The good news and the bad about women donors | From the OpenSecrets Blog


The 2016 presidential election has been filled with historic moments for politically involved women, including donors.

For years, women have contributed less money than men to federal candidates, parties and other political committees at the over-$200 giving level, but the gender giving gap appears to have improved for at least one major candidate in 2016.

Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton has received a …

Read more: The good news and the bad about women donors | OpenSecrets Blog

Setting it straight: Hedge funds to Clinton plus super PACs, $25.6 million; to Trump, $2,000 | OpenSecrets Blog says it just ain’t so!

A July 29 Wall Street Journal article crediting our data is headlined, “Hedge-Fund Money: $48.5 Million for Hillary Clinton, $19,000 for Donald Trump.”

The startling disparity in numbers led other media outlets to cite the piece — as did Trump himself. The article was shared on Facebook over 27,000 times and generated more than 500 comments.

Only problem is, those numbers aren’t correct … read more: Setting it straight: Hedge funds to Clinton plus super PACs, $25.6 million; to Trump, $2,000 | OpenSecrets Blog

Two Florida Dems walking away with the Bernie small donor award | OpenSecrets Blog

Two Florida Democrats who have been in the spotlight lately for very different reasons are the winners of the Bernie Sanders $200-and-under award, receiving the largest share of their congressional campaign funds from people giving modest amounts of any current candidates so far this cycle. Individuals who gave $200 or less flocked to Sanders’ campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination, carrying him much … read more: Two Florida Dems walking away with the Bernie small donor award | OpenSecrets Blog

From the OpenSecrets Blog:  Corporate sponsorships of Olympics make political investments look like a very good deal 

If you thought there was a lot of corporate money in politics, you haven’t seen the amount of cash that goes into sponsoring the U.S. Olympic games.

Eleven multinational corporations each paid the International Olympic Committee an estimated $100 million for a four-year partnership that gives them coveted advertising rights during the global sporting competition. (International Olympics Committee reps won’t say how much a top sponsorship deal costs, but on p. 114 of the IOC’s 2014 annual report, revenue for 2013-2016 is forecast to be $5.5 billion. Sponsorship deals account for 19 percent of that.)

That kind of cash makes the millions these top-tier Olympic backers shell out to lobbyists and candidates seem like chump change — and shows that global brand exposure during one of the most-watched sporting events in the world might be higher priority than influencing U.S. policy and politicians.

Click here to read the full article: Corporate sponsorships of Olympics make political investments look like a very good deal | OpenSecrets Blog

From The Intercept: Multi-part series explores how foreign money entered the 2016 presidential election thanks to Citizens United

A series exploring how money from abroad has entered the 2016 presidential election thanks to Citizens United.

Source: The Intercept

The Citizens United Playbook
Immediately after the Supreme Court issued its Citizens United ruling, President Obama warned that it would “open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections.”

While many experts believed Obama was right, no one has been able to point to a specific example of foreign cash flowing into a presidential election. Until now. The Intercept’s Jon Schwarz and Lee Fang discovered that a corporation owned by a Chinese couple made a major donation to Jeb Bush’s Super PAC Right to Rise USA — and it did so after receiving detailed advice from Charlie Spies, arguably the most important Republican campaign finance lawyer in American politics.

Their four-part series exposes the corrosive effects of Citizens United on American democracy, examining in detail the roadmap provided by Charlie Spies; the Chinese couple behind the gift; and their connections to an array of U.S. politicians, including former U.S. Ambassador to China Gary Locke.

Betsy Reed


#OurRevolutionContinues: The Path Forward

#OurRevolutionContinues: The Path Forward
by John Laurits
Greetings, brothers, sisters, & others — In the few days that have passed since the protests in Philadelphia, I’ve been asked about & have put a lot of thought into where I believe the future of our movement lies. I’ve reflected on my recent experiences as a writer, a journalist, an activist, & a protester, both during […]

Read more of this post

John Laurits | August 3, 2016 at 7:03 pm | Tags: Bernie Sanders, Black Lives Matter, Democracy Spring, Jill Stein, John Laurits, Progressive Movement | Categories: According to Math, Bernie Sanders, news | URL:

Third-party candidates lose legal fight to get into presidential debates – The Washington Post reports

A long-shot lawsuit by the Libertarian and Green Party candidates for president has been tossed out by a federal judge, lowering the odds of a third-party candidate making it into this year’s televised debates.

“We are exploring our options, with the firm resolve that this case and the larger issue of fair debates are too important to simply allow such an arbitrary dismissal,” said Ron Nielson, the campaign manager for Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson.

Late last year, the largest third parties teamed up to argue that the Commission on Presidential Debates protected a de facto monopoly. Bruce Fein, the lawyer who drafted the lawsuit, hoped that a judge would see the private CPD as a gatekeeper for millions of dollars in free publicity, and its 15 percent polling threshold as a threat to the First Amendment. That, thought plaintiffs Gary Johnson and Jill Stein, would distinguish their cause from previous failures to open the debates.

“The difference between this case and other cases is our theory of relief and complaints,” Fein told The Washington Post at the time.

But in a decision released Friday morning, U.S. District Court Judge Rosemary Collyer picked apart that argument.

“Plaintiffs’ alleged injuries are wholly speculative and are dependent entirely on media coverage decisions,” wrote Collyer. “The alleged injuries — failure to receive media coverage and to garner votes, federal matching funds, and campaign contributions — were caused by the lack of popular support of the candidates and their parties sufficient to attract media attention.”

The legal setback does not eliminate the third parties’ options for debate access, but it displays how long their odds are. In the relatively short history of televised presidential debates, only one third-party candidate ever shared a stage with the Democrat and Republican. That was in 1992, when businessman Ross Perot appeared and occasionally shined in face-offs with George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton. In 1980, independent candidate John Anderson appeared in one debate with Ronald Reagan, but never one with incumbent President Jimmy Carter. There were no televised debates in 1968, the last year that a third-party candidate won electoral votes.

READ MORE HERE: Third-party candidates lose legal fight to get into presidential debates – The Washington Post