Off the Kuff: Election 2002 Archives

Five years ago

Last week, BOR took a couple of looks back at how things were five years ago in the aftermath of the 2002 election (short answer: it sucked), and compares to how things are now. I'll give you one way in which things are different now - I believe the base Democratic level statewide is higher. Take a look at this spreadsheet, which compares the Congressional vote totals and percentages from 2002 through 2006. Note that in 2006, the Democrats won a slightly larger share of the Congressional vote than they did in 2002 (45.9 to 45.1) even though they had six more incumbents in 2002.

A couple of notes on this spreadsheet: I counted votes for Shelley Sekula Gibbs as Republican votes for the regular election (the meaningless special election was skipped). In the special elections for CDs 15, 21, 23, 25, and 28, I added up the votes for candidates who carried the DEM and REP labels; if you were listed as LIB, IND, GRN, or CON, you were skipped. The "Competitive" label removes all of the races in which one party did not field an opponent. As you can see, in 2002 and 2004 this was basically a wash; in 2006, it favored the Dems. If you assume the Republicans would have netted about another 100,000 votes with all of these races filled in, the Dem percentage goes down to 44.8, which is a bit less than 2002, but again, that's working with six fewer incumbents.

What this suggests to me is that the partisan gap at the statewide level isn't as great as it might appear, at least by looking at the 2006 statewide election results. Generally speaking, the Dem Congressional candidates outperformed their statewide colleagues, with Bill Moody being the only statewide who did as well or better than most. I believe the way to close the gap between the Congressionals and the statewides is with money, which is what the statewide Republicans who did the best had in abundance. It seems clear to me that people who would vote for a Democratic Congressional candidate, especially those who did so in a district held by a Republican incumbent, would be open to the idea of voting for a Democratic statewide candidate. It would help if they knew something about these candidates - at least, if they knew as much about them as they did their Republican opponents - so they could make a fully informed decision. No guarantees, of course, but it sure couldn't hurt.

Now of course, we don't know what will happen in 2008. As you can see, 2004 was a much stronger year for Republican Congressional candidates than either 2002 or 2006. One presumes having President Bush at the top of the ticket to drive turnout for them didn't hurt; they obviously won't have that next year, and no I don't think having Hillary up there will help them, either. On the other hand, we've got a pretty sparse crop of Dem candidates so far, so this measure may not be that useful next year. But we'll see.

11/12/07 | permalink | comments [0]

Latino voting

Received a link to this interesting study of Latino voting patterns in my mailbox the other day. Here are the highlights:

* The Latino vote for GOP Senate candidates was similar to prior years, at about one-third; gubernatorial candidates fared better, at close to one-half.

* But Latinos who voted in 2002 had higher income and education levels than the Latino electorate as a whole. Turnout of lower and middle income Latinos was much lower in 2002 than in 2000.

* Latino voters who identify themselves as "independents" are, in fact, likely to vote Democratic. The fact that many of these independents stayed home in 2002 helped Republicans.

* There is no "Latino" voting bloc, as such — after controlling for party identification, income, and education, there is no difference between Latino voting and the voting pattern of non-Hispanic whites in either the Senate or gubernatorial races of 2002. This is not true of African Americans, who are a distinctive voting bloc even after controlling for education, income, and party identification.

Pretty interesting. The polling data comes from Fox News, for those who care. One subject of some controversy is how Latinos voted in the 2002 Texas elections:

What about the Florida and Texas governorships? Didn’t Hispanic Democrats surge into Republican ranks in these two states? Not according to the FOX News polls. In Texas, almost no Latinos who had supported Gore in 2000 cast votes for GOP Senate candidate John Cronyn. And in the governors’ races, about 8 percent of Latinos who had supported Al Gore cast votes for Rick Perry and Jeb Bush — a respectable improvement, but no evidence of a surge. In Florida, Jeb Bush polled much worse among Latinos in 2002 (57 percent) than he had in his narrow loss to Lawton Chiles in 1994 (71 percent). If I learned first grade mathematics correctly, these figures are headed in the wrong direction — surprising given that 2002 found the President’s brother a well-entrenched incumbent whereas 1994 found him a relative neophyte. Moreover, the Latino Democrats who voted for Perry and Bush look very much like Republicans, and most of them voted Republican in the 2000 election — so there is meager evidence of Latino political movement between 2000 and 2002. The consultants who consider themselves so adept at manipulating voters’ allegiances are living in a dream world. The evidence strongly supports the conventional view of political science — that partisan commitments and policy preferences are highly stable, and campaign messages matter much less than political consultants would have gullible politicians believe (Green, Palmquist, and Schickler 2002).

