Sidebar: Voter Beware

We learned in Sunday's post that there's an effort underway in Texas to make it illegal for individuals attempt to influence someone's vote once mail-in ballots have been issued or the voting process has started. 

As I noted, this provision seems more designed to limit a person's 1st Amendment rights than to protect a vote from fraud. I mean, unless you're willing to pay dearly for the privilege of having a heartfelt political conversation with a friend or family members - penalties under the bill max at a $4000 fine and a year in jail -  would you take the chance of being arrested for strongly encouraging someone to say, not vote for a rude, crude, lying New York businessman?  And, it extends far beyond the paper ballot which might be sitting unopened on the dining room table to include "the voting process" which could be interpreted to include any early voting windows as well as election day.

If the folks in the Texas legislature are not able to change the language, or if they refuse to, I really hope someone sues bigly to prevent candidates, PACS, and super PACS, corporations, unions, small businesses, trade associations, other loose affiliations of people, and individuals from issuing any TV, radio, and Internet ads; billboards; public transportation cards; yard signs and posters; campaign mailings; handbills, bumper stickers, tchotchkes or any and all other types of advertising once early voting is open and/or once distribution of paper ballots commences.

And no money can change hands either - no political contributions, no in-kind donations, no nothing.

And no talking, either. No door knocking, no interviews...not a word from any politicians, their spokespeople, party people, or plain old ordinary people. I mean, if I'm not able to try and sway anyone's vote, why would we allow the politicians to give it a try?

Maybe we need to take a page out of president Trump's book:

veritable pastiche is calling for a complete and total shutdown of political advertising, once the voting process has started, until our country's representatives can figure out what the hell is going on.

According to multiple studies and tons of anecdotal evidence, there is great hatred towards political advertising by large segments of the American population; the hatred crosses ideological lines and comes from all socioeconomic groups.  

Americans should have the right to be governed according to their own decisions and their votes, without the undue influence of political money and political advertising. 

Even without looking at the polling data, it's obvious to anybody that the hatred of political advertising is widespread, and growing. We know where it comes from, and why. But until we are able to determine how to fix this problem, the decisions of American voters cannot continue to be obscured and overridden by the overwhelming influence of political advertising.

We need to Make the Vote Great Again. 

Wouldn't that be fun?

Quick Takes (v47): Billionaires Buying Elections?

Quick Takes

Catchy headline, right?  Those big bad billionaires and their money making a mess of things?  Well, maybe, and maybe not. Let's take a look.

First, the 'maybe' or, more correctly, the 'actual.' This NY Post article from late December caught my eye, which shouldn't surprise regular readers who know how I feel about political advertising.

The article was about the impact that spending by former NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg was having on ad rates for all of the candidates, including Bloomberg.

He’s a one-man stimulus package! 

Former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg is spending so much money on television spots across the country that it’s causing ad rates to soar, a new analysis shows. 

That's right - Bloomberg's spending has resulted in a 22% increase in a "typical TV market," the article says, pointing to an analysis by Advertising Analytics. As a for instance, 

Houston was among the markets that responded most actively to the new advertiser, it added. This is partially attributable to Bloomberg’s $1 [million] buy increasing the political spending in the market tenfold. This shock spending increase was matched by a 45% increase in rates, which is among the highest of any market. 

And, the article noted that Bloomberg is "shelling out an average of $25.5 million a week" on ads since he entered the race in November, according to the Post's research. At that pace, Bloomberg will spend over $350M before the New York primary in late April; he could spend over $1B if he gets the nod to take on Trump, according to the experts. And, 

“With no end in sight for his ad blitz, we will continue to collect data on the way Bloomberg’s spending affects rates in markets across the country,” the analysis said.There’s no historical comparison to Bloomberg’s early ad spending, said John Link, Advertising Analytics vice president of sales and marketing. 

So then: it's clear that Bloomberg's spending is having an influence - the question is, does it have the hoped-for influence, the kind that swings voters from the undecided column or from another candidate's column, to Bloomberg's? 

That's where the 'maybe not' part comes in.

According to this end-of-December article from Reason.com, 

Bloomberg, Steyer Showing Money Can't Buy Elections After Failed $200 Million Ad Blitz

The two Democratic billionaires have spent a combined $200 million on campaign ads already. That doesn't mean much to them, but the opportunity costs are staggering.

The article, by Eric Boehm, noted that Bloomberg and fellow billionaire candidate Tom Steyer have "launched themselves all the way to... the middle tier of the Democratic primary field" even though together they've spent some $200M on television ads, most of it by Bloomberg. That vastly overshadows the piddly amounts spent by the other candidates, none of whom has spent more than $18M according to a Politico report Boehm cites in his article.

And Boehm suggests that the polling performance of both Steyer, who's been on the stage in the past few debates and Bloomberg, who doesn't seem to care about the debates at all, may disprove the cry from other candidates that the billionaires are going to buy the election. 

Further, trying to buy  a nomination may not be the best way to go about driving change.

...the two billionaire candidates are providing a real-world lesson about opportunity costs by setting fire to their huge campaign war chests. They've got the means to change the world but getting involved in politics isn't the best way to do it.

It's early yet - the first votes won't happen until early February, and Bloomberg is not even paying attention to the early states, focusing instead on the Super Tuesday states where there are a boatload of delegates up for grabs, but if things hold true, Boehm may be right when he says that

Yes, it's certainly true that money can buy access and influence in the political process. But when it comes to campaigns, money is only as good as the results it can produce...

And if they can't buy the election, couldn't these guys do more by not running for president?

Focusing on comments made by Tom Steyer, Boehm points out that "you don't need to be president to create jobs" but you need capital to do it - which the billionaires have. And he notes that the private sector, not government, will likely be the impetus for the new ideas and products that we'll need to really tackle the climate crisis, which is Steyer's number one priority. And, Steyer's in a position to support the companies that will be on the cutting edge of that innovation - a better way to burn through cash, it seems, than buying political ads.

Similarly, he points to opportunities Bloomberg has to spend his money on things like "a $100 million campaign to inform Americans about health eating" instead of "the Big Gulp ban President Bloomberg would likely try to sign."

Finally, Boehm makes reference to what I think is a primarily a Sanders push to severely restrict how the Democratic National Committee can raise money (with no impact on its GOP counterpart) and implement public funding for federal elections and national conventions, among other things - and the irony of what that would really mean for other billionaire Mikes and billionaire Toms.

