should ask themselves why he is Wall Street's #1 priority this cycle. Believe me, it isn't because they see him as a friend to Florida seniors or consumers or homeowners or anyone else but themselves.

The sad excuse for a Democrat who backed the GOP plan to allow a so-called "Benghazi Committee" to turn the House into an anti-Hillary witch-hunt had another jolt while he was guzzling Dom Pérignon with his Republican friends. Alex Leary, the Tampa Bay Times DC Bureau chief broke the story that Murphy's hypocrisy on campaign finance rules-- he boasts how the fake reform group, EndCitizensUnited, endorsed him-- was exposed by his quasi-illegal coordination with his daddy's and Chuck Schumer's SuperPAC. Here's how he does it, skirting the law while legalistically avoiding prison for himself, his father and Schumer:

There’s Patrick Murphy strolling on a beach with a young man. They appear to be engaged in serious talk, and Murphy points in the horizon, but the video is silent.

There he is on the same beach holding a child’s hand. And another beach shot, this time with an older man and a woman, her arm locked in Murphy’s.

Now Murphy's in an orange grove with an old guy in a hat. Murphy looks pretty serious. But again, viewers have no idea what he and the man are talking about. The video is silent.

Suddenly we see the same orange grove only Murphy is walking with a different man in a hat. And then another man, hatless. We move on to Murphy at a diner with three older folks.

Murphy traverses hallways, looking busy. Works the phones in a darkened office. Visits a mapping business. Walks the street in friendly conversation with people. Pops into a welding garage.

The 5 minute 42 second video posted on the Democratic U.S. Senate candidate’s campaign website isn’t for the public. It’s “b-roll” to be used by super PACs or another related outside group that wants to make an ad on Murphy’s behalf.

This is how candidates in both parties get around the law barring direct coordination with super PACs and it’s notable given Murphy’s public stance against the super PAC era, calling it “gross.”

As we reported last year:

Murphy has been endorsed by End Citizens United and has sent out fundraising emails slamming the Supreme Court decision. Yet Murphy’s wealthy father has pumped money into a Super PAC supporting his House campaigns and Murphy was propped up by the House Majority PAC.

Murphy of course has a super PAC on his side in the Senate race. We have asked his campaign for a response.

The Senate Leadership Fund and America Rising, two GOP groups, cast Murphy as a hypocrite and used his b-roll to create its own ads.

This is the garbage candidate that Schumer talked Obama into endorsing, although according to an off-the-record discussion from a top Biden operative, financing for the presidential library was tied up with that endorsement as well. Meanwhile one of the most credible independent progressive mainstays in Washington, People for the American Way, endorsed progressive champion Grayson in the primary battle against Murphy. PFAW President Michael Keegan:

As a member of the House of Representatives, Rep. Grayson has stood out as a fiercely independent fighter who can get things done in the face of continued GOP obstruction. He’ll be a strong progressive voice in the U.S. Senate for critical issues like campaign finance reform, protecting Social Security and Medicare, and much more. PFAW is proud to endorse such a progressive champion as Rep. Grayson.

Considering the kind of heavy-handed pressure Schumer is putting on unions, fundraisers, donors and Democratic organizations to not endorse Grayson, PFAW-- like PCCC and DFA-- deserve credit for independence and courage. Grayson has been a member of PFAW for three decades because he believes in their mission. He explained his affinity to the group when he accepted their endorsement: "Starting at the age of 13, I was an avid viewer of All in the Family, Sanford and Son, and the other great Norman Lear TV creations. These shows not only brought photorealism to television, but also depicted and embodied the great dialogue in American politics: privilege vs. equality, power vs. justice. One could say that everything I need to know in life I learned from Norman Lear. And then he founded the first great mass organization in modern American politics, People for the American Way. People for the American Way has carried the torch for justice, equality, compassion and peace for two generations now. I was proud to become a member, three decades ago. I am even more proud to enjoy its endorsement today."

