Hey, what do these twelve legislators have in common?

By: Moe Lane (Diary) | January 4th, 2010 at 04:30 PM |

RESIZE: AAA

This is via That’s My Congress, which is about to become very confused about why it’s getting traffic from a VRWC site. Here’s the list:

Lois Capps
Michael Capuano
Ben Cardin
Diana DeGette
Eliot Engel
Barney Frank
Alan Grayson
Carolyn McCarthy
Bill Pascrell
Adam Schiff
Allyson Schwartz
Heath Shuler

…and they have two things in common. First, they’re all Democrats. Second, they all have email addresses with Erickson & Company. And what is Erickson & Company? As That’s My Congress puts it:

Erickson & Company is not a lobbying firm. Instead, it helps set up events like the Heath Shuler’s BBQ, at which lobbyists and other people seeking special favors can come, check in hand, to pay for access to elected officials and their aides.

In other words, it’s a legal [and Democratic-aligned] money-laundering facility for lobbyists. Need to toss Heath Shuler some cash, but you’re a dirty lobbyist? Well, go to Shuler’s little BBQ (run by a go-between), drop a grand for a plate of food, and say hi! No fuss, no muss, no need for disclosure. Shuler’s happy: he’s getting his cut of your entry fee. The go-between is happy: it’s getting its cut of your entry fee. And you’re happy: this is a lot cheaper than a maximum campaign contribution would be.

So remember this, the next time anybody on that list – or, honestly, any Democrat – talks about the evil of lobbying: the sound you hear isn’t scorn towards those who would try to pay for influence. Nope. It’s scorn towards the rubes who don’t know how to tell when a Democrat is gaming the system.

Moe Lane

Crossposted to Moe Lane.

Tags: Adam Schiff, alan grayson, Allyson Schwartz, barney frank, ben cardin, Bill Pascrell, carolyn mccarthy, corporate shills, Culture of Corruption, Diana DeGette, Eliot Engel, Heath Shuler, lobbyists, Lois Capps, Michael Capuano

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES | LOGIN TO COMMENT | REGISTER TODAY

http://impudent.blognation.us/blog kyle8

when they pushed campaign finance reform (with the help of McCain)

They never ever considered actually abiding by the rules themselves, That was just to screw the Republicans who traditionally got money by direct mail campaigns.

If we ever get back in ther we need to SCRAP campaign finance laws.

There ought only be one law, Full discloser, that’s it.

(well actually I would love to make all donations from both unions and corporations illegal, but that would never happen)
throwback59

leader was “sleeping with the enemy.”
Couldn’t they have chosen “Ayres & Co.” or “Wright & Co.”
throwback59

the fingers work faster than the brain.
http://www.dcworksforus.com Kenny Solomon

Didn’t look at the links. Just tried to think and extrapolate the who’s.

At first glance, I thought they might all be ‘trans-gender’ people, but no way. Not with Heath Shuler on the list. NFL players (he was pretty decent) don’t go there.

Next, I really did think….. Hey, did they all just get busted in a corruption sting that’s gonna get brushed under the rug like yesterday’s hairball ?

Hey, whaddya know…… close enough for the price of admission.

Hmmmmmmm.

Gives me pause to think about having a pay-for-play bbq to help people get into the world of unfettered snark.

I could invite IowaHawk, P J O’Rourke (man, I miss the old – real – National Lampoon), ask in as instructors many of the snarkier folks from here at RS and then send out invitations (and cost levels for access) to the general public.

Lemme work on it and see if I can git-r-done.
http://vbushmills.blogtownhall.com/ vassar

…Seems Heath’s dead meat, too.

All we (and the district back home) needs is is one reason to whack him off at the knees.

And the others, too. Good job, Moe.

Now, we need to make sure that every key person…not just GOP/Tea Party/RWC, but media, and media watchers, local and national…know who he’s (they’ve) thrown in with.

That’s agitprop.
http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

Thank the Lefty site that just shiv’ed a half-dozen of their own.
vanekl

If you followed the national election closely last year you may remember that the Democrats circumvented election law by turning off address checking when accepting credit card donations. This occurred for the majority of their campaign until some enterprising Americans figured out that Obama was accepting credit card donations from Saddam Hussein and other long-dead dictators. A couple weeks after this fact surfaced on right-wing blogs the Democrats turned credit card verification back on, but only after it appeared the issue was going to be raised to a national level. How else do you raise 600 million dollars unless you are able to illicitly funnel money from abroad? I never saw a single story of this money scam reported in the MSM.