It's also worth noting that the post-Citizens United world that Democrats who actually stand a chance of being elected president want to build would be a place where self-funding billionaire candidates would enjoy a relatively easier path to electoral success. By trying to reduce everyone else's ability to speak, Democrats would let the future Bloombergs and Steyers dominate the airwaves even more than they do now. And those guys could use all the help they can get, it seems.

Definitely something to think about.

As an aside, it's also worth remembering that, back in 2008, Barack Obama became the first presidential candidate to refuse federal funding - before the Citizen's United decision truly opened the floodgates. And, he also was the guy who got rid of public financing for national conventions. Why? Because there was so much money in the system already, there were plenty of creative ways to get even more money into it, including campaigns to attract small donors,  and, honestly, because the Dems suck at raising money compared to the Republicans.

Poll Watch: Corporate Political Speech

Earlier this month, Robert Unanue, the head of Goya Foods, attended a Trump Rose Garden ceremony launching the Hispanic Prosperity Initiative.

I suspect more people know his name now than ever before, given what he said and the reaction to it. I've added emphasis on the sound bite that got him into hot water. 

Today, it gives me great honor — and, by the way, we’re all truly blessed at the same time to have a leader like President Trump who is a builder.  And that’s what my grandfather did: He came to this country to build, to grow, to prosper.  And so we have an incredible builder, and we pray — we pray for our leadership, our President, and we pray for our country that we will continue to prosper and to grow.

The reactions were as expected: multiple calls for boycotting from the left, with regular folks and political folks and celebrities all on board. Unanue and others called that 'cancel culture.'

Similarly, regular folks and political folks and celebrities on the right were equally on board with support for the company, Hatch Act be damned.

And prior calls for boycotts from the right be damned as well - I mean, that was then, and athletes, and this is now, and Trump.

I tossed a six-question survey up on Facebook looking for opinions on the influence of corporate political speech, if any, on people's buying choices: were they boycotters, joiners, or not swayed by this stuff? How long would they stay away from a company? And what contributes to their decision-making process?

I loosely defined 'corporate political speech', as comments and statements from executives, brand spokespeople, or from the company itself; advertising which supported or opposed a candidate, a political party, policy positions, and so on. Rather than pinning it down firmly, I followed the SCOTUS theory: some of this stuff, you simply know it when you see it.

There weren't a ton of responses, which didn't surprise me; I have a lot of vocal friends and we have some strongly opinionated conversations in person and online, but actually taking a survey? That's a 'meh' much of the time, and that's OK. Here's what I found out from the folks who did.

I asked whether people had stopped doing business with a company, started doing business with a company, or decided to never do business with a company because of corporate political speech.

• 63% of respondents said they have stopped being a customer,
• 26% said that they have become a customer, and
• 68% have chosen never to do business with a company because of political speech.

I also asked if there were any circumstances under which a person would go back to being a customer of a company they had boycotted. While 21% of respondents would not boycott in the first place, 

• 31.5% would not go back under any circumstances;
• another 31.5% would, but only if they were unable to find a comparable product elsewhere; and
• 16% would go back if the company issued an apology. 

I wanted to know what issues people found important in making the decision to begin patronizing, continue patronizing, or not patronize a company, and asked that respondents rank some hot-button issues in order of importance to them.

While LGBTQ issues are the most important based on overall ranking, the single most important thing playing into the decision-making process is the consumer's or the company's support of a politician or a political party.

The final question - a 'choose all that apply' - asked which factors might influence a respondent's decision to support - or boycott - a company that others are boycotting.

• 58% said news media articles or posts;
• 42% said their own political position/party affiliation;
• 42% said discussions, including on social media, with friends/family; 
• 21% said something else would be involved; and
• only 5% said social media posts.

I was pleased with the distinction between news articles and generic social media posts; I'm glad my friends are still paying attention to news, instead of just what will get clicks on social media. And, I'm also pleased that discussions, and sharing ideas, matter.

How would you answer the questions? And how do these results compare to what folks in your circle would say?

Wondering on Wednesday 1/24/24

 

Ready... set... wonder!

If you've been paying attention to financial news lately, you're likely aware that the stock market is booming. The Dow, NASDAQ, and S&P have all hit or neared record highs,  sometimes on consecutive days. 

Remember how big a deal that was during the Trump administration? He talked about it all the time in interviews and on social media. I found over 140 tweets or retweets from him raving about how high the market was, how many records it hit, and how fabulous it was when he was president. For example, here's one from December 31, 2020.

That was then, but this is now, and with Joe Biden in the White House, Trump is no longer excited about the market's success. Rather, he's telling his supporters that "the stock market is making rich people richer" - as if that's ever been a bad thing for an alleged billionaire. 

So, I'm wondering, am I supposed to be happy with my 401(k) doing so well, or am I supposed to be mad about rich people? 

*** *** *** *** *** 

This week marked the fourteenth anniversary of Citizens United, the case in which the Supreme Court decided that there are no limits on how much money corporations, non-profits, unions, trade organizations, and the like can spend buying elections, because limiting their money limits their speech.

According to an article from The Hill, 

AdImpact, a political advertising tracking firm, anticipates $10.2 billion will be spent on political advertising across broadcast, cable, radio, satellite, digital and CTV during the 2024 cycle, which would make it the most expensive in history.

And, if the estimate proves true, that'd be over a billion dollars more than was spent during the 2020 cycle, the previous record (emphasis added). The article also notes that

Outside groups have dumped nearly $318 million into 2024 presidential and congressional elections as of Sunday, OpenSecrets reported.

And how does that compare to 2020? It's "more than six times" what was spent during the same time period in '20 (emphasis added).

I won't bother wondering what this does to the voices of regular folks like you and me; I mean, that's pretty obvious, right? We're not actually muzzled, but our voices are surely being drowned out. 

I do wonder, though, why the amount living, breathing people can spend is limited. After all, we're the ones who actually vote.

*** *** *** *** ***

An article from HuffPost informed us that Ron DeSantis ran a pretty expensive campaign.

The DeSantis campaign and Never Back Down combined had roughly $150 million to work with. Much of that came in the form of an $82.5 million transfer from the Florida political committee that DeSantis used to run for governor in 2019 and 2023. It’s highly likely that money dried up in the waning days of his presidential campaign, as many of the governor’s donors had already maxed out their contributions while his donor base did not show signs of expanding.

I'm not surprised he dropped out of the race; many folks think he was really prepping for 2028 and a run against Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA). The two debated last November, which is when Newsom famously said, "Neither of us will be the nominee for our party in 2024." 

