This full-page ad was printed in our (Iowa) Sunday paper, this morning.

[Frustratedlady]

http://www.commoncause.org/atf/cf/%7Bfb3c17e2-cdd1-4df6-92be-bd4429893665%7D/FAIRELECTIONSADFINAL.PDF

It may have been shown before, but thought I'd mention it anyway. It is sponsored by Common Cause.

"It's time to take this money out of circulation." It shows a million dollar bill with Abramoff's picture and is against special-interest money and for public financing.

"Candidates who have committed in writing to work for public financing of elections:" has Biden as the first photo, followed by Dodd, Edwards, Gravel, Kucinich and Obama.

"Candidates who have made no such written committment: Hillary, Rudy, Huckabee, Hunter, McCain, Richardson, Romney, Tancredo and Thompson.

"Candidates who oppose public financing:" Paul

They are putting some serious money into that ad.

This ad not only promotes public funding for campaigns, but also reminds us of the long-forgotten Abramoff scandal. We need to keep those cases upfront and visible. At least until after the election.

[patrice]

1. Thanks for the info about Biden. I didn't know. nt

[CaliforniaPeggy]

2. I'm with Common Cause, and you, on this issue...

The Clean Money Campaign is working to correct how campaigns are financed.

New Mexico, and I believe, Maine, already have implemented this program.

As a result, new people are getting into politics...

The concept is really quite simple: Whoever finances those campaigns, whoever gives money to the candidates...They own those candidates.

So if the campaigns are publicly financed, then the candidates speak to the people...

And not to the major corporations...

Candidates who are publicly financed are free to speak to the issues...

And this is how it should be!

K&R

[Frustratedlady]

8. I agree. Look at what private financing has bought us.

Hopefully, this ad (which really hits you in the face with Abramoff at eye level) will probably show up in other Sunday issues as the primaries near the end of each state.

[1corona4u]

3. Thanks Frustrated...

this needed to be out here.

[polichick]

4. So what's with Hillary and Richardson?? nt

[Der Blaue Engel]

5. I hadn't seen it before

Happy to give this rec #5.

[ChiciB1]

6. Great Ad... But It's In Alphabetical Order... But I Really Like Biden Myself...

as VP. He's so much better this time out!

[1corona4u]

16. Doesn't matter how they are listed, but.......

December 5, 2007 -- Washington, DC – Today U.S. Senator Joseph R. Biden, Jr. (D-DE) joined Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) in introducing the Presidential Funding Act of 2007, to strengthen the existing presidential public financing system funded by voluntary taxpayer contributions. Shortly after his election to the Senate in 1972, Sen. Biden called for public financing for campaigns in testimony before the Senate Rules Committee. He has since been one of the Senate’s most ardent and steadfast advocates for overhauling campaign funding laws in favor of public financing.

http://biden.senate.gov/newsroom/details.cfm?id=288331&



Joe had this to say about it;


“The presidential election should be about the power of ideas, not the influence of money,” said Senator Biden. “To protect the integrity of the system and the voice of the people against the fundraising power of special interests, we need to modernize the public financing system before it becomes irrelevant. For over thirty years, I have fought to reform how campaigns are funded. This bill is a good first step towards putting the public financing system in sync with modern presidential campaigns.”

Specifically, the Presidential Funding Act of 2007 will:
Increase the amount of matching funds for the presidential primaries from a 1:1 match for up to $250 of an individual's aggregate contributions, to a 4:1 match for up to $200 of an individual's contribution;
Repeal the state-by-state primary spending limits;
Increase the spending ceilings for candidates who participate in the public financing system in the primary (to $150 million) and the general elections (to $100 million);
Increase the qualifying threshold (from $5,000 to $25,000 in each of 20 states) for public financing in the primary election;
Change the starting date for the release of matching funds to primary candidates from January 1 of the election year to six months before the first presidential primary or caucus;
Require the disclosure of all individuals or groups that bundle contributions of $50,000 or more; and
Enhance the funding stream for the public funding system by increasing the check-off from $3 to $10 and indexing it for inflation.