Another example of their deceit:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/23872.html

BTW, will somebody fix the Help -> “HTML Central” link? I reported it several days ago.
snopercod

Heath Shuler is very arrogant and slippery. He refused to hold a town hall last August to listen to his constituents, so we held one in his parking lot without him. We gave the video tape of the citizen comments to his staff, but Shuler never responded to them.

He voted “no” on the health care bill in the House, but would never answer whether he was one of the two democrats who waited to vote “no” until until after passage was achieved.

Even after voting “no” previously, he refuses to state whether he will vote no on the Senate version when it is ‘ping-ponged’ over to the House.

Personally, I don’t trust the man.
Tbone

Neither could his receivers. He sucked.
Tbone

and some Congresscritter clients and making me some dog money!
michigan

not one of them could pass a psychological evaluation?
http://conservativestateproject.blogspot.com/ SE-779

I laughed when I first read it.
gemimail

We only give the Republicans a 15% of retiring Heath Shuler. He got one heck of a margin even though McCain-Palin carried North Carolina 11. For a complete rundown on those chances, see http://www.marstonchronicles.info/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=391&Itemid=1233.
revivefederalism

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,314491,00.html

old news of course, but an elephant never forgets!
http://vbushmills.blogtownhall.com/ vassar

…One of the scenes that energized the anti- anti-war demonstrators back in ’68 was the pics of police hauling away screaming mimi’s, a cop on each arm and each leg.

One of my fantasies is to see that as Nancy is removed from her respendent office in DC, or better, being gaggled over across the street to be arraigned.

A clever fellow with a camera and an imagination can become an instant hero on Youtube, just in fictionally creating that one image alone. He can be an instant cottage industry.

It;s the hard fights that are worth fighting the most. If there is a viable candidate down there, get behind him/her. Righteous indignation is a horrible thing to waste.

Cheers
http://vbushmills.blogtownhall.com/ vassar

…who is prettier than those two?

Checked your link.

Run this Erickson BBQ Party line under the folks’ nose and let’s see how those numbers look in March.

There’s a hole in that defense somewhere, and I believe it’s putting Schuler’s voting past, and his unwillingness to come out publicly, not just vote “no” up against some very specific and pointed accusations.

In our busines we call that the “ackward question”. Schuler’s a cinch for being trapped by ackward questions?
seandparnell

This is a fundraising firm specializing in events. Lots of politicians hire such firms, I did when I was raising money for a Republican Congressman.

There’s no avoiding disclosure as stated by Moe, don’t know where he got that idea. If you go to one of these events and pay your $1,000, you’ll show up as a contributor of $1,000 in the FEC disclosure reports.

Moe’s right that this just shows the utter nonsense that goes on regarding demonizing lobbying (a bipartisan affair, as McCain managed to out-demagogue Obama on the issue in ’08). But it hardly amounts to “money laundering” as claimed here.

Sean Parnell
President
Center for Competitive Politics
http://www.campaignfreedom.org
http://twitter.com/seanparnellCCP
janis
seandparnell

Yes, campaign finance “reform” is a scam, and a blatant assault on the first amendment.

Not sure what you mean by “full disclosure” – we have too much disclosure right now, in my opinion. If you want to disclose the big contributions, OK, but every $50 or even $500 contribution doesn’t need to be disclosed to the public. And only to candidates, parties, and PACs, there’s no real need for disclosure of contributions to independent groups pushing whatever they want to push.

And donations from corporations and unions are illegal, and have been for a long time (1907 and I believe 1947, respectively). But I’d like to see that ban lifted too.

Sean Parnell
President
Center for Competitive Politics
http://www.campaignfreedom.org
http://twitter.com/seanparnellCCP
seandparnell

I’m saying he’s wrong.

If you believe he’s right and I’m wrong regarding disclosure, make your case. Or is there another point you think I’m wrong on?

