Wednesday, December 29, 2010
Monday, December 27, 2010
Sunday, December 26, 2010
Thursday, December 23, 2010
New Paper: "Writing Reform" from the Brennan Center of Justice at NYU Law
Great new paper released by the Brennan Center of Justice at NYU Law School.
From the Website: Purpose. The Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law has designed this manual for people who want to draft campaign finance reform legislation that is both appropriate for their community and sensitive to constitutional concerns. Because different laws may be appropriate in different states and localities, the handbook will not tell you what provisions to include in legislation you draft. In our view, people with ties to communities interested in reform are in the best position to determine what legislation is needed and achievable. We therefore do not provide model laws here, but we do identify organizations that can provide such models...We focus primarily on the drafting of statutes or initiatives that will govern state elections. Our recommendations and analysis also apply, however, to local campaign finance laws. Special issues that must be faced when attempting to regulate municipal campaign finance are addressed briefly in the Epilogue.
I just started reading it. Political Contributions and Campaign Financing have been a hot topic for years now and I really think the insights in this handbook makes a valid argument for reform focused at the grass-roots level. Download it while it's Red-Hot!
DOWNLOAD IT HERE
From the Website: Purpose. The Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law has designed this manual for people who want to draft campaign finance reform legislation that is both appropriate for their community and sensitive to constitutional concerns. Because different laws may be appropriate in different states and localities, the handbook will not tell you what provisions to include in legislation you draft. In our view, people with ties to communities interested in reform are in the best position to determine what legislation is needed and achievable. We therefore do not provide model laws here, but we do identify organizations that can provide such models...We focus primarily on the drafting of statutes or initiatives that will govern state elections. Our recommendations and analysis also apply, however, to local campaign finance laws. Special issues that must be faced when attempting to regulate municipal campaign finance are addressed briefly in the Epilogue.
I just started reading it. Political Contributions and Campaign Financing have been a hot topic for years now and I really think the insights in this handbook makes a valid argument for reform focused at the grass-roots level. Download it while it's Red-Hot!
DOWNLOAD IT HERE
Monday, December 20, 2010
Dennis Miller sums it up on Jay Leno
I found this video of Dennis Miller on the Jay Leno show. It is absolutely hilarious and right on point at what is happening in this country. His view of Nancy Pelosi is the best. Watch it:
Quote of the day
"If you put the government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in five
years there'd be a shortage of sand.” M Friedman
years there'd be a shortage of sand.” M Friedman
Sunday, December 19, 2010
Is McCain Feingold Dead?
On January 21,2011 I will proudly celebrate the anniversary of The US Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. FEC. The ruling effectively struck down some basic provisions of of The McCain-Feingold Act, or otherwise known as The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. I have always Contended that the Law was unconstitutional and needed serious revision especially when it comes to Corporate money. Yes, I don't think they should be able to donate directly to a candidate but they have every right to freedom of Political Speech. Justice Anthony Kennedy who authored the main opinion stated that there is “no basis for allowing the government to limit corporate independent expenditures.”
“There is no basis for the proposition that, in the political speech context, the government may impose restrictions on certain disfavored speakers,” he wrote. “The government may regulate corporate speech through disclaimer and disclosure requirements, but it may not suppress that speech altogether.”
And Citizen United President David Bossie stated "“As our case amply demonstrates, campaign finance legislation over the last two decades has imposed, as Justice Kennedy put it, a “censorship . . . vast in its reach.” By overruling Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and striking down McCain-Feingold’s ban on so-called electioneering communications, the Supreme Court has made possible the participation in our political process that is the right of every American citizen – a right that had been severely curtailed under McCain-Feingold .
Many on the left are clamoring for relief. In fact, Move to Amend has started a grassroots effort to amend the ruling. The organization states on their home page "Human beings are people; corporations are legal fictions." Sorry to burst your bubble "Move Aside", corporations are recognized by the law to have rights and responsibilities like natural persons ("people").
The 1st amendment is clear: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. It doesn't state "Congress may make a law", It says "Congress shall make no law." Now that's pretty specific.
“There is no basis for the proposition that, in the political speech context, the government may impose restrictions on certain disfavored speakers,” he wrote. “The government may regulate corporate speech through disclaimer and disclosure requirements, but it may not suppress that speech altogether.”
And Citizen United President David Bossie stated "“As our case amply demonstrates, campaign finance legislation over the last two decades has imposed, as Justice Kennedy put it, a “censorship . . . vast in its reach.” By overruling Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and striking down McCain-Feingold’s ban on so-called electioneering communications, the Supreme Court has made possible the participation in our political process that is the right of every American citizen – a right that had been severely curtailed under McCain-Feingold .
Many on the left are clamoring for relief. In fact, Move to Amend has started a grassroots effort to amend the ruling. The organization states on their home page "Human beings are people; corporations are legal fictions." Sorry to burst your bubble "Move Aside", corporations are recognized by the law to have rights and responsibilities like natural persons ("people").
The 1st amendment is clear: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. It doesn't state "Congress may make a law", It says "Congress shall make no law." Now that's pretty specific.
