Well, the election is over time to start raising that $$$

If you still had a shred of hope for the future of American politics this blurb might just extinguish glimmer of hope. via www.publicintegrity.org

Here are 10 politicos already back on the fundraising trail, according to documents obtained by the Center for Public Integrity:

• Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., will hold court Wednesday evening at Rosa Mexicano in D.C.'s Chinatown neighborhood. The minimum donation to attend the cash fiesta is $1,000. Booker easily won re-election this month and isn't up for re-election until 2020. As of Oct. 15, his campaign reported nearly $2.6 million cash on hand.
   
• For a minimum contribution of $500, on Thursday you may attend a "debt retirement reception" with Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kansas, who avoided involuntary political retirement after defeating upstart independent challenger Greg Orman on Nov. 4. Roberts' campaign had no debt as of Oct. 15 and more than $927,000 cash on hand, according to disclosuresfiled with the Federal Election Commission.
   
• Sen.-elect Ben Sasse, R-Neb., conducted a fundraising breakfast last Friday. "This is to help retire his primary debt ... If you can't help with this one, but want to help Ben with debt retirement please let me know," Sasse fundraiser Jon Graham wrote a prospective donor last week. The Sasse campaign reported $1.64 million cash on hand and more than $516,000 in debt as of Oct. 15, according to disclosures filed with the FEC. Sasse had personally loaned his campaign more $113,000 through mid-October.
   
• Rep.-elect Bob Dold, R-Ill., this month won back a seat in Congress he lost in 2013. On Wednesday evening, he will host a reception at the City Tap House in D.C. to "celebrate his election and retire his debt,"according to an email from fundraiser Katy Cannon to a prospective donor.  As of Oct. 15, Dold's campaign reported to the FEC more than $1 million in the bank and just $3,000 in debt — for furniture rentals.
   
• Rep.-elect Ken Buck, R-Colo., is inviting previous campaign donors to a free "thank you reception" Wednesday night at the Capitol Hill Club in D.C. If you've never donated to Buck, you're still invited — for a recommended contribution of $500, or $1,000 if you represent a political action committee. Buck easily won election Nov. 4 and had reported more than $222,000 cash on hand and no debt through Oct. 15.
   
• Rep. Cedric Richmond, D-La., is also throwing a "thank you reception" on Dec. 10 at Del Frisco's Grille in D.C. While those who contributed during the 2014 election cycle aren't required to again pony up, new supporters don't appear they'll get a free pass — although the invitation itself does not list suggested levels of financial support. Richmond won a third term this month.
   
• Rep. Ron Barber, D-Ariz., is pleading with D.C. donors for money to fund his vote recount effort following a campaign against Republican Martha McSally that ended with her less than 200 votes up on him. "Congressman Barber is committed to ensuring that every lawful vote is counted and that the voices of Southern Arizona are heard," the "Ron Barber Recount Fund" and the "Arizona Democratic Party Voter Protection Fund" wrote in a joint email that was received by a D.C.-based lobbyist. "As it will be weeks before this process is complete, Congressman Barber's campaign will need additional resources to cover costly legal fees and other recount-related expenses."
   
• Sen. Bob Casey, D-Pa., doesn't face re-election until 2018. But that's not preventing him from conducting a "holiday lunch" on Dec. 3 in D.C., with entry to the gathering going for $1,000, according to an invitation. Sen.-elect Gary Peters, D-Mich., is listed as a "special guest," although the money raised will go to Casey's campaign. 
   
• Sonoma restaurant will play host Wednesday afternoon to Rep. Kristi Noem, R-S.D., where a $500 contribution is required to get one through the door. 
   
• It appears no federal-level candidate was quicker to raise money after Election Day than Sen.-elect Tom Cotton, R-Ark., whose campaign on Nov. 5 sent out an invite for a D.C. fundraiser that took place Thursday. The evening event, held at Capitol Hill restaurant Johnny's Half Shell, required a minimum $500 contribution.

You can't make this stuff up...

The problem with politics is too much money buying too much influence so what is the response from those that are part of the system?  Well, we'll need more money to offset the money currently being spent.

Umm, what?  Via Politico

"Afterwards, POLITICO asked Pelosi about the irony of major donors meeting behind closed doors to discuss ways to rid the political process of secretive big money spending of the sort many Democracy Alliance members have engaged in.