You can contribute to Grayson's campaign-- and to turning Florida's second Senate seat-- from red to blue (which would be a lot better than from red to purple or pink or whatever describes Murphy) by clicking on the thermometer:

State Of The Race: Rubio vs Murphy-- Lazy Pundit Jonathan Chait Gets It All Wrong

The Brits want us to see this film before we vote. He's a really repressible, profoundly ignorant man. And so are his supporters. Monday I watched the Florida Senate debate between Republican incumbent Marco Rubio, a slick career politician with big ambitions, and Patrick Murphy, surely one of the stupidest and worthless men to have ever served in Congress and recently voted among the least effective members of Congress. Rubio was a far better debater and a somewhat more appealing candidate. Murphy looked like he would start crying when Rubio hit him with accusations he had no answers to-- like how he voted to deport DREAMers, despite the bullshit take he paints now about being a champion of immigrants. Murphy has just spent 4 years being a champion of one group and one group only: Wall Street banksters. Policy-wise, Murphy, a "former" Republican is as vile and contemptible as... Rubio. But in this election Rubio has been unable to unglue himself from Trump and from the Republican agenda. So despite running against the least competent and least attractive Democratic candidate in any state, Murphy could still beat Rubio.

In another showing of his worst partisan hackishness and utter disregard-- if not contempt-- for the well-being of the country, President Obama (who, according to a top Biden staffer, has been promised massive financial help with his presidential library in return for getting Murphy elected) just cut another dishonest ad touting the worthless Murphy to unsuspecting low-info voters-- which is exactly how Murphy won the primary. Obama... also once the lesser of evils candidate, has been a mediocre president whose only really significant accomplishment has been to be the first African-American elected president. Other than that he's as much a crap-president as any I've watched since LBJ-- Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II... an unbroken string of ineffective mediocrities, some worse than others, but none worth a dime. Sorry for the tangent. Yesterday, Jonathan Chait asked the wrong question in New York Magazine: Why Are Senate Democrats Letting Marco Rubio Win? A better question-- not that I'd expect it of Chait-- would have been, "Why Are Senate Democrats About To Elect Chuck Schumer Their Leader After He Stuck Them With Patrick Murphy And A Stable Of Other Less Than Worthless Candidates?"

Murphy, Kathy McGinty (PA), Ted Strickland (OH), Ann Kirkpatrick, (AZ) Patty Judge (IA) are 5 detestable candidates who have two things working in their favor: Trump and the horribleness of the Republican agenda. But none of them is a good candidate or good political leader. Each is the political equivalent of a steaming pile of manure. And at this point the only one of them that looks like they still have a reasonable shot is McGinty-- and strictly because the former fracking lobbyist is being dishonestly touted by Elizabeth Warren as worthwhile and because Clinton's Pennsylvania coattails look extremely strong. (And because Pat Toomey is as horrible a candidate as McGinty.) The rest will all be flushed down the toilet, unfortunately not with Schumer's ambitions.

OK, back to Chait. Apparently not knowing a thing about Murphy, he's shocked the DSCC has pulled all their money out of the race-- transferring it to campaigns they think they can win (Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Indiana, maybe even Missouri) and vengeful after Murphy's father (and Saudi connections) have renegged on funds promised to Schumer and Tester. "[P]olls can turn out wrong," whines Chait, apparently not cognizant that Rubio is leading Murphy by an average of 4.2 points, according to RealClearPolitics, and that the lackluster endorsement by the Miami Herald-- Murphy possibly just embellished his résumé, didn't actually lie-- isn't going to save him. Basically the endorsement is about how disappointing Rubio is-- amen (he's wretched in every way)-- and not anything positive about Murphy, since there is nothing positive about Murphy that one could possibly say with a straight face other than maybe the Democrats will be able to prevail upon him to vote with them some times... maybe. Murphy is using the Democratic Party platform he's never been enthusiastic about, as a crutch and cudgel. Too bad Rubio is stuck with Trump and the GOP, but he has no one to blame but himself. Anyone who votes for either of them, is fouling himself or herself.

