https://scamquestra.com/18-informaciya-ob-afere-iz-zagranicy-16.html

Well now, here’s an interesting twist to the issues of campaign financing and strategy. Seems the Bush advisors feel that a Super Pac should be running his not-yet-announced campaign for President. Super Pacs, of course, can raise unlimited amounts of money from unnamed sources, so influence peddling is finally legitimized and “out of the closet.” And American Democracy continues its morph into a plutocratic, corporate, self-serving oligarchy. It’s legal, according to the Court, but is it right? Appropriate? Best for all Americans, not just the very rich?

Looks to me like there will be ‘no holds barred’ in the upcoming campaign. Personally, I just can’t wait for an endless array of negative political TV ads (funded by the Super Pacs) to interrupt already offensive and vapid network programming!!

Meanwhile, as hundreds of millions of dollars flow in from an “anonymous somewhere” to get candidates elected, the leaders of political parties and the politicians in government seem to ignore the problems/”challenges” we face: the American educational system is a mess, thousands are homeless, millions are living at or below the poverty level, the environment continues to be degraded at an alarming rate, the vital components of our infrastructure are rapidly deteriorating, racism continues to rear its ugly head in a variety of venues (not the least of which is police-blackcommunity relations), veterans are left without adequate medical/mental health care, and on and on.

Clearly the current way of doing “governance” in our country is not working.  And if we expect our elected representatives, themselves products of this increasingly skewed system, to self-correct, we are  victims of a delusion or we’re partaking of too much of Colorado’s state flower.

As conscientious citizens, dedicated to improving the common weal, we need to think very seriously about what road this country “needs to travel by” in the future.  And to think about what’s next for me as an individual voter, for my family and friends, for the guy sleeping on the grate downtown?  About what my options really are?

