PhoenixDark
Banned
But if you cut 300-500k voters our of Philly alone...
PoliGAF 2012 Community Thread |OT2| This thread title is now under military control
- Thread starter AlteredBeast
- Start date
- Status
But if you cut 300-500k voters our of Philly alone...
But the state doesn't go by how many 'areas' went to who -- it goes by how many people voted for each candidate. If the areas most likely to be affected are also most likely to vote dem, it'll obviously have a bigger effect than if it affected areas all across the board.
Aaron Strife
Banned
I don't think it'll change the outcome. It might have an impact on downballot races, but Obama is leading in PA by such a margin that it wouldn't really matter.
PhoenixDark
Banned
4-6 points? That doesn't strike me as a big lead
Aaron Strife
Banned
6 points is a decent lead (Quinnipac's last poll). Keep in mind these polls are of registered voters, as in voters who are already registered. The new laws shouldn't affect them, unless I'm missing something.
If a voter is already registered do they still need to have their ID? Granted I'm from Minnesota, but here once you're registered you're on the rolls.
In any case I generally feel confident about the Kerry states. I think people are overstating this.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Aaron Strife
Banned
Only democrats are missing IDs? That sentence is head scratch worthy (I know you didn't write it). Also do you even know of PA? I'd be willing to bet that it does more harm to bumble fuck PA that is a gop stronghold then it does in the big cities where you need ID for all kinds of state and city services.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Anything to perpetuate the myth of PA being a swing state.
This impacts mainly college students and poor minority voters who do not have a drivers' license. People out in the sticks need a car or they wouldn't be able to get anywhere and they are overwhelmingly conservative. Basically, Pittsburgh (Allegheny County), Philly, some parts scattered throughout eastern PA outside of Philly, and of course Harrisburg are the only really left-leaning places. Everything else is ultra white and conservative like most of the south.
If it's beyond a couple points Obama should have enough of a buffer. But he'll need a lot of the votes getting potentially pushed out by Corbett's latest bullshit if he wants to get by in a close PA race, and that could happen this year as his support in western PA is diminishing, so the voter ID law suppressing votes in the poor areas closer to me is just not a good thing.
I will say that even in the red wave that swept the nation so massively in 2010, Pat Toomey was not that far ahead of Joe Sestak:
Code:
Toomey 1,995,026 51%
Sestak 1,916,703 49%We're looking at about 78-79k votes here. Very close. And this was in 2010 when the GOP was really kicking ass up and down the map.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Toomey vs. Sestak, as well as Gialounnias (however the fuck that's spelled) vs. Kirk in Illinois were both so fucking tragic. Early reports had them both winning, which would have given the Dems a pretty solid 55-seat majority.
RNC Chair: ‘Romney Has To Win for Liberty And Freedom’
RNC Chair: Obama Most ‘Negative Campaigner That This Country’s Ever Seen
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/rnc-chair-romney-has-to-win-for-liberty
RNC Chair: Obama Most ‘Negative Campaigner That This Country’s Ever Seen
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/rnc-chair-obama-most-negative-campaigner-that-this
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
The "liberty and freedom" stuff clearly shows that the RNC doesn't like the internal numbers on Romney and his chances in the election, so they have to move on to this type of Facebook garbage.
Unfortunately for them, that really only draws in the hardcore right.
Unfortunately for them, that really only draws in the hardcore right.
It just makes me want to smack some sense into some people on my FL. Sadly they are awesome people, but really misguided
( I have no problem if you disagree on policy , but this kind of talk is just insane)Out of state college students voting in a different state make up such an insanely small portion of the vote that you can stop talking about that one. Poor voters in the cities need IDs for welfare, public transportation services and a myriad of other things that would make this have very little affect. That's also discounting one if the biggest Democratic machines outside of Chicago not preparing those that may not have it. Its a chicken little story like many other voter id stories (some concern is relevant like Fla purge). It's kind of funny to see how many Republicans think fraud is a big enough issue to swing a 6-8 point election.
You're whistling past the graveyard. You don't need a photo ID to buy SEPTA passes. There are lots of working and even middle class folks in Philadelphia who don't have drivers' licenses, and will need some form of alternative ID by november. My hope is that this law gets tossed in the courts before the election.
I'm pretty sure for WIC or govt subsidized passes you do.
PhoenixDark
Banned
I don't like conspiracy theories but all this F&F bullshit seems like half political stunt, half attempt to distract the DOJ and sully Holder's position to address voter suppression
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
I agree with a third requirement: and there is an awareness campaign so that everyone likely to be affected knows that they have to get a free ID. I suspect that the real harm of voter ID laws is that they blindside people
That works as well, if you want to have a voter id law it needs to come with funding.