“Well, I think that, for the moment, it will take money to win the election to get people there who believe in taking the money out,” she said

Just keep watching their ads, reading their junk mail, selling your vote to the highest bidder and everyone will be happy.

If you ever thought about entering politics this should scare you straight

This is a very long, but deep insight into the reality of politics in America via Politico.

It's all about fundraising, consultants and direct mail (because millennials don't vote and Seniors actually read their junk mail).

The best quote in the piece ""I feel like I’ve become a machine designed to collect cash from high net worth Americans and turn it into mailers."

This article highlights the problem.  Where will we find the solution?

PS - Thanks to those that have been reading.  The number of visitors seems to justify writing here a bit more frequently.

Pass along the word via Facebook about our little blog :)

As suspected voter turnout was dismal

Many people are looking to draw far reaching conclusions after the mid-term elections and that is tempting after the dramatic wins for the Republican party across the country.

However, as I pointed out earlier in our district the total number of votes was nearly 34% below the total from just 2 years ago.  These trends seem to hold across the country as voter turnout was just 36.3% which is the lowest since 1942!

In NY, the results were even worse with just 28.8% of eligible voters coming out to the polls.  That is staggering.  If only 29% of people turnout to vote, that means that you only need to get 14.6% of total voters to win your race!

If only a 1/3rd of voters are participating in the system, then I guess maybe we get the public servants we deserve.

Voter turnout by state in 2014 - via yahoo.com

1. Maine 59.3%
2. Wisconsin 56.9%
3. Alaska 55.3%
4. Colorado 53.0%
5. Oregon 52.0%
6. Minnesota 51.3%
7. Iowa 50.6%
8. New Hampshire 48.8%
9. Montana 46.1%
10. South Dakota 44.6%
11. Kentucky 44.2%
12. North Dakota 44.1%
13. Louisiana 43.9%
13. Massachusetts 43.9%
15. Florida 43.1%
16. Kansas 42.8%
17. Connecticut 42.7%
17. Michigan 42.7%
19. Maryland 41.9%
20. Rhode Island 41.7%
21. Nebraska 41.3%
22. Arkansas 41.2%
23. North Carolina 40.7%
24. Vermont 40.2%
25. Illinois 39.5%
26. Idaho 39.1%
26. Wyoming 39.1%
28. Washington 38.6%
29. New Mexico 38.3%
30. Georgia 38.2%
31. Virginia 36.7%
32. Ohio 36.2%
33. Pennsylvania 36.1%
34. Hawaii 35.0%
35. South Carolina 34.9%
36. Delaware 34.5%
37. Arizona 34.4%
38. Alabama 33.5%
39. Missouri 32.3%
40. California 31.8%
40. Nevada 31.8%
40. West Virginia 31.8%
43. New Jersey 30.4%
44. Washington, D.C. 30.3%
45. Oklahoma 29.8%
46. Mississippi 29.7%
47. Tennessee 29.1%
48. New York 28.8%
48. Utah 28.8%
49. Texas 28.5%
50. Indiana 28.0%

Sound familiar?

Read this today via the National Journal and thought it sounded familiar....

A pre-election poll suggested that, second only to the economy, breaking gridlock is a major issue for voters. They want leaders to solve the era's big issues – not use them to divide Americans and win elections.

These trends lead to two possible outcomes. The first is depressing, and potentially crippling: Voters continue to cast protest votes, extending the era of boom-and-bust cycles, with power shifting between two unpopular, dysfunctional parties.

The second is disruptive (there's that word again!) and uncertain, but renewing: Old political structures and habits give way to new systems that are transparent, authentic, competent, and empowering in a way that appeals to the rising generation of millennials.

Among the old structures that need to be sidelined or radically changed are the two major parties. Neither actually competes to be the better party, only the least-lousy choice. Neither is capable at the moment of winning elections, only losing less than the other guys. Neither party inspires, but they both divide and, occasionally, conquer.

**Not sure how this change will occur, but I have a sense that the desire to see change is greater than me and my blog posts.

Dark Money

Dark money sounds like a documentary just waiting to be made.  I alluded to some of the PACs that contributed money in our local congressional race, but there is a large and growing pot of money that is seeking to influence elections in the shadows.

Through "social welfare" groups individuals, corporations or organizations that wish to contribute to a campaign without having to disclose those donations can do so under the guise of "social welfare". Via the NYTimes -

"In the 2010 midterms, when this practice was just getting started, $161 million was spent by groups that did not disclose donations. In this cycle it was up to at least $216 million, and 69 percent of it was spent on behalf of Republicans".

