Skip to main content

Lawrence Lessig's Mayday PAC (to end all PACs) has come out with its latest crazy Republican endorsement: the incumbent in the race for the NC-03 House seat, Walter Jones.

Never heard of him? Sure you have: Jones drew national attention in 2003 by demanding that the House cafeteria stop serving French toast and french fries, and start offering "Freedom Toast" and "Freedom Fries" instead. And he durn tootin' won that courageous battle, boy-howdy. With solid legislative achievements like this under his belt, his recent endorsement by Lessig's Mayday PAC was pretty much a foregone conclusion.

Below the fold, let's learn more about the man that Mayday PAC is now supporting with your liberal and Democratic dollars (because PACs are bad, so Lessig started a PAC).

According to Ballotpedia, Jones is a career politician currently serving his tenth term in the House.

First, let's get one thing straight: never you mind the fact that Jones is committed to opposing marriage equality, demands President Obama's impeachment, supports legislation to bar the EPA from regulating sources of water pollution, and proudly boasts solid 'A' ratings from both the National Rifle Association and the National Right To Life Committee. As Mayday PAC's Lessig will no doubt tell you, none of that matters because Mayday is only here for campaign finance reform; it will gladly support Satan Himself as long as he says nice things about that, and you should too. And never mind that Jones' victory in November is already a dead-cert lock (his district is rated as one of the most conservative in the country by Cooks Political Digest, and his Democratic opponent, quixotic Marshall Adame, brings a war chest of just $3,000 up against Jones' $538,000 in fundraising even before the Republican primary). Mayday intends its support of Jones to bring it credibility among Republicans (who currently couldn't care less about Mayday), and nothing spells credibility quite like betting on the winning horse, even if it's the only horse on the track.

No, what really matters to Mayday is its goal of supporting candidates who deeply understand the evils of crony capitalism and Big Dark Money in politics. And with his current lucrative seat on the House Armed Services Committee, and his even sweeter seat in 2011-2012 on the House Financial Services Committee (before he lost it by running afoul of House leadership), nobody knows those evils better than does Walter Jones, just a few of whose FEC-reported (and largely out-of-state) mega campaign donors from 2011 through 2014 alone have included:

  • Northrop Grumman
  • Lockheed
  • SAIC
  • Textron
  • Branch Banking and Trust Company PAC
  • American Bankers Association PAC
  • Deloitte Federal PAC
  • Truliant Federal Credit Union PAC
  • Credit Union Legislative Action Council
  • First Citizens Bancshares PAC
  • Investment Company Institute PAC
  • LendingTree PAC
  • Coastal Federal Credit Union PAC
  • LPL Financial PAC
  • American Financial Services Ass'n PAC
  • American Association of Certified Public Accountants
  • Farm Credit Council PAC
  • Independent Insurance Agents of America
  • Managed Funds Association PAC
  • Suntrust Bank Good Government PAC

After all, who better to opine on the evils of central heating than Satan himself?

Wondering why the heck Lessig and Mayday chose to endorse Walter Jones? You're not alone. You can help bring Mayday to its senses by letting it know that progressives have had enough of its too-clever-by-half strategy of backing loathsome RWNJs who happened to say something nice about campaign finance reform once upon a time: tweet the hashtag #LessigWTF. Or if you don't tweet, give 'em a piece of your mind at https://mayday.us/.... Mayday is watching, to see if any progressives actually care about this. And it has another three endorsements coming soon; let's stop this nonsense and make sure those endorsements are all for solid progressive champions of campaign finance reform. Speak up!

Originally posted to DocDawg on Tue Aug 12, 2014 at 08:33 AM PDT.

Also republished by North Carolina BLUE.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Thanks for the Kosmail. RT'd n/t (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DocDawg
  •  Not surprised. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    musiccitymollie

    I wonder how many liberals fell for this scheme.

  •  I will not have an opportunity to fully research (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DocDawg

    each candidate for a while (due to FL matters), but suffice it to say that both Republicans are "Libertarians," and therefore fiscal conservatives.

    One reason the two libertarians have been selected--other than they would support Bowles-Simpson, is that they may be useful in electing the Dem.

    Please see excerpt below.

    In statewide races, the Libertarian Party isn’t as easily going to throw elections in favor of Democrats.

    The opportunity is in the Congressional races.  If there is a hard-working Libertarian candidate running in each of the close Congressional Districts (the 6th, 8th, and 12th) Democrats will have a statistically better chance at victory.

    Cynical? Yes. Manipulative? Definitely. Rove-like? Totally.

    But it’s about time that our party took advantage of advantages.

    If the Republicans want to gerrymander the entire Commonwealth into a series of Rorschach tests, we should be able to see a Libertarian in every ink blot.

    Let’s help our Libertarian friends gain access to the ballot–let’s do it for America.

    I've already posted comments by Rubens referencing his support for slashing entitlements and raising taxes on the lower and middle classes to pay for it (and to pay for the ongoing tax reform--slashing the marginal tax rates for corporations and for the wealthy--making 3 tax rates, instead of the current 6 tiers for "individual" taxes).

    Anyhoo, I'd bet the family farm that all the candidates are who have been (or will be) selected are/will be "fiscal conservatives."

    I thought that I remembered that Carol Shea-Porter was very fiscally conservative.

    Just found a piece verifying this from the website Seacoastonline.com:

    Since her upset victory in 2006 over Republican Rep. Jeb Bradley of Wolfeboro, Carol Shea-Porter has shown an independent streak, and worked diligently to represent her constituents on a wide range of issues.

    These are some of the reasons why the Portsmouth Herald endorses Carol Shea-Porter, and we encourage voters to return her to Congress for a second term.

    Shea-Porter's grass-roots-propelled victory was prompted not only by her opposition to the war in Iraq, but also her belief that the middle class was under siege and that political leaders in Washington were unresponsive to these economic changes.

    Shea-Porter, a self-proclaimed fiscal conservative, supported the reinstatement of pay-as-you-go budgeting. She has also opposed the Bush tax cuts, which she believes have benefited the wealthiest 1 percent at the expense of the middle class, and has called for a broad middle-class tax cut.

    Bottom line:  This particular movement, which shares many of the same Board Of Directors as Americans Elect, No Labels, Etc., is attempting to elect fiscal conservatives to pass and enact the Fiscal Commission's (Bowles-Simpson's) proposal "The Moment Of Truth."

    Done, under the cover of wanting "small dollar donation" elections.

    If readers recall, we were told that contributing to the President's election efforts would keep Big Money Influence out of the equation.

    I would ask:

    How has that worked out for us?

    ;-)

    There are ways to clean up campaign finance, but this route is not one of them that is serving the American People.

    It's primary purpose is to, as Lessig himself says:

    "For the first time in 40 years, actually free (Congress) to worry about "doing what makes sense."

    This is "BS," because at the top of the agenda of both parties' corporatist wing is [still] striking a "Grand Bargain."  

    And need I remind readers, this effort has been lead by the Democratic Party White House, who commissioned the Bowles-Simpson "Catfood" Commission in the first place.

    And last time I checked, "doing what makes sense" does not include further eviscerating our already shoddy social safety net.

    Off Soapbox For Now . . .

    Mollie

    "Only he who can see the invisible, can do the impossible."-- Frank L. Gaines


    hiddennplainsight-Welcome!-UID 35127

    by musiccitymollie on Tue Aug 12, 2014 at 12:23:13 PM PDT

  •  Attorneys are notorious for having a solution b... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DocDawg

    Attorneys are notorious for having a solution before they even know the problem. As Sun Tzu said losers fight first then try to win. Lessig has apparently lost in Liston-like speed. If he were to use some of his big bucks defrauded from delusional liberals to pay me for advice I'd tell him to think back to 8th grade history, to A. Lincoln and how he spent his time between 1857 and 1860. Lincoln had an insight and he sold it. Lessig has an insight, that the Constitution was written to protect free speech from money.

    My advice, don't keep that a secret, make it an electoral issue.

    But in a one time only mandate election to get big bang legislation. Piecemeal approaches simply add to the corruption (Bo Rothstein) and friends have to worry that he hasn't violated quid pro quo laws. In a big bang election it wouldn't matter what fascist schemes candidates have so long as they are willing to commit political suicide and abolish private pay systemic corruption. But they have to all be lined up at once as when the Anti Saloon League got Prohibition from wet politicians. In no instance is money needed, just voters primed to end their careers if they don't comply.

    Lessig remains stuck in the constitutional convention era like I used to wear a cowboy hat and spurs as an 8 year old. That's OK in a law prof, not OK in a politician. Humphrey, McCarthy and Wellstone were profs who understood politics, Lessig doesn't.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site