Syndicated

In the somewhat bizarre ongoing fight over House Franking Commission rules, Nancy Pelosi has made it even worse. Yesterday, on her Speaker’s Office blog, she published a letter that she sent to House Republican Leader John Boehner:

Thank you for your letter on the recommendations by Franking Chair Capuano to the Committee on House Administration regarding posting web video external to the House.gov domain. We share the goal of modernizing the antiquated franking regulations to address the rapidly changing realities of communications in the internet age. Like many other Members, I have a blog, use YouTube, Flickr, Facebook, Digg, and other new media to communicate with constituents, and I believe they are vital tools toward increasing transparency and accountability.

I am glad that the speaker uses technology like any normal online activist. But I wonder why she is using technology that violates the rules that Rep. Mike Capuano (D-MA) is proposing. Furthermore, she and other House Democrats have pointed out that these uses are currently in violation of House rules.

Click-through to any of the videos and you will see "political content". Click through to the Facebook site, and you will find advertisements, clear "commercialization".

Do these people understand that they are currently in violation of House rules and are proposing new rules that they are also in violation of? And if they don’t think that there is any problem with their current usage — and their isn’t — why don’t they want to write rules that are in accordance with current practice?

Do these people have any idea what they are doing?

 

Yesterday, TechDirt, one of the leading technology blogs, played a little defense on the debate about House Franking rules on the use of external sites.

Rep. John Culberson responded in the comments.

If the Ds rule change were in effect today, before I could post this, YOUR website/blog would have to be preapproved as complying with House rules, my post would require a disclaimer that it was "produced by a House office for official purposes," and the CONTENT of my post would have to preapproved by the House Franking Committee as complying with "existing content rules and regulations."

Now, TechDirt is correct that under the current rules, Culberson is not allowed to post this comment at all, but that is the problem. House Democrats are proposing a rule that does not solve the current problem in any meaningful way. Their solution would not allow members and staff to respond to blog posts in comments.

That’s objectively crazy. That’s why the Republican proposal should be adopted, not the luny Democratic one. That should be the debate that we are having.

In typical fashion, House Democrats are trying to pass rules that stifle debate and require regulation. Rep. Michael Capuano (D-MA) sent a letter to the Chairman of the Committee on House Administraion Kevin Brady. The letter is a response to a debate about whether the House should allow members to use YouTube, first raised by Rep. Kevin McCarthy back in April. From that story:

The reason is simple enough: The Franking Commission frowns on official links to campaign-related Web sites, political parties, advocacy groups and "any site the primary purpose of which is the conduct of commerce."

Well, Capuano’s proposal is a disaster. It creates a list of sites, maintained by the Committee on House Administration that members are allowed to post material. Except, those sites have a caveat:

To the maximum extent possible, official content should not be posted on a website or page where it may appear with commercial or political information or any other information not in compliance with the House’s content guidelines.

Just to make it clear, these guidelines are apply to the content on the external site, not the House site. Would Larry Lessig call that "neanderthal"? This would, for example, not allow members to post information to Facebook, which has ads and, dare I say, political content.

House Republicans have the technologically serious response. Their response letter, attached, says:

Members may use technologies, websites, and services (paid or unpaid) too communicate with their consituents via text, video, or audio so long as the content posted by the Member complies with House rules and Franking Commission regulations. Members may use free communications and networking services so long as these services are available on the same terms and conditions as others.

Only the posted content must comply with House rules, not the whole external site.

Who gets technology? Either, as Capuano noted to the Post, ""To me, the Web is a necessary evil like cellphones," or House Democrats are trying to make it harder for the opposition to get their message out.

Talking Points Memo has tried to delegitimize certain Republican or conservative strategies  and tactics over the years. For example, Josh Marshall has tried to undermine conservative claims of voter fraud. (Thank God that we now have Election Journal, which is beginning to document the crime that is so systematic in the functioning of machine politics and which so many Democrats defend either implicitly or explicitly) This strategy may have reached its crowning success in the US Attorney scandal. I have heard from a number of sources that TPM’s actions have stalled nearly all election fraud investigations at DoJ.

Now TPM Muckraker reporter Andrew Tilghman appears to be after direct mail fundraising, with an extraordinary series of posts targetting BMW Direct, a conservative direct mail firm based out of DC.