As DeSantis half-heartedly endorsed the front-runner, Trump told us he would officially retire the 'Ron DeSanctimonious' nickname. I'm half-heartedly wondering if no longer having to hear the name is why DeSantis suspended his campaign - and if his donors, and their wallets, wish he had done it sooner.

*** *** *** *** ***

One more about politics, and then we'll move on - I promise. I've been talking about endorsements quite a bit lately, I know, but did you see this one?

Nikki Haley receives major endorsement from Judith Sheindlin ahead of New Hampshire primary

You may be wondering, as am I, how many people knew who Judith Sheindlin was without watching the video or googling her. And I can't help wondering how much influence Sheindlin has? I guess she's still on TV in syndication, but her show ended in July 2021. And finally, I wonder how on earth this can in any way be considered "a major endorsement."

*** *** *** *** ***

It's FAFSA season - that time when families with high school seniors sit down and try to figure out how they're going to fund further education for their kids. While there are reports of issues with the form, the lateness of it, and most importantly with the calculations, that's not what I'm wondering about. 

Rather, I'm thinking about what happens long before FAFSA - when parents fight their way through the challenge of finding available and affordable childcare - and long after, when the kids have been out of college for 10, 15, or 20+ years and still owe on their student loans. 

Here's what I'm wondering: why don't we hear the same complaints about childcare tax credits as we do about student loan forgiveness? If the argument against the former is that we shouldn't have to bail out people who can't afford college, I'd expect the same people to argue that we shouldn't have to bail out people who can't afford to raise their own children.

*** *** *** *** ***

I'll close with a silly observation. I follow a couple of 'old house' pages on social media, which share photos of houses built as far back as the late 1600s, with most being around 100 years newer than that.

Followers of the page are very passionate; for people who complain, and for those who love what they see, everything is fair game:  windows, walls, floors, and ceilings; rugs, art, and collectibles, and where they are displayed;  and most especially, the kitchens and bathrooms. The most common complaints about those two rooms are that everything is too modern, the wrong material, in the wrong spot, or just plain ugly.

I haven't officially commented on this yet, but I wonder why no one ever complains about the houses having indoor plumbing and electricity in the first place?

*** *** *** *** ***

What's on your wondering mind today?

Look No Further, Media Outlets

In yesterday's post, I offered up five things that political candidates can do to help get some of the money, particularly outside money, out of campaigns.

They say they want to do this, but struggle with how to go about it, or can only offer up putting more money - our tax dollars - into the process. However, if the goals are to empower voters in the district up for grabs, and reduce the stranglehold that special interest and political parties have on our elective process, we need less money in the mix, not more.

While a courageous candidate should be able to do the five things, they have to want to be honest and ethical and accountable more than they want to be elected.  They have to be willing to buck the system, and I appreciate that's not easy, particularly if their opponent doesn't take the same path.

It also won't be easy without some significant cooperation from the media. Republican John Katko, who's in a close battle against incumbent Dan Maffei in my district, put it in perspective when he allowed that

I think it's very troubling to see the amount of money it takes to run for Congress. It puts a challenger at a distinct disadvantage.

Katko is absolutely right. It's particularly hard for challengers, whether they're newcomers to politics or veterans, to raise enough money from within the district to pay for ads, signs, billboards, and the rest. That's why it's so easy to take help from the special interests, party committees, unions, PACs and deep-pocketed individual donors.

I'm convinced that a level playing field that favors the voters but does not hinder either of the candidates is possible; here are four things that television and radio stations, newspapers and outdoor advertising companies, and online outlets can do:

(1) Set aside free time or space during the primary and the general election season for political advertising. TV and radio stations would determine the number of minutes that will be available for each candidate, and let the candidates determine how to use their minutes. It could be 15 second spots, 30 second spots, 30 minute spots - however they want to use the time, all of which  must be during prime time.  For print, it's equally prominent space on equally prominent pages, again with the candidates determining how to use their allotment.  Billboards could be allocated to each team, equally visible locations, up for equal time, with a drawing or coin toss to determine who ends up where.  Heck, they could even play Rock, Paper, Scissors to determine the placement. Online ads could be managed the same way, I would think; might take some doing but there are plenty of really good local ad agencies who can help figure it out.

(2) Make time available for individual and joint sessions with the candidates, using different formats (town hall style, formal debates, single issue sessions, online chats, and so on). Post videos and transcripts from the sessions quickly and prominently on your websites and through social media. On your news broadcasts, mention the information is available, show the links on the screen when you go to commercial, that kind of thing. Present these sessions with limited commercial interruption (none for 30-minute segments, one commercial block for hour-long segments). Establish these as collaborations with your partner stations, including cable news and public television, rotating them so that no one station bears the burden of the lost revenue. Radio stations can do the same, particularly the ones that have local shows already. Some of the local papers already offer the Q&A chats, and should continue to do so. They can also 'black box' notices on their web pages, and in print, letting people know the transcripts are available.

(3) Manage the sessions. Solicit questions from residents of the district for the sessions outlined above. The reasoning behind this is simple: the sessions are for the benefit of the voters, not for the promotion of the hosts, anchors and reporters, or stations or newspapers that participate.  And when the hosts, anchors and reporters do ask questions, keep them short and to the point. We are not interested in learning about how well you ask  questions, we're interested in getting answers from the candidates. When the candidates don't answer the question(s), respectfully point that out. And fact-check their statements, and post that information along with the transcripts and videos.

(4) Refuse all ads that are not expressly approved by candidates. Regardless of how much money is dangled in front of you. If we're asking the candidates to disavow the money, we can't have you taking it behind their backs.  Serve the public interest, and just say no.

With these options and guidelines in place, and with commitment to abide by the five suggestions from yesterday's post, challengers like Katko can be less reliant on outside money, outside endorsements, and 'support' from interest groups which frequently comes in the from of less-than-truthful advertising crammed down everyone's throats, and can instead focus on getting out, meeting voters, (from all parties, not just their base) and putting their positions front and center.

Incumbents like Maffei would have the opportunity to do their own talking, defend their own record, and show us why we should give them another chance, without all the noise, name-calling, and mud-slinging that seems to be a benefit of incumbency.

This is a challenge for our local media companies - I get that. And I hope it's the kind of challenge they'd be willing to tackle.  I like to think that they'd rather be doing this kind of reporting, this kind of broadcasting, and being associated with this kind of advertising, than what they're faced with today.

And if the candidates have these opportunities, and choose to waste them by slamming the other guy, going negative, slinging mud, refusing to talk about their own positions, their own plans, well, so be it. We'll know for sure then what they stand for.

And isn't that the point?

