I started out my post with, “It’s too late to speak up and ask for a different target.” I was talking about the next target. It is wise early in a campaign to assign a characteristic to your opponent. It is not too early to tell the uninformed that McSame is a phony and when he tells you he is different, he isn’t. You can’t trust him. He either changed his coat from maverick to corrupted or is revealing the real man underneath who has always been there.

I don't disagree with you at all. I was just noting that the $80,000 spent in Carney's district was raised for that purpose alone, as I understand it, and isn't necessarily being reallocated from somewhere else.

The answer to your question is yes, I would vote for whomever the Dems nominate. Most Americans who are in the lest leaning away from the GOP are in the same boat. That's why all your nonsense is just that, nonsense.

Glenn assumes that every dollar is spent on this single issue which of course is not only nonsense it's precisely the sloppiness that Glenn typically tells us is gospel.

I knew someone who worked for the lobbyist division of a major telecom (not during the FISA issue, way before). They didn't have a budget, for anything. They just spent whatever they wanted and someone at headquarters wrote checks. Kind of illustrates just how important lobbyists are to telecoms.

In a country where money equals speech, and corporations are granted the rights of citizens, we will never have an honest and fair government.

@ adnoto

Well, you're not dumb. Evil, maybe, but not dumb. ;-)

Well argued, even though I don't agree, at least not with your interpretation of the implications.

-- William Timberman

Between him and the anarchomystic, this place can't get any dumber. Some of the greatest harm is done by those who think their intentions are best and more pure than everyone else. These two are the most authoritarian, and dangerous, personalities on this forum. Ponder the implications of that, WT.

There is one major difference even the "evil" IRS is aware of.

Non-profit status.

Plenty of links there and some may find the information edifying and even useful.

* IRS Definition of Lobbying

* Lobbying and the Law

* Alliance for Justice

* Charity Lobbying in the Public Interest

* Independent Sector

* National Council of Nonprofit Associations

* OMB Watch

Lobbying Versus Advocacy: Legal Definitions

.

"Lobbying" has a strict legal and IRS definition for nonprofits (click here to learn more), which generally only includes activities that ask policymakers to take a specific position on a specific piece of legislation, or that ask others to ask the same. In contrast, the common language definition of lobbying usually includes any discussion of issues with policymakers.

"Advocacy" encompasses any activity that a person or organization undertakes to influence policies. There is great latitude in this definition, and some people consider advocacy to be all activities that are not specifically lobbying, such as public demonstrations, or the filing of friend of the court briefs.

A good starting point to learn all of the legal differences between different types of advocacy activities is Charity Lobbying in the Public Interest's Lobbying and the Law page....

http://www.npaction.org/article/articleview/76/1/248

I'd support full telecom amnesty if the companies involved could be persuaded to make a FULL AND COMPLETE DISCLOSURE OF ALL ASSOCIATED ACTIVITES INVOLVING DOMESTIC SURVEILLANCE, And then halt all circumvention of existing FISA law.

That way, prosecution of the REAL perps could begin.

Even non-profits incorporate.

Public Utilities

'

A public utility (usually just utility) is a company that maintains the infrastructure for a public service (often also providing a service using that infrastructure). Public utilities often involve natural monopolies, and as a result are often government monopolies, or if privately owned, the sectors are specially regulated by a Public Utilities Commission.

Developments in technology have eroded some of the natural monopoly aspects of traditional public utilities. For instance, electricity generation, electricity retailing, telecommunication and postal services have become competitive in some countries and the trend towards liberalization, deregulation and privatization of public utilities is growing, but the network infrastructure used to distribute most utility products and services has remained largely monopolistic.

Public utilities can be privately owned or publicly owned. Publicly owned utilities include cooperative and municipal utilities. Municipal utilities may actually include territories outside of city limits or may not even serve the entire city. Cooperative utilities are owned by the customers they serve. They are usually found in rural areas. Private utilities, also called investor owned utilities, are owned by investors. Unlike private companies, private utilities may be listed on the stock exchange. Private, in this context, means not owned by the public or the government.

In poorer developing countries, public utilities are often limited to wealthier parts of major cities, as used to be the case in developed countries in the nineteenth century, but in some developing countries utilities do provide services to a large share of the urban population, such as in the case of water and sanitation in Latin America.

Examples of utilities

* Power

An electric utility, which in some instances can be electric power transmission or electricity distribution organizations.

Natural gas distribution

District heat generation and distribution

* Water

Drinking water purification and distribution

* Waste management

Sewage treatment and disposal

Other waste disposal

* Transportation

Roads, including tollways

Public transport

* Communication

Telephone lines

Telecomunications, such as cable television

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilities

@ditto and @IndianaBob

I think Robert Reich is correct as regards his thesis that Capitalism has an antipathy toward democracy. It aseems to me that their Fascist instincts are evidence of that. I find my self usually in agreement with Mr. Reich.

And I would posit that some, or maybe all, religions have a certain antipathy toward our democracy. I would offer up for consideration the Catholic religion, my religion, as an example. And might it also be argued that it has a certain antipathy toward the free world given it's complicity with Hitler, the Nazis and Musollini and the Fascists before, during and after WWII.

For example the Catholic Church is a very authoritarian religion. But don't tell William Donohue I said that he might not like it.

And the Bush administration is, quite obviously, against democracy despite their constant hollering about it to other countries. Do we think other countries have noticed that Bush has an antipathy towards democrcy. The Bushies just shade and manipulate every aspect of what used to be the truth. Speaking truth to the people is kind of scarce with most politicians anyway, but the Bushies are lying in everything they say.

But business people, or maybe they are all just Republicans, think what Bush is doing is okay. Last night on Charlie rose, Smith of Fedex excused Bush's behavior by saying he(Bush) got a bad 'deal of the cards'. Good God, he can rationalize away every crooked and criminal behaior and act that Bush, Cheney and the Republicans do. And Charlie Rose agreed with everything this guy said. To the both of them, all of this is just one big joke and laugh.

It is no wonder that the Catholic Church gets along so well with the Republican Party(and has since at least just before Reagan and possibly even earlier under Nixon) and specifically the Bush.administration because both are anti-democracy.

Another example of business having some antipathy toward democrcacy was denmonstrated at St. Vincent College in Latrobe, Pa. Their president is James Towey who was Director of Bush's Office of Faith-Based Initiatives and left to become president of St. Vincent College. Towey invited Bush to speak at St. Vincent's graduation and the faculty and the students strongly opposed Bush coming to speak at their graduation. Their debate about whether Bush should come or not was on tv, on C-Span I think, and I watchd it.

Almost all of the students and faculty did not want Bush to speak at their comencement.

From:: OhioBob