Posted by Lawman, a resident of Menlo Park, on May 22, 2012 at 10:39 am
Redwood and McCain/Feingold believer, for the record, I am totally in favor of the DISCLOSE Act. However, I found it ironical that the Weekly's story about it talked about the local fundraiser but did not mention the top 10 or even 3 contributors, either by name or amount, while emphasizing the importance of transparency. And the links you provided did not provide any info responsive to my inquiry.
Posted by Redwood, a resident of the Old Palo Alto neighborhood, on May 22, 2012 at 11:02 am
Lawman - so, nothing illegal here, just disappointment on the reporting, and if any actual reporters (rather than just transcribing a press release), the reporters failing to ask appropriate questions.
Yes, disappointing. Irony, or lack of reporting?
At a larger level, it is a catch-22, in these days of Citizens United and it's almost unlimited cash from billionaires to support their issues (whether fringe candidates, anti-lawyer, anti-union, anti-regulations, etc..), that a lot of donors to clean money campaigns and elections may have to bite their tongue and contribute to c3's and c4's just to keep the issues from being swamped by the PAC's against fair, free and clean elections.
Before the whining starts about union money, if you're going to make that claim, back it up with facts, from THIS election cycle, not pre-CU cycles like 2008. Unions are getting swamped this cyccle from the billionaires, much of it not transparent but hidden in 503(c)4's.
I do like the post above that references cost of TV ads, when those ads run over a public asset such as the public spectrum. It's a near impossible task to implement, but that would be a key component to clean money and lowering the cost of elections.