Well those are some good numbers!

Still leading the GOP in every major committee, even while we are in a doom and gloom scenario.  

That CoH difference between the DCCC and NRCC is quite stark.

---

by: Andrew @ Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 04:21:35 AM UTC

Does it even matter? The USSC allowed corporations to spend . . .

unlimited amounts of money for the election right until Election Day.

---

by: Kendall @ Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 04:28:27 AM UTC

There May Be No Flood

I've heard several theories as to why the Citizens United decision may not matter very much.

First, corporations have been free since the 2004 Wisconsin Right To Life decision to spend unlimited money on "issue" ads, where they could say "Rep. X likes strangling puppies, call Rep. X's office and tell him to stop strangling puppies." Now they can say "Rep. X likes strangling puppies, vote for candidate Y." If they weren't spending tons of money on the former, it's hard to see why they'd spend substantially more tons of money on the latter.

Second, I've heard that most corporate boards are quite skittish about getting politically involved because they're scared to death that they'll get it wrong. And taking sides can be bad PR for business.

But it's possible that those who minimize the impact of Citizens United are wrong. We'll see soon enough.

---

by: dsimon @ Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 05:48:54 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

isn't there potential

for a company to create a dummy corporation to run the ads?  McDonalds makes "M comp" to protest congress A who supports pro vegan bills.

Top ten signs you're an SSPer #1: your favorite song is "Panic At Tedisco" and no one understands what you mean.

---

by: doug_tuttle @ Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 06:03:10 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Disclosure Issues

Yes, there is the possibility of funneling contributions through other organizations to hide the source. 501(c)(6) organizations such as the Chamber of Commerce don't have to disclose their donors. There is legislation being proposed in Congress to require disclosure, though there is a question as to whether mandatory disclosure is constitutional.

So there is the potential of corporate spending swamping the field. But again, all of these methods were already available before Citizens United for thinly veiled "issue" ads. And there's always a risk that the source of "anonymous" funding or the true control of a dummy corporation will be leaked, which would make the funder look even worse for the subterfuge.

But there's no substitute for reality, so we'll see what actually happens. The amounts raised by the national party committees constitute pocket change for large corporations, especially if they decide to concentrate spending in a few House districts.

---

by: dsimon @ Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 13:48:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Your first point

Essentially sums up my feelings on the matter. And in general, I think throwing up your hands and saying "nothing matters" is really never going to be the right answer.

---

by: DavidNYC @ Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 06:24:11 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

There Is An Answer

I think there is a solution to corporate political spending: public campaign financing, so that our elected officials and candidates can be fiscally independent of outside interests (while allowing those interests to speak).

But that's a topic for another forum.

---

by: dsimon @ Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 13:52:39 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Corporate Spending hasn't

effected Australia's elections. They still have a progressive government. Ads are not absolute, and people can be skeptical over large industry ads, if anything they might backfire given the populist spirit these days.  

---

by: jwaalk @ Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 17:05:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I gues the RNC's "Fire Pelosi" widget

didn't do too well, after all.

Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo!
So little time, so much to know!

---

by: LookingOver @ Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 05:25:29 AM UTC

or is it working perfectly?

???  

Top ten signs you're an SSPer #1: your favorite song is "Panic At Tedisco" and no one understands what you mean.

---

by: doug_tuttle @ Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 05:33:03 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well, Steele plugged it several times on Fox

and other stations mentioned it, and the RNC still failed to outraise the DNC.

Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo!
So little time, so much to know!

---

by: LookingOver @ Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 06:07:33 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I still think

that the Republicans' intransigence on Health Care Reform is going to jump up and bite them in the butt this fall.

68, Dem-leaning indie, MI-8

---

by: jimmich @ Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 13:00:52 PM UTC

We can only hope

I think the GOP has energized its hardcore base, and as a result you will see right-wing candidates elected.  However, the GOP will alienate many of its periphery voters in the long-term (voters who are indeed Independent based on political ideology).  The GOP will probably do well in 2010, but will lay an egg during the 2012 election cycle.

40, male, Democrat, NC-04

---

by: Tarheeman1993 @ Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 19:15:29 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

One good thing:

Two of them got rid of their debt this month. That's $1.4m down for the three combined. (That's $21m paid down in the last year.)

---

by: ID Panhandle Dem @ Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 04:41:03 AM UTC