2012 Election: Republican Candidates

[IMG]http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/reuters/2012-04-25t002032z_1693165703_lm2e84p00y901_rtrmadp_3_usa-campaign-romney.photoblog600.jpg[/IMG]
Brian Snyder / REUTERS
[I]Supporters cheer as they wait for a speech by Mitt Romney in Manchester, N.H. on April 24, 2012[/I].

Updated 9:48 p.m. ET - Mitt Romney declared victory in his quest to become the Republican presidential nominee on Tuesday and kicked off his general election campaign against President Barack Obama in earnest following a clean sweep of primaries in the Northeast.

Romney's performance in Connecticut, Delaware, New York, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island allowed him to cap a tumultuous GOP primary cycle that extended longer than many expected. Romney's march toward the 1,144 delegates needed to secure the nomination appeared, at this point, to be all but a formality.

And, eager to begin prosecuting his case against Obama, Romney took a victory lap in the general election swing state of New Hampshire -- rather than appearing in any of the states hosting nominating contests tonight or in the future -- to declare, "a better America begins tonight."

"Tonight I can say thank you, America," Romney told a cheering crowd in the Granite State. "After 43 primaries and caucuses, many long days and more than a few long nights, I can say with confidence -- and gratitude -- that you have given me a great honor and solemn responsibility. And, together, we are going to win on Nov. 6."

Romney faced only token opposition from former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Texas Rep. Ron Paul in Tuesday's contests. The former Massachusetts governor had all but assumed the status of presumptive Republican nominee two weeks ago, when his principal conservative rival, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, suspended his campaign.

From The New York Times:

[QUOTE][IMG]http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2012/04/25/us/politics/2sub-romney/2sub-romney-articleLarge.jpg[/IMG]
[I]Cheryl Senter for The New York Times
As Republicans in five other states voted Tuesday, Mitt Romney addressed general election themes in Manchester, N.H[/I].

MANCHESTER, N.H. — Mitt Romney effectively assumed the helm of the Republican Party on Tuesday after five primary victories across the Northeast solidified his stature as the presidential nominee-in-waiting who is trying to unite conservatives and persuade independent voters that President Obama does not deserve a second term.

As Mr. Romney received a significant boost in delegates from New York, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Rhode Island and Delaware, moving closer to the total needed to formally secure the nomination, he marked the milestone by outlining themes of the fall campaign in a visit to this battleground state.

“Americans have always been eternal optimists,” Mr. Romney said during a speech to supporters here. “Over the last three and a half years, we have seen hopes and dreams diminished by false promises and weak leadership. Everywhere I go, Americans are tired of being tired.”

Mr. Romney, who fought back challenges from a Republican field that once included nearly a dozen rivals, has been shifting his campaign toward the general election since Rick Santorum left the race two weeks ago. But as Newt Gingrich indicated a new willingness to reassess his candidacy after his defeat in Delaware, a primary he considered crucial, the formal end to the race finally seemed at hand, giving Mr. Romney latitude to assert control over the Republican National Committee and concentrate on how to confront Mr. Obama.

The Romney campaign, which has been expanding rapidly, is settling on a message for the fall campaign. Mr. Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, laid out a succinct argument for his economic leadership and urged Americans to consider whether they are better off now than when Mr. Obama took office three years ago.

“President Obama is not going to run on his record, but we are,” said Ed Gillespie, a senior adviser to the Romney campaign. He said Mr. Romney would detail his economic vision as he prepared to challenge Mr. Obama, declaring, “It’s not just about the last three years, but the future.”

More than 200 delegates were at stake on Tuesday. With the outcome of the nominating contest no longer in doubt, Mr. Romney barely campaigned in the states, but he was expected to win the lion’s share of the delegates and accelerate his effort to reach the 1,144 required for the nomination.

“Is it easier to make ends meet? Is it easier to sell your home or buy a new one?” Mr. Romney asked, ticking through a litany of challenges facing Americans. He added, “If the answer were yes to those questions, then President Obama would be running for re-election based on his achievements and rightly so, but because he has failed, he will run a campaign of diversions and distractions and distortions.”

Although Mr. Romney often talks about how he and the president offer competing visions of the country’s future, he will try to turn the focus to a contrast between his vision and Mr. Obama’s record. The campaign will mine details of the president’s actions in office, particularly his stewardship of the economy.

Mr. Romney will also begin introducing himself to a wider audience of voters who have yet to focus on the general election. In addition to having him talk about his background and business experience, the campaign will increase the presence of his wife, Ann, and five sons on the trail. On Monday night, Mrs. Romney headlined a Republican dinner in Stamford, Conn., choking up when she talked about how her husband stood by her side when she was found to have multiple sclerosis.

The Republican primary campaign, which was defined by the acrimony among Mr. Romney, Mr. Santorum and their rivals over the party’s direction, is drawing to a close in an anticlimactic fashion. Some Republicans have done little to mask their tepid response to Mr. Romney, but several party leaders said Tuesday that they did not worry about getting conservatives to rally behind him.

“It’s Obama that’s going to get Republicans jazzed up,” said Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina, who has expressed support for Mr. Romney. “As he gets his positions across and shows the contrast with where Obama’s taken the country and where he wants to take us, people will clearly see what he is talking about.”

As Mr. Romney attends fund-raisers in New York and New Jersey on Wednesday, many of his top aides will gather in Boston for what one adviser described as a day of “serious meetings” to discuss building his campaign into a general election operation ready to take on Mr. Obama. Already, the Romney campaign has started creating a “cubicle village” in the now-empty first floor of its headquarters to accommodate all of its new hires.

One campaign challenge will be keeping Mr. Romney in the spotlight, particularly as he competes with the White House for attention. To that end, his campaign manager, Matt Rhoades, is devising a rollout calendar with the intent of introducing national endorsements (former Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani of New York on Monday) or big-name campaigners (Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, who spent Monday with Mr. Romney in Pennsylvania) almost daily.