Sean Parnell
President
Center for Competitive Politics
http://www.campaignfreedom.org
http://twitter.com/seanparnellCCP
http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

He’s just enabling Democratic hypocrisy. Blessed if I know why.
seandparnell

“Moe?s right that this just shows the utter nonsense that goes on regarding demonizing lobbying…”

Sean Parnell
President
Center for Competitive Politics
http://www.campaignfreedom.org
http://twitter.com/seanparnellCCP
http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

I mean, it’s not our fault that the Democrats can’t live up to their own – loudly brayed – moral code.
janis

I have seldom ever seen Moe post something that he later had to retract. He knows his facts before he puts them in a post with his take on things. The very few times he’s been mistaken on something, he’s publicly said so.

You, on the other hand, claim to be an expert in any number of political areas. You’ve been wrong, but you have yet to admit to it, doing instead, your version of ” Sorry you think I’m wrong, but you’re just not as smart as I am.”

I know you wanted me to give you chapter and verse about money and lobbying and why this is not corruption, but you wouldn’t have accepted my points on that anyway. Just in case, though, I’m on board with Moe’s viewpoint. You are just another “insider” who’s used to the way things have been and therefore you don’t view this kind of thing as wrong. Perhaps that’s one of the reasons why few of us troop over to your website and give you props.
Streiff

is all that is important, Moe. Being “right” and being able to yell “tu quoque” at Republicans while relying on conservative/Republican support.
seandparnell

I’m not taking issue at all with your pointing out the utter hypocrisy of loudly denouncing lobbyists on the one hand while holding fundraisers with them on the other. Fire away. All this lobbyist-bashing is beyond dumb, it’s an attack on a core first amendment right.

I’m just saying that you’re wrong when you say that contributions raised through this firm aren’t disclosed, or that it amounts to “money laundering.” Is that a problem, correcting obviously incorrect statements?

Sean Parnell
President
Center for Competitive Politics
http://www.campaignfreedom.org
http://twitter.com/seanparnellCCP
janis

as I am.” You are such a parody.
seandparnell

You really don’t care if someone is correct or not, just so long as whatever is incorrect shows Democrats in a bad light?

Moe made a mistake. It’s hardly a fatal sin, I do it myself, too often in fact. Campaign finance law is an arcane subject. I thought it might be helpful to point out that, in fact, the contributions in question will be disclosed just like any other. Fact matter, at least to some of us.

Sean Parnell
President
Center for Competitive Politics
http://www.campaignfreedom.org
http://twitter.com/seanparnellCCP
seandparnell

You’re seriously offended when someone points out a mistake? Man, I can’t imagine how you’re going to make it through the next 3 years of elementary school, let alone middle and high school.

Sean Parnell
President
Center for Competitive Politics
http://www.campaignfreedom.org
http://twitter.com/seanparnellCCP
Achance

the event host, a group, apportioned among the officeholders and candidates? If it shows as a contribution to a group or to the host or anything other than the specific officeholders present, it is the campaign finance equivalent of money laundering because it hides who is giving the money to what officeholder.
http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

You’re a big bag of hot air, nothing more.

I can’t remember a time there was a commenter that had a shred of respect for you. Nobody seems to care a whit about your all-important title and your worthless organization.

Nobody.

That must be why you lash out so.
janis

Did I say I was offended anywhere? Nope. I just pointed out that you can never, ever admit to being wrong. As for what you call Moe making a mistake, did it ever occur to you that this sort of thing may look all hunky dory to you and people like you, but it strikes a whole lot of the rest of us as corrupt?

Because, you know, if you can’t see that, then you’re part of the problem and not part of the solution.
Streiff

would recoil at making as blatantly a disingenuous response as this, Sean. Glad to see you’ve gotten past the whole “shame” and “self respect” thing. The world is your oyster once you leave those impediments behind.
seandparnell

So I can’t say whether he often makes mistakes, how often he retracts stuff, whether he’ll publicly say so, etc.

I am, however, more than passingly familiar with campaign finance laws. 4 years as a fundraiser for a Congressman, and 2 1/2 years running an organization that focuses on campaign finance regulation. So yeah, I kind of know what I’m talking about on this subject.

And I’m on board with Moe’s viewpoint too, that this is just typical political garbage, loudly denouncing the terrible influence of lobbyists in public while taking their contributions and meeting with them out of the public eye.

What I’m not on board with is inaccurate information on campaign contributions. I’m assuming Moe made a mistake because he’s not very familiar with campaign finance laws. No shame there, not a lot of people are.

If you’re curious, here’s the law on campaign finance: http://www.fec.gov/law/feca/feca.pdf

I suggest you focus on pages 2 and 26.