Wondering, on Wednesday (v7)

A few months ago I wondered about how out of touch politicians at all levels seem to be with their constituents on most issues. I had the opportunity a week later to do another post, the one where I was happy to report that a significant majority of us believe we'd be better off if we threw Congress out -- even our own elected representatives.

Six months later, almost to the day, where are we?  Well, pretty much right where we left off. Except that we're now only three weeks away from the mid-term elections, and we're being bombarded by political ads, most of them paid for by outside money, which regular readers know drives me to distraction. (Click here for a link to my campaign finance reform posts and here for my election reform posts.)

The ads for the race in my Congressional District, NY-24, are horrendous. Negative. Obnoxious. Untruthful. Fear-mongering. Name-calling. Pandering. Least-common-denominator stuff. Our race is so important that Crying John Boehner himself had to come to town to raise money for the Republican, and Joe Biden is literally coming to town to raise money for the incumbent Democrat. Those things alone will likely inspire more negative ads.

And yet, according to a poll  of regular television viewers conducted by Rasmussen Reports earlier this month, people don't like negative ads and don't believe they're necessary for a candidate to win.

Seriously. Check out these numbers:

• 63% think most political ads on television are attack ads
• 57% say negative ads make them less likely to vote for the candidate who produced the ad
• 56% think a candidate can win without negative ads
• 55% think the government should be able to review political advertising content first
• 35% think that political ads should be banned from television.

Obviously, there are some party-line differences in those numbers, but if you take party out of the picture, the picture is clear: we don't like what the candidates are doing to get elected. And they don't care.

Even before they get sworn in, they're already out of touch. 

So why do candidates continue to go negative?

I appreciate it's hard to run on your record when you're an incumbent in the 113th Congress, as of September tied with the 112th edition for the least productive Congress we've had. Not a lot you can say that's positive about how you've spent the past two years spinning your wheels, even if you've been spinning in a bipartisan manner, as some claim.  But if you're an incumbent and you want to stay in office, you should be able to outline a vision for your next term, why you want to continue serving, and how you'll act if you're re-elected.  

Similarly, if you're a newcomer to politics, or if you're 'upgrading' to a higher level of elected office, running on your record might be hard too.  But again, you should be able to articulate your vision, describe your principles and what matters to you. If you're all the things you think you are, and you have all the ideas you think we need, you should have no problem explaining your positions, rather than slamming the other guy.   

Why? Because I'm wondering, on Wednesday, if the candidates realize that these ads will always represent them, even long after they're done representing us.  

Why We Need Campaign Finance Reform

Earlier this week I talked about ways to get the money out of politics.  To be sure, many will think they were ridiculous or extreme, but I have to say it sure was good to get them off my chest.  The fact that they will likely never become law, well, that’s just something I’m going to have to fight to change, I guess. 

When you talk about money and term limits in politics, you don’t have to go far in my neck of the woods to find examples where you have to just scratch your head. 

For example: we limit the mayor of Syracuse to two terms; Common Councilors can serve no more than eight years in the same seat – so if you represent a specific seat for two terms, you can then go and serve an additional two terms in an ‘at-large’ seat.  If you move to a different district, you could theoretically serve another two terms there. Does that make sense?

At the Onondaga County level, term limits are anathema. For example, we’ve had only three elected County Executives since the inception of the position.  John Mulroy served as the first Exec, from January 1962 through December 1987; Nick Pirro took over in January 1988 and served through December 2007, and Joanie Mahoney has been in office since then.  

Kevin ‘St Patrick’ Walsh, the County Sheriff, is now in his fifth term, and is already the longest serving sheriff in county history (Walsh portrays the Irish saint every March for the parade). Walsh is collecting a pension as a retired law enforcement officer (some $78K per year) as well as his salary as the elected sheriff, another $110K or so.  He failed to tell voters that he was going to retire until after the election was over – because no one asked him, according to published reports. 

And of course, we have our District Attorney for Life, William J Fitzpatrick, who was sworn in way

Dick Blume/The Post-Standard

back in January 1992 and is now in his sixth four-year term.  Fitz is, to be fair, a man of many accomplishments. He’s also wonderful with a turn of the phrase (sort of).

Not only is he a Big Man on Campus here in Onondaga County, he’s now a BMOC on a bigger campus, having been named co-chair of Governor Cuomo’s Moreland Commission to Investigate Public Corruption. 

So, now that Fitz is a key player on a commission working on campaign finance reform (as well as public corruption), the irony of the article that appeared in my local newspaper recently is not lost on me. Sara Patterson, a reporter for The Post-Standard, talked about Fitzpatrick's campaign contributions and expenses, and it was an eye-opener.

I was interested less in where the money comes from, but where the money goes. Here’s how Fitz spent lots of his contributions, according to the article, which pulled information from official campaign committee filings:

• Restaurants and bars: at least $63,000
• Golf courses, golf clubs, golf tournaments: at least $57,000
• Donations to other political campaigns or political parties: at least $53,000
• Polls, political consultants: at least $10,000
• Ads: at least $64,000

What else was noted in the database The Post-Standard created, which covered financial reports from 2005 -2013?

• Over $93,000 of the expenses were paid outside of Onondaga County; of that, close to $37,000 was spent outside New York State, in places like New Mexico and Idaho and Hawaii, Virginia and Tennessee and Florida (and, oddly, in Canada).
• One restaurant  - Peter Lugar's Steakhouse in Brooklyn - received over $29,000 of Fitz's campaign funds.
• Fitz reimbursed himself over $61,000 out of campaign funds.

Let that last one sink in for a bit -- and then let this sink in. 

Fitzpatrick, so far this year, has reimbursed himself over $12,000 out of campaign funds. During that same time period, he's also paid campaign expenses of almost $26,500 in and outside Onondaga County. And note that this is not an election year for him; he's next on the ballot for DA in 2015, having just been re-elected in 2011 to a four-year term in which he ran unopposed (for the fourth time).

Listen, I have no problem with expenses for advertising, polling, signs and the materials to make them, postage, website design, and so on -- all of which are noted in Fitzpatrick's filings.  Those are what I would expect campaign contributions to be used for.

And I'm not suggesting that our DA is doing anything unethical or illegal with how he spends campaign contributions. An election law expert would be able to tell us if these expenses are legal within the confines of campaign finance laws in New York, but I suspect they are. And that's a problem.

It's also a problem if people who donate money to local political campaign committees are not aware that their donations may be used for golf, steak dinners, travel expenses to meetings out of state, television appearances, contributions to political housekeeping accounts and other candidates, or what I loosely bucketed as 'charitable contributions', which include retirement dinners for judges, benefits to help raise funds for various causes, recreation leagues, unions, fraternal organizations and the like. 