The Romney campaign is aggressively looking into all aspects of the Obama administration, with a plan to present the president as a nice and likable but unsuited to solving the country’s economic challenges. Aides said they intended to keep the conversation focused on Mr. Obama’s record in the White House and not his personal biography.

“There is a pretty broad view that President Obama is a good family man and decent guy, but may be in over his head,” said Mr. Gillespie, a former counselor to George W. Bush, who was brought into the Romney campaign this month. He said the argument against re-election would be built around the suggestion that Mr. Obama “has not displayed strong leadership, but failed leadership and weak leadership.”

Mr. Obama offered his take on Mr. Romney during a taping on Tuesday of “Late Night With Jimmy Fallon,” saying: “I’ve met him, but we’re not friends.”

[I]Ashley Parker reported from Manchester, and Jeff Zeleny from Washington. Jennifer Steinhauer contributed reporting from Washington.[/I][/QUOTE]

From Reuters:

[QUOTE][IMG]http://l.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/t5HrdR3F0zYzQkMQkluH6A--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9aW5zZXQ7aD0zOTU7cT04NTt3PTYzMA--/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/Reuters/2012-04-25T013406Z_1619329052_LM2E84P04CU01_RTRMADP_3_USA-CAMPAIGN-GINGRICH.JPG[/IMG]
[I]Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich gestures during a rally in Concord, North Carolina on the night of the New York, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Rhode Island and Delaware primaries April 24, 2012. The primaries on Tuesday could spell the end for another remaining rival, former House of Representatives Speaker Newt Gingrich. He said on Monday he would reassess his candidacy if he did not win the primary in Delaware, where he had campaigned heavily in recent weeks[/I]. REUTERS/Chris Keane (UNITED STATES - Tags: POLITICS)

Can anyone tell us what does this @#@# loser is trying to accomplish?

Although Newt Gingrich lost the Delaware primary by an overwhelming 29 percent to Mitt Romney, the former speaker of the House still did not announce the suspension of his presidential campaign Tuesday night.

Gingrich, who simultaneously lost to Romney in New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Pennsylvania on Tuesday, said earlier in the week that if he lost the winner-take-all state of Delaware - where he focused his campaigning - he would "reassess" his presidential bid. On Tuesday night a more subdued and somber Gingrich told a small crowd in Concord, Delaware that while he still wants to take the conservative fight "all the way to Tampa" to the Republican National Convention, he also wants to be pragmatic.

"Over the next few days, we're going to look realistically at where we are at," Gingrich said.

Possibly hinting that he will be returning to regular life as a non-candidate, Gingrich told the crowd at Concord's Vintage Motor Club that he wanted to stand together to defeat Obama.

"So we want you to know that as citizens, we are going to be right there standing shoulder by shoulder with you and that as we think through about how we can best be effective citizens over the next week or two - we are going to rely on you for help and you for advice," Gingrich said.

One man shaking Gingrich's hand on the rope line pleaded with him to stay in the race.

"I think there's a point where we have to be realistic about what you can accomplish. But as a citizen, I'm not … I'm going to stay at it," Gingrich told the man.

Another telling sign the Gingrich campaign was possibly moving on Tuesday was that Callista Gingrich's stump speech, which has not varied much since she began introducing her husband, left out a key component: she did not refer to him as "the next president of the United States."

Gingrich told the crowd he wanted to be clear that he was going to continue to campaign in North Carolina as he evaluates his place in the GOP race.

"We have, I think, 23 events all together here in North Carolina this week. We will be at 23 events here," Gingrich said.

Gingrich conceded that Romney was "going to have a very good night."

"It is a night that he has worked hard for, for six years. And that if he does end up as the nominee, I think every conservative in the country has to be committed to defeating Barack Obama," he said.

Gingrich told one reporter that he would not make any decisions before Sunday.[/QUOTE]

[I]Apr 16, 2012 12:00 AM EDT[/I]

Handicapping the race for secretary of state.

Next to guessing whom Mitt Romney will pick as his running mate, there’s no more delicious fruit on Washington’s tree of gossip than the identity of the next secretary of state. It remains a position of transcendent importance, especially in a new world where everyone seems to live and throw garbage in everyone else’s backyard. The prospects generally lack the public presence and star power of most Foggy Bottom occupants—Henry Kissinger, Colin Powell, and Condi Rice, for example. And they certainly don’t rival Hillary Clinton, who is determined both to stay until January and not be a lame duck. Doubt not that she has the will, standing abroad, and popularity at home to walk from office with head high.

The contenders for both President Obama and Romney are basically inside professionals, very well known and respected by peers and foreign leaders. But they lack the stage presence of their immediate predecessors.

Obama’s list centers on John Kerry, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee; U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice; and National Security Adviser Thomas Donilon. According to insiders, Obama is thinking Kerry would travel a lot and successfully, and interfere least with policymaking. Susan Rice’s blend of soft and hard line sits well in the Oval Office. Donilon is regarded as the wisest policy and political head.

The Republican contingent is somewhat elusive, because Romney’s attention has been on the primaries, and because his international experience mainly revolved around his key role in the 2002 Winter Olympics held in exotic Mormon Utah. In other words, he is not intimate with the foreign-policy crowd, even compared with Obama four years ago, who at least sat for two years on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Almost certainly, however, Romney’s possibles include Robert Zoellick, the outgoing president of the World Bank; Stephen Hadley, national security adviser to George W. Bush; and Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations (an organization familiar to this author). All held senior jobs in recent Republican administrations.
Don’t count out two big surprises, neither identified with a political party: William Burns, the current deputy secretary of state; and Nicholas Burns, who held the No. 3 job at State under Condi Rice. Bill and Nick—both Irish, but unrelated—have impressive skills.

[IMG]http://www.thedailybeast.com/content/newsweek/2012/04/15/washington-whispers-about-who-will-be-next-secretary-of-state/_jcr_content/body/inlineimage.img.503.jpg/1334391817104.jpg[/IMG]
[I]Clinton, respected abroad and popular at home, will be a tough act to follow[/I], Stephen Crowley / The New York Times-Redux

The competition for this storied position follows carefully established informal rules. It takes place in whispers, careful put-downs (larger ones might get back to the prospect), and considered maneuvers. It is said (notice the circumlocution) that Donilon suggested to Obama naming Susan Rice to replace Zoellick at the World Bank. It was a justifiable move, given America’s difficulties in holding onto the bank’s presidency. But it would also have removed Rice, perhaps Clinton’s likeliest successor at this point, from the race. Hadley is taking the route above party politics. He’s serving on Clinton’s policy advisory board and not attaching his name to partisan attacks on Obama. But his Republican credentials are so solid that he is widely regarded as Romney’s likeliest choice. John Kerry has adopted a low profile to avoid controversy.

For all the attention paid to who will be the next president’s face in foreign affairs, being secretary of state isn’t what it used to be. Frightening problems still flourish. There’s always the danger of being sucked into hellholes like Iran, Syria, and North Korea. The Middle East seems more explosive than ever. China now looms as the challenging superpower.

At seminal moments in American history, the secretary of state stepped forward to formulate the nation’s strategic path. The memorable strategists include George Marshall for President Truman, Henry Kissinger for Nixon, James Baker for George H.W. Bush. But for almost two decades now, policymaking power has been concentrated increasingly in the White House–under George W. Bush and Vice President Cheney and today very much in the controlling hands of Barack Obama. The secretaries do the diplomacy and the execution, but the policy is made in a very centralized manner in the Oval Office.

In fact, the American cognoscenti should be focusing much more on who will be the next treasury secretary than next secretary of state. In 21st-century international affairs, GDP counts more than military might in most situations. Clinton has been acutely aware of this and is endeavoring to frame a new foreign economic policy for her successor. Old habits, however, die hard, and the most influential lips in Washington still whisper about the next Hillary rather than the next Tim Geithner.

By Kevin Bohn, CNN Senior Producer

[QUOTE][I]updated 8:43 PM EDT, Thu April 26, 2012[/I]

Washington (CNN) -- For months now, his name has gone hand-in-hand with that of Newt Gingrich.

But as the former House speaker prepares to leave the Republican nomination race next week, Sheldon Adelson has to decide what political causes -- and which candidates -- to support.

Adelson's not wasting time. The Nevada billionaire and mogul and his wife, Miriam, are two of the hosts for a fundraiser on Friday for House Speaker John Boehner's re-election campaign at Adelson's casino, The Venetian, along with fellow magnate Steve Wynn and the American Gaming Association.

The Adelsons have made a big political splash, giving $20 million to the super PAC Winning Our Future that was largely responsible for keeping Gingrich's candidacy alive in the past few months. That includes a $5 million contribution late last month.

"You'll see him continue to be active," one Nevada Republican operative predicted.

Adelson previously told some supporters of Mitt Romney he would back his candidacy if he became the Republican nominee, according to sources familiar with the matter. What is not clear is how much he and his wife will end up donating or when. Associates have said a major motivation for him is preventing the re-election of President Barack Obama. He thinks Republicans would be stronger proponents for Israel's safety, which friends have said trumps all other concerns for him.

"When the presidential campaign started he said his goal was to defeat Barack Obama, and he was going to do whatever he could to do that," one friend told CNN.

The future financial support from Adelson is something Romney and his allies would like to see and have sought. The two men met right before the February 4 Nevada caucuses and have spoken on the phone many times.

About a dozen donors to the super PAC backing Romney, Restore Our Future, met with Adelson in Las Vegas late last month while they were in town for the Republican Jewish Coalition to convince him to "come on board." He indicated to them, according to one of the participants, "it is just a matter of time."

While he was complimentary of Romney in that session, according to one source familiar with the matter, he also has publicly criticized him as not being a bold decision-maker.

"He's not the bold decision-maker like Newt Gingrich is. He doesn't want to -- every time I talk to him, he says, 'Well, let me think about it,' " he told JewishJournal.com at the end of March.

Adelson has been a prolific donor to Republican causes in past years. Earlier this year, he and his wife each donated $2.5 million to the Congressional Leadership Fund, a group dedicated to keeping the Republican majority in the House of Representatives.

Adelson was a bundler for John McCain's 2008 presidential candidacy, helping to bring in $219,000 for that campaign. He and his wife contributed almost $215,000 to the Republican National Committee and the National Republican Congressional Committee, aimed at electing GOP candidates.

Nevada Republicans also expect Adelson to be involved in some fashion to support Republican Sen. Dean Heller's re-election effort against Democratic Rep. Shelley Berkley, according to one Nevada Republican source, and he and his wife last year maxed out their allowed donations to Heller and U.S. Rep. Joe Heck, R-Nevada.

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan group that tracks the role of money in politics, Sheldon and Miriam Adelson rank as the top individuals funding outside spending groups this election cycle.

In February, when Gingrich looked to have a serious chance at getting the Republican nomination, he told Forbes magazine he might give as much as $100 million to support the former House speaker. What is unclear is whether he will follow through with that amount and where it may go now that Gingrich will no longer be in the race.

In that interview, he defended his donations and said he had nothing for which to apologize.

"I'm against very wealthy people attempting to influence elections," he said. "But as long as it's doable, I'm going to do it. Because I know that guys like (George) Soros have been doing it for years, if not decades. And they stay below the radar by creating a network of corporations to funnel their money. I have my own philosophy, and I'm not ashamed of it. I gave the money because there is no other legal way to do it. I don't want to go through 10 different corporations to hide my name. I'm proud of what I do, and I'm not looking to escape recognition."

The Adelsons came under some criticism from Republicans for their support of the super PAC backing Gingrich, especially when it was airing bitter ads in January questioning Romney's record at Bain Capital and also when it became clear that Gingrich's candidacy stalled.

Adelson reacted to the critics in the Forbes interview: "Those people are either jealous or professional critics." He added: "They like to trash other people. It's unfair that I've been treated unfair -- but it doesn't stop me."

Adelson was longtime friends with Gingrich from the time he served as House speaker, and the two shared common beliefs regarding Israel and the need to protect it.

"I am in favor of Newt Gingrich because I like people who make decisions. He is a decision-maker," he told the Jewish Journal publication.

He also was motivated because he did not want Rick Santorum to become the nominee.

"Rick Santorum ... is too social," he also said. "This man has no history creating anything or taking risks." He said he knew Santorum and liked him, but "I don't want him to run my country."

A spokesman for Adelson did not return calls seeking comment on the plans for future donations.[/QUOTE]

By Peter Wallsten [Washington Post]:

[QUOTE]Gaby Pacheco, a vocal immigrant activist, accepted a tantalizing invitation last week from an unlikely source: Republican Sen. Marco Rubio wanted her to help craft a bill that could legalize the children of some illegal immigrants.

Two hours later, Pacheco and other activists got a different pitch from their more familiar White House allies. Be wary of Rubio and his plan, two of President Obama’s top advisers told them in a meeting. It wouldn’t go far enough and wasn’t likely to succeed.

The group was polite but noncommittal. “We’re not married to the Democratic or Republican parties,” said Pacheco, 27. “We’re going to push what’s best for the community.”

The events of that day illustrated how the new effort by Rubio (Fla.) has upended the immigration debate in Washington, exposing tensions in both parties as Obama and the GOP assess how the issue might sway the crucial Hispanic vote in November.

In recent days, Rubio has quietly reached out to a number of immigrant advocates who are usually White House allies but have grown frustrated with some of the president’s policies. Some of the activists say they are open to Rubio’s effort — even though it would stop short of a provision in the Democratic-backed Dream Act to create a path to citizenship — because it would at least provide some relief to people at risk of being deported.

Rubio has not put his plan on paper, but his office describes it as an “alternative” to the Dream Act that would legalize certain young people who came to the United States while they were children. The measure would grant non-immigrant visas so qualified young people could remain in the United States for college or to serve in the military.

The plan puts Obama in a box. Democrats are reluctant to see Rubio’s efforts as anything other than a political gambit to repair his party’s tarnished image with Hispanics and boost his own profile as a potential vice-presidential pick or future White House contender.

But if Obama does not at least try to work with Rubio, he could risk losing a centerpiece of his appeal to Hispanic voters — that he is their fiercest ally in Washington and that the GOP is to blame for lack of action on fixing the country’s immigration ills.

White House resistance to Rubio threatens to escalate criticism from Obama allies frustrated that he was unable to deliver on a broad immigration overhaul and angry that his administration has deported more than 1 million illegal immigrants.

A White House official who spoke on condition of anonymity called it “ludicrous” to suggest that the president would be an obstacle to helping the young people or their advocates. The official noted that Obama would happily have signed the Dream Act into law in 2010 had Republicans not blocked it and that he remains in favor of a broader plan that would create a path to citizenship for many of the 11 million to 12 million people in the United States illegally.

The official said that the president welcomed any serious effort from Republicans to forge a bipartisan approach but that it was impossible to fully judge Rubio’s plan until it appears in writing as a bill.

Obama seemed to disparage the Rubio effort during an interview this month on the Spanish-language network Telemundo. “This notion that somehow Republicans want to have it both ways, they want to vote against these laws and appeal to anti-immigrant sentiment . . . and then they come and say, ‘But we really care about these kids and we want to do something about it’ — that looks like hypocrisy to me,” Obama said.

The issue also presents a quandary for likely GOP nominee Mitt Romney, who has alienated many Hispanic voters with his hard-right positions and rhetoric on immigration during the Republican primary campaign.

He now must weigh how to undo the damage without angering conservatives who are on the lookout for a flip-flop by a candidate known for his evolving views.

At a Monday campaign event with Rubio, Romney did not take a position on the plan.

“I’m taking a look at his proposal,” Romney said. “It has many features to commend it, but it’s something that we’re studying.”

Several conservatives have already blasted Rubio’s plan as a form of “amnesty,” but aides to the senator say he is lobbying key players and media personalities on the right to hold their fire.

Many Democrats have dismissed the push by Rubio, the son of Cuban immigrants who was elected in 2010 as a conservative darling after adopting hard-line positions on illegal immigration. Some critics on the left say his proposal would create a second class of Americans, permitted to live in the United States but unable to achieve the full rights of citizenship.

But his efforts appear to be further driving a wedge between Obama and his restive Hispanic activist supporters.

The senator conferred Wednesday afternoon with several leading members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, for example, including Rep. Luis V. Gutierrez (D-Ill.), one of the most vocal critics of Obama’s deportation policies.

Last week, Rubio sat at a dinner party beside Janet Murguia, president of the National Council of La Raza, one of the country’s most prominent Hispanic advocacy groups, and the two discussed ways to work together on policy.

“It’s clear that there wouldn’t be an effort to be talking about this right now if it weren’t for Senator Rubio engaging on this,” Murguia said. “We need to know whether the president can use this as an opportunity.”

Rubio’s outreach to Pacheco — who was brought to the United States illegally when she was 8 — and other young undocumented immigrants came after they had been asking for months without success for a chance to meet with Obama. The senator first called Pacheco on her cellphone, and the two spoke for about a half-hour. He later met with a small group at Miami-Dade College.

“He said, ‘If you feel at any point that this is something you guys cannot support, let me know,’ ” Pacheco recalled.

The president’s challenge has been evident in recent days during tense encounters between top White House aides and Hispanic leaders, who have continued to press for the president to simply sign an executive order preventing the deportations of any people who would qualify for the Dream Act. In one heated session last week between Congressional Hispanic Caucus members and domestic policy adviser Cecilia Munoz, Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-Calif.) grew so frustrated that she walked out, according to people familiar with the meeting.

In their meeting with Pacheco and other young activists, Munoz and senior White House adviser Valerie Jarrett offered warnings that going along with Rubio’s plan put at risk other efforts to pass the full Dream Act with a path to citizenship. They told the activists that Rubio had not demonstrated he could win support from fellow Republicans and that the president would use his clout to push an immigration plan next year. “They said, ‘Be careful we’re not lowering the bar. Citizenship is important,’ ” Pacheco recalled.

But Pacheco, who remains undocumented even after graduating from college, said Obama should see the situation as more urgent. “We’re at a point of desperation, at a point where we cannot continue to live the way we’ve been living,” she said.[/QUOTE]

[I]Brentin Mock [The Nation] on April 26, 2012 - 10:21 AM ET[/I]

[QUOTE]It’s becoming more difficult for people to see how their vote is going to matter in the 2012 election. When states are increasingly passing voter ID laws that mandate voters prove they are citizens or that they are legitimate voters at the polls, while Super PACs are able to field millions of dollars, often from unidentified people, to influence elections, then democracy becomes less of a real thing to many people. A new survey from the Brennan Center for Justice shows majorities of Americans seeing Super PACs as corrupting forces on elections. There’s enough Super PAC distrust in the survey that many said they likely won’t vote. Evidently Bonnie Raitt isn’t the only person who feels, as she said in Rolling Stone, that “we have an auction instead of an election.”

Voters of color certainly feel that way. In the Brennan survey, African-Americans and Latino Americans were more likely than whites to say they feel discouraged from voting due to the outsized influence of Super PACs, and who can blame them? In many states, voters of color will have to go through the often user-unfriendly process of excavating birth and marriage documents, and then hoping there’s a DMV office close by that they can get to between shifts or after work hours, all to get ID cards that they otherwise wouldn’t need. Once done, they better hope their address doesn’t change (hope they’re not evicted, foreclosed upon or otherwise homeless), or that their name doesn’t change (hope they don’t get divorced), or if they are Latino, hope that their name is recorded correctly, or else they may get turned away after a long wait in line because the ID information doesn’t match with the registers.

But before all of that, they have to overcome the idea that their one vote is going to matter as much as the $1 million gift to a Super PAC. They have to also overcome the idea that as a voter they may not have the same access to the elected candidate as the million-dollar donors—many donors who by the way do not have to be identified to the public when voting by bank account, nor do they have to wait in long lines because they’re making payments online.

When only about 20 percent of Americans believe the average voter has the same access and influence on candidates as Super PAC big donors, as reported in the Brennan Center survey, and when over a quarter of respondents say they are less likely to vote because of Super PAC influence, there is evidence that democracy isn’t working for everybody. Voter ID laws, which supposedly clean up fraud in the system, won’t solve that problem, especially when fat-cat donors aren’t subject to the same identification regimens.

“I would think that people who are raising so many questions about possibilities of fraud entering the system are as concerned about millions of dollars poured into the system to influence votes,” said Adam Skaggs, senior counsel for the Brennan Center.

Skaggs pointed out that while rules around donor disclosure to Super PACs are in place to make sure that the public knows who it is that’s making it rain on independent expenditure committees, there is a way around that by donating to 501(c)4 non-profits, which aren’t subject to the same disclosure rules. And many Super PACs have set up nonprofits that act as money launderers, allowing individuals and corporations to give unlimited amounts of money to Super PACs, but washed through the nonprofit cycle so that people don’t know who the sources are. Skaggs says the Supreme Court “got it wrong” in the Citizens United decision when they reasoned that corporate expenditures would be fair and transparent because they have to report donor information to the Federal Election Commission. But the justices didn’t figure that nonprofits could be set up as middlemen to bring in anonymous donations.

As a result, we have a situation like the Crossroads Super PAC, which has a PO-box nonprofit called Crossroads GPS. The website offers no information on the activities on this “grassroots advocacy organization” because there are none to speak of, unless you count their political ads. The only page on their website that matters is the “Please Donate” page, where Crossroads is happy to inform us that “There are no limits on the amounts that may be contributed to Crossroads GPS by an individual, corporation, union or trade association.” And while donations over $5000 require reporting to the IRS, Crossroads reminds the donor that “the IRS does not make these donor disclosures available to the general public.”

Technically, all nonprofits are subject to the nondisclosure provision. But there are nonprofits that have been doing actual social welfare work for decades that people can donate to so that that work can be continued; and then there are nonprofits created purely to funnel Super PAC money. Why would wealthy donors give to Super PAC–sponsored nonprofits as opposed to directly to Super PACs? Because they don’t want to be identified. It’s the same reason companies participate and pay thousands in dues to nonprofits like the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC)—as Brendan Greeley wrote in Bloomberg Businessweek, they value the secrecy. They want their money to influence policy and candidates, in favor of conservative interests, but they can do without the transparency and accountability.

It’s unclear, though, that Super PACs themselves are complying with disclosure rules. The Washington Post reported this week about a mysterious $400,000 donation to the Mitt Romney–supporting Super PAC Restore Our Future. At first, the Super PAC refused to disclose the names of the donors, who made contributions in their company’s name. Only after news organizations prodded were the actual donors’ names finally revealed. A Restore Our Future spokesperson said the reason the names weren’t disclosed before was because of “a clerical error.”

Clerical errors happen all the time when voters are being registered and their votes are counted. But when that happens, it’s not called a “clerical error.” It’s called “voter fraud.” And it’s called voter fraud by the same people who are champions for Super PAC unlimited spending—wealthy conservatives. It doesn’t matter how damaging this is for democracy, or that the balance of political power is tipped in favor of the 1 percent, who already had an unbalanced advantage to begin with.

I agree with Skaggs that the non-profit loophole needs to be closed. Considering that legitimate nonprofits have a right to still have undisclosed donations, for legitimate nonprofit social welfare work, he suggests that nonprofits have separate accounts, especially for those who are giving upwards of tens of thousands of dollars for campaign purposes, and that the names of those donors be disclosed to the public. The rules should be adjusted so that those nonprofits that haven’t been engaged in campaign spending manipulation aren’t penalized. But “as to whether there should be full disclosure on who is spending on ads clearly aimed at voting for or against a candidate, we absolutely should have full disclosure,” said Skaggs.

A coalition of voting rights groups signed onto a letter asking Congress to pass The DISCLOSE Act. The letter states, “It is a cardinal rule of campaign finance laws that citizens are entitled to know the donors financing campaign expenditures to influence their votes, and the amounts they gave.” Maybe the Supreme Court didn’t see these problems coming when it made its Citizens United decision, but now the floodgates are open, and if adjustments are not made, democracy will become, as Raitt noted, a series of auctions. Most importantly, though, if conservatives want people to place onerous restrictions on how voters identify themselves at the polls, then they should identify who they are when making fat campaign donations.[/QUOTE]

People of Color Less Likely to Vote Because of Super PAC Influence
Brentin Mock on April 26, 2012 - 10:21 AM ET
It’s becoming more difficult for people to see how their vote is going to matter in the 2012 election. When states are increasingly passing voter ID laws that mandate voters prove they are citizens or that they are legitimate voters at the polls, while Super PACs are able to field millions of dollars, often from unidentified people, to influence elections, then democracy becomes less of a real thing to many people. A new survey from the Brennan Center for Justice shows majorities of Americans seeing Super PACs as corrupting forces on elections. There’s enough Super PAC distrust in the survey that many said they likely won’t vote. Evidently Bonnie Raitt isn’t the only person who feels, as she said in Rolling Stone, that “we have an auction instead of an election.”

Voters of color certainly feel that way. In the Brennan survey, African-Americans and Latino Americans were more likely than whites to say they feel discouraged from voting due to the outsized influence of Super PACs, and who can blame them? In many states, voters of color will have to go through the often user-unfriendly process of excavating birth and marriage documents, and then hoping there’s a DMV office close by that they can get to between shifts or after work hours, all to get ID cards that they otherwise wouldn’t need. Once done, they better hope their address doesn’t change (hope they’re not evicted, foreclosed upon or otherwise homeless), or that their name doesn’t change (hope they don’t get divorced), or if they are Latino, hope that their name is recorded correctly, or else they may get turned away after a long wait in line because the ID information doesn’t match with the registers.

But before all of that, they have to overcome the idea that their one vote is going to matter as much as the $1 million gift to a Super PAC. They have to also overcome the idea that as a voter they may not have the same access to the elected candidate as the million-dollar donors—many donors who by the way do not have to be identified to the public when voting by bank account, nor do they have to wait in long lines because they’re making payments online.

When only about 20 percent of Americans believe the average voter has the same access and influence on candidates as Super PAC big donors, as reported in the Brennan Center survey, and when over a quarter of respondents say they are less likely to vote because of Super PAC influence, there is evidence that democracy isn’t working for everybody. Voter ID laws, which supposedly clean up fraud in the system, won’t solve that problem, especially when fat-cat donors aren’t subject to the same identification regimens.

“I would think that people who are raising so many questions about possibilities of fraud entering the system are as concerned about millions of dollars poured into the system to influence votes,” said Adam Skaggs, senior counsel for the Brennan Center.

Skaggs pointed out that while rules around donor disclosure to Super PACs are in place to make sure that the public knows who it is that’s making it rain on independent expenditure committees, there is a way around that by donating to 501(c)4 non-profits, which aren’t subject to the same disclosure rules. And many Super PACs have set up nonprofits that act as money launderers, allowing individuals and corporations to give unlimited amounts of money to Super PACs, but washed through the nonprofit cycle so that people don’t know who the sources are. Skaggs says the Supreme Court “got it wrong” in the Citizens United decision when they reasoned that corporate expenditures would be fair and transparent because they have to report donor information to the Federal Election Commission. But the justices didn’t figure that nonprofits could be set up as middlemen to bring in anonymous donations.

As a result, we have a situation like the Crossroads Super PAC, which has a PO-box nonprofit called Crossroads GPS. The website offers no information on the activities on this “grassroots advocacy organization” because there are none to speak of, unless you count their political ads. The only page on their website that matters is the “Please Donate” page, where Crossroads is happy to inform us that “There are no limits on the amounts that may be contributed to Crossroads GPS by an individual, corporation, union or trade association.” And while donations over $5000 require reporting to the IRS, Crossroads reminds the donor that “the IRS does not make these donor disclosures available to the general public.”

Technically, all nonprofits are subject to the nondisclosure provision. But there are nonprofits that have been doing actual social welfare work for decades that people can donate to so that that work can be continued; and then there are nonprofits created purely to funnel Super PAC money. Why would wealthy donors give to Super PAC–sponsored nonprofits as opposed to directly to Super PACs? Because they don’t want to be identified. It’s the same reason companies participate and pay thousands in dues to nonprofits like the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC)—as Brendan Greeley wrote in Bloomberg Businessweek, they value the secrecy. They want their money to influence policy and candidates, in favor of conservative interests, but they can do without the transparency and accountability.

It’s unclear, though, that Super PACs themselves are complying with disclosure rules. The Washington Post reported this week about a mysterious $400,000 donation to the Mitt Romney–supporting Super PAC Restore Our Future. At first, the Super PAC refused to disclose the names of the donors, who made contributions in their company’s name. Only after news organizations prodded were the actual donors’ names finally revealed. A Restore Our Future spokesperson said the reason the names weren’t disclosed before was because of “a clerical error.”

Clerical errors happen all the time when voters are being registered and their votes are counted. But when that happens, it’s not called a “clerical error.” It’s called “voter fraud.” And it’s called voter fraud by the same people who are champions for Super PAC unlimited spending—wealthy conservatives. It doesn’t matter how damaging this is for democracy, or that the balance of political power is tipped in favor of the 1 percent, who already had an unbalanced advantage to begin with.

I agree with Skaggs that the non-profit loophole needs to be closed. Considering that legitimate nonprofits have a right to still have undisclosed donations, for legitimate nonprofit social welfare work, he suggests that nonprofits have separate accounts, especially for those who are giving upwards of tens of thousands of dollars for campaign purposes, and that the names of those donors be disclosed to the public. The rules should be adjusted so that those nonprofits that haven’t been engaged in campaign spending manipulation aren’t penalized. But “as to whether there should be full disclosure on who is spending on ads clearly aimed at voting for or against a candidate, we absolutely should have full disclosure,” said Skaggs.

A coalition of voting rights groups signed onto a letter asking Congress to pass The DISCLOSE Act. The letter states, “It is a cardinal rule of campaign finance laws that citizens are entitled to know the donors financing campaign expenditures to influence their votes, and the amounts they gave.” Maybe the Supreme Court didn’t see these problems coming when it made its Citizens United decision, but now the floodgates are open, and if adjustments are not made, democracy will become, as Raitt noted, a series of auctions. Most importantly, though, if conservatives want people to place onerous restrictions on how voters identify themselves at the polls, then they should identify who they are when making fat campaign donations.

[I]From Washington Post
[/I]Updated: Sat., May. 5, 2012, 6:14 PM
Last Updated: 6:14 PM, May 5, 2012
[I]Posted: 2:42 PM, May 5, 2012[/I]

[QUOTE][IMG]http://www.nypost.com/rw/nypost/2012/05/05/news/web_photos/obama_michelle--300x450.jpg[/IMG]
AP
[I]President Obama waves, as Michelle looks on, after a campaign rally at The Ohio State University in Columbus, Ohio today[/I].

COLUMBUS, Ohio — Plunging into his campaign for a new term, President Barack Obama tore into Mitt Romney on Saturday as a willing and eager "rubber stamp" for conservative Republicans in Congress and an agenda to cut taxes for the rich, reduce spending on education and Medicare and enhance power that big banks and insurers hold over consumers.

Romney and his "friends in Congress think the same bad ideas will lead to a different result or they're just hoping you won't remember what happened the last time you tried it their way," the president told an audience estimated at over 10,000 partisans at what aides insisted was his first full-fledged political rally of the election year.

Six months before Election Day, the polls point to a close race between Obama and Romney, with the economy the overriding issue as the nation struggles to recover from the worst recession since the 1930s. Unemployment remains stubbornly high at 8.1 percent nationally, although it has receded slowly and unevenly since peaking several months into the president's term. The most recent dip was due to discouraged jobless giving up their search for work.

Romney has staked his candidacy on an understanding of the economy, developed through a successful career as a businessman, and his promise to enact policies that stimulate job creation.

But Obama said his rival was merely doing the bidding of the conservative powerbrokers in Congress and has little understanding of the struggles of average Americans.

Romney "doesn't seem to understand that maximizing profits by whatever means necessary, whether it's through layoffs or outsourcing or tax avoidance, union busting, might not always be good for the average American or for the American economy," the president said.

"Why else would he want to cut his own taxes while raising them for 18 million Americans," Obama said of his multimillionaire opponent.

While Romney has yet to flesh out a detailed economic program, he and Republicans in Congress want to extend all the tax cuts that are due to expire at year's end. Obama and most Democrats want to let taxes rise for upper-income earners.

The president's campaign chose Ohio State University and Virginia Commonwealth University for the back-to-back rallies. Obama won both states in his successful race in 2008, although both have elected Republican governors since, and are expected to be hotly contested in the fall.

Obama has attended numerous fundraisers this election year, but over the escalating protests of Republicans, the White House has categorized all of his other appearances so far as part of his official duties.

The staging of the events eliminated any doubt about his purpose.

He was introduced in Columbus and again in Richmond by first lady Michelle Obama, and walked in to the cheers of thousands, many of them waving campaign-provided placards that read "Forward."

While the president is notably grayer than he was four years ago, he and his campaign worked to rekindle the energy and excitement among students and other voters who propelled him to the presidency in 2008.

"When people ask you what this election is about, you tell them it is still about hope. You tell them it is still about change," he said. It was a rebuttal to Romney's campaign, which has lately taken to mocking Obama's 2008 campaign mantra as "hype and blame."

If the economy is a potential ally for Romney, Obama holds other assets six months before the vote.

Unlike Romney, who struggled through a highly competitive primary season before recently wrapping up the nomination, Obama was unchallenged within his own party. As a result, his campaign's most recent filing showed cash on hand of $104 million, compared with a little over $10 million for Romney, and has worked to build organizations in several states for months.

But in the aftermath of recent Supreme Court rulings, modern presidential campaigns are more than ever waged on several fronts, and the effect of super political action committees and other outside groups able to raise donations in unlimited amounts is yet to be felt.

Already, while Romney pauses to refill his coffers, the super PAC Restore Our Future has spent more than $4 million on television advertising to introduce the Republican to the voters.

Romney had no public events Saturday after spending much of the week campaigning in Virginia and Pennsylvania.

A campaign spokeswoman, Andrea Saul, responding to Obama's speech in Ohio, said, "While President Obama all but ignored his record over 3 1/2 years in office, the American people won't. This November, they will hold him accountable for his broken promises and ineffective leadership."

With his rhetoric, Obama belittled Romney and signaled he intends to campaign both against his challenger and the congressional Republicans who have opposed most of his signature legislation overwhelmingly, if not unanimously.

After a spirited campaign for the Republican nomination, Obama said the GOP leadership found a nominee — in Virginia he called Romney their champion — "who has promised to rubber stamp" their agenda if he gets a chance.

Romney is a "patriotic American who has raised a wonderful family," and has been a successful businessman and governor, the president said. "But I think he has drawn the wrong lessons from that experience. He sincerely believes that if CEOs and investors like him make money the rest of us will automatically do well as well."

In addition to depicting Romney as a threat to the middle class, Obama also tried to blunt the impact of what is likely to be the Republicans' best campaign issue.

"The economy is still facing headwinds and it will take sustained persistent efforts, yours and mine, for America to fully recover," the president said. He noted that jobs are being created and urged his audience not to give in to what he predicted would be negative campaign commercials designed to "exploit frustrations."

"Over and over again they'll tell you that America is down and out and they'll tell you who to blame and ask if you're better off than the worst crisis in our lifetime," he said. "The real question ... is not just about how we're doing today but how we'll be doing tomorrow."

Scarcely more than a dozen states figure to be seriously contested in the fall, including the two where Obama campaigned Saturday.

They include much of the nation's industrial belt, from Wisconsin to Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania, as well as Nevada, Colorado and, the president's campaign insists, Arizona; the latter three all have large Hispanic populations. Both campaigns also are focusing on Iowa, Florida, North Carolina, Virginia and New Hampshire. Together, those states account for 157 electoral votes.

Barring a sudden crisis, foreign policy is expected to account for less voter interest than any presidential campaign since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Since taking office, Obama has made good on his pledge to end the war in Iraq, announced a timetable to phase out the U.S. combat role in Afghanistan by 2014 and given the order for a risky mission by special forces in which Osama bin Laden was killed in his hideout in Pakistan.

One recent poll showed the public trusts Obama over Romney by a margin of 53-36 on international affairs.

While the battleground states tend to be clustered geographically, the state-by-state impact of the recession and economic recovery varies.

In Ohio, for example unemployment was most recently measured at 7.6 percent, below the national average. It was higher, 9.1 percent and rising, when Obama took office, reaching 10.6 percent in the fall of 2009 before it began receding.

In Virginia, it was 5.6 percent in March, well below the national average. It was 6.6 percent in February 2009 and peaked in June of that year at 7.2.

In a measurement that shows an economy recovering, yet far from recovered, the Labor Department reported this month that 54 metropolitan areas had double-digit unemployment in March, down from 116 a year ago. By contrast, joblessness was below 7.0 percent in 109 areas, up from 62 a year earlier.

No matter the change, Romney attacks Obama's handling of the economy at every turn.

"If the last 3 1/2 years are his definition of forward, I'd have to see what backward looks like," he said late last week in Virginia.

The first lady, who accompanied the president during the day, has attended more than 50 fundraisers since his campaign filed formal candidacy papers with the Federal Election Commission 13 months ago.[/QUOTE]

[I]By Olivier Knox | The Ticket:[/I]

[QUOTE]Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice endorsed Mitt Romney late Wednesday at a fundraiser in California.

"We care about the future of this country and the future of the world and I'm delighted to join so many friends here in supporting and, in my case, endorsing Gov. Mitt Romney for president of the United States," Rice said at a private dinner for 300 well-heeled donors at a sprawling estate near San Francisco. "We have to defend the country, not just from (a position of) strength and power but from a sense of values of who we are."

Guests paid from $2,500 to $50,000 to attend the event at the Hillsborough, Calif., home of Charles and Ann Johnson, which the San Francisco Chronicle called "one of America's most lavish private homes."

Romney also picked up the endorsement of another former secretary of state, George Schultz, at the dinner.

"Gov. Romney is not just going to get elected … but he is going to be a great president," Schultz said. "And we need a great president right now."

Romney called the endorsements "very humbling," and said he was "buoyed by your confidence and your commitment, not only those who have spoken, but those who spoke with checkbooks."

The high-profile show of support comes the night after Romney mathematically secured the Republican nomination for president.

Rice was the first woman to serve as White House national security adviser, a position she held during President George W. Bush's first term before becoming his secretary of state. She has been teaching political science at Stanford University since Bush left office in January 2009.

Rice has repeatedly and forcefully denied interest in being Romney's running mate. But a mid-April CNN poll found her topping the list of people Republicans want to run for vice president, with 26 percent. (Former senator and erstwhile Romney rival Rick Santorum came in at 21 percent.)

It was not immediately clear how much of a campaign role Rice would take.Romney has already unveiled a list of foreign policy advisers, but some Republicans in Washington worry that he lacks a single, high-profile surrogate to defend his approach to world affairs. President Barack Obama is expected to hammer Romney on the issue, notably citing the withdrawal from Iraq and planned draw-down from Afghanistan, as well as the killing of Osama bin Laden. Rice's predecessor at the State Department, Colin Powell, has criticized Romney's approach to foreign policy.

[B]Update 12:00 a.m PT[/B]: [I]This story was updated to include details of the Rice and Schultz endorsements.[/I][/QUOTE]