Sean Parnell
President
Center for Competitive Politics
http://www.campaignfreedom.org
http://twitter.com/seanparnellCCP
seandparnell

I have no idea what you’re even talking about.

Sean Parnell
President
Center for Competitive Politics
http://www.campaignfreedom.org
http://twitter.com/seanparnellCCP
http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens
Aaron Gardner

you could directly answer the pertinent question put for by Achance here.

But then maybe you just don’t want to answer him. We may never know.
janis
itrytobenice

to Art’s question as well. I understand you are saying that it is a reportable donation, but who is reported as having received it? How do they break it down in a situation like this?
penguin2

was for Heath Schuler’s constituents? Isn’t that the real issue here? His “constituents” were really lobbyists going to an event in Washington, D. C. vs a nice cookout in Carolina? It seems that is what the problem is, besides the fact that lobbyists with money and purpose decided to attend this folksy event in Washington, D.C. Oh the hypocrisy of Heath and his 11 compatriots.
janis
seandparnell

It would be reported as a contribution directly to Shuler, or whoever else was the candidate.

There are only 3 entities that can give directly to a candidate:

1. A person
2. A party committee
3. A political committee

Erickson is none of the three. Attendees to the event could not, for example, write a check to “Erickson & Co.” and then have Erickson write a check to Shuler for all the contributions they received for the event.

It’s very simple: Erickson organizes an event, attendees make their checks payable to “Shuler for Congress,” and they attend. It then gets reported.

I really don’t know why there’s such controversy over this. I get making a mistake – hell, the campaign finance laws in my opinion are designed to be confusing, easier to clamp down on “unauthorized” political speech. But the refusal to accept that something bad said about a Democrat might not be accurate, and that Moe made a mistake in believing these contributions wouldn’t be disclosed, is ridiculous.

Sean Parnell
President
Center for Competitive Politics
http://www.campaignfreedom.org
http://twitter.com/seanparnellCCP
seandparnell

Shuler reports it as having been received.

Unless – and I should have pointed this out – the event is not for Shuler. For example, if Shuler is raising money for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, meaning the money isn’t for him. In that case, the money would be reported by DCCC. Ditto if the fundraising is for, say, another candidate.

But the story here and the original story sound as if these are fundraisers for Shuler, so that’s my assumption. If the money is for Shuler’s campaign it’s going to be reported by him.

Sean Parnell
President
Center for Competitive Politics
http://www.campaignfreedom.org
http://twitter.com/seanparnellCCP
seandparnell

The real issue I thought was that Shuler criticizes lobbyists and lobbying on one hand (actually, I don’t know that he does or doesn’t, but the point of the story here is that he does) while holding events for lobbyists to attend and give to his campaign.

I made the mistake of pointing out the Moe made a mistake on something not key to that issue, and somehow I’m now the “bad guy” for it. Sigh.

Sean Parnell
President
Center for Competitive Politics
http://www.campaignfreedom.org
http://twitter.com/seanparnellCCP
seandparnell

And I did give the page numbers, the definition of a contribution and the disclosure requirements for candidates. If that’s a “wild goose chase,” well, enjoy your meal.

Sean Parnell
President
Center for Competitive Politics
http://www.campaignfreedom.org
http://twitter.com/seanparnellCCP
Aaron Gardner

The lobbyist are contributing to Shuler as individuals rather than as representatives of their Firm. That is the underhanded part of this. Are the firms reported for these contributions? Surely you don’t think these lobbyists are using their personal money, do you?
Aaron Gardner
penguin2

The take I got from the money and lobbyist discussion-no doubt there may be ultimate disclosure, but look how tortuous the path and how many layers one has to go through, not to mention the sheer deception, of who is really paying and attending these nice little events.

To me Moe was right, it is just how you frame the real issues here, and the money and the who’s who are the main points. Just how much peeling has to go on to not show dishonest behavior? That is where the important issue of hypocrisy and Heath and lobbyists vs the lines he feeds his constituents comes in.
seandparnell

The money either comes from the personal income of the lobbyists, or they bring a PAC check.

If they bring a PAC check, it’s reported by Shuler for Congress as a contribution, and it’s reported on XYZ Company’s PAC report as a contribution.

If they bring a personal check, it’s only reported as a contribution by Shuler (free citizens do not yet have to file reports with the government documenting their political contributions). Shuler will report the employer and occupation of the contributor, however.