That's not a comment on the value of the organizations or causes Fitz spends donor money on; heck, I think I've probably donated to some of the same ones he did. The difference is, when I do it, it's with my own money, not money given to me by other people in support of my election campaign.

Folks, the system is broken, and it needs to be fixed. The people selected to investigate and recommend changes are currently benefiting from the laws they'll be investigating. 

Are they the right people to fix it?  Want to talk about it over a steak dinner?

 

The Irony Board: Free Speech, McConnell Style

In this week's Wondering on Wednesday, we looked at a couple of news organizations - the Wall Street Journal and the NY Times - which have taken some heat recently for how they manage their Op-Ed pages, and how speech is being constrained. There were also some comments from Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on our rights.

Shortly after completing that post, I stumbled on this opinion by Senator Mitch McConnell in the NY Post. Let's take a look at the piece, titled 'The lawless left's attack on America's bedrock beliefs.'

Since the spring, our nation has engaged in important conversations about racial justice in policing. Most people understand that continuing our nation’s tremendous progress toward justice does not mean battling against US principles or history. Progress means fulfilling our values, not attacking them.

And yet a group of radicals has latched onto this moment to say we should repudiate our country itself. Mobs have dragged statues of Washington, Jefferson and Grant through the dirt. And in parallel, inside many elite institutions, self-styled intellectuals say we should similarly discard the basic principles they fought for.

I followed the link above, which took me to another NY Post article; would you be surprised that it contains no mention of radicals, leftists, country, America, US, repudiate, values, founders, or principles? I was.

McConnell goes on to say

One of the key pillars of our nation is the rule of law. In a civilized society, the same laws need to apply to everyone. The times our nation has fallen short on this score, particularly for all the years when black Americans were completely denied the equal protections of law, it has been to our great shame.

This has been central to the cause of civil rights. There’s a reason the Fourteenth Amendment insists on “the equal protection of the laws.” And yet in recent months, local leaders have violated this basic tenet. As riots rocked major cities, we saw politicians decline to act. They seemed to fear far-left critique more than looting and chaos. And we saw the uneven application of other rules, like when mayors cheered on mass demonstrations but continued to prohibit religious gatherings.

Again, another link to another NY Post article, with no evidence that any politicians were 'fear(ing) far-left critique' in any way, shape or form. And, of course, mass demonstrations  - even armed ones - were fine when the goal was the 'right' one. You know, good speech.

That is the rule of law in jeopardy. Of course, that last example is also a First Amendment issue. And the freedom of expression itself is another principle that’s come under threat.

As I said a few weeks back, this goes deeper than just constitutional law. America has always prized the spirit of the First Amendment. We citizens must want to protect an open, civil discourse; a true marketplace of ideas. But lately, the political left has embraced something totally different.

Today’s far left is not interested in winning debates with better arguments. It prefers to shut down debate altogether. It doesn’t try to win the contest, it just harangues the referees to stop the game.

Oh, the irony.  Folks, this is Mitch McConnell talking!

The same Mitch McConnell who refused to allow anyone the opportunity to "win a debate with better arguments." The same Mitch McConnell who "prefers to shut down debate altogether." The same Mitch McConnell who "doesn't try to win the contest." He did that, of course, when he refused to allow consideration of Merrick Garland's Supreme Court nomination.

He denied every person who voted for Barack Obama the opportunity to have their voices heard, in favor of allowing other people in the future an opportunity to have their voices heard. He denied people their representation.

Not only that, but McConnell also refused everyone who didn't vote for Barack Obama the right to have their voices heard, to have their elected officials go on record, to have them do their jobs.

And yes, this is the same Mitch McConnell, who proclaimed,

One of my proudest moments was when I looked Barack Obama in the eye and I said, 'Mr. President, you will not fill the Supreme Court vacancy.'

Yep - one of the proudest moments of the Senate Majority Leader was denying people their rights. But now, he's concerned about our rights?

Here's more.

If leftists don’t like an op-ed, they want it unpublished. If they don’t like a tweet, they want to track down the author and get him fired. If they don’t like a tenured professor, they throw around Orwellian accusations that his or her ideas make them feel unsafe.

This hostile culture is getting results. According to one brand-new survey, it is only far-left Americans who do not feel compelled to self-censor their views because of a hostile climate. Everyone but the far left feels the threat. And 50 percent of self-identified strong liberals say that simply contributing to the GOP presidential candidate ought to be a fireable offense for a business leader.

One "brand-new survey" without referencing the organization who led or commissioned the survey, no definitions (what is a "far-left American" and what is the "far-right American" equivalent?), nothing on how or when the survey was conducted - for all we know, the survey is completely fake.

McConnell continued, writing

We recently saw The New York Times apologize for publishing a straightforward policy argument from a US senator. Since, an editorial staffer resigned from the paper because even center-left opinions were not liberal enough and led to her constant harassment. You see, the safe spaces only ever go in one direction.

On elite campuses, such as Princeton, we see faculty turning against their tenured colleagues, and even administrators weighing in, to chastise people with unpopular views.

Citation? References? Facts? Who knows? I guess I should give him credit for actually naming one of the Ivies.  Pompeo only generically referred to "our institutes of higher education" in his comments. 

We see online platforms such as Facebook threatening to ban political advertising altogether, chilling our democracy.

Even at a time when there is significant appetite in Congress to take a second look at the legal protections afforded to these supposedly neutral platforms, they still contemplate giving an angry minority of agitators a veto over Americans’ speech.

Proof that people who hate political ads on Facebook are "an angry minority" and not a disgusted majority? Survey data? Bueller? Anyone?

McConnell, again.

The author Salman Rushdie, who was himself threatened with death for controversial speech, once said this: “Two things form the bedrock of any open society: freedom of expression and the rule of law. If you don’t have those things, you don’t have a free country.”

Rushdie recently signed an open letter with other intellectuals, many liberals, sounding the alarm on this cultural poison.

“Editors are fired,” they wrote, “books are withdrawn...journalists are barred from writing on certain topics...professors are investigated... steadily narrow[ing] the boundaries of what can be said without the threat of reprisal.”

You can guess what happened next. The grievance-industrial complex came after the letter ­itself. The authors were accused of advancing bigotry. And the cycle of nonsense started all over again.

The United States of America needs free speech. We need free expression. And all of us, from all perspectives, need the courage to speak up and defend it.