Chait whined, accusingly that "Rubio is the best hope for the future of the Republican Party’s donor class. Rubio is almost surely going to run for president in 2020, and he gives his party the cheapest possible concessions to the center-- an appeal to moderates with affective moderation and well-honed performative qualities, rather than concessions on policy. Rubio memorably expressed his disgust with Trump in a way that made the news media and anti-Trump Republicans alike swoon, but without committing himself to any course of action that might alienate Trump’s base:



"Yes" he continued, "Rubio was steamrolled in the primaries. But not every candidate who loses is a bad politician. If Rubio holds his Senate seat by a few points or less, and then wins his party’s nomination in four years, Democrats will be kicking themselves they didn’t pull out every stop to end his political career, in the short term, when they had the chance."

Chait, like the Miami Herald endorser, was unable to muster a single positive attribute that would make Patrick Murphy worth a vote-- just that Rubio is a potential threat and that Trump is unspeakably horrible. Murphy is also unspeakably horrible and it would be nice if Jonathan Chait bothered to do the research about his record, his Trump-related business dealings and his unspeakable corruption, so that he'd be better informed when he tries to write about politics.

Bonus:

Grayson And The Establishment-- Not Exactly Like A Horse And Carriage

In this tweet yesterday, Washington Post columnist and notorious villager Aaron Blake was trying to drive traffic to an article by a colleague, Amber Phillips, about Orlando congressman Alan Grayson, who both referred to as "Congress' most bizarre member," presumably, at least in Amber's and Aaron's world, more bizarre than, for example, Louie Gohmert, or the guy equating Apple with terrorist supporters, Arkansas closet case Tom Cotton (R-AR), the guy who wants to end weekends, Glenn Grothman (R-WI), Jody Hice (R-GA), or the doctor-- now a GOP congressman-in-good-standing-- who was drugging female patients and having sex with them, Scott DesJarlais (R-TN). But Amber, like Rev. Lovejoy of The Simpsons graduated from Texas Christian University and maybe they have a different worldview than normal people.

Amber may not even be aware that she's part of Chuck Schumer's little game to crush Grayson's career... but I think she does. She noted yesterday that "[t]he liberal firebrand is challenging the preferred establishment candidate, Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-Fla.), whose more-moderate record could open the door to the liberal Grayson in the primary. Congressional leaders like Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) seem sufficiently worried enough about Grayson's prospects that Reid has called on Grayson to resign his congressional seat, saying Grayson has "no moral compass," part of Schumer's scheme to install Wall Street fave Patrick Murphy into the Senate. Millions of progressives admire Grayson for exactly what little Establishment shill Amber from TCU derides about him:

To know Grayson is to know that he is like a lightning rod for controversy. He first came to Congress in 2008, and within a year he was making incredulous national headlines for his comments that "If you get sick, America, the Republicans’ health-care plan is this: Die quickly." Or this on Dick Cheney: "I have trouble listening to what he says sometimes because of the blood that drips from his teeth while he’s talking." He once called Republicans "knuckle-dragging Neanderthals."

One of the few times Grayson publicly apologized for what comes out of his mouth was when he called a female adviser to a Federal Reserve chairman "a K street whore."

To Democratic leaders' relief, Grayson lost reelection in 2010. But he was elected to a different seat in 2012 after redistricting, and he's continued providing his party with headaches.

Not so much "to Democratic leaders' relief" as much as due to DCCC Chair Chris Van Hollen's betrayal. TCU Amber shoveled the dirt in a way you could only expect someone who hopes to get a nice pat on the head and something to munch on from Chuck Schumer.

Last May we predicted Schumer would find sieves like Amber to spread his poison. In what passes for journalism in Washington that isn't difficult. Just look under "E" for Establishment wanna-be. (She seems good at taking stenography from Schumer's team; I wonder if she even knows that's what she's doing.) 