Saturday, December 18, 2010
Friday, December 17, 2010
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 2012 Presidential Election: 18 Republican Contenders and President Obama Ranked By Communications Skills
Written by Brad Phillips on December 15, 2010 – 8:00 am
Better Communicator Has Won Every General Election Since Beginning of 24/7 Media Age in 1980; Marco Rubio, Haley Barbour, Mike Huckabee Rank Highest
December 15, 2010 (Washington, DC) – Marco Rubio, Haley Barbour and Mike Huckabee are the Republican candidates most likely to defeat President Obama in 2012, according to a new analysis released today.
The study assesses the 18 most likely Republican candidates – and President Obama – on the seven traits all winning presidential candidates have had since the beginning of the 24/7 media age in 1980. The 7,500-word series appears on the Mr. Media Training Blog, one of the world’s most visited communications training websites.
“Most pundits analyze a general election by looking at the same old measurements, such as unemployment data, consumer confidence, and early polling,” said Brad Phillips, author of the analysis and a former journalist with ABC News and CNN. “But they always miss a reliable predictor: the more gifted media spokesperson has won every presidential election since the beginning of the 24/7 media age in 1980.”
The grades below reflect how well each candidate is performing in seven specific communications categories:
1. The candidates were evaluated on the following seven criteria, which have held true for every general election since the beginning of the 24/7 media age in 1980:
2. 1. The candidate with the clearest message has always won
3. 2. The candidate who articulated the clearer vision has always won
4. 3. The sunnier candidate with the more optimistic message has always won
5. 4. The candidate whose message is best aligned with constituent concerns has always won
6. 5. The more charismatic candidate has always won
7. 6. The candidate who appeared most comfortable in his skin has always won
8. 7. The candidate who uses the most plain-spoken language has almost always won
“Although we tend to complain about the length of presidential campaigns, the reality is that nonstop media exposure to candidates gives us a good sense of who they are,” said Phillips, who authors the Mr. Media Training Blog. “That’s important, because many voters – especially the crucial independents – base their votes on their personal comfort level with a candidate, not specific policy positions.”
This study is based on how the candidates are doing now, but points out that many of the contenders will improve between now and the election, while others will likely get worse.
Note: This analysis applies solely to the 2012 general election, not primary elections.
###
Brad Phillips is the author of the Mr. Media Training Blog. He is the president of Phillips Media Relations, a media and presentation training firm with offices in NYC, DC, and LA. Mr. Phillips previously worked as a journalist with ABC’s Nightline with Ted Koppel and CNN’s Reliable Sources and The Capital Gang.
The Mr. Media Training Blog (www.MrMediaTraining.com) offers daily tips to help readers become better media spokespersons and public speakers. It also examines how well (or poorly) public figures are communicating through the media.
Better Communicator Has Won Every General Election Since Beginning of 24/7 Media Age in 1980; Marco Rubio, Haley Barbour, Mike Huckabee Rank Highest
December 15, 2010 (Washington, DC) – Marco Rubio, Haley Barbour and Mike Huckabee are the Republican candidates most likely to defeat President Obama in 2012, according to a new analysis released today.
The study assesses the 18 most likely Republican candidates – and President Obama – on the seven traits all winning presidential candidates have had since the beginning of the 24/7 media age in 1980. The 7,500-word series appears on the Mr. Media Training Blog, one of the world’s most visited communications training websites.
“Most pundits analyze a general election by looking at the same old measurements, such as unemployment data, consumer confidence, and early polling,” said Brad Phillips, author of the analysis and a former journalist with ABC News and CNN. “But they always miss a reliable predictor: the more gifted media spokesperson has won every presidential election since the beginning of the 24/7 media age in 1980.”
The grades below reflect how well each candidate is performing in seven specific communications categories:
1. The candidates were evaluated on the following seven criteria, which have held true for every general election since the beginning of the 24/7 media age in 1980:
2. 1. The candidate with the clearest message has always won
3. 2. The candidate who articulated the clearer vision has always won
4. 3. The sunnier candidate with the more optimistic message has always won
5. 4. The candidate whose message is best aligned with constituent concerns has always won
6. 5. The more charismatic candidate has always won
7. 6. The candidate who appeared most comfortable in his skin has always won
8. 7. The candidate who uses the most plain-spoken language has almost always won
“Although we tend to complain about the length of presidential campaigns, the reality is that nonstop media exposure to candidates gives us a good sense of who they are,” said Phillips, who authors the Mr. Media Training Blog. “That’s important, because many voters – especially the crucial independents – base their votes on their personal comfort level with a candidate, not specific policy positions.”
This study is based on how the candidates are doing now, but points out that many of the contenders will improve between now and the election, while others will likely get worse.
Note: This analysis applies solely to the 2012 general election, not primary elections.
###
Brad Phillips is the author of the Mr. Media Training Blog. He is the president of Phillips Media Relations, a media and presentation training firm with offices in NYC, DC, and LA. Mr. Phillips previously worked as a journalist with ABC’s Nightline with Ted Koppel and CNN’s Reliable Sources and The Capital Gang.
The Mr. Media Training Blog (www.MrMediaTraining.com) offers daily tips to help readers become better media spokespersons and public speakers. It also examines how well (or poorly) public figures are communicating through the media.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
LinkWithin