Mitch McConnell

I'll remind you of another thing about Mitch McConnell, so aggrieved by the suppression of free speech that he sees in the country right now.  In February, he admitted that there were 395 House bills sitting in the Senate that would not get passed, or even considered. I'm not sure how many there are now. Isn't that yet another stifling of speech being perpetrated upon our duly elected Representatives?  Or doesn't that count?

And I'll throw in another one - McConnell has repeatedly said that the Senate won't take up legislation unless he knows the president will sign it. So much for the co-equal branches of government, right? So much for "open, civil discourse."

What, or who, is he afraid of? His re-election chances? His wife's boss? The American people? Free speech itself?

Meanwhile Back in Albany (v15)

Nathaniel Brooks/NY Times

Picking up where we left off on the Sonofa Gov's 2018 State of the State, let's turn again to the litany of things Andrew Cuomo wants to accomplish this session.

Here's a few quick hits, some of which are likely going nowhere, until and even after details get fleshed out:

• protecting union workers
• same day registration, no-fault absentee ballots and early voting
• closing the LLC loophole and implementing a 'true public financing system" 
• social media disclosures on who ("or what") is paying for political advertising
• cashless tolling at bridges, tunnels, and on the Thruway
• expanding investment and acreage for to parks and tourism investments
• airport modernization, investment in the Long Island Railroad, and maybe a tunnel or two
• preserving CHP, Medicaid and our health insurance industry
• expanding pre-K programs and free college tuition programs
• finding creative ways to reduce property taxes (but not the unfunded mandates that drive them)

Some of the harder stuff?  Terrorism, for one.

...lone wolves are a new threat. It is getting worse not better. The Internet companies must search their hearts and minds to determine their obligation to public safety when they know who is visiting terrorist sites, and they know who is learning to kill Americans. That is there issue. In the meantime, our issue is to protect ourselves.

That means more police, better training, state of the art surveillance - and, restructuring Penn Station, which is particularly vulnerable - even if it means using eminent domain if private properties near the Station need to be included in the mix. Cuomo calls for Amtrak, the feds, and city officials to come together to make the necessary improvements. This might be tough with Trump in charge, especially since the feds just stepped back from a new NY/NJ tunnel plan.

Rethinking taxes, another hard one. Cuomo mentioned the federal government's "assault on New York" and the three ways we'll address it. First, challenge the new tax bill it in court - it's unconstitutional, it's double taxation, it violates states' rights and equal protection. Then, we'll develop a 'repeal and replace' effort for every state, every taxpayer.  Finally, we're going to look for a different way to fund New York, reducing our reliance on income taxes, such as a payroll tax.  And yeah, carried interest would be a thing of the past, too.

There was a bit more in there, but then the Sonofa Gov tried to find his father.

As the greatest Republican president Abraham Lincoln said, "A house divided against itself cannot stand." But our obligation as leaders is not just to say what we are against, but also what we support. Our obligation as leaders is not just to criticize, but to offer an alternative - and we do. New York follows a different path. New York believes that there is no future through division, but only through unity. The New York Way is to believe diversity is not a liability; it is the exact opposite. Diversity is our greatest asset. We celebrate it. The New York Way is that tolerance is expected from all and inclusion is our operating principle, and forging community is our ultimate goal...

And maybe, just maybe, to fuel the fire for 2020.

Gay and straight, white and black and brown, upstate and downstate - all working together focusing on what unites us rather than divides us and then building on that commonality. Now, this is not a new principle. It's not a democratic or republican idea, nor is it even uniquely New York. It is an idea proven over 240 years. It is the nation's founding premise and enduring promise. Is it our Founding Fathers' essential wisdom summed up in just three words: e pluribus unum. Out of many, one. So fundamental to the American idea that in 1782 they stitched the words on the great seal of the United States, and that seal and those words are on a flag that has hung in the Oval Office everyday since. Right behind president Trump's desk. To find the way forward, the president only needs to turn around. 

And then, back to New York.

That, my friends, is the true formula for what makes America great. That is the simple yet profound idea that made America the greatest country on the globe. And New York - New York was the laboratory for that idea. We proved that it worked in 1782, and we proved that it works today. This year, let us show what New York is, at its best. Let us show this nation the New York lesson: that at times of trouble and anxiety, the premise that made America great still guides us. That we do not seek to raise ourselves by pulling another down, but rather we believe we succeed by raising each other up. 

That is the New York Way.  And the New York Way is true north. And our true north is to follow the credo on the great seal of the State of New York: always reach higher, always hear our better angels, always aspire to unify, and always point up. 

Excelsior!

To infinity - and beyond!

No, seriously - there's a whole lot of stuff in here, and a lot of it is going to cost a ton of money that we simply do not have. Even Cuomo admits we don't have any money.

It's going to be an interesting session, for sure, starting with Cuomo's budget, due in the next ten days or so.

Wondering on Wednesday (148)

Let's get right to it, shall we?

I wonder what the president meant when he said "we love the people of Poland coming into the United States in any way, shape or form, OK?" I'm sure he meant in any legal way, shape or form, of course. Right?

White House photo

And now there's no reason to wonder if there's a reduction in the number of Poles we love wanting to come here, after Trump bigly dissed his counterpart, President Andrzej Duda, by not giving him a chair to sit in while signing a new joint strategic partnership.

You'll see the American president, resolutely staring with resolve at the White House photographer from behind the Resolute Desk, and you'll see the insensitive treatment of Duda to Trump's right.

No one could find the man a chair? Not even one of the couple thousand 'senior officials' in the administration? Maybe Poland won't be naming the their hoped-for new military base Fort Trump after all.

Trump visited North Carolina today, to survey damage from Hurricane Florence and greet residents.  Differing from his well known trips to Texas (what a great turnout) and Puerto Rico (tossing paper towels to storm victims), closer to home he helped hand out meals. And, of course, he had to ask about Lake Norman, a large man-made lake north of Charlotte.

And how is Lake Norman, that area? How is that doing? I love that area. I can't tell you why, but I love that area. 

It didn't take a ton of wondering as to why he might be interested.

Moving on to the other major storm occupying the news, I wonder why it is that the Senate feels the need to move forward so quickly on the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation?  I mean, it's not like we need him on the Supreme Court, right?

There's certainly no reason to think that having a 9th judge on the bench is necessary on the first Monday in October 2018, given that we were denied a 9th judge for 293 days when it was a Democrat behind the appointment. Honestly, what's the big hurry?

I'm also wondering about the specific qualifications the Judiciary Committee members and their staffs have for investigating allegations of sexual abuse. I mean, do any of them even watch Law and Order SVU?

