FireStats error : FireStats is not configured

Socialists afraid to claim to be such, got second fewest presidential votes ever

Posted on November 13th, 2008 at 8:08pm by bile Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

http://www.themilitant.com/…

The Socialist Workers National Campaign Committee filed a request with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) October 30 for a renewal of its exemption from requirements to report the names of financial contributors.

The party’s exemption request is part of the fight of workers, farmers, and their organizations to be able to engage in political activity, including election campaigns, free from government, boss, and right-wing spying and harassment.

The request was filed on the party’s behalf by attorneys Michael Krinsky and Lindsey Frank of the internationally renowned law firm Rabinowitz, Boudin, Standard, Krinsky & Lieberman.

The FEC has continuously granted six-year exemptions to the SWP’s campaign committees since 1979, most recently in 2003.

In this year’s request to the FEC, 62 incidents of harassment from 2002 until 2008 are documented, including “physical attacks on SWP campaign supporters and offices, threatening mail and telephone calls, job firings and discrimination, and harassment of SWP supporters and campaign efforts by federal and local law enforcement as well as private individuals.”

Among the incidents:

  • The Sept. 11, 2004, firebombing of the SWP campaign offices in Hazleton, Pennsylvania. A brick wrapped in incendiary material was thrown into the display window featuring campaign materials and political books, setting the headquarters on fire and threatening the lives of people living in the apartment upstairs.
  • On May 16, 2007, two FBI agents arrived unannounced at the home of David Arguello, the 2006 SWP candidate for U.S. Congress in San Diego, California, on the pretense that they had information from an anonymous source that he advocated violence against the U.S government. The FBI agents interrogated Arguello about his political views and activities and his interest in unionizing his workplace.
  • In October 2005, Lisa Potash, Socialist Workers candidate for president of the city council in Atlanta, Georgia, was fired from her job at Hormel Meats Corporation after her campaign was widely publicized in the Atlanta Journal Constitution.

If their community has news sites called The Militant its not entirely surprising that one of their candidates was approached about advocating violence.

It seems odd to me that anyone would care that there were self described socialists. I’d think “capitalists” are hated moreso right now and you don’t hear of their homes being firebombed. Especially considering the president elect is practically a Fabian.

http://www.ballot-access.org/…

In every presidential election starting in 1888, at least one socialist party has participated. The Socialist Labor Party ran a slate of unpledged presidential electors in 1888 in New York state.

If one adds together the presidential vote of all the parties with these words in their party name: “Socialist”, “Communist”, “Socialism” and “Workers”, and calculates the percentage of the vote cast for such parties for president, one finds that the lowest percentage in history was in 2000, when such parties polled less than .02% of the vote. 2008 appears likely to be the second such presidential election. The combined vote in 2008 for the Socialist Workers, Socialist, and Party for Socialism and Liberation presidential candidates appears to be just barely under .02% (specifically, .019%). The worst year for such parties for president was 2000, when it was only .017%. In 2004 the percentage was .021%.

That’s because the major parties adopted the palatable parts of their platform.

“The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of ‘liberalism’ they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.”
– Norman Thomas

 

To whom did videogame developers donate in the 2008 US presidential race?

Posted on October 13th, 2008 at 1:44pm by bile Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

http://kotaku.com/…

About seventy-five percent of game industry presidential campaign donations went to democrats, based on a sampling of developers and publisher donations over the past two years obtained from the Federal Election Commission.

Kotaku looked at presidential campaign donations for nine companies from January of 2007 through the end of July, 2008. The companies included were Activision, Blizzard, Electronic Arts, Nintendo, Sony Computer Entertainment of America, Take-Two, THQ, Ubisoft and Valve.

The database showed that the nine companies donated a total of about $97,800 to ten candidates, about $61,000 of which went to democratic candidates, while about $36,700 went to republican candidates.

The company with the largest contributions to campaigns was Electronic Arts, followed by Activision and then Valve. The company with the smallest amount of donations was Take-Two. Hit the jump for an avalanche of colorful pie charts and one, single, lonely bar graph.

The graphs unfortunately are scaled down too much to clearly see the legends on all of them but it is clear that while they lean Democratic party, Ron Paul was the favorite Republican. Being that I’m a gamer and a supporter of Ron Paul I’m glad to see this. Especially the Sony breakdown.

 

SCOTUS not done yet: Part of McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance law struck down

Posted on June 26th, 2008 at 1:13pm by bile Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

http://www.ballot-access.org/…

On June 26, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled part of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law unconstitutional. Davis v Federal Election Commission, 07-320. The vote was 5-4. Here is the opinion.

This case concerned the “Millionaire’s Amendment”, which relaxes contribution limits for any congressional candidate who has a wealthy opponent. Specifically, if any congressional candidate spends at least $350,000 of his or her own funds on the campaign, then the opponents of that candidate are released from the $2,300 limit on contributions to their campaign. The majority opinion, by Justice Samuel Alito, says that the Constitution does not permit the government to set unequal contribution limits. The opinion’s key sentence, on page 16 of the majority opinion, says, “It is a dangerous business for Congress to use the election laws to influence the voters’ choices.” Also, on page 18, “The unprecedented step of imposing different contribution and coordinated party expenditure limits on candidates vying for the same seat is antithetical to the First Amendment.”

This language should make it easier to win lawsuits against state public funding laws which set unequal rewards for some candidates, relative to other candidates. Public funding laws in Maine, Arizona, and New Mexico, treat all candidates exactly the same. The public funding that formerly existed in Massachusetts also treated all candidates equally. But public funding laws in Connecticut and New Jersey, and a pending bill in California, do not treat all candidates the same; qualifications to get public funding are easier for Republicans and Democrats than for other candidates.

Justice Stevens dissented, and said that the 1976 U.S. Supreme Court decision Buckley v Valeo was mistaken when it struck down limits on campaign expenditures. He expressed the view that too much campaign advertising “obscures the issues.” He also said that “the Constitution does not require Congress to treat all declared candidates the same.” This contradicts his opinion in Cook v Gralike, 531 U.S. 510 (2001). In that opinion, he said states may not “favor or disfavor a class of candidates.” That decision struck down a Missouri state law that provided that candidates for Congress should have labels on the ballot that said what their position is, on amending the U.S. Constitution to provide for term limits for Congress.

Justices David Souter, Ruth Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer voted that the Millionaires’ Amendment is constitutional, but they didn’t join the portion of Justice Stevens’ dissent that said Buckley v Valeo should be overturned.

As I see it the entire McCain-Feingold law is antithetical to the 1st.

 

Democrats Sue Federal Election Commission Over McCain Spending

Posted on April 14th, 2008 at 3:25pm by bile Categories and Tags: Uncategorized, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

http://www.ballot-access.org/…

On April 14, the Democratic National Committee filed a lawsuit against the Federal Election Commission, case no 1:08-cv-639, in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. The lawsuit is really directed at Senator John McCain, who has spent more than is permitted already, during the primary season, for candidates who accept primary season matching funds. McCain has said he is not bound by the limit because he never actually took primary season matching funds. But the Democratic complaint points out that he because he was eligible for them, he was able to get on the Delaware and Ohio presidential primary ballots without petitioning (the law exempts presidential primary candidates from petitioning if they are entitled to primary season matching funds).

The Democrats are suing the FEC to force the FEC to act against McCain. However, since the FEC only has two commissioners and four vacancies, it is without a quorum, so the lawsuit asks that the Democratic National Committee be given permission to sue McCain directly, since it is hopeless that the FEC can act. See their complaint here.

I hope they succeed. McCain deserves it.

 


Jailed Activist Info

blog of bile