by Mark Silva
Think of federal campaign fundraising disclosure as No Bundler Left Behind.
And generally, in the analysis of the Los Angeles Times' Dan Morain, Republican John McCain gets a higher grade on the transparency of his disclosure than Democrat Barack Obama does.
Yet McCain's reports omit the name of a certain past bundler, "Claytie'' Williams of Texas, whose tasteless humor about sexual assault during a 1990 campaign against the legendary Ann Richards made him a persona non grata during this campaign cycle.
McCain is getting "huzzahs for fundraising transparency,'' Morain notes at L.A.'s Top of the Ticket. The Republican's own Web-site names, and lists the occupations of, supporters raising more than $50,000 for McCain.
Of course, that comes with a cost, Morain notes: "By listing bundlers' occupations, he allows Democratic rivals to slam him for raising money from certain segments, such as, say, the D.C. lobbying corps.''
Obama also reports his big bunders, Morain observers, "But the candidate who urges transparency in all things government doesn't disclose bundlers' occupations or employers.'' Camp Obama suggests that people can go to the Federal Elections Commission Web-site for further information.
. Yet, McCain's disclosure has a certain currency to it - meaning they list the names of active bundlers. Unlike Texas oilman Clayton "Claytie" Williams, whose questionable sense of humor has caused him considerable trouble ( he had, in 1990, likened rape to bad weather, suggesting that one need only "relax and enjoy it.'')
Williiams is said to have raised $300,000 for McCain early in the campaign. But in June, after the Arizona senator had sewn up the nomination, McCain canceled a fundraiser that Williams planned.
McCain spokesman Brian Rogers offered this explanation for the Ticket: "We list folks who are currently raising money for the campaign. Mr. Williams is not."
• 
• 
• 
Comments
Thanks for posting this, Mark. Sure wish the mainstream media would police the poll stations as soon as they open to make sure that a 4th election will not be tampered with. Greg Palast's book "Armed Madhouse" updates the chapter on election stealing by the Repugs.
Posted by: Stay alert, folks! | August 3, 2008 6:52 AM
It's my understanding that Obama doesn't want anyone to see who his bundlers are. Some are oil companies and some have said there are some radicals on the far left fringe.
I think there should be openness in Govt. and I find Obama's reluctance to put the occupations and employers names along with the names listed seems very questionable about what going on behind the scenes and his honesty....and his comment that if voters want to know they can go and investigate each and every name on that list themselves, well, we expect more than that rude BS.
McCain was upfront on all current bundlers. He took heat on a past bundler who made a joke in very bad taste, it's silliness on the writer of this article to bring that joke up, what does that have to do with McCain ha???
Posted by: Shake the fence | August 3, 2008 9:23 AM
For his entire presidential campaign (about 4 years now) Obama has been prattling about campaign reform and transparancy in government. He has repeatedly said on the stump that he doesn't accept money from lobbyists. And yet he still won't say exactly where his money comes from... we have to dig for the information.
This is the New Approach to Politics®.
Posted by: MJ | August 3, 2008 10:31 AM
First off, you mention what a sad, pathetic person Williams is, and how he raised 300k for McCain "early" in the cycle; but that in June, McCain cancelled a fundraiser at William's home.
:" McCain spokesman Brian Rogers offered this explanation for the Ticket: "We list folks who are currently raising money for the campaign. Mr. Williams is not."
This list is supposed to list ALL bundlers, just like it does on its FEC declaration. Because Williams is not"NOW" raising funds, it does not exempt him from being a legitimate bundler this election cycle. So basically, Rogers has tried to game the list, and the list is dishonest. I don't see no transparency in this act of deception.
I am also curious about how much each campaigned has gather through bundling. This would help show the relative influence of bundled money for each campaign.
----------------------------------------
I have read , and commented on 4 or 5 Silva articles this weekend. ALL articles were lacking in depth, and proper research. The old Tribune might have had serious, good writers before, but I think that Mark Silva is an excellent example of the "peter principle", and how writers with little writing skills will be all that is left of the Tribune when Zell is done destroying your paper.
The Tribune is the current example of Circuit City's brilliant experiment of getting rid of the high(?) cost experience personnel, and replace them with those who have less experience, but cost much less.
And stop censoring my letters, and let opinions others than Mark's biased writings appear.
Be the first to rate this
Digg Delicious Facebook
Posted by: barkleyg | August 3, 2008 10:44 AM
More of the same, the McCain campaign gets kudos for actual transparency and the Obama campaign again only talks about it and the does everything it can to hide who is buying and paying for Obama's candidacy.
Posted by: Jeff | August 3, 2008 9:05 PM
There isn't a law that it has to be done, so the comment you are supposed to list all rather then just current doesn't make much sense. The same logic would put it that Obama is supposed to list occupations.
The New York Times article I read said that Obama had removed several from the list, is he listing all or just current as well?
Posted by: Win | August 8, 2008 1:32 PM