And I'm trying to picture them explaining to their daughters, granddaughters, nieces, or any other young women they know why there's no need for an impartial, professional investigation.

Moving on to the deteriorating level of discourse in politics (and everything else, it seems) today,  is anyone wondering why Trump supporter Claudia Tenney is conjuring up Mafioso images in her battle against Anthony Brindisi to represent NY's 22nd congressional district? I know she's doing it now - but did you know she started with this tactic more than a year ago?  Here's a little bit from an interview with USA today in July 2017.

While unloading on her Democratic challenger during a Thursday interview with USA Today, Tenney (R-New Hartford) sought to highlight the "great contrast" between her own father, late state Supreme Court Justice John R. Tenney, and Brindisi's father Louis, who she described as "very heavily involved with the organized crime in Utica for many years, representing them."

"He fought for law and order and Anthony's father represented some of the worst criminals in our community," Tenney said, looking at a picture of her father during a wide-ranging interview in her DC office.

"You have to question...some of the things that have happened in his family. The voters make that decision. I'm not saying Anthony is part of that but that's the family you come from." 

Brindisi's campaign had the best possible answer back then:

Anthony Brindisi believes that name-calling never created a job in Upstate New York.

Fast forward to this week and Tenney is downing her game, to Trumpian levels. In a memo sent to staffers - and to the Utica Observer-Dispatch - we learn from Tenney campaign consultant Tim Edson that

We have the unique situation that we should be cautious about, his family has a track record and this is going to be an intense, tough race (Edson said). And as the pressure  itself on Brindisi and he watches his political career come to an end, (people) need to be vigilant because it's possible his family members could return to the kind of intimidating behavior that's sort of characterized the last 30 years of them being in Utica. 

What the ever-wondering hell is that???  No -- seriously, what the ever-wondering hell IS that???  Is this guy actual proud of himself for this?

Why, yes - yes he is. Just look at his company's website. Here's a snippet, with a little emphasis to help you see what this stereotypical attack on Italian-Americans is all about.

FP1 writes and produces advertising that is inspired, fresh, and cuts through the clutter of typical political and issue ads. The utmost importance is placed on creating advertising that is emotionally and intellectually compelling - with an overall tone that viewers find to be informational, honest, and persuasive - not standard spin. 

I wonder how much Tenney's paying for this "intellectually compelling' crap?  It's not worth one red cent if you ask me.

Sunday School 2/9/20

Iowa is almost sorta kinda in the rear view mirror, and New Hampshire is the deer in the headlights of the campaign buses, or something like that - you get the drift.

So, let's check in with some of the candidates, starting with Mayor Pete and That Guy from Vermont and their separate discussions on Meet the Press. (Both also made other classroom visits today.)

Here's Buttigieg on how to beat Donald Trump, which requires neither a revolution nor maintaining the status quo.

The reason my campaign was so effective, especially in places that supported Barack Obama and then Donald Trump, in the caucuses, is that we are reaching out to everybody, putting together a majority that is prepared not only to stand up for replacing this president and unified in what we're against, but even more so unified in what we're for. The need for economic empowerment, the need for higher wages, the need to support workers, the need for healthcare, dealing with climate change and gun violence... there is a powerful American majority right now ready not only to win, but to govern. And my campaign is about how to galvanize and not polarize that majority. That's how we're going to beat Donald Trump.

He was also asked "how we ended up with Donald Trump" and whether or not the Obama-Biden administration could have prevented that from happening - whatever the heck that means.

...I don't think you can pin this on any one administration, but it's certainly the case that people are frustrated by a reality that they feel has left them out for 40 years. And we felt it in my community, you know, an industrial community in the heart of the so-called Rust Belt that didn't feel like Washington was hearing what we had to say. And I am seeing in so many communities... where people of different backgrounds are questioning whether the economic and political realities are responding to what we need in our lives. Now, in a very cynical and very divisive way, Donald Trump took advantage of that. Now is our chance to put together the majority that will win big enough against Donald Trump that Trumpism itself goes into the history books. 

And, asked about a caucus goer who looked to be on his side until she was told it was true that Buttigieg is gay, and then she asked for her caucus card back.

Well, the first is what I have to say to that voter, which is I'm saddened that she sees things that way, but I'm running to be her president, too. And no matter who she votes for, as president, I'm going to get up in the morning and try to do a good job for her and for every American... the reality is prejudice is still out there and you've got to deal with it... And every time somebody seeks to break a barrier, pundits try to make it about electability. 

That Guy from Vermont (TGFV) was asked a few questions about money, starting with Mike Bloomberg's promise to spend a boatload on himself, or in support of the nominee, and whether TGFV would refuse the help.

... Let's talk about money in politics. Right now, our campaign, as you know, at this moment, has received more campaign contributions from more Americans, averaging $18.50, than any candidate in the history of American politics. That's extraordinary. We are funded by the working families of America. Teachers are the profession that is contributing most. We get a lot of contributions from Amazon workers and so forth. We have, unlike my opponents -- you know, Pete Buttigieg who was just here, really nice guy. I like Pete. He has received I believe over -- contributions from over 40 billionaires. Joe Biden, the same.

And whether billionaires can't have issues that they want fix, even an issue like income inequality.  They're people, after all.

That's fine, but you should not be able to, you know, spend hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars. Now, by the way, to answer your question, because of the broad base of support that we have from working families, now, they may only contribute $25 or $50, we will be able to raise the money we need to defeat Trump. And I believe we are the strongest candidate --

So, you don't want his help, or the help of PACs and outside groups that are supporting you, Todd asked. And isn't that 'dark money' some folks would say?

I don't want them, that's right.... and yeah, I'm saying right now if my opponents say they don't want that third party help, I'm all for that right now. Let's end it. 

But, on the other hand,

It's legal. What can I do? You know, people have a right to participate in the political process. But again, getting back to the fundamental issue, the reason we have so much income inequality... is precisely because of a corrupt political system which allows billionaires to have inordinate influence of the economic and political life of the country.

Former VP Joe Biden was also out and about, talking with George on This Week about the history of people who finish worse than second in both Iowa and New Hampshire. They don't win the nomination, that's the history.

Well, no one has ever won the nomination without being able to get overwhelming support from the African-American community either. And so far, no one's been doing that but me. Look...everybody in the Democratic party is united on one thing: you have to beat Donald Trump. In order to do that you have got to bring out the black vote and the brown vote...I have been able to do that so far. So I don't think it's viewed the same way as it has been in the past.