I have two points in writing this. First, direct mail needs to be defended. Second, the reporting by Tilghman is either dishonest or ignorant. The reporting of facts is solid but he does absolutely no work to place it in the context of direct mail practices.  Again, his goal is to smear the practice.

First, the defense. Direct-mail fundraising is one area in which conservatives (more than Republicans) have a significant tactical advantage over liberals. A substantial delegitimization of direct mail fundraising would have the effect of defunding conservative candidates and organizations.

While direct-mail fundraising may not always be super-attractive in the days of internet fundraising, it provides an effecttive method of participation for people who do not trust giving over the internet, especially older voters. Hopefully, over time, we can educate our grassroots over time and move them into lower-overhead forms of fundraising with phone calls or, eventually, email. This is an important point to make. When some Republican consultants deride direct mail as not "effective", they need to ask "effective for whom?" It is still the most "effective" way of engaging some of our coalition.

More on Tilghman’s reporting and the actual practice of direct mail after the jump.

<!–break–>

Now to the actual practices that Tilghman discusses. But first we need to understand two things about direct mail: the relationship between the house list and prospecting and the high fixed costs of direct mail.

A campaign or organization will maintain a house list that contains regular donors. Generally, mailing the house list will turn a net profit. However, building the house list through prospecting is extremely expensive. At the beginning of a fundraising campaign, significant costs are incurred by organizations or direct mail firms.

One of themes of the TPM stories is a distortion of these facts into something nefarious. For example, from one story, they find that sitting Members of Congress, presumably with substantial house lists, get an excellent quarter-on-quarter ROI on their direct mail contract. On the other hand, new candidates and candidates with low-profiles and no house lists are spending an extraordinary amount of money in upfront costs, translation "prospecting."

In other words, TPM is reporting as news something that an intern at a direct mail firm would be fired for not understanding after a week or two.

The upfront costs are so high because … putting a letter in the mail is really expensive. Sending out a mail piece in a prospect may have over $1 in fixed costs, including postage, printing, list-rental, etc. Most of these costs are fixed, making direct-mail fundraising a very low margin business. During prospecting you may get only 1% or 2% response rate, sometimes getting only $5 or $10 return per $100 spent on prospecting and only very rarely breaking even in the initial prospect. The early part of the process is awful. That’s why candidates with no house list spend a lot of time prospecting, getting little return on investment.

It should be pointed out that there are analogues on the Democratic side. In 2006 and 2007, there were reports of Hillary Clinton building up her fundraising lists by … prospecting. These were generally identified by reporters as large postage expenditures.

In other words, there is nothing here. Unless you confuse a reporter who either has no idea what he is talking about or has an agenda with an actual story.

Barack Obama has built a mythical fundraising operation based on small-dollar donors. These were primarily upper-middle class affluents who were energized by a change message. These were also the netroots. Recall that the 3 issues at the core of the netroots are FISA, Iraq, and net neutrality. Obama’s recent actions seem to be going to be undermining his appeal with both of these groups, with potentially disastrous consequences for his small-dollar online fundraising.

Obama has now shifted to the right on FISA. It certainly looks like he is in mid-flip on Iraq. Marc Ambinder asks today:

My question is: is any of this seeping through the filter between politically engaged activists and the rest of the Democratic electorate? In other words: will see enthusiasm for Obama diminish?

In reference to a scathing NYT editorial that also attacks Obama for flipping on guns, the death penalty, and other issues. The NYT ends with:

There are still vital differences between Mr. Obama and Senator John McCain on issues like the war in Iraq, taxes, health care and Supreme Court nominations. We don’t want any “redefining” on these big questions. This country needs change it can believe in.

Which must count as a warning on his Iraq position.

What happens to Obama’s fundraising if this march of flip-floppery continues? He loses energy among his "change" constituency as he becomes "just another politician". His netroots, affluent coalition weakens tremendously.

Does his small-dollar fundraising evaporate?

I joined the FISA protest group at myBO. I have copied the text of some of the emails that go out to the list below the fold. The anger is palpable.

<!–break–>

For example:

Since he didn’t even acknowledge his reversal, he did nothing to explain it.  He gave us no new information or circumstances that would explain why he had such a drastic change of heart.  In fact, he seems to be pretending that this is all about a simple disagreement on a policy position as if he had never promised to stand with us.  He must know that this would upset a lot of us even more than his original reversal.