Apr 21, 9:29 AM EDT BUSH PREPARING TO DELEGATE MANY CAMPAIGN TASKS TO SUPER PAC BY THOMAS BEAUMONT  ASSOCIATED PRESS

AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster BUY AP PHOTO REPRINTS DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) — Jeb Bush is preparing to embark on an experiment in presidential politics: delegating many of the nuts-and-bolts tasks of seeking the White House to a separate political organization that can raise unlimited amounts of campaign cash. The concept, in development for months as the former Florida governor has raised tens of millions of dollars for his Right to Rise super PAC, would endow that organization not just with advertising on Bush’s behalf, but with many of the duties typically conducted by a campaign. Should Bush move ahead as his team intends, it is possible that for the first time a super PAC created to support a single candidate would spend more than the candidate’s campaign itself – at least through the primaries. Some of Bush’s donors believe that to be more than likely. The architects of the plan believe the super PAC’s ability to legally raise unlimited amounts of money outweighs its primary disadvantage, that it cannot legally coordinate its actions with Bush or his would-be campaign staff. “Nothing like this has been done before,” said David Keating, president of the Center for Competitive Politics, which opposes limits on campaign finance donations. “It will take a high level of discipline to do it.” The exact design of the strategy remains fluid as Bush approaches an announcement of his intention to run for the Republican nomination in 2016. But at its center is the idea of placing Right to Rise in charge of the brunt of the biggest expense of electing Bush: television advertising and direct mail. Right to Rise could also break into new areas for a candidate-specific super PAC, such as data gathering, highly individualized online advertising and running phone banks. Also on the table is tasking the super PAC with crucial campaign endgame strategies: the operation to get out the vote and efforts to maximize absentee and early voting on Bush’s behalf. The campaign itself would still handle those things that require Bush’s direct involvement, such as candidate travel. It also would still pay for advertising, conduct polling and collect voter data. But the goal is for the campaign to be a streamlined operation that frees Bush to spend less time than in past campaigns raising money, and as much time as possible meeting voters. Bush’s plans were described to The Associated Press by two Republicans and several Bush donors familiar with the plan, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the former Florida governor has not yet announced his candidacy. “This isn’t the product of some genius thinking,” said a Republican familiar with the strategy. “This is the natural progression of the rules as they are set out by the FEC.” Bush spokeswoman Kristy Campbell said: “Any speculation on how a potential campaign would be structured, if he were to move forward, is premature at this time.” The strategy aims to take maximum advantage of the new world of campaign finance created by a pair of 2010 Supreme Court decisions and counts on the Federal Election Commission to remain a passive regulator with little willingness to confront those pushing the envelope of the law. One reason Bush’s aides are comfortable with the strategy is because Mike Murphy, Bush’s longtime political confidant, would probably run the super PAC once Bush enters the race. Meanwhile, David Kochel, a former top adviser to Mitt Romney’s campaigns and an ally of Bush senior adviser Sally Bradshaw, would probably be the pick to lead Bush’s official campaign. “Every campaign is going to carefully listen to the lawyers as to what is the best way to allocate their resources and how to maximize them,” said Al Cardenas, former chairman of the American Conservative Union and a Bush adviser. “Nobody wants to relinquish any advantage.” For Bush, the potential benefits are enormous. Campaigns can raise only $2,700 per donor for the primary and $2,700 for the general election. But super PACs are able to raise unlimited cash from individuals, corporations and groups such as labor unions. In theory, that means a small group of wealthy Bush supporters could pay for much of the work of electing him by writing massive checks to the super PAC. Bush would begin a White House bid with confidence that he will have the money behind him to make a deep run into the primaries, even if he should stumble early and spook small-dollar donors, starving his own campaign of the money it needs to carry on. Presidential candidates in recent elections have also spent several hours each day privately courting donors. This approach would not eliminate that burden for Bush, but would reduce it. “The idea of a super PAC doing more … means the candidate has to spend less time raising money and can spend more time campaigning,” said longtime Mitt Romney adviser Ron Kaufman, who supports Bush. The main limitation on super PACs is that they cannot coordinate their activities with a campaign. The risk for Bush is that his super PAC will not have access to the candidate and his senior strategists to make pivotal decisions about how to spend the massive amount of money it will take to win the Republican nomination and, if successful, secure the 270 electoral votes he will need to follow his father and brother into the White House. “The one thing you give away when you do that is control,” Kaufman said. Bush will also be dogged by advocates of campaign finance regulation. The Campaign Legal Center, which supports aggressive regulation of money and politics, has already complained to the FEC that Bush is currently flouting the law by raising money for his super PAC while acting like a candidate for president. Others are on guard, too. “In our view, we are headed for an epic national scandal,” said Fred Wertheimer, president of the pro-regulation group Democracy 21. “We intend to carefully and closely monitor all the candidates and their super PACs, because they will eventually provide numerous examples of violations.” All of the major candidates for president will have the backing of a super PAC in 2016. Texas Sen. Ted Cruz already has the support of four. After spending $65 million to boost President Barack Obama’s re-election bid in 2012, a super PAC named Priorities USA is ready to help Hillary Rodham Clinton win the Democratic nomination. But the approach Bush is charting would mark a rapid evolution of the super PAC’s role, which got started in presidential politics when former Romney aides set one up to support him at the outset of the 2012 campaign. The group raised and spent more than $142 million, largely on television advertising promoting Romney and attacking his opponents. By comparison, Romney’s campaign raised $446 million. In hindsight, Romney campaign lawyer Charlie Spies and others in his inner circle saw that super PACs, with their ability to raise unlimited money, could have done more. Spies is now legal counsel in Bush’s political operation. “Super PACs will play a bigger role in the 2016 presidential campaigns than they did in 2012,” said Beth Myers, a senior aide to Romney, speaking generally and not specifically about Bush’s intentions. “The smart campaigns will restructure and adapt,” she said. The primary complication is the ban on coordination. For example, if the campaign decided to change its focus from one issue to another, it could not share that decision with the super PAC. But there are ways around the restriction. The super PAC could take its cues from Bush’s public statements, or an inexpensive video posted online by the campaign for all to see. Something as simple as a tweet could be a driving directive. One way Bush is already addressing the coordination ban is by frontloading his efforts inside Right to Rise. Because he is not yet a candidate, he can now spend time raising money for the super PAC and take part in strategic campaign planning under its auspices. Bush makes clear at every public event, as well as his private fundraisers, that he is not yet a candidate. Asked last week in New Hampshire about the allegations he’s already breaking the rules, Bush said, “We’re living within the law, for sure.” Another means of dealing with the coordination ban would be to put Murphy in charge of the super PAC, as is expected. He has been deeply involved in Bush’s steps, courting donors, selecting staff and developing strategy. The idea is that once Bush breaks away to form a campaign, Murphy, Bradshaw and Kochel will have spent enough time working together so that the two groups will move in sync. Critics also believe that coordination can take place surreptitiously, and such illegal activity isn’t punished by an FEC comprised of three Democratic and three Republican members unable to agree on almost anything. Last year, the FEC found only 16 violations of campaign finance law and leveled just $200,000 in fines – a record low for recent years. “It’s up to only the Justice Department, because the FEC for all practical purposes … will not enforce the law,” Wertheimer said. But former FEC commissioner Scott Thomas, a Democrat, doubts the Justice Department would ever look at such a case because the FEC, despite being considered ineffectual by critics, has been so precise in detailing what is allowed and what is not. “You’d have to show a true smoking gun, showing the candidate controlling the campaign and the super PAC,” said Thomas, a lawyer now in private practice in Washington. He can’t see campaign operatives being that clumsy: “It would have to be a smoking gun left by someone who had the intelligence of an advanced fern.” — Associated Press writers Philip Elliott and Steve Peoples contributed to this report from Washington. Jill Colvin contributed from New Hampshire. —

