Scam-PACs - when fundraisers just keep it for themselves

https://www.propublica.org/article/conservative-majority-fund-political-fundraising-pac-kelley-rogers?utm_source=pocket-newtab

 

Annapolis-based Kelley Rogers evidently kept the money donors contributed to oppose Barack Obama.

 

Charlie Cooper

 

 

Top lobbyist said to be key figure in Biden campaign

https://prospect.org/article/steve-ricchetti-top-biden-campaign-aide-was-health-care-lobbyist

 

Charlie Cooper

 

NC districts may have been racially gerrymandered

https://www.courthousenews.com/expert-witness-says-mapmaker-used-racial-data-to-create-n-c-voting-districts/

Charlie Cooper 

Re: Panel Survey from Jamie Raskin

Add Jamie explained it to me years, it does incorporate RCV. 

Charlie 

On Tue, Jul 16, 2019, 4:44 PM 'K Stevens' via GMOM-volunteers <GMOM-volunteers@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Jamie Raskin included something like this notion as part of a bill that he introduced as a State Senator in 2016:

http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2016RS/bills/sb/sb0762F.pdf

I consider this a horrible idea and don't see how it would better represent the residents of any state.  Unless proportional representation is somehow allowed, each multi-member district would very likely elect all Republicans or all Democrats.  It seems obvious to me that single-member congressional districts are more likely to be representative of state's residents by political party than multi-member ones.  Of course, gerrymandering by whatever party has the power is going to exist, but it would be pretty difficult for Maryland Democrats to totally eliminate Republican representation in the Congress if the single-member district system is retained.  If there are multi-member districts, it could be done.  But where Republicans have the power (and they do in most states), they could wipe out a lot of Democrats.

Ken

K Stevens
ksteve8@verizon.net

-----Original Message-----
From: 'Marty Wulfe' via GMOM-volunteers <GMOM-volunteers@googlegroups.com>
To: GMOM-volunteers <GMOM-volunteers@googlegroups.com>; angad.gmom.hipops <angad.gmom.hipops@blogger.com>
Sent: Tue, Jul 16, 2019 3:15 pm
Subject: Panel Survey from Jamie Raskin

I was just sent a survey from Rep. Raskin asking me about my attitudes about all the right issues: public campaign financing, a constitutional amendment including campaign finance reform and corporate personhood, and gerrymandering.

 

But then there was this one that I was totally unprepared for, related to Government Reform:

 

The idea of this proposal is one that is allowed by the Constitution. This proposal would make larger US House districts that would be represented by more than one Member of Congress. This would increase the likelihood Members of Congress would more accurately mirror the partisan mix of the population. Here is how it would work:

 

• In a state with five or fewer Congressional districts, the state would still have the same number of House Members, but they would be elected by all of the state's voters and represent the whole state.

 

For example, for a state with five Congressional districts, on the ballot there would be at least five Republicans and five Democrats, as well as possible independent and third-party candidates. Five U.S. House Members would be elected by all voters in the state.

Research has been done on what the likely effect would be: election results would more closely mirror the partisan balance of the state. For example, Connecticut is a state in which all five House seats are currently held by Democrats and Oklahoma is one in which all five House seats are currently held by Republicans. The proposed system would likely result in 1-2 Republicans being elected in Connecticut and 1-2 Democrats in Oklahoma.

 

• For states with more than five districts, the state would keep the same number of House Members, but the districts would be redesigned to be larger and have 3-5 Members each. The 3-5 House Members would be elected by all of the voters in these larger districts.

 

Have any of you heard of this before?  Any responses? This is completely new to me.

 

Marty

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "GMOM-volunteers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to GMOM-volunteers+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/GMOM-volunteers/0a4201d53c0a%24cbbdc9d0%2463395d70%24%40yahoo.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "GMOM-volunteers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to GMOM-volunteers+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/GMOM-volunteers/966563254.2221437.1563309848311%40mail.yahoo.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Panel Survey from Jamie Raskin

Jamie Raskin included something like this notion as part of a bill that he introduced as a State Senator in 2016:

http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2016RS/bills/sb/sb0762F.pdf

I consider this a horrible idea and don't see how it would better represent the residents of any state.  Unless proportional representation is somehow allowed, each multi-member district would very likely elect all Republicans or all Democrats.  It seems obvious to me that single-member congressional districts are more likely to be representative of state's residents by political party than multi-member ones.  Of course, gerrymandering by whatever party has the power is going to exist, but it would be pretty difficult for Maryland Democrats to totally eliminate Republican representation in the Congress if the single-member district system is retained.  If there are multi-member districts, it could be done.  But where Republicans have the power (and they do in most states), they could wipe out a lot of Democrats.

Ken

K Stevens
ksteve8@verizon.net

-----Original Message-----
From: 'Marty Wulfe' via GMOM-volunteers <GMOM-volunteers@googlegroups.com>
To: GMOM-volunteers <GMOM-volunteers@googlegroups.com>; angad.gmom.hipops <angad.gmom.hipops@blogger.com>
Sent: Tue, Jul 16, 2019 3:15 pm
Subject: Panel Survey from Jamie Raskin

I was just sent a survey from Rep. Raskin asking me about my attitudes about all the right issues: public campaign financing, a constitutional amendment including campaign finance reform and corporate personhood, and gerrymandering.