Or:

Rather than to inform and educate on Constitutional and Intelligence issues he chose to lie in his FISA response.

For me, that’s not ok.

Or:

But sending a donation to Ralph Nader at this point in the fund raising season would make the point without risking the Supreme Court.

Or:

If you cave in and actually vote for the FISA compromise bill I will demand my donation to your campaign be refunded.  Of all people, sir, to give in on such an issue. You’re a Harvard educated lawyer not a two-bit Texas hustler. Of anyone, you should know blanket immunity for blatant disregard of the law is not the American way. The rule of law must prevail.

I have, literally, hundreds of these in my inbox right now.

John McCain has famously said that he would rather lose an election than lose a war. He seemingly sacrificed his Presidential ambitions in favor of our national interest.

In Barack Obama, it seems that we have the converse. He had declared the war lost and withdrawal an imperative when it was politically expedient. Now it seems that the reality on the ground (both polling in the US and the security in Iraq, in that order) has shifted, and Barack Obama is about to change his position.

Where John McCain put the war above his election, Barack Obama puts the election above the war, and everything else.

The lesson here is that Barack Obama is willing to sacrifice anything and everything for his political ambitions. No friend is too close, no promise so (seemingly) heartfelt, no principle so great will get in the way of his election.

Now there is a contrast with John McCain.

Over the last 48 hours, senior advisers in Barack Obama’s campaign have articulated (at least) 3 separate positions on Iraq. Chief campaign strategist David Axelrod, campaign co-chair Senator McCaskill, and foreign policy advisor Susan Rice all expressed different positions. Watch them:

David Axelrod said that Obama would listen: “he would listen to the advice of commanders on the ground, that that would factor into his thinking”. That’s reassuring.
When MSNBC’S Monica Novotny asked, “whether Obama will public ly change course before November” when his current position could result in the “return the central government to a state of collapse, Sen. McCaskill said, “No. He will not.” That’s kind of frightening. Making policy in the absence of reviewing the consequences of the policy.
Susan Rice, his foreign policy advisor, says that he will not just “listen to his commanders on the ground”, “he will follow and heed their advice”. Does this mean that Axelrod is saying that Obama will listen but not “follow and heed” the advice of the commanders?

Today, all those advisors–and more–are trying to explain Obama’s policies on the morning shows. Perhaps someone will be able to coordinate these chuckleheads, but it probably won’t be the Obama campaign.

Perhaps you can try to figure out what their policy will be. They certainly don’t seem to know.

Barack Obama is a liar. We know this by now. He lies about what he used to say or think. And he lies about his personal background. For example, he said that he compared his upbringing to Hillary Clinton’s elite upbringing. Never mind that he went to most prestigious prep school in Hawaii, paid for by his grandma, who was VP of a bank.

This time he is saying in his most recent ad that he “worked his way through college and Harvard Law”. FactCheck.org fact-checked and it turns out that it isn’t true. He had two (2!) jobs during college and graduate school. From Fact Check:

But “worked his way” through college and law school? The only back-up the campaign provided for this claim was a quote from Obama’s book “Dreams from My Father” having to do with a construction job he had one summer while he was in college, and an article mentioning his job as a summer associate one year at a big Chicago law firm. We asked campaign spokesman Tommy Vietor if Obama held jobs during the school year, or other summer jobs, but he said only, “He had the two jobs I told you about.” Unless Obama had a good bit more employment than his spokesman was able to describe for us, it’s a real stretch to claim he “worked his way” through school.

Now I wouldn’t argue that I “worked by way though college” but I did work a 20+ hour/week job during the school year and full time during the summer and all vacations.

Sees like the only change he is going to bring to Washington is that of better acting.

One of the branches of the Department of Labor that provides a real services to all Americans is the Office of Labor-Management Standards. These are the guys who make sure that labor unions are being transparent about their finances. Or they try, when the Democrats don’t cut their budget. But, for now, you get to see how unions spend their money.

For example, this spreadsheet shows 2006 disbursements by unions. It is in descending order by political disbursements. In 2006, AFL-CIO spent $41,620,583 on political activities, according to their filings with the Department of Labor.