It still doesn't settle the question of how many Latinos actually voted for Rick Perry, but I'll take what information I can get.

01/21/03 | permalink | comments [1] | trackbacks [0]

New leader, new troubles

Harris County Democrats selected Gerry Birnberg as their interim party chair to fill out Sue Schecter's unexpired term. Birnberg will have to run for reelection in the 2004 primary.

He promised to raise enough money to hire a full-time executive director. Birnberg said the current county party budget is about $60,000 and he hopes to raise an additional $150,00 this year.

He also promised to adopt a more traditional Democratic Party message and move away from the failed strategy among some Texas Democrats of running as "Bush lite" -- trying to link themselves to the popular president from Texas.

The new focus, Birnberg said, will be on health care, jobs, environment and other issues that he said Republicans shy away from.

"The Democratic message is: People matter," Birnberg said. "My honest belief is that that message resonates."

We'll see. How you say it is also important, and without some obvious and memorable values behind it, a message like that is just a meaningless slogan. We'll need more than just a message to be a factor.

Meanwhile, there's trouble brewing in the state party as some dissidents have taken aim at Molly Beth Malcolm, the chair of the Texas Democratic Party.

Malcolm malcontents characterize her as "Republican lite," unwilling to push traditional Democratic positions after switching from the Republican Party in 1992.

Last year, Malcolm helped keep national Democratic leaders away from the party's convention in El Paso. She said she wanted to keep the spotlight on Texas candidates, but Republican critics quickly charged that the state Democrats were trying to distance themselves from a more-liberal national party.

Malcolm's critics also say she has become too Austin-centric, turning a deaf ear to grass-roots efforts in other parts of the state.

"She's a nice lady, but we need to do something to shake up our system and light some fires," said Pharr insurance agent Juan Maldonado, a state party vice chairman.

I didn't know she used to bat for the other team, but given how many Republicans are former Democrats in this state, I don't think it really matters. What I do know is that we deserved better in 2002, and its way past time for the state party to get its act together. Everything I said about Harris County Democrats is equally true for the state. Let's get a move on.

Oh, and by the way: "Tart-tongued Texarkanan"? "Malcom malcontents"? Someone get me the Alliteration Police on the line. I need to report a felony.

01/14/03 | permalink | comments [0] | trackbacks [1]

Looking forward: Harris County Democrats

Seeing this article about the resignation of Harris County Democratic Party Chair Sue Schecter reminds me that I never did follow up on this post, which pointed to this article about the many things that the local party did wrong last year. I will now rectify that oversight, so if this sort of thing bores you, feel free to come back later.

Now then. There are three things that I think a party chair should be focusing on: Raising money, organizing, and crafting a message. All three are bread-and-butter tactics, and the Harris County GOP kicks our butt at each of them. The political machine built by conservative activist Steven Hotze is fearsome to behold and wildly successful. And there's no reason why the Democrats can't be better at it.

There's no inherent party advantage to these things. The GOP may be able to raise more money, but I sometimes feel that the Democrats don't really try all that hard. I've voted in every Democratic primary since 1992, yet I can't recall ever being solicited by the local party to attend fundraisers or rallies. How hard is is to crosscheck my name against the property tax rolls and figure out that I'm the kind of prospect that the Dems should be eager to recruit? There's no excuse for this.

For this reason, I'm already leaning towards Dalia Stokes, organizer of the River Oaks Area Democratic Women (ROADWomen), as the next chair. I think the whole county party has to be rebuilt, and I think someone who's already built an organizaton is the best person for the job.

As for the message, we've certainly learned that We're Just Like Republicans sucks as a campaign slogan. I don't expect that to happen again, and just maybe the pain of that lesson will drive our efforts next time. I would suggest that there is a page in the local GOP playbook that we can steal, though. The local GOP has a pretty strong brand identity. When you see an ad for a Republican candidate, you will almost certainly hear a few key words: "Conservative values", "fiscal restraint", "low taxes", and so on. I think they have a template somewhere and build their ads based on it. It's effective - you know exactly what you're getting with these guys. The Democrats lack such an identity, and I think it hurts them. If I were Democratic chair, I'd spend some time studying these ads and come up with a few key words of our own, words that would contrast us with them in a positive way, and encourage candidates to use them.