“American’s confidence and trust in the system is threatened by out of control election spending,” said Senator Biden. “Selecting the leader of our country should not be a money game, and this bill would help restore the integrity of the nominating process for the most important elected office in our country.”



http://www.allamericanpatriots.com/48738487_joe-biden-cosponsors-bill-strengthen-presidential-campaign-public-financing-system

[Frustratedlady]

18. Thank you for adding that article

It supports the Biden position. I should have searched for it.

[ChiciB1]

20. I Think It's Great... And Thanks! n/t

[K Gardner]

7. The most striking thing about this ad is HRCs picture in the line of Republicans..

Even if you can't read, that's a pretty clear picture. Wonderful ad, thanks for posting, and kudos to Common Cause for this much needed message! Just curious, did the Des Moines Register run it?

[Frustratedlady]

10. I don't know, but I will check it out.

I'd run to the store and buy one, but we had 6" of the white stuff last night, and the snowplows blocked me in.

I would almost guarantee it hit all the larger papers of Iowa.

[K Gardner]

14. Ack.. no.. stay in and stay WARM !! n/t

[annie1]

9. Nice. oh ouch to hil with all the pubs. lol. ouch.

[jillan]

11. Glad you posted it!!

k/r!

[cosmik debris]

12. It must be sexist

It doesn't flatter Senator Clinton.

[Joe the Revelator]

23. It's just a shrill ad.

[99th_Monkey]

13. Public Financing of campaigns would save the US Treasury LOT$ of money

compared to the amounts of US tax money that goes out into the pork barrel for MegaCorp USA.

[RC]

17. The $9,000,000,000 of missing money should be enough for several elections.

I would think anyway.

[tammywammy]

15. Thanks for posting this

It surprises me a little that Richardson doesn't have a position on this.

[DaLittle Kitty]

19. Question Is, Who Do You Trust to Actually Make Public Campaign Financing A Reality?

John Edwardsof the Bunch is the only one that can be trusted to push public financing and make it a reality. After all Edwards is the only candidate who is trusting what we have for such a program currently. :-)

[1corona4u]

24. That's not true.

Joe Biden has taken public financing.

Personally, I don't trust JE as far as I could throw him, but that's another show...

[havocmom]

21. Visual aid for anyone. And thanks, Frustratedlady, for the very pertinent post

Personally I feel, rather strongly, that Clinton and Richardson are in the wrong line here. Speaks volumes.

[lyonn]

22. That is telling, we need more of this type info

The public misses the big picture and ads like this is simply to figure out.

[havocmom]

28. Great info here too, but I am pressed for time and can't do the work to post the graphics alone

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3842491

If you have time and a photo hosting site, might be a good batch of graphics to add to this thread. Sorta illustrates some of the reasons some people have not given written commitment to getting the FAT CAT DOLLARS out of elections.

Please do check out the thread. It is a very informative and useful bit of info.

[PufPuf23]

25. Website for 2008 POTUS Funding

Obama stands out here as committed to public funding but taking advantage of the status-quo now.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/index.asp?cycle=2008

[Egnever]

26. Again this site has to be taken with a grain of salt.

it puts individual donors into groups based on who their employer is. So that if you were a janitor at a pharmacy company and donated over $200 to say Edwards that would count towards Edwards receiving money from Big pharmacy.

Not that it isn't interesting to look at but you cant really make judgments on who is getting money from corporations based on that website.

[PufPuf23]

27. Securities and Investments

I would say is a good proxy for Wall Street which is a good proxy for corporations.

I offer this just as an example.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=F07

[Egnever]

29. Again those could be from individual donors

giving over $200 who work in that field. I am not saying it isn't interesting but I also don't think you can automatically equate it with corporate support either.

For example Obama made a big splash with techies with his technology speech. I am quite sure he got a lot of donations from people in the tech industry over that speech. However those donations would be according to you because they are lumped into the technology field be seen as corporate donations from that industry when the truth may be far from that and just individuals contributing to him because they like his tech policy. Nothing necessarily sinister in it at all.

Its good information don't get me wrong I just don't think you can equate it to pure corporate sponsorship as people want to ascribe here.

[1corona4u]

30. Kicking for the Monday crowd...