And on whether he thinks Mayor Pete has a race problem?

No, no, no. I'm saying he hadn't been able to unify the black community, that's what I'm saying...look, in order to win, George, you're going to have to be able to win states like Pennsylvania, you're going to have to be able to win Florida. We're going to have to be able to win in a lot of places that in fact have very diverse populations, and so the assertion that he's ready across the board I don't see it. I haven't seen it yet. 

And on having a Democratic socialist on the ticket, and that only Sen. Amy Klobuchar seemed to share that concern in the debate.

No, I wasn't surprised. But I think that's just the reality.... Look, if I don't get the nomination and Bernie gets it, I'm going to work like hell for him. But I'll tell you what, it's a bigger uphill climb running as a senator or a congressperson or a governor on a ticket that calls itself a democratic socialist ticket.

And finally, on having his son Hunter become an issue in the election.

I can't let my anger overcome the desire and the need to unite and heal this country. And so I've got to move beyond me and beyond my family. And -- because it's about your family, it's about everybody else's family, not mine... I'll be damned if I'm going to walk away and let it - and not take this country back.

Buttigieg was also on with George, but I wanted to hear from Senator Elizabeth Warren, who also dropped in. Right off the bat, they talked about money. Her take on billionaires?

You know, the coalition of billionaires is not exactly what's going to carry us over the top. The way I see it right now is that we have a government that works great for a thinner and thinner slice at the top. And that's been true for decades, it's gotten worse and worse and worse. 

And, while billion-dollar-profit corporations don't pay any taxes,

...folks across this country - somebody has got to keep this government running, and so they pay their taxes so that the roads are paved and the bridges still work, and we provide for the defense. People, Democrats and Republicans get that they're getting the short end of the stick. And what's the reason for that, It's corruption.... it's a bunch of billionaires that make big campaign contributions or reach in their own pockets, like Michael Bloomberg does. 

On her pulling back advertising in Nevada and South Carolina due to money problems, she said

I believe in democracy, and that's why I decided I was going to build this as a grassroots movement and make this system better, because, right now, we have a Washington where, in theory, everybody has the same voice. But billionaires, they may own more shoes than the rest of us, they may own more cars, they may own more houses, but they shouldn't own a bigger piece of our democracy... This is corruption. And we've got a chance in 2020 to turn that around. 

On the Democratic socialist thing, even though she didn't agree with Biden during the debate, she's not one.

I am a capitalist. I'm a - I believe in markets... There are areas where markets don't work, like in health care and education. But there are lots of areas where markets do work, and that's what gives us innovation and that's what creates opportunity and that's what can grow wealth.

But markets need rules. Markets without rules are theft. So it's a big part of what I'm running on. I want to see an America of opportunity. And that means we need a market economy that it's got to be a market economy that's fair and that everybody gets to play. 

And finally, on beating Trump.

You know, I hear people talk about the race against Donald Trump may be unwinnable. I've been winning fights all of my life. I won the fight to get a consumer agency, the CFPB, passed into law when everybody said it couldn't be done. I won the fight to hold corporate executives accountable. Got the CEO of Wells Fargo fired not long ago. I won the fight to take back a Senate seat from a popular incumbent Republican.  

You know, in fact, I'm the only one in this race now who has beaten an incumbent Republican anytime in the past 30 years. 

The way I look at it is that people say, oh, these races are unwinnable or that person can't win, right up until you jump in the fight, you persist and you win. That's what I'm going to do. 

Have you found your candidate yet? Did this help?

See you around campus.

Wondering, on Wednesday (v9)

I'm on of those old fogies who still watches the evening news, both a local version and a national version. And I live in the NY24 congressional district, which puts me smack dab in the Big Pharma demographic from January to the end of August and then in the thick of political campaign ad season, which runs from roughly Labor Day through the first Tuesday in November.

It feels like the local news broadcast has gotten about two or three minutes shorter in the past couple of weeks, as the political ads really ramp up. And then I read that, in one week there were around 4,500 ads tied to the US Senate races in Michigan and Iowa alone -- one ad every two minutes -- and I thank my lucky stars that we don't live where anything like that will ever happen.

We have our share of negative ads here, whether the candidates want to admit it or not, on both sides. And that got me wondering, on Wednesday, what if all of our ads were like that?  I mean, think about it: everywhere we shop, the restaurants where we eat, the cars we drive -- they're all just votes we make, the same as we vote for one politician over another.

What would it look like, if everyone did the same thing as the pols?  Here are a few examples, just for fun:

• Price Lower says the have the lowest prices, but that's a lie. They lower prices on crap no one even buys, and then the use those numbers to screw up the calculation and make you think all their prices are lower. Plus, their fish smells funny.  Price Lower? They're not good for you, or your wallet. This ad was paid for by the consortium for expensive grocery stores.

• Mama's Kitchen likes to say they have the best food, the best atmosphere, and they even pretend that Mama, who's now 87 years old and only has one leg, is there doing the cooking every day. Well, Mama's Kitchen is nothing like your mother's kitchen -- it failed their health inspection this year.  I wouldn't let Mama wash the dishes in my restaurant!  Come to Papa, and leave Mama behind. Papa's BarBeCue is responsible for the content of this advertisement. 

• I'm Mr Green Jeans, and I'm the owner of The Grass is Greener Sod and Turf.  My competitor, The Auld Sod, likes to say that his sod is the best in town.  But we know better. He uses dyes on his sod to make it look greener.  His sod dies if you don't water it for hours each day, but you won't know about that unless you read the really fine print in your contract. He used to be a lawyer in the big city, so he's really good at writing contracts. And he hires undocumented aliens to mow his sod. So remember, on our side of the fence, the grass is always greener.  Paid for by the Grass is Greener Sod and Turf, locally owned and operated since well, forever. No undocumented migrant workers were used in the filming of this ad.

• FastFill gas? That's not American gas, that's Muslim gas. The gas from their pumps comes straight from terrorist countries, countries that are just here to take our money and bomb our buildings and destroy the American Dream. If you're buying FastFill gas, you're just as bad as they are. Think about that before you put it in your tank and drive it. North American Tar Sands Petroleum Stations Franchising Company is responsible for the content of this advertising. 

So, how long would it take for you to stop doing business with the advertisers, to be completely turned off by them?  How long before you complained to the businesses or organizations behind the ads?  Or would you fall hook line and sinker for the content, without even trying to find out the truth? 

And would television stations even accept ads like that?  I seriously doubt it.

And one more thing I'm wondering tonight: would it be possible to quarantine the word Pelosi?