And they are using their personal money, assuming by that you mean income they received and could just as easily spend on a vacation to Mexico, food at McDonalds, or a new IPod.

And it’s no secret that many lobbyists have incomes that are artificially higher exactly so they can make these personal contributions. So in that regard, you have a point – they’re legally personal funds, but it’s reasonable to think that someone (CEO, head of the company’s government affairs department, chief lobbyist, etc) checks up on such things and isn’t going to be terribly happy with a lobbyist in their employ who makes no contributions and thus attends no events.

It’s for reasons like this that I and my group advocate pretty much no limits on campaign contributions. Too much game-playing, but usually only by those with the means and sophistication to understand the campaign finance laws. Let anyone (corporations and unions included) contribute however much they want to anyone they want, and disclose the large contributions. Other than that, the First Amendment seems a pretty good campaign finance law: “Congress shall make no law…”

Sean Parnell
President
Center for Competitive Politics
http://www.campaignfreedom.org
http://twitter.com/seanparnellCCP
Aaron Gardner
janis

And, on another note, he’s got tatas? Who knew?
Achance

is that it obscures who really gave the money. The Democrats got all righteous about lobbyist money largely because they considered it their private preserve and the Republicans began to seriously horn in on it after ’94. These “event sponsors” are really just a kind of bundler. The money will show as having come from a lobbyist, revealing the Democrat hypocrisy, but it will obscure whose money the lobbyist is contributing.

I don’t know federal campaign finance very well but I know Alaska’s draconian laws pretty well. Paying an employee more with the expectation that some of that pay would be used for political contributions would be illegal under Alaska law, but you’d have the devils own time proving it had been done unless the company was brazen about it. And a few have been brazen here and were caught. A couple of companies trying to evade contribution limits gave employees bonus payments which the employees were expected to contribute all or part of to company endorsed candidates. When you openly do stuff like that, loose lips will sink your ship, so, of course, they got caught. But, on the other hand, every political appointee, all of whom are paid equivalent salaries and who don’t get bonuses knows that part of that salary needs to be reserved to make the legal maximum contribution to the boss or the parties’ nominee if one expects to remain a political appointee after the election.

Sausage and laws, Aaron, sausage and laws.
Aaron Gardner

But that doesn’t make what Moe said incorrect, or what Sean said accurate.

The whole point of this thread is that Sean tried to discredit Moe’s premise. We now can plainly see that he failed at that, and in fact reinforced it.
seandparnell

The contributions from the events put together by Erickson are no different in terms of disclosure than any other contributions. They get reported just the same, no “layers” or “tortuous path” or “deception on that. No peeling required.

If Shuler is taking lobbyist contributions while telling his constituents how he’s bravely standing up to “special interest lobbyists,” fire away. I’m as tired as anyone by all the politicians who give their applause lines to the crowd about the evils of lobbyists while meeting with them and taking their contributions.

But there is nothing particularly different or special or dishonest or undisclosed about Shuler hiring a firm to organize fundraising events.

Sean Parnell
President
Center for Competitive Politics
http://www.campaignfreedom.org
http://twitter.com/seanparnellCCP
seandparnell

“…go to Shuler?s little BBQ (run by a go-between), drop a grand for a plate of food, and say hi! No fuss, no muss, no need for disclosure”

Erickson is NOT a “go-between,” and the contributions will be disclosed.

Moe wasn’t referring to lobbyists using their personal money to make contributions as being “legal money laundering.” He was saying that the use of Erickson was a way to avoid disclosure. He was wrong.

Sean Parnell
President
Center for Competitive Politics
http://www.campaignfreedom.org
http://twitter.com/seanparnellCCP
Aaron Gardner

They may not be a go between for the cash, but that doesn’t affect the premise put forth by Moe. As you explained above, the Firms are laundering money to the Candidate via personal contributions disguised as nothing more than the cost of dinner.

You are either moronically naive or purposefully misleading. Your choice.
seandparnell

If his premise was that there is no disclosure of contributions to Shuler, because Erickson acts as a “go-between” that “launders” contributions, than yeah, he’s wrong. Erickson is a fundraising firme, and they put together events that lobbyists come to.

I read nothing in Moe’s comments that suggest he’s outraged that lobbyists earn salaries that are inflated to cover campaign contributions.