A headline article in the Washington Post today excitedly reported that yet another milestone has been reached in the seemingly inexorable creep of  democratic America toward a plutocratic and oligarchic America. The Citizens United decision has produced its expected results as millions and millions of publicly untraceable dollars continue to pour into the coffers of Presidential candidates. The candidates, of course, know from whence the money comes and will shape their policies accordingly if and when elected. The 90% who barely afford to subsist on their salaries and wages can’t really get into this “buy influence” game at all. So, the minority wins–not really a guiding tenet of representative democracy.

The greatest democratic experiment in the history of the world is being sorely tested on a battlefield where dollars combined with with voter apathy and stagnant incomes will weaken or eliminate what used to be championed as “one person, one vote.” A key operative principals of capitalism now seems to be: everything can be bought because everything has its price.  Apparently, the Koch brothers et. al. have discovered this truth and are exploiting it with ‘no holds barred’ to achieve their vision of self aggrandizing democratic rule.

To be a “premier fundraiser” qualifies a candidate for what? Winning the  “money race?”

https://scamquestra.com/24-bekapy-sohranenie-informacii-dlya-sledstviya-19.html

This story struck me as another indicator that “Being” in this universe is interconnected an interconnected web– an expansion and elaboration of John Donne’s concept of “No man is an island….”

Note the distance in miles between the animal lover’s home and funeral.

I love this story. It reminds me that I must focus on trying to treat everything as Everything–and to treat each sentient individual as a noble, worthy, irreplaceable,  and integral part of the  Whole.

.

View photo

Pack of Stray Dogs Stand Guard at Animal Lover’s Funeral (ABC News)

Here goes what’s left of American democracy; welcome American plutocracy. Never mind which political party.  We’re talking  major “system failure,” engendered by the triumph of the new contribution guidelines established by the Citizens United ruling. No surprise, really, just profound sadness that a noble experiment in the “peoples’ rule” is losing ground–and maybe the battle–to the self-interest of ultra-rich. And we write and talk about a million dollars as if it were nothing.

As I write this, I am watching three Hispanic men, heavily clad to protect themselves against the 9 degree, snow, cold and wind, pushing snow shovels to clear the walks of a strip mall across the way–for probably minimum  Colorado wage of $8.23 an hour, or $66 a day, or (for a 6 day work week) less than $400 a week, or $1600 a month. At the same time, I know that there are a minimum of 5000 homeless men, women, and children trying to survive the winter blasts–just in Denver.

By the way, it would take one of my snow-shoveling workers 625 months–or 52 years–to earn a $1,000,000.

Please limit your contribution to $1 million–at least for now.

Jeb Bush speaks to senior citizens in Las Vegas on Monday. (Steve Marcus/AP)

By Matea Gold March 4 at 9:32 AM  Follow @mateagold

An unusual request has gone out to wealthy donors writing large checks to support former Florida governor Jeb Bush: Please don’t give more than $1 million right away.

The requested limit, confirmed by multiple people familiar with the amount, may mark the first time that a presidential hopeful has sought to hold off supporters from contributing too much money.