I would work on expanding the party base, both with voter drives and GOTV efforts, and also by making sure the message I craft will be reasonably appealing to non-Democrats. I don't mean trying to peel away GOP voters - remember that painful lesson from last year? - I mean working to make our message broad and universal. I laid out a few such themes in the immediate aftermath of the election.

I would reach out to every already-existing progressive group, as these people are the party's core. I would want them to feel like they are an integral part of our future success. We need them and we need to make them feel like they're fully invested in us. I'd reach across county lines to groups in Fort Bend and Montgomery. We should share strategies and mailing lists where appropriate, and we should work together in races that cross county lines.

Finally, I would hire a couple of savvy web and database techs, and have them get to work on a web page and mail server that will have a steady flow of new information and will be used for our outreach projects. Again, there's no excuse for not having the best tools at your disposal.

That's what I'd do. I'd like to know what the three candidates plan to do. I'm going to try to find their email addresses and ask them, and if I hear back I'll let you know what they say.

01/13/03 | permalink | comments [3] | trackbacks [0]

She's back

By the way, in case there weren't enough depressing news to go around, our new Senator John Cornyn has a seat on the Judiciary Committee, which means that the renomination of Priscilla Owen to the federal bench is pretty much a given. All you fans of judicial activism should be pleased as punch.

UPDATE: And she's bringing Charles Pickering with her:

"This is not an issue like affirmative action where people of good faith can disagree," said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., and a member of the judiciary committee. "To renominate Judge Pickering, who has not built a distinguished record and is probably best known for intervening on behalf of a cross burner, shows that Nixon's Southern strategy is alive and well in this White House."

Among Pickering's supporters is longtime friend Sen. Trent Lott of Mississippi, the former Senate majority leader forced to step down from his leadership position over racially insensitive remarks.

We can certainly argue over whether or not Judge Pickering is qualified, impartial, fair, whatever. Is it really smart politically for Bush to give the Democrats a Trent Lott-related talking point this soon after supposedly putting that embarrassing incident to bed?

01/07/03 | permalink | comments [3] | trackbacks [0]

A season for giving

Forty-eight families donated $34 million to the Texas GOP this year, more than half of the $64 million total that the state party raised.

I'm not going to act all shocked and indignant about this. "GOP gets big bucks from rich folks" is as much a secret as Trent Lott's despicable racism. It isn't even news any more.

So, I'm going to focus on a couple of interesting bits in this story. I'll start by quoting Houston Texans owner Bob McNair, one of the five biggest GOP benefactors:

[McNair] said the way to improve the campaign finance system is to require greater transparency and timely reporting of who donates to political funds.

"That's the answer, because you smoke everybody out and you know who is putting the money up," he said. "If I'm in the construction business and there's construction legislation up there, then it's clear."

I agree. It surely would have been nice for this story to have been written in October rather than December, for example. Consider this little nugget:

The second-largest donor to Texans for a Republican Majority was the Farmers Insurance employees committee, which gave $150,000.

Farmers' threats to pull out of the Texas homeowners insurance market have led Gov. Perry to say he will declare insurance reform an emergency legislative issue in January.

I suspect that might have been a campaign issue had it been known before the election. It may not have made any difference, but it would have been nice to know.

Former #1 giver James Leininger was #2 this year, but he's already had plenty of influence. Be sure to read the linked stories, or do a Google search on "James Leininger". It's an eye opener. One word of advice: If you're a Democrat, don't buy any products from Promised Land Dairy.

Then there's Bo Pilgrim. What can you say about a man who once handed out $10,000 checks on the state Senate floor when a bill on workers' compensation insurance was being discussed? Here's what he says for himself:

Pilgrim now says that money was not donated for the good of his company but for the good of all Texas workers whose jobs might have moved out of state if the workers' compensation system had not been overhauled.

"I'm a large contributor, but I have 24,500 employees," Pilgrim said. "I'm contributing for them. I know they are not able to contribute, some of them.

"It's my responsibility to support the right candidates for the right reasons. It's not selfish. It's interpreted that way by the individual who doesn't have or can't have the same input."

Yes, that really was selfless of him. I should be ashamed of myself for being snarky about it. Maybe if I'd get off my butt and become a millionaire so I could do what he does I wouldn't be such a crab.

The big winner this year was Houston's own Bob Perry, the man behind the evil soulless townhome development company Perry Homes. The sidebar story gives some background on him. I have a strong dislike for Perry Homes because of what they've done to Montrose, the neighborhood I used to live in. Now I have even more reason to feel this way.

The last of the Top Five is a Dallas dusinessman named Wayne Huddleston. The article refers to hims as a "different kind of Republican", and for once I actually agree with that assessment:

A resident of Highland Park, a Dallas enclave that is home to the state's wealthiest school district, Huddleston wants to get rid of the "Robin Hood" school finance system that takes money from rich districts and gives to poor ones. But he also is willing to propose the usually unthinkable in Texas politics -- a flat state income tax to pay for schools.

"Ultimately, no one can argue with educating every child in the state of Texas," Huddleston said. "My goal is not to do it well in the short term but to put something into play in the long term that does the job."

Anyone who'd advocate a state income tax is definitely not a conformist. I can't say he'll get much return on his investment, though.

12/22/02 | permalink | comments [1] | trackbacks [0]

Not Gore in 2004

Well, it's official. We won't have Al Gore to kick around in 2004, as he has announced that he is not a candidate for President. Part of me is sorry to see this, as I think he's still the best person for the job, but more of me is glad that for this decision.

"I think the current policies have to be changed," said Gore. "I think that my best way of contributing to that result may not be as a candidate this time around."

A rematch with Bush, Gore said, "would inevitably involve a focus on the past that would in some measure distract from the focus on the future that I think all campaigns have to be about."

He's right. A rematch would inevitably focus on 2000, and I think Gore would get the same shabby treatment without the benefit of the is-Bush-fit-to-lead questions. Someone else can make the case that Bush has done a bad job without that baggage.

Despite Gore's demurrals that his announcement "probably means that I will never have another opportunity to run for president", I wouldn't completely count him out. For one thing, if Bush does get reelected in 2004, Gore will be only 60 years old in 2008. He could run again if he wanted to. The main problem is that he won't have much of a platform from which to be visible any more. If he doesn't find something with a relatively high profile to do between now and then, he'll be considered irrelevant.

So who do you like now that Gore is no more? Count me as an undecided. I'll need to survive the Houston mayoral race in 2003 first.

12/16/02 | permalink | comments [5] | trackbacks [0]

Negative advertising works

Everyone who paid attention agrees that the Texas Governor's race was very negative this year. A new poll suggests that Tony Sanchez got the brunt of the fallout from that:

On a scale of one to five with five being the most favorable, Perry's average favorability rating among those blaming him for the negative campaign was 2.53, while Perry's rating among those blaming Sanchez was 4.25.

In contrast, the average rating of Sanchez among those who blamed him for the negative campaign was 1.54 while Sanchez's rating was 3.6 among those who blamed Perry for the negative campaign. Among those blaming both candidates equally, the average favorability rating for Sanchez was 2.65 while Perry's average rating was 2.94.

Make of that what you will. It'd be interesting to see the numbers broken down by party as well - I suspect Republicans gave Sanchez low ratings whether they thought he was more negative or not, and the same is true for Dems and Perry. Nonetheless, this is something to file away for future reference.

11/27/02 | permalink | comments [0] | trackbacks [0]

David Rushing update

Well, the good news is that the Chron finally addressed the David Rushing issue. The bad news is that they did so in a completely candy-assed way.

What they did was print three letters to the editor which one assumes are supposed to give some "balance" to Rushing's viewpoint. The letters themselves...well, see for yourself. Here's Letter Number One:

Old politics won't work

Regarding David Rushing's Nov. 19 Outlook article, "Political Poison: How John Sharp killed the Texas Democratic Party": Rushing must not have been paying attention during the last election because Ron Kirk and Tony Sanchez won their primaries.

Does he prefer a return to the old "Dixiecrat" Party of George Wallace, where only white Protestant males need apply? This thinly veiled racist appeal to the politics of old just won't work. Here's a novel approach: Why not change the message?

The concerns of conservative and moderate Democrats have been ignored and replaced by those of the radical left. It's small wonder the Republicans continue to gain more votes in Texas.

David R. Martinez, Houston

Does anyone understand the point this guy is trying to make? He starts off disputing Rushing's thesis, then he recapitulates it. And what's up with this assertion that the state Democratic Party has been taken over by "the radical left"? Anyone who thinks John Sharp and Ron Kirk are radical anything probably thinks Tom DeLay is a mainstream moderate.

Moving on to Letter Number Two:

Not over white voters

David Rushing is misguided if he thinks Texas Democrats failed because they lost white voters. Remember college history: In wartime, a president's party usually wins most elections. Saying that Texans will not support an inclusive party makes them appear racist.

Michael Whitlock, Stafford

Unfortunately, the Democrats did fail with white voters, and this was a major factor, probably the biggest factor, in their defeat. Only Sharp drew better than 30% of the Anglo vote. Back in March, after the primaries, the hope was that they could get at least 35% of the Anglo vote - they needed that much to be competitive. 35% of the white vote would probably have carried Ron Kirk to victory, and would have made the Sanchez-Perry race much closer.

There's no question that the ticket did poorly with white voters. It was not, as Rushing contended, because the Democrats were "openly hostile" towards them. You can't counter one wrong fact with another and hope to win the argument.

On to Letter Number Three:

His bias was obvious

When I looked up David Rushing's credentials, I learned he is a long-time member of the Young Conservatives of Texas and that this organization is powerful in state universities and very influential with Gov. Rick Perry.

How many people read Rushing's article and thought it was unbiased?

Geraldine Allen, Sugar Land

Finally, the crux of the matter - the fact that Rushing attempted to pass himself off as impartial or possibly sympathetic to the Democrats. He deliberately misrepresented himself in his byline, and in doing so gave a distorted picture of his perspective. This is the only letter that really matters, and it gets printed last. Jeebus.

It's stuff like this that makes people across the political spectrum dislike and distrust our hometown paper.

11/27/02 | permalink | comments [0] | trackbacks [1]

Quixotic Quest Dept.

Four defeated state candidates in Texas are filing suit against the Texas Association of Business, claiming that money that the TAB spent in the campaigns constituted direct contributions, which are illegal under state law.

Okay, this is a little complicated. Let's start with the story:

The TAB, in what it recently bragged was an "unprecedented show of muscle," targeted 22 hotly contested races for the Texas House and two for the state Senate. Candidates supported by the group won 18 of the House races and one of the crucial Senate contests.

Overall, 100 of 104 House candidates and 22 of 23 Senate candidates endorsed by TAB's political action committee won in an election that saw Republicans capture a majority of the House for the first time in 130 years.

TAB spent $2 million in the most competitive races. Only $100,000 of that amount came from its political action committee, which publicly identifies contributors.

The remainder was in direct corporate contributions for so-called issue advertising, which criticized the candidates it was trying to defeat but didn't specifically tell voters how to cast their ballots. TAB contends the sources of those contributions are not subject to public disclosure.

State law prohibits direct corporate contributions to political races. But TAB believes it successfully skirted that ban by buying the issue ads.

In two separate lawsuits filed in state district court in Austin, the four defeated Democrats contend the corporate expenditures were illegal.

If I'm understanding this correctly, the plaintiffs are saying that TAB's purchase of the "issues ads" is a direct contribution, and TAB says it isn't.

Here's what I think is the relevant law from the state elections code. I Am Not A Lawyer, so make of it what you will:

§ 253.091. Corporations Covered

This subchapter applies only to corporations that are organized under the Texas Business Corporation Act, the Texas Non-Profit Corporation Act, federal law, or law of another state or nation.

Amended by Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 899, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987.

§ 253.092. Treatment of Incorporated Political Committee

If a political committee the only principal purpose of which is accepting political contributions and making political expenditures incorporates for liability purposes only, the committee is not considered to be a corporation for purposes of this subchapter.

Amended by Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 899, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987.

§ 253.093. Certain Associations Covered

(a) For purposes of this subchapter, the following associations, whether incorporated or not, are considered to be corporations covered by this subchapter: banks, trust companies, savings and loan associations or companies, insurance companies, reciprocal or interinsurance exchanges, railroad companies, cemetery companies, government-regulated cooperatives, stock companies, and abstract and title insurance companies.

(b) For purposes of this subchapter, the members of the associations specified by Subsection (a) are considered to be stockholders.

Amended by Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 899, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987.

§ 253.094. Contributions and Expenditures Prohibited

(a) A corporation or labor organization may not make a political contribution or political expenditure that is not authorized by this subchapter.

(b) A corporation or labor organization may not make a political contribution or political expenditure in connection with a recall election, including the circulation and submission of a petition to call an election.

(c) A person who violates this section commits an offense. An offense under this section is a felony of the third degree.

Amended by Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 899, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987.

§ 253.095. Punishment of Agent

An officer, director, or other agent of a corporation or labor organization who commits an offense under this subchapter is punishable for the grade of offense applicable to the corporation or labor organization.

Amended by Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 899, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987.

§ 253.096. Contribution on Measure

A corporation or labor organization may make campaign contributions from its own property in connection with an election on a measure only to a political committee for supporting or opposing measures exclusively.

Amended by Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 899, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987.

§ 253.097. Direct Expenditure on Measure

A corporation or labor organization not acting in concert with another person may make one or more direct campaign expenditures from its own property in connection with an election on a measure if the corporation or labor organization makes the expenditures in accordance with Section 253.061 or 253.062 as if the corporation or labor organization were an individual.

Amended by Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 899, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987.

Sections 253.061 and and 253.062 cover contributions by individuals:

§ 253.061. Direct Expenditure of $100 or Less

Except as otherwise provided by law, an individual not acting in concert with another person may make one or more direct campaign expenditures in an election from the individual's own property if:

(1) the total expenditures on any one or more candidates or measures do not exceed $100; and

(2) the individual receives no reimbursement for the expenditures.

Amended by Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 899, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987; Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 864, § 243, eff. Sept. 1, 1997.

§ 253.062. Direct Expenditure Exceeding $100

(a) Except as otherwise provided by law, an individual not acting in concert with another person may make one or more direct campaign expenditures in an election from the individual's own property that exceed $100 on any one or more candidates or measures if:

(1) the individual complies with Chapter 254 as if the individual were a campaign treasurer of a political committee; and

(2) the individual receives no reimbursement for the expenditures.

(b) An individual making expenditures under this section is not required to file a campaign treasurer appointment.

Amended by Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 899, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987; Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 864, § 244, eff. Sept. 1, 1997.

If you understand all that, you're a) a lawyer, b) smarter than me, or c) both. If so, feel free to enlighten me in the comments.

My ignorance of the legal nuances aside, I think there's a better chance that I'll be the starting quarterback for the Cowboys on Turkey Day than any relief being given to the plaintiffs in this suit. It's pie-in-the-sky, it goes against the state's unofficial motto ("Creating a Friendly Climate for Bidness Since We Kicked Santa Anna's Ass All Them Years Ago"), and the state Supreme Court is full of Republicans who live on campaign contributions. It's just not gonna happen.

But hey, as long as we're dreaming, here's what I'd like to see happen. I've seen this suggestion before, including in the blogosphere (can't remember where, unfortunately), and I think it has merit: Let everyone contribute as much as they want, but all funds go into a blind trust and then dispersed anonymously to the candidates. If candidates don't know who's giving them the quid, they will have less incentive to give back the pro quo.

There are two main flaws with this approach - it requires a bureaucracy to handle the money, and politicians are never going to be truly in the dark about who their biggest supporters are. I don't think the first objection is that big a deal. As for the second, I refuse to let the perfect kill the good.

That doesn't address the "issues ads" that the plaintiffs in this suit are complaining about. I can't think of any way to restrict them that doesn't cause First Amendment concerns, so what I'd like to see is more stringent disclosure laws. If the Citizens For A Better Tomorrow want to run an ad asking why Candidate Johnson hates America, puppies, and motherhood, I think the ad should be proceeded by giving the contact information for CFABT, to wit

"The following ad was paid for by Citizens For A Better Tomorrow, PO Box 666, Boston, MA, 02134, 617-555-1234, http://www.bettertomorrow.org, Jerome Horwitz (President)"

In addition, all officers of CFABT and everyone who contributes above a certain level (say $100) should be publicly available.

Like I said, all that is for the perfect world that I hope to live in some day. In the meantime, I'll try to keep an eye on this case, but I fully expect it to go nowhere.