PhoenixDark
Banned
The problem is that a lot of these voter ID laws are blatantly partisan. I have no problem with voter ID laws as long as IDs are free/easy to obtain. But there's a problem when you demand IDs, then start closing DMVs in urban/poor areas
This and My DMV's are only open from 8-4 (weekdays only) which is really a pain because I always have to take off work to go there. They should be open on Saturdays and later at night on the weekdays.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Hmm that looks like mn's.
Those don't exist in Philadelphia.
Actually, the very poor are most likely to pay out the nose for cash fares, since they can't afford the large single outlay for a weekly or monthly pass.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Yup, that right there is a big issue.
PhoenixDark
Banned
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-constituents/2012/07/05/gJQAjiyXPW_blog.html
I don't see why people are focusing on what GOP governors are saying here. When have they ever turned down federal aid, especially the southern ones? The only one who might would be Rick Scott given his lame duck status. The numbers are simply too beneficial for governors to pass up.
If Obama wins, I expect Obamacare hate to slowly start dying down as the bill slowly goes into effect. It's far easier to attack something in abstract, but that won't be the case once the law is in place. Same thing happened with social security and Medicare.
Basically once the elderly realize they won't be killed, and instead will receive money for prescription pills, this shit will die out
I don't see why people are focusing on what GOP governors are saying here. When have they ever turned down federal aid, especially the southern ones? The only one who might would be Rick Scott given his lame duck status. The numbers are simply too beneficial for governors to pass up.
If Obama wins, I expect Obamacare hate to slowly start dying down as the bill slowly goes into effect. It's far easier to attack something in abstract, but that won't be the case once the law is in place. Same thing happened with social security and Medicare.
Basically once the elderly realize they won't be killed, and instead will receive money for prescription pills, this shit will die out
empty vessel
Member
New York Times on secret corporate political donations to 501(c)(4)'s.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/08/us/politics/groups-shield-political-gifts-of-businesses.html
It is important to rigorously exclude corporate participation in elections and re-establish the principle that state-created entities like corporations do not have free speech and are subservient in all respects to government. All political activity of corporations must be banned and strictly enforced. The US simply cannot be considered a democratic government based upon popular sovereignty until the people re-establish their sovereignty.
Beyond a constitutional amendment re-establishing that corporations do not enjoy any constitutional rights, I think a constitutional amendment taking powers of incorporation away from state governments and putting the power of incorporation solely in the federal government's hands would help quite a bit in this endeavor. This would make it much easier to enforce strict prohibitions against corporate participation in the political sphere. Penalties can include charter revocation and dissolution of the corporation. State governments are simply ill-equipped and cannot be trusted in any event to properly regulate the entities they create through their incorporation power. Narrowing the scope and reach of state governments has become essential.
Groups Shield Political Gifts of Businesses
By MIKE McINTIRE and NICHOLAS CONFESSORE
American Electric Power, one of the countrys largest utilities, gave $1 million last November to the Founding Fund, a new tax-exempt group that intends to raise most of its money from corporations and push for limited government.
The giant insurer Aetna directed more than $3 million last year to the American Action Network, a Republican-leaning nonprofit organization that has spent millions of dollars attacking lawmakers who voted for President Obamas health care bill even as Aetnas president publicly voiced support for the legislation.
Other corporations, including Prudential Financial, Dow Chemical and the drugmaker Merck, have poured millions of dollars more into the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a tax-exempt trade group that has pledged to spend at least $50 million on political advertising this election cycle.
Two years after the Supreme Courts Citizens United decision opened the door for corporate spending on elections, relatively little money has flowed from company treasuries into super PACs, which can accept unlimited contributions but must also disclose donors. Instead, there is growing evidence that large corporations are trying to influence campaigns by donating money to tax-exempt organizations that can spend millions of dollars without being subject to the disclosure requirements that apply to candidates, parties and PACs.
The secrecy shrouding these groups makes a full accounting of corporate influence on the electoral process impossible. But glimpses of their donors emerged in a New York Times review of corporate governance reports, tax returns of nonprofit organizations and regulatory filings by insurers and labor unions. ...
Some of the biggest recipients of corporate money are organized under Section 501(c)(4) of the tax code, the federal designation for social welfare groups dedicated to advancing broad community interests. Because they are not technically political organizations, they do not have to register with or disclose their donors to the Federal Election Commission, potentially shielding corporate contributors from shareholders or others unhappy with their political positions.