 

But then there was this one that I was totally unprepared for, related to Government Reform:

 

The idea of this proposal is one that is allowed by the Constitution. This proposal would make larger US House districts that would be represented by more than one Member of Congress. This would increase the likelihood Members of Congress would more accurately mirror the partisan mix of the population. Here is how it would work:

 

• In a state with five or fewer Congressional districts, the state would still have the same number of House Members, but they would be elected by all of the state's voters and represent the whole state.

 

For example, for a state with five Congressional districts, on the ballot there would be at least five Republicans and five Democrats, as well as possible independent and third-party candidates. Five U.S. House Members would be elected by all voters in the state.

Research has been done on what the likely effect would be: election results would more closely mirror the partisan balance of the state. For example, Connecticut is a state in which all five House seats are currently held by Democrats and Oklahoma is one in which all five House seats are currently held by Republicans. The proposed system would likely result in 1-2 Republicans being elected in Connecticut and 1-2 Democrats in Oklahoma.

 

• For states with more than five districts, the state would keep the same number of House Members, but the districts would be redesigned to be larger and have 3-5 Members each. The 3-5 House Members would be elected by all of the voters in these larger districts.

 

Have any of you heard of this before?  Any responses? This is completely new to me.

 

Marty

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "GMOM-volunteers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to GMOM-volunteers+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/GMOM-volunteers/0a4201d53c0a%24cbbdc9d0%2463395d70%24%40yahoo.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Panel Survey from Jamie Raskin

I was just sent a survey from Rep. Raskin asking me about my attitudes about all the right issues: public campaign financing, a constitutional amendment including campaign finance reform and corporate personhood, and gerrymandering.

 

But then there was this one that I was totally unprepared for, related to Government Reform:

 

The idea of this proposal is one that is allowed by the Constitution. This proposal would make larger US House districts that would be represented by more than one Member of Congress. This would increase the likelihood Members of Congress would more accurately mirror the partisan mix of the population. Here is how it would work:

 

• In a state with five or fewer Congressional districts, the state would still have the same number of House Members, but they would be elected by all of the state's voters and represent the whole state.

 

For example, for a state with five Congressional districts, on the ballot there would be at least five Republicans and five Democrats, as well as possible independent and third-party candidates. Five U.S. House Members would be elected by all voters in the state.

Research has been done on what the likely effect would be: election results would more closely mirror the partisan balance of the state. For example, Connecticut is a state in which all five House seats are currently held by Democrats and Oklahoma is one in which all five House seats are currently held by Republicans. The proposed system would likely result in 1-2 Republicans being elected in Connecticut and 1-2 Democrats in Oklahoma.

 

• For states with more than five districts, the state would keep the same number of House Members, but the districts would be redesigned to be larger and have 3-5 Members each. The 3-5 House Members would be elected by all of the voters in these larger districts.

 

Have any of you heard of this before?  Any responses? This is completely new to me.

 

Marty

 

If the Supreme Court Won't Prevent Gerrymandering, Who Will?

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/13/opinion/sunday/partisan-gerrymandering.html

 

 

Charlie Cooper

Get Money Out – Maryland (GMOM)

 “We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can’t have both.” – Louis Brandeis

 

 

US election equipment and software is vulnerable

https://www.fredericknewspost.com/public/ap/feds-don-t-regulate-election-equipment-so-states-are-on/article_49c447de-28a0-58f8-849a-be0e09778877.html

Critics decry lack of federal standards. 

Charlie Cooper 

https://www.marylandmatters.org/2019/07/09/searchable-database-annapolis-highest-earning-lobbyists-and-biggest-spending-organizations/

Census citizenship question still under debate

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/07/census-case-could-provoke-constitutional-crisis/593425/

 

Many conservatives want the citizenship question so they can increase Republican power in the House of Representatives and the state legislatures and so they can direct less money to states with Democratic majorities. After the Supreme Court struck the question from the census, some conservatives think they have found a new way to add the citizenship question to the census. This author says the Constitution gives control of the census to Congress in Article I – not to the President.

 

Charlie Cooper

“We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can’t have both.” – Louis Brandeis

 

 

Foreign money on Politics

https://amp.businessinsider.com/jeremy-hunt-campaign-funded-by-saudi-prince-mohammed-bin-salman-ally-2019-7?__twitter_impression=true

Money in Politics

https://www.citizen.org/article/fever-pitch-medicare-for-all-lobbying/?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=284af078-de81-47ee-8547-620f5d5ed29d

Facebook dark money ads are favored by the right

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/jul/05/facebook-ads-2020-dark-money-funding-republican-trump-weapon?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

 

Although Facebook publishes a database of who pays for political ads, the true source of the money does not have to be revealed.

 

Charlie Cooper. Credit to Sheila Ruth for find this one.

 

 

 

https://thefulcrum.us/oregon-campaign-finance-laws-2639057879.amp.html?__twitter_impression=true

Supreme Court redistricting decision from Maryland point of view

https://www.marylandmatters.org/2019/07/01/analysis-blindsided-by-the-right/

 

 

Charlie Cooper

This website has research articles on open primaries

https://www.openprimaries.org/academic_research?utm_campaign=special_bulletin_19_4&utm_medium=email&utm_source=openprimaries

 

Thanks to Renaud Brown for finding this resource.

 

Charlie Cooper