The move reflects concerns among Bush advisers that accepting massive sums from a handful of uber-rich supporters could fuel a perception that the former governor is in their debt. The effort is also driven by a desire to build as broad a pool of donors as possible among wealthier contributors.

So even as Bush is headlining a series of high-dollar events for a super PAC backing his bid, fundraisers have been instructed not to ask donors to give more than $1 million per person this quarter.

“This campaign is about much more than money,” said Howard Leach, a veteran Republican fundraiser who recently co-hosted a finance event for Bush in Palm Beach, Fla., and confirmed the limit. “They need substantial funds, but they don’t want the focus to be on money.”

Bush spokeswoman Kristy Campbell declined to comment.

The perceived need to put limits in place for contributions, even if only for a few months, underscores the extraordinary role that elite financiers play in political fundraising, which increasingly centers on super PACs able to collect unlimited sums from individuals and corporations. The move reflects the sensitive challenge facing candidates who want to tap into those resources­ without relinquishing their claims of independence.

Bush has yet to officially declare his candidacy, but he is already on track to raise tens of millions of dollars by the end of this month for two political action committees, both named Right to Rise, that were set up in January. His potential rivals have acknowledged that they have little hope of matching his current pace.

Pro-Bush fundraisers have been encouraged to stick to the $1 million per donor limit for the first 100 days. Of course, many donors who give large amounts now are likely to be repeat givers — and write even larger checks — once the campaign starts in earnest.

Bush is entering his third month of an intensive, cross-country fundraising tour that has included stops at lavish Manhattan apartments, premier Washington lobbying shops and luxury hotels in Florida.

During a stop in Las Vegas this week, Bush had a private meeting with casino mogul Steve Wynn. On Tuesday, he was slated to headline an evening reception for the Right to Rise super PAC at the Sanctuary Camelback Mountain Resort, just outside Scottsdale, Ariz. Among the fundraiser’s co-hosts is former vice president Dan Quayle.

Amid the nonstop drive for money, Bush advisers are cautioning fundraisers in conference calls and in-person discussions not to allow a few mega-donors to overwhelm the effort.

“It shows they are disciplined and appreciate that the dominance of a few key people early on is not a productive thing for the campaign or for Jeb Bush,” said Rick Hohlt, a longtime Republican fundraiser in Washington who is familiar with the guidance.

Such a dynamic dogged the 2012 campaign of former House speaker Newt Gingrich, whose bid for the Republican nomination was lifted by a super PAC financed with $15 million from casino magnate Sheldon Adelson and his family. Former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum’s super PAC benefactor was investor Foster Friess.

Bush is tapping into a much wider pool of wealthy donors. Dozens of backers have given $100,000 a piece to get into high-end super PAC fundraisers, such as one last month at the Park Avenue home of private-equity titan Henry Kravis.

And some are offering substantially more than that.

Leach — who served as ambassador to France during the administration of Bush’s brother, George W. Bush — said he knows of “numerous” people around the country who have already given $1 million.

“They didn’t need to be persuaded,” he said. “The reason people are willing to write checks like that is because they feel this election is so important to the future of this country.”

Among those donating large amounts, Leach said, are Democrats disenchanted with former secretary of state Hillary Rodham Clinton, who is nearing her own bid for the 2016 presidential race.

The eagerness among political financiers to support Bush is evident in the high goals his team has laid out for donors and fundraisers to reach by March 31, with tiers set at $50,000, $100,000, $250,000 and $500,000, according to people involved in collecting checks.

Bush’s rapid fundraising clip puts his super PAC on pace to far outstrip Restore Our Future, a super PAC that backed 2012 Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney and raised $12 million in its first six months.

In the coming weeks, Bush is scheduled to headline additional fundraisers in Denver; Sea Island, Ga.; Boca Raton, Fla.; and Atlanta. There, the cost of co-hosting a one-hour breakfast at the city’s elite Capital City Club has been set at $25,000 a person.

Ed O’Keefe contributed to this report.

https://scamquestra.com/24-bekapy-sohranenie-informacii-dlya-sledstviya-45.html

Read more to find out how the 80 richest individual people in the world ( a number that could easily fit onto two busses [not one as claimed]) control more wealth than 3.5 billion of their fellow humans…and what this means. Why is this so? Does it help to know that this year, more than half of the people in our Congress are millionaires? Hmmm.