Companies want to be able to quietly push for their political agendas without being held accountable for it by their customers, said Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, which has filed complaints against issue groups. I think the 501(c)(4)s are likely to outweigh super PAC spending, because so many donors want to remain anonymous.
Because social welfare groups are prohibited from devoting themselves primarily to political activity, many spend the bulk of their money on issue advertisements that purport to be educational, not political, in nature. In May, for example, Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies, a group co-founded by the Republican strategist Karl Rove, began a $25 million advertising campaign, carefully shaped with focus groups of undecided voters, that attacks Mr. Obama for increasing the federal deficit and urges him to cut spending.
The Internal Revenue Service has no clear test for determining what constitutes excessive political activity by a social welfare group. And tax-exempt groups are permitted to begin raising and spending money even before the I.R.S. formally recognizes them. Two years after helping Republicans win control of the House with millions of dollars in issue advertising, Crossroads GPSs application for tax-exempt status is still pending.
During the 2010 midterm elections, tax-exempt groups outspent super PACs by a 3-to-2 margin, according to a recent study by the Center for Responsive Politics and the Center for Public Integrity, with most of that money devoted to attacking Democrats or defending Republicans. And such groups have accounted for two-thirds of the political advertising bought by the biggest outside spenders so far in the 2012 election cycle, according to Kantar Medias Campaign Media Analysis Group, with close to $100 million in issue ads.
The growing role of issue groups has prompted a rash of complaints and lawsuits from watchdog organizations accusing groups like the American Action Network, Crossroads and the pro-Obama Priorities USA of operating as sham charities whose primary purpose is not the promotion of social welfare, but winning elections. Efforts in Congress to force more disclosure for politically active nonprofit organizations have been repeatedly stymied by Republicans, who have described the push as an assault on free speech. ...
Donations from corporations and unions alike must be disclosed if they go to expressly political groups like super PACs. ...
Among the largest beneficiaries of corporate donations in recent years have been trade organizations like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which largely backs Republican candidates. As a nonprofit business league under the tax code, the chamber does not have to disclose its supporters, who helped finance its $33 million in political ads in the 2010 midterm elections.
But voluntary disclosures by corporations usually at the prodding of shareholder advocacy groups shed some light on the use of trade groups for lobbying or as pass-throughs for political spending. A search of voluntary disclosures, some collected by the Center for Political Accountability, which advocates for transparency in corporate political spending, found more than $6 million in chamber donations by 10 companies last year.
Two of the largest came from Prudential Financial and Dow Chemical, which each gave $1.6 million, while Chevron, MetLife and Merck each gave at least $500,000. Some of the donations were directed to the chambers Institute for Legal Reform, which lobbies for limits on liability suits.
Some contributions are disclosed by accident. Aetnas check to the American Action Network, along with a $4.5 million contribution last year to the chamber, was mistakenly included in a filing with insurance regulators. The disclosure was first reported by SNL Financial, a trade publication. Even where companies pledge voluntary disclosure of political contributions, they often make an exception for donations to tax-exempt groups.
In 2007, Aetna signed an agreement with the Mercy Investment Program, a shareholders group, to disclose trade associations to which it made large contributions. On regulatory filings, the company initially described its $3 million contribution to the Chamber of Commerce as a lobbying expense, but the company now says it was intended to finance educational activities.
An Aetna spokesman would not say whether the chamber donation would appear on the companys 2011 voluntary disclosure. Sister Valerie Heinonen, the director of shareholder advocacy for Mercy Investment Services, said that a failure to do so would violate the companys pledge.
Beyond the contributions to large, established nonprofits like the chamber and American Action Network, corporate money is also quietly shaping the political discourse through more obscure groups, none of which are required to disclose their donors.
In Minnesota last year, Express Scripts, a major drug benefit manager, gave $10,000 to a Republican-linked group, Minnesotans for a Fair Redistricting, involved in a partisan fight over redrawing legislative boundaries. Express Scripts made the donation, previously unreported, because the electoral maps in Minnesota were in doubt and we supported efforts to bring certainty to Minnesota voters, said Brian Henry, a spokesman for the company, which is based in St. Louis. He added that the firm has a facility in Bloomington, Minn.
The reasons behind American Electric Powers $1 million contribution to the little-known Founding Fund are less clear. The company characterized it as lobbying in a corporate governance disclosure last year, but the fund says it does no lobbying. The fund, whose address is a mail drop in Alexandria, Va., would not make any of its directors available for an interview.
The funds treasurer, Frank Sadler, is a lobbyist who previously worked for Koch Industries advising nonprofit groups that support free market causes, although he said the Kochs, major Republican donors, were not involved in the group. In its public filings, the fund said it expected to raise about $10 million this election cycle, primarily from corporations, and use it to promote free markets and the narrowing of the scope and reach of the federal government.
