Analogy time

By Jennifer J. Foster

Al Gore is to the Internet what John McCain is to the BlackBerry?

Apparently, according to McCain senior domestic policy adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin.

From CNN:

... Douglas Holtz-Eakin, discussing the nation’s economic woes with reporters, said that McCain—who has struggled to stress his economic credentials—did have experience dealing with the economy, pointing to his time on the Senate Commerce Committee.

Pressed to provide an example of what McCain had accomplished on that committee, Holtz-Eakin said the senator did not have jurisdiction over financial markets, then he held up his Blackberry, telling reporters: “He did this.“

“Telecommunications of the United States, the premiere innovation in the past 15 years, comes right through the Commerce Committee. So you’re looking at the miracle that John McCain helped create,“ Holtz-Eakin said. “And that’s what he did. He both regulated and deregulated the industry.“

Yeah ... no. McCain has been relentlessly lampooned for his awkwardness with all things technical, including what President Bush once jokingly called “the Google.“

And at least one politician agreed with Obama spokesman Bill Burton, who called “preposterous” the claim that McCain invented the BlackBerry:

It was John McCain.

Another aide was dispatched to clean up the busted pickle jar on Aisle 9:

Meanwhile, McCain senior aide Matt McDonald said that the senator “laughed” when he heard the comment.

“He would not claim to be the inventor of anything, much less the BlackBerry. This was obviously a boneheaded joke by a staffer,“ McDonald said.

John McCain’s Al Gore moment, compliments of a surrogate who is apparently as panicked in front of reporters as his boss is behind a computer screen.

European press on campaign finance

By Jennifer J. Foster

Just one more on the campaign finance theme, and then I’ll let it go ...

... for the night.

Just to give a different perspective on the campaign finance issue, check out this story from The Scotsman.

I always find it funny to read Europeans’ perspectives on our issues here in the States. For example, while lauding the “tight” finance rules that govern campaign finance here —

Since 2003, corporations and unions have been forbidden to donate, and people are limited to $2,300 each, thanks to legislation from Mr McCain and a fellow senator. The rules have turned campaign finance upside down, cutting off the oceans of “soft” money that had washed over the two established parties.

—The Scotsman’s Chris Stephen points out that the 2008 presidential cycle is set to make history as the first billion-dollar (yes, billion, with a ‘b’) election.

Good thing we have all those “tight” rules, huh?

Guess Stephen’s never heard about Aunt Biennial Limit.

Meet ‘biennial limit’

By Jennifer J. Foster

Did you notice anything strange in that story about Barack Obama’s fundraiser last night?

When I read that the per-plate rate was $28,500 for attendees, I wondered, how can that be? I thought the individual contribution limit for federal candidates was $2,300.

It is.

But the catch is that last night’s event wasn’t just for Obama. Organizers were able to access the higher individual contribution threshold because the funds were raised not just for Barack Obama, but also for the Democratic National Committee.

Dear readers, meet the individual contribution limit’s lesser-known and more troublesome cousin, “biennial limit.“

Biennial limits, as the FEC explains, cap the contributions an individual can make over a two-year period to federal candidates, party committees and political action committees (PACs).

Whereas the individual contribution limit to individual candidates is $2,300 per election cycle, the biennial limit is indexed for inflation in odd-numbered years ... and for 2007-08, it’s $108,200.

Per person.

According to the Federal Elections Commission, this breaks down to $42,700 in contributions to candidate committees and $65,500 in contributions to any other committees, of which no more than $42,700 of this amount may be given to committees that are not national party committees.

Are your eyes crossed yet?

That’s exactly what lawmakers were counting on when they created this labyrinthine system.

According to the non-profit, non-partisan Brennan Center for Justice, a tiny fraction of Americans make political contributions greater than $200. For the 2004 election cycle, those donors comprised less than 0.6 percent of all contributors.

You know what that means: The fewer they are, the greater their influence.

The biennial limit provision is just one of the lovely loopholes that assist the wealthy in making a mockery of the American campaign finance system.

See also:

Befuddled by the presidential campaign finance system? Contrary to what Congress might want you to think, you’re not an idiot, and you’re not alone. Check out this roundup of the rules from investigative journalism site ProPublica, which seeks to plug the hole in that field that have resulted from the slash-and-burn cost-cutting tactics of newspapers all across the country.

Obama and campaign finance

By Jennifer J. Foster

Let’s deal with the Hollywood fundraiser Barack Obama had last night and the wider implications that event and others like it have on his campaign finance perspective.

You know by now that Obama was feted at an L.A. soiree headlined by liberal songstress Barbra Streisand. The going plate rate was $28,500—each. The result was a new record for a single-day fundraising haul: $11 million for Obama and the Democratic Party.