If he wants to come back here and say that is what he meant, and that by “no disclosure” he meant that there won’t be a little asterisk on the FEC disclosure report that states “This money was raised at an event hosted by Erickson & Co, and this donor whom you already know their employer and occupation as a lobbyist because it’s already required on FEC disclosure forms probably is expected by his employer to contribute to candidates for office, and is compensated accordingly” then I’ll agree that Moe was right and I misunderstood him.

Kinda doubt it though.

Sean Parnell
President
Center for Competitive Politics
http://www.campaignfreedom.org
http://twitter.com/seanparnellCCP
http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

I’m just having fun pointing out that a lot of Democrats who rail about evil corporate lobbyists are actually benefiting from a lobbyist-friendly money-laundering program set up for them by a particular company.

I’m still confused about why you care about my mirth so loudly.
penguin2

constituents. Perhaps naive on my part, but I took the event as one for Shuler and his constituents. Lobbyists forking up the bucks is where it saying one thing, but really targeting and doing something else. Did his constituents travel to D.C. to enjoy this nice expensive BBQ? It seems deceptive from the get go. He really is outright collecting donations from lobbyists, whether legal or vague or just not quite transparent.

As an example, consider a MSM newspaper in North Carolina headlines, if it was a GOP person doing it and the opponent or MSM wanted to point out a problem for the GOP person. Looks like the: who, what, when and where would be problematic for the GOP person. It would certainly get up the ire of his Constituents, wouldn’t it?

And one other point, while there is nothing illegal for hiring a group to set up events, it goes to perception. Will it pass the smell test for the people of North Carolina, not just for Schuler, but also the others listed and their home districts?
seandparnell

My sole and only point has been: what Shuler is doing is completely disclosed, and thus the charge of “money laundering” doesn’t really fly. Shuler’s FEC report is going to show every penny given to him at these events, as well as the donor, their address, their employer, and their occupation. Guaranteed.

If Shuler’s constituents are upset with him aver this, that’s his problem. If they feel he’s lying because a “North Carolina BBQ” was only for lobbyists or those few North Carolina constituents who made the trek northward, then he’s in trouble. Fine.

I really don’t care about Heath Shuler’s political problems. If this is one of them, fine by me.

I do care about misinformation on campaign finance laws, so thought I’d correct a mistake made by Moe in asserting that these donations wouldn’t be disclosed. Apparently that sort of thing raises some people’s hackles, though.

Sean Parnell
President
Center for Competitive Politics
http://www.campaignfreedom.org
http://twitter.com/seanparnellCCP

But the legality or the disclosure is not in question.
seandparnell

awesome sig line.
seandparnell

If you can understand anything I write, understand this: I agree completely that this is typical politician garbage, denouncing evel lobbyists and “special interests” when the camera is in their face while raking in the campaign contributions from the same people once the camera goes dark.

My ONLY point, and I cannot understand why it’s so hard for people here to accept, is that the contributions WILL BE FULLY DISCLOSED. Name, amount, employer, occupation, address. I’ve no idea where you got the idea that they wouldn’t be.

And I really don’t know why you’re using the term “money laundering,” because this is just an event planning company. they plan events, people show up and give checks written to “Shuler for Congress” or whatever. That’s “money laundering?”

Frankly, I’d have been happy just to leave my original comment, which pointed out your relatively small error, and then seen a response from you along the lines of “whoops, I guess you’re right about the disclosure thing – but it still is awfully hypocritical of these Dems to denounce lobbyists while taking their money.” To which I’d have said “yep” and then left it alone.

Instead it’s been attack after attack for daring to point out a mistake you made, and the most amazing contortions of logice (not by you) in order to justify and explain what you meant.

I mean, seriously – is there some RedState rule against pointing out when someone made a mistake, even if correcting that mistake means that Democrats aren’t quite as corrupt and terrible in this particular instance as might have originally been thought?

Sean Parnell
President
Center for Competitive Politics
http://www.campaignfreedom.org
http://twitter.com/seanparnellCCP
http://impudent.blognation.us/blog kyle8

but unions do vote drives and so much more. And corporations use other means to fund candidates. I don’t like either one.
Pingback: URL
Pingback: stylish slr bags

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Hey, what do these twelve legislators have in common?

COMMENTS

ALL

COMMENTS

POPULAR

#RSRH

PICK YOUR STATE & GET LOCAL