A spokesman for American Electric Power, Pat D. Hemlepp, said the company supports organizations with positions on issues that align with AEPs positions and strives to be transparent on political giving. We also respect the positions of others, including some of the organizations that receive funding from AEP, to not publicly disclose funding or activities. Thats their right under the law.
By MIKE McINTIRE and NICHOLAS CONFESSORE
American Electric Power, one of the countrys largest utilities, gave $1 million last November to the Founding Fund, a new tax-exempt group that intends to raise most of its money from corporations and push for limited government.
The giant insurer Aetna directed more than $3 million last year to the American Action Network, a Republican-leaning nonprofit organization that has spent millions of dollars attacking lawmakers who voted for President Obamas health care bill even as Aetnas president publicly voiced support for the legislation.
Other corporations, including Prudential Financial, Dow Chemical and the drugmaker Merck, have poured millions of dollars more into the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a tax-exempt trade group that has pledged to spend at least $50 million on political advertising this election cycle.
Two years after the Supreme Courts Citizens United decision opened the door for corporate spending on elections, relatively little money has flowed from company treasuries into super PACs, which can accept unlimited contributions but must also disclose donors. Instead, there is growing evidence that large corporations are trying to influence campaigns by donating money to tax-exempt organizations that can spend millions of dollars without being subject to the disclosure requirements that apply to candidates, parties and PACs.
The secrecy shrouding these groups makes a full accounting of corporate influence on the electoral process impossible. But glimpses of their donors emerged in a New York Times review of corporate governance reports, tax returns of nonprofit organizations and regulatory filings by insurers and labor unions. ...
Some of the biggest recipients of corporate money are organized under Section 501(c)(4) of the tax code, the federal designation for social welfare groups dedicated to advancing broad community interests. Because they are not technically political organizations, they do not have to register with or disclose their donors to the Federal Election Commission, potentially shielding corporate contributors from shareholders or others unhappy with their political positions.
Companies want to be able to quietly push for their political agendas without being held accountable for it by their customers, said Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, which has filed complaints against issue groups. I think the 501(c)(4)s are likely to outweigh super PAC spending, because so many donors want to remain anonymous.
Because social welfare groups are prohibited from devoting themselves primarily to political activity, many spend the bulk of their money on issue advertisements that purport to be educational, not political, in nature. In May, for example, Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies, a group co-founded by the Republican strategist Karl Rove, began a $25 million advertising campaign, carefully shaped with focus groups of undecided voters, that attacks Mr. Obama for increasing the federal deficit and urges him to cut spending.
The Internal Revenue Service has no clear test for determining what constitutes excessive political activity by a social welfare group. And tax-exempt groups are permitted to begin raising and spending money even before the I.R.S. formally recognizes them. Two years after helping Republicans win control of the House with millions of dollars in issue advertising, Crossroads GPSs application for tax-exempt status is still pending.
During the 2010 midterm elections, tax-exempt groups outspent super PACs by a 3-to-2 margin, according to a recent study by the Center for Responsive Politics and the Center for Public Integrity, with most of that money devoted to attacking Democrats or defending Republicans. And such groups have accounted for two-thirds of the political advertising bought by the biggest outside spenders so far in the 2012 election cycle, according to Kantar Medias Campaign Media Analysis Group, with close to $100 million in issue ads.
The growing role of issue groups has prompted a rash of complaints and lawsuits from watchdog organizations accusing groups like the American Action Network, Crossroads and the pro-Obama Priorities USA of operating as sham charities whose primary purpose is not the promotion of social welfare, but winning elections. Efforts in Congress to force more disclosure for politically active nonprofit organizations have been repeatedly stymied by Republicans, who have described the push as an assault on free speech. ...
Donations from corporations and unions alike must be disclosed if they go to expressly political groups like super PACs. ...
Among the largest beneficiaries of corporate donations in recent years have been trade organizations like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which largely backs Republican candidates. As a nonprofit business league under the tax code, the chamber does not have to disclose its supporters, who helped finance its $33 million in political ads in the 2010 midterm elections.
But voluntary disclosures by corporations usually at the prodding of shareholder advocacy groups shed some light on the use of trade groups for lobbying or as pass-throughs for political spending. A search of voluntary disclosures, some collected by the Center for Political Accountability, which advocates for transparency in corporate political spending, found more than $6 million in chamber donations by 10 companies last year.
Two of the largest came from Prudential Financial and Dow Chemical, which each gave $1.6 million, while Chevron, MetLife and Merck each gave at least $500,000. Some of the donations were directed to the chambers Institute for Legal Reform, which lobbies for limits on liability suits.