Matt Drudge had some characteristic fun with the announcement about the event:

The nation’s financials may be in a spiral, but cash is flowing into the Obama campaign faster than Marvin Hamlisch can play “Niagara”!

Yesterday, Obama declared how we are in “the most serious financial crisis since the Great Depression.“

Today he will host a dinner in Beverly Hills—- costing attendees $28,500 dollars each!

Hundreds of high rollers, including some of the biggest executives in film, television and music, will munch gourmet chow and hang out with the candidate.

Streisand will then sing at the five-star Beverly Wilshire, no doubt reviving the Depression-era standard “Happy Days Are Here Again” with new urgency.

Obama isn’t having any trouble in the fundraising department. His campaign raised $66 million in August, setting a new monthly record and besting John McCain by a whopping $19 million.

And don’t worry about that money sitting around gathering dust somewhere. Obama has big plans for it. His campaign will blow through $39 million in Florida alone.

By contrast, John McCain’s decision to remain in the public financing system means that he has $84 million—for the entire general election campaign.

I know what you’re going to say: McCain can rely on the resources of the Republican National Committee, which has more resources with which to influence the race for the Arizona senator than the Democratic National Committee has to be able to assist Obama. And Obama has shattered fundraising records throughout the campaign; It would be irresponsible of Obama, you might say, not to take advantage of that strength.

You are right.

But remember Obama’s justification for his decision to renege on an earlier pledge to stay in the public financing system? He told supporters on June 19:

“Instead of forcing us to rely on millions from Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs, you’ve fueled this campaign with donations of $5, $10, $20, whatever you can afford. And because you did, we’ve built a grassroots movement of over 1.5 million Americans. ...You’ve already changed the way campaigns are funded because you know that’s the only way we can truly change how Washington works.“

Obama said, “I’m asking you to try to do something that’s never been done before. Declare our independence from a broken system, and run the type of campaign that reflects the grassroots values that have already changed our politics and brought us this far.“

Futhermore:

“(Opting out is) not an easy decision, and especially because I support a robust system of public financing of elections,“ Obama told supporters in a video message Thursday. “But the public financing of presidential elections as it exists today is broken, and we face opponents who’ve become masters at gaming this broken system.“

So just to review:

Obama believes in a “robust system of public financing of elections”—unless he can raise more money outside that system and as long as he doesn’t have to participate in it himself.

Obama believes the system “as it exists today is broken”—but doesn’t mind taking advantages of the cracks.

Obama says his opponents have become “masters at gaming this broken system”—but shows a pretty impressive proclivity for gamesmanship himself.

Meanwhile, there are some folks down in Texas who could sure use some help: According to the AP, “Hurricane Ike survivors have already walked for miles and waited for hours at supply distribution centers, gobbling up all that was offered: 1 million bottles of water, 1 million meals and 600,000 pounds of ice in just the first 36 hours after the storm passed.“

You know, $11 million would buy a lot of water, food and ice for Texans in need.

$22 million would buy a lot more.

Why is it that neither party realizes that that money in the hands of the Red Cross will do a lot more to CHANGE the lives of hurting Americans than a two-month barrage of annoying, disingenuous 30-seconds ads?

Come on, Obama: Defy the pundits who call you an elitist and turn over that $11 million from Hollywood to disaster relief. Texas isn’t a swing state, but it will be worth it, anyway.

Come on, McCain: Demonstrate that you’re an agent of change and convince the RNC to fork over $11 million to help the hurting and homeless in Texas. Those well-coiffed consultants aren’t going to miss any meals.

Don’t look now, but that might actually produce some change we can believe in.

Encyclopedia of Alabama

By Jennifer J. Foster

First up is a little-noticed story that is big news: Alabamians have a new online resource that is one-stop shopping for information on the state’s history, culture, geography and natural environment.

Gov. Bob Riley announced the launch of Encyclopedia of Alabama on Monday. The project is a joint effort of the Alabama Humanities Foundation, the University of Alabama Press and Auburn University (War Eagle!). It was developed with about $3 million in public and private funding, according to the Birmingham News.

Information on the web site is organized by category:

Agriculture;

Arts & Literature;

Business & Industry;

Education;

Folklife;

Geography & Environment;

Government & Politics;

History;

Peoples;

Religion;

Science & Technology; and

Sports & Recreation.

This is a great resource, and it’s not just for your kid’s history report. Poke around on the site; check out some of the articles. But be careful: Time flies when you’re immersed in so much information. A full 30 minutes simply evaporated while I was browsing through the site for this post!