However, in the fiscal year July 1, 2005 to June 30, 2006, they reported to the IRS on their 990 form (bottom of page 6 in the original PDF here, but you have to log into GuideStar), "direct or indirect political expenditures" of $0.00. Zero. Nothing. Now… Perhaps all the money was spent in the second half of the year. Unfortunately, I only have a free account on Guidestar, so I don’t have all the years to check the numbers.

So what? Well. IRS regs (PDF, page 8) indicate that political expenditures are taxed at, I think, the corporate rate (35%):

IRC 527(e)(2) defines "exempt function" as "the function of influencing or attempting to influence the selection, nomination, election, or appointment of any individual to any federal, state or local public office or office in a political organization, or the election of Presidential or Vice-Presidential electors, whether or not such individual or electors are selected, nominated, elected or appointed." The term also includes payment of an incumbent’s office expenses.

An IRC 501(c) organization that makes expenditures for such exempt function
activities is subject to tax under IRC 527(b)

So does that mean that AFL-CIO owes Uncle Sam $14m from 2006? Do you really believe that AFL-CIO did not engage in any political activities between July 1, 2005 and June 30, 2006?

The National Legal and Policy Center has called for Eric Holder to be fired by the Obama campaign. Holder is the co-chair of Obama’s campaign and the co-chair of his VP selection committee. According to NLPC:

According to NLPC President Peter Flaherty, Holder is not ethically qualified to serve on the Vice-Presidential selection committee. His track record is not one of independence or objectivity. Instead, he has been guided by politics and self-interest.

That Holder is ethically unfit is not news to Redstate readers. I have written on Holder before. Read on for a recap of old stories, and some shocking new ones.

For example, I noted last week that:

So this future AG and current national security advisor sherpaed the pardon of the husband of a big donor, argued for clemency for terrorists, and overlooked the commutation of other terrorists.

And I had written previously:

So this is the change Obama brings. Warmed-over shady operators from the Clinton administration. These guys do favors for each other for jobs. They give favored access to donors. They skirt around ethics rules. And they don’t do their jobs. Oh yeah. And he argued that members of a terrorist organization should get clemency.

NLPC notes that Holder and his boss, Janet Reno, refused to investigate when ordered to by a federal district judge

On December 21, 1994, federal Judge Royce Lamberth, who presided over the litigation to open the health care task force, asked Holder, who at the time was the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia to investigate Ira Magaziner for possible perjury and criminal contempt of court. He also suggested that Attorney General Janet Reno should appoint an independent counsel to investigate.

Reno announced on March 3, 1995 that she would not appoint an independent prosecutor. On August 3, 1995 Eric Holder announced that he too would not prosecute Magaziner.

So now we know that he encouraged his friends to get jobs that they weren’t eligible for, he refused to investigate friends when ordered to by courts, he gave privileged access to donors, and he actively worked to get terrorists off easy.

Is that the change that Barack Obama will bring? If so, then the American people are going to reject bringing Chicago crony corruption to Washington.

But Obama knows this. He is not an ignorant man (it is just that what he knows is wrong). Obama knows that Holder’s decisions are garbage. Jim Geraghty notes this. Excuse my quoting at length:

I’m reminded of the final Democratic debate, when Hillary went after Obama over his ties to William Ayers, founder of the Weather Underground. The Illinois senator had pretty tough comeback for Hillary:

“President Clinton pardoned or commuted the sentences of two members of the Weather Underground, which I think is a slightly more significant act than me serving on a board with somebody for actions that he did 40 years ago.”

From the comment, it would seem that Obama believes that the decision to pardon those members was either wrong, or at the very least, of greater concern than his relationship with Ayers.

Holder was one of the officials who signed off on Rich’s pardon, although there’s an argument to be made that the rest of the Clinton Administration gave Holder little time or opportunity to give Rich’s case a proper review. No one has found the recommendation of Eric Holder on the pardons of the Weather Underground members. Lanny Davis, a Holder friend, argued that Holder had no role in the pardons of those members, a curious explanation. The Deputy Attorney General assigned to oversee pardon recommendations to the President never had an opinion on this one?

So Obama thinks that this guy didn’t do his job when his job was to vet. So why does Obama think that he can do it now?