Imagine Something Different

Posted on Jan 21, 2015

By Amy Goodman

“Imagine if we did something different.”

Those were just seven words out of close to 7,000 that President Barack Obama spoke during his State of the Union address. He was addressing both houses of Congress, which are controlled by his bitter foes. Most importantly, though, he was addressing the country. Obama employed characteristically soaring rhetoric to deliver his message of bipartisanship. “The shadow of crisis has passed, and the State of the Union is strong,” he assured us.

From whose lives has the shadow of crisis passed? And for whom is this Union strong?

“Will we accept an economy where only a few of us do spectacularly well?” Obama asked. “Or will we commit ourselves to an economy that generates rising incomes and chances for everyone who makes the effort?”

Oxfam, the international anti-poverty organization, weighed in on the question, releasing a report the day before the speech called “Wealth: Having It All and Wanting More.” Oxfam analyzed data from the Credit Suisse Global Wealth Databook 2014 and the Forbes list of the world’s billionaires to determine some shocking facts about global inequality.

First, it found that, as of 2014, the 80 richest individuals in the world are wealthier than the bottom 50 percent of the world’s population. This bears repeating: The 80 wealthiest people, a group that could fit on a bus, control more wealth than 3.5 billion people. The wealthy are not only accumulating more wealth, but they are getting it faster. Between 2009 and 2014, Oxfam reports, the wealth of those 80 richest people in the world doubled. This, while the rest of the world was mired in the Great Recession, with rampant unemployment and people’s life savings wiped out. If current trends continue, Oxfam notes, by 2016 the richest 1 percent of the world’s population will control more wealth than the bottom 99 percent.

One way the wealthy manage to increase their wealth, Oxfam reports, is through lobbying. The report identifies two industries, finance/insurance and pharmaceutical/health care, as major sources of wealth for the richest, and as principal founts of political contributions. Hundreds of millions of dollars are spent by these industries annually to shape public policy and safeguard profits.

“For far too long, lobbyists have rigged the tax code with loopholes that let some corporations pay nothing while others pay full freight,” President Obama said in his State of the Union. “They’ve riddled it with giveaways the super-rich don’t need, denying a break to middle-class families who do.”

Obama has proposed increasing taxes on the very rich: “Let’s close the loopholes that lead to inequality by allowing the top 1 percent to avoid paying taxes on their accumulated wealth.”

Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist David Cay Johnston is an expert on taxes. We spoke to him on the “Democracy Now!” news hour soon after the State of the Union. “The idea that we shouldn’t adjust the tax rates for people at the top and doing so is somehow class warfare is absurd,” he said. “The president is proposing that for those people in the top one-half of 1 percent—and almost all the money would be paid by the top tenth of 1 percent, people who make over $2 million—that their capital-gains tax rate be at the Ronald Reagan rate of 28 percent,” Johnston summarized. “And Republicans are saying that that’s outrageous. Well, I’m sorry, they’re always telling us Ronald Reagan is a saint.”

What would these taxes pay for? Among other things, Obama pledged to make child care more affordable. He promised free community-college education. These are genuine, good ideas. After his address, Republicans repeatedly said he was for the “redistribution of wealth,” code for socialism. But wealth IS being redistributed by the government—upward, from the poor to the rich—through policies promoted by both major parties, from tax loopholes to “free trade” deals that protect corporate profits over workers’ rights.

And who is promulgating these laws?  The Center for Responsive Politics, a political contribution watchdog group, reports that, for the first time ever, more than half of the members of Congress are millionaires. The group states that this “represents a watershed moment at a time when lawmakers are debating issues like unemployment benefits, food stamps and the minimum wage, which affect people with far fewer resources, as well as considering an overhaul of the tax code.”

As President Obama said in his State of the Union, “To everyone in this Congress who still refuses to raise the minimum wage, I say this: If you truly believe you could work full time and support a family on less than $15,000 a year, try it.”

Growing economic inequality not only hurts the poor, and the working and middle class, but destabilizes society overall.  Yes, we must “imagine if we did something different.” Everyone must have a stake in the state of the union.

Denis Moynihan contributed research to this column.

Amy Goodman is the host of “Democracy Now!,” a daily international TV/radio news hour airing on more than 1,200 stations in North America. She is the co-author of “The Silenced Majority,” a New York Times best-seller.

© 2015 Amy Goodman