"Political operatives say this year was just a dress rehearsal for 2016, when there will be even more money, much of it secret, all benefiting the interests of the richest and best connected Americans. Given big money’s influence on Tuesday, the chances for limiting it are more distant than ever."

It's this last line that really sticks out to me.........

"Given big money’s influence on Tuesday, the chances for limiting it are more distant than ever"

Again, this strategy only works if you allow it to.  If we continue to vote as they tell us to, then this system will repeat itself over and over again.  However, if we begin to educate ourselves on the issues and shine a light on these pools of dark money, maybe, just maybe, we can begin to reverse this trend.

NY-21 Recap - Follow the money....

In an effort to provide a little context around the NY-21 election results I thought I'd review the vote totals and a take one last look at the influence of money on our election process.

First, a bit of a review of the voter turnout.  While I'm sure there are still votes to be counted the published totals are:

Stefanik:       90,002
Woolf:          54,704
Funiciello:    18,377

The current total vote count for the district stands at 163,083.  That would be down 34% from 2012 when over 250,000 votes were cast.  For comparisson consider that Ms. Stefanik's "big win" with 90,000 votes was almost 32,000 votes fewer than the Republican loser in 2012 Matt Doheny (he received 121k votes).

So while it is easy to draw conclusions from this vote, I'd caution that midterms tend to draw out the most dedicated voters while those that only vote in presidential elections will be back in 2016 and I'd expect 2016 to be a more competitive race.

However, the redistricting of NY-21 has materially changed the district and the Republican slant of the district is likely built in for the foreseeable future.

As of October 29, 2012, District 21 had the following partisan registration breakdown according to the New York State Board of Elections:

New York Congressional District 21[20]
Congressional District	District Total	Democrats	Republicans	Other & Unaffiliated	Advantage	Party Advantage	Change in Advantage from 2010
District 21	396,310	116,069	174,028	106,213	Republican	49.93%	111.18%

************************************************************
Money!

On the surface spending in this race seemed fairly even (with one exception that I'll get to in a minute).

The Stefanik campaign took in $1.66 million while the Woolf campaign took in $1.99 million.  However, it should be noted that Mr. Woolf's campaign appears to have ended their ad spending early and finished with $300k or so left over, so basically the spending levels were nearly identical.

This works out to roughly $18 for every vote for Ms. Stefanik and $36 for every vote for Mr. Woolf. The best bang for his buck award has to go Mr. Funiciello who managed to raise just $32k, for a cost per vote of just $1.77!

However, there is one more factor at work here via Opensecrets.org

Outside Spending

Candidates Opposed/Supported

Candidate	All 2014 Total	Last Week Total	Last 24 Hours Total	Supported	Opposed
Woolf, Aaron (D)	$877,583	$0	$0	$5,010	$872,573
Doheny, Matt (R)	$794,492	$0	$0	$250	$794,242
Stefanik, Elise (R)	$731,168	$0	$0	$731,168	$0

A total of $2.4 million was spent by Outside PACs away from the candidates formal campaigns and it was almost all pro-Stefanik or anti-her opponents.  Thus, you really have to add that money to her campaign totals which means her campaign really cost about $4 million or $45 per vote.

Both Ms. Stefanik and Mr. Woolf received about 70% of their donations from people residing outside of NY-21.  Since, Ms. Stefanik only received about $1.0 million in traditional donations it's fair to assume that about $300,000 of her $4,000.000 campaign came from people in NY-21 or 7.5% of her total campaign costs.

So, if 92.5% of a campaign is funded by people outside of a district where might your allegiances as a Congresswoman be?  Inquiring minds want to know :)

Re: Mr. Funiciello's campaign I'd say that pulling double digits without spending any real money is incredibly impressive.  The fact that he still pulled those numbers despite some questionable quotes, speaks to the desire for the third party candidate in NY-21.  This is third straight election where a third party has had an impact in this district.

*****************************************************************************
I won't post here very often but when a political matter pops up in NY-21 I'll try to address it.   If you have questions or concerns drop me a note.

Since this is a political blog please understand that I'm neither R or D.  I believe in facts and the truth and those things are hard to uncover in the political realm, but I'll give it a shot :)

Since this is the launch of a new blog please pass it around.  I won't have the readership that exists on my current financial blog so I'll need all of the support I can get to stir up interest.