Some contributions are disclosed by accident. Aetnas check to the American Action Network, along with a $4.5 million contribution last year to the chamber, was mistakenly included in a filing with insurance regulators. The disclosure was first reported by SNL Financial, a trade publication. Even where companies pledge voluntary disclosure of political contributions, they often make an exception for donations to tax-exempt groups.
In 2007, Aetna signed an agreement with the Mercy Investment Program, a shareholders group, to disclose trade associations to which it made large contributions. On regulatory filings, the company initially described its $3 million contribution to the Chamber of Commerce as a lobbying expense, but the company now says it was intended to finance educational activities.
An Aetna spokesman would not say whether the chamber donation would appear on the companys 2011 voluntary disclosure. Sister Valerie Heinonen, the director of shareholder advocacy for Mercy Investment Services, said that a failure to do so would violate the companys pledge.
Beyond the contributions to large, established nonprofits like the chamber and American Action Network, corporate money is also quietly shaping the political discourse through more obscure groups, none of which are required to disclose their donors.
In Minnesota last year, Express Scripts, a major drug benefit manager, gave $10,000 to a Republican-linked group, Minnesotans for a Fair Redistricting, involved in a partisan fight over redrawing legislative boundaries. Express Scripts made the donation, previously unreported, because the electoral maps in Minnesota were in doubt and we supported efforts to bring certainty to Minnesota voters, said Brian Henry, a spokesman for the company, which is based in St. Louis. He added that the firm has a facility in Bloomington, Minn.
The reasons behind American Electric Powers $1 million contribution to the little-known Founding Fund are less clear. The company characterized it as lobbying in a corporate governance disclosure last year, but the fund says it does no lobbying. The fund, whose address is a mail drop in Alexandria, Va., would not make any of its directors available for an interview.
The funds treasurer, Frank Sadler, is a lobbyist who previously worked for Koch Industries advising nonprofit groups that support free market causes, although he said the Kochs, major Republican donors, were not involved in the group. In its public filings, the fund said it expected to raise about $10 million this election cycle, primarily from corporations, and use it to promote free markets and the narrowing of the scope and reach of the federal government.
A spokesman for American Electric Power, Pat D. Hemlepp, said the company supports organizations with positions on issues that align with AEPs positions and strives to be transparent on political giving. We also respect the positions of others, including some of the organizations that receive funding from AEP, to not publicly disclose funding or activities. Thats their right under the law.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/08/us/politics/groups-shield-political-gifts-of-businesses.html
It is important to rigorously exclude corporate participation in elections and re-establish the principle that state-created entities like corporations do not have free speech and are subservient in all respects to government. All political activity of corporations must be banned and strictly enforced. The US simply cannot be considered a democratic government based upon popular sovereignty until the people re-establish their sovereignty.
Beyond a constitutional amendment re-establishing that corporations do not enjoy any constitutional rights, I think a constitutional amendment taking powers of incorporation away from state governments and putting the power of incorporation solely in the federal government's hands would help quite a bit in this endeavor. This would make it much easier to enforce strict prohibitions against corporate participation in the political sphere. Penalties can include charter revocation and dissolution of the corporation. State governments are simply ill-equipped and cannot be trusted in any event to properly regulate the entities they create through their incorporation power. Narrowing the scope and reach of state governments has become essential.
MonkeyKing
Member
Outstanding.
Frank the Great
Banned
why would they try and make it easier to vote? listen to yourself man.
reggieandTFE
Member
That's goddamned absurd that AEP is throwing money to push for "limited" government considering they have a government-granted monopoly to provide power in many locations! How can people not see the hypocrisy in this bullshit?
PantherLotus
Professional Schmuck
lol come on man
MonkeyKing
Member
I know that I'm partisan and prone to my own biases. That said, the amount of vitriol coming out the the GOP side, and the tone of it, is just unbelievable. It reminds me of the tone that lead up the Oklahoma City Bombing in 1995.
I'm basically expecting some of these people to do something insane, or come damn close to it. Shit, it's already happened (i.e. Rep. Giffords) but has potential to get worse.
Now more than ever the Pres should fear for his safety. He's traveling to a lot of places and these people have only grown to hate him more.
I also worry about people volunteering or attending rallies. It's nuts.
DeathbyVolcano
Banned
Ah, doom-diablos is back
Frank the Great
Banned
i'm pretty sure we are the only modern democracy that has an expressly partisan/adversarial system of making election laws and resolving election disputes. could be wrong though. my election law professor always said this.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Speaking of things that are bi-polar in nature
- Status