You know, when Donald Trump wants to build something in Florida-- especially something glitzy-but-shoddy-- he turns to Coastal Construction, Patrick Murphy's family firm. Murphy's very Republican father, who, with his friends and the Wall Street banksters, finance Patrick's career, bribes public officials to endorse his son with big "campaign contributions." You can look up nearly every Murphy endorser and cross-tab them with FEC filings and you'll find contributions from Thomas and Leslie Murphy, Patrick's mommy and daddy. But now I'm hearing something even more disturbing. Someone's building a presidential library on Chicago's South Side and the Murphys want to make a deal. Let's see what new endorsements for sonny-boy come out in the next week or two.

Let's not fill the Senate with Schumercrats. I would have said "corrupt" Schumercrats but the essence of being a Schumercrat is corruption-- so it would be redundant. No Schumercrats on this page. Schumercrats take enormous sums of money from Wall Street banksters and call their agenda in public office. #1 recipient of Finance Sector bribes among non-incumbents running for the U.S. Senate this year is, of course, little Patrick-- something an establishment shill like Amber Phillips would never mention... and probably not even understand why she should. But all the Schumercrats are raking in the big bucks from Wall Street. Oh, you thought only Republicans are corrupt scumbags? Sorry... it's Republicans plus the establishment conservaDems Chuck Schumer pushes. These are Schumer's 2016 Senate candidates, in order of how much sewer money they've gobbled up from the Finance Sector:

• Patrick Murphy (FL)- $838,500
• Chris Van Hollen (MD)- $347,557
• Ted Strickland (OH)- $292,615
• Tammy Duckworth (IL)- $267,114

The Establishment, whether crooks like Schumer and Murphy or their patsies in the media like Amber Phillips, freak out when Grayson shakes up the established order. And that's what he does. That's why we love him. That's why they hate him. Hillary, AP reported yesterday, corralled 87 more super-delegates to the Convention. Bernie has a lead in democratically elected delegates, 36-32 but once super-delegates are included in the totals, Hillary is sittin' pretty at 481-55. Because of the inherent corruption in the anti-democratic super-delegate system, Bernie has to win the rest of the primaries with 59%. Even the most Establishment purveyor of news and opinion in the country, the NY Times, is skeptical about the role of super-delegates and how that is benefitting the establishment candidate they have already endorsed.

So... what does this have to do with Grayson? As Gaius and I have been mentioning this week he's shaking up the super-delegate system by asking his constituents and supporters to vote for Bernie or Hillary and that he'll cast his own super-delegate ballot according to what they want. "Until yesterday, 'superdelegates' were simply puppets of the unDemocratic establishment," he wrote, "and their determination to snatch candidate selection away from our voters. Well, that’s no longer true. I’m a superdelegate. And I’m injecting a full dose of democracy into the superdelegate process, by letting actual Democratic voters influence who should win my superdelegate vote, at GraysonPrimary.com. Power to the People, my friend." Stuff like that makes people like Chuck Schumer and TCU Amber want to gnaw their arms off.

In just 24 hours, more people have voted at GraysonPrimary.com than for Ted Cruz, Donald Trump or Marco Rubio in the Iowa Caucus. (Or Jeb Bush, but that isn’t saying much.) Our poll already has drawn well over 70,000 votes, which is . . . incredible.

Democrats are sick of feckless loser party bosses dictating to us who carries our banner in November. Who do they think they are? That’s not their decision. It’s ours.

...It’s refreshing to see unbridled democracy in action. True power in the hands of the people is multiplying as we speak, and it is electrifying.

Not for Schumer and Amber it isn't. That's why they're trying so hard to defeat Grayson and why Amber called him "Congress' most bizarre member." Please consider sending Schumer and Amber (and the Murphys and Trumps) a message by tapping on the thermometer: