Who does Sirota mention right at the top of his “good guys” list, ahem?

PEOPLE PARTY LEADERS

Freshman Senators Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Jon Tester (D-MT) and Jim Webb (D-VA): This is the core group of economic populists who defined the larger populist trend in the 2006 election. Brown has a long record in the House as an economic justice champion,….

Again, please! Forgive me. I’m not being smug, but I am really happy about this(!)

I understand why some FDL regulars felt uncomfortable because of the “torture vote” as it was labelled by some this past fall.

I hope most of those folks will now look at Senator-elect Sherrod Brown with a more open mind starting in Jan. 07, and be rewarded by seeing the kind of honesty, intelligence and drive his fans have known for many years.

Thank you Pach. Thank you David Sirota.

I wanted, in these comments, to make clear beyond doubt my admiration for David’s work.

Hear, hear. And, I think you also do a service by defining the issues of power in simple enough terms (borrowing from Mr. Sirota where useful), without committing the typical Republican error of dumbing an issue down to the point of uselessness.

But, in thinking on this (and thank you for that) I worry that these very issues will become a phalanx to once again divide the Democratic movement. There will always be the Emanuels and Shumers; ready and willing to step into the void and drink from the lobbyist’s trough. But, more and more I’m sure Hillary
considers a run at the presidency her devine right. And, I am just as sure that folks who consider her, don’t view her as a central ‘monied’ player in the democratic K/Street elite. She didn’t ammass 50 million for grins; and she is enough of a pure politician to garner support from the Big Ed Shultz version of progressive thought.

That worries me greatly. I don’t know what a truly progressive response from the people needs to be. Do you have some ideas?

I also just wanted to correct the record online, as there are audiences for these things beyond the immediate conversation. Lest there be any confusion, I wanted, in these comments, to make clear beyond doubt my admiration for David’s work.

I think Sirota is a bit soft on Obama, who I liked a great deal at first, but has sold out each time it’s counted. Show me some anti-money cajones, then we’ll talk, otherwise I’m not interested.

“Cajones” are “drawers” (as in a chest of) in Spanish. “Cojones” are the stuff that men are made of. Hee.

I guess nobody liked my radical leftist screed.

marx, engels, lenin and trotsky had their day. it’s over. time to move on.

lina @ 96

“Under federal election laws, PACs can legally contribute only $5,000 to a candidate committee per election (primary, general or special). They can also give up to $15,000 annually to any national party committee, and $5,000 annually to any other PAC. However, there is no limit to how much PACs can spend on advertising in support of candidates or in promotion of their agendas or beliefs. PACs must register with and file detailed financial reports of monies raised and spent to the Federal Election Commission.”

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/…..utpacs.htm

Since most campaigns spend the bulk of their money on advertising, a PAC then is able to spend directly on a particular candidate in excess of the $5000 limit, which is what I said. It is in-kind direct support of a candidate, and that’s why you see PAC totals exceeding the $5000 limit–the money spent on advertising is considered as part of the PAC’s total contributions to a candidate. I think that was your original question–why the totals are more than $5000.

As I said, PACs can and do spend as much as they like on a particular candidate. And their advertising can specifically advocate for a particular candidate and coordinate with the candidate what appears in the ad if they want, which a 527 technically cannot do.

So, if a candidate needs a million dollars for advertising to win, a single PAC can supply it, if they wanted to–because there’s no limit on that amount. Advertising is the single largest line item in any campaign these days, so allowing a PAC to buy the advertising itself is, in essence, the same thing as giving that money to a campaign. It’s yet another loophole that keeps the money-buys-votes system in place, as I’ve been intimating.

so a candidate making a $3 million ad buy, phones a PAC and tells them to pay CNN and MSNBC directly?

I don’t think so.

The PAC can do their own ad and make their own buy, but then they’re just like a 527. They are not directly paying to run the politician’s ads.