Grayson No Doubt Thinks The Nav'i Are Real Too

Alan Grayson (D-FL) is really going off the reservation trying to create some sort of Don Quixote-type quest.

At issue is a case the Supreme Court is expected to pass a ruling on concerning a group known as Citizens United. A summary of the issue, which I got from Slate Magazine is this:

Citizens United produced an anti-Hillary Clinton documentary. The group wanted to air the documentary during the 2008 presidential primary season through a cable television "video on demand" service and to advertise for it on television. In exchange for a $1.2 million fee, a cable television operator consortium would have made the documentary available to cable subscribers to download free "on demand," as part of an "Election '08" series. Citizens United is an ideological group (like the NRA or Planned Parenthood), but it takes for-profit corporate funding. The McCain-Feingold campaign-finance law passed in 2002 bars certain corporate-funded television broadcasts, such as this documentary, in the period before an election.

The barely in touch with reality representative from Florida, through some sort of pretzel logic is trumpeting his promotion of some bills he has proposed to deal with an issue that has already been addressed in previous legislation concerning political campaigns accepting donations from corporate entities.

It's accurate that Obama doesn't take money from oil companies; neither do his opponents, because corporate contributions are illegal.

While he is at it, Grayson might want to check with the boss. It seems that during the most recent presidential campaign nobody received more money from big business then Barack Obama.

The episode underscores the pitfalls confronting a candidate who rails against special interests while raising $193 million and counting — the most of any presidential campaign.

Obama is raising more than his opponents from executives of some of the corporate interests he criticizes. Obama has received more money from people who work at pharmaceutical and health product companies, according to the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics. He's taken in $528,765 through February, compared with $506,001 for Clinton and $139,400 for McCain, despite saying last July that "I don't take pharma money."

Barry O's acceptance of money from lobbyists and corporate PAC's has been a constant throughout his entire political career.

In Obama's eight years in the Illinois Senate, from 1996 to 2004, almost two-thirds of the money he raised for his campaigns -- $296,000 of $461,000 -- came from PACs, corporate contributions, or unions, according to Illinois Board of Elections records. He tapped financial services firms, real estate developers, healthcare providers, oil companies, and many other corporate interests, the records show.

The Supreme Court is having a session at 10 am this morning and they are expected to issue a final ruling on the case Citizens United vs The Federal Election Commission case. The real issue is where do free speech rights end and our election laws created by the notorious McCain Feingold campaign finance legislation begin.

I would think the liberals have already answered this question by the promotion of their idiot savants like Michael Moore with his endless stream of undocumentary films and others in the entertainment industry who became so obsessed and consumed with Bush Derangement Syndrome that they lost touch with any sense of what the average American was really concerned about.

I think what Grayson is really upset about is that an organization received corporate financing to produce a film that portrayed a Democrat in a bad light instead of using the established and traditional medium of choice: our mainstream journalists and news media.

Besides, if Grayson has his way, I think that would pretty much kill MSNBC and their progressive talking heads. You know, since they are liked owned by GE.

The only thing that seems certain is that there must be quite a few folks in his district who suffer with Alzheimers. There is no other decent explanation for how somebody like this gets elected to Congress.

Palin Wardrobe Complaint Dismissed

You can practically smell the frothing indignation from Olbermann as he prepares to make her the Worst Person in the World for looking good, which admittedly isn't hard.

Between the frivolous "ethics" complaints in Alaska and now this, her detractors are now batting 0-for-12.

The Federal Election Commission has dismissed a complaint over the $150,000-plus designer wardrobe the Republican Party bought to outfit vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin.

The good-government group that filed the complaint, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, argued that candidates aren't supposed to use donor money for personal expenses such as clothes. The FEC ruled Tuesday that the ban doesn't apply to party money, however.

The Alaska governor was Sen. John McCain's pick for vice president. The purchases from such high-end stores as Saks Fifth Avenue and Neiman Marcus drew criticism for Palin, the self-described hockey mom.

The Republican National Committee told the commission that party money rather than candidate campaign money was used for the purchases, and that the shopping spree was allowed under campaign finance rules that let the party spend on behalf of and in coordination with presidential campaigns.

The controversy over Palin's clothing overshadowed the Republican campaign in the final weeks.

The RNC spent at least $150,000 on designer clothing, accessories and hair and makeup services for Palin after she became McCain's running mate in September. The designer duds contrasted with the practical, down-to-earth image that Palin and the campaign sought to craft for her.

The purchases included $75,062 worth at Neiman Marcus in Minneapolis; $49,425 at Saks Fifth Avenue; $9,447 at Macy's; and $789 at the luxury retailer Barneys New York. Goods were also bought for Palin family members, such as $4,902 spent at upscale men's store Atelier and $92 at Pacifier, a Minneapolis baby boutique.

Audacity: Democrats Accuse McCain of Fundraising Violations

These people are absolutely shameless. As Barack Obama amasses megamillions in bogus credit card donations, the Democrats have the temerity to accuse John McCain of fundraising violations.

And thanks to a compliant media completely in the tank, they get away with it.

The Democratic Party plans to file a complaint with federal regulators that accuses Republican John McCain's presidential campaign of various violations of campaign finance law.

In a letter to the Federal Election Commission to be submitted Monday, the Democratic National Committee alleges McCain has received donations from 6,653 individuals who exceeded the legal $2,300 limit by at least $1,000 and 23 donation in excess of $50 from anonymous donors. The DNC cited one donor who appeared to have given more than $56,000.

The complaint is based in part on data that the McCain campaign provides on its Web site — an extra step of disclosure not required by election laws. The campaign of Barack Obama, the Democratic presidential nominee, does not disclose as much information about its donors as McCain does. Obama only reports the identities of donors who give $200 or more — the legal requirement.

The McCain campaign said Sunday that transactions on its Web site are only updated monthly and do not necessarily reflect corrections that the campaign routinely undertakes.

Of course, this will now probably dominate the news cycle for the rest of the weekend.

These people are just contemptible.

"This is a joke, a sad publicity stunt to divert attention from the recent controversies surrounding Barack Obama's shady fundraising practices, and his campaign's complete refusal to disclose the sources of hundreds of millions of his contributions," McCain spokesman Brian Rogers said. "Obviously all of our fundraising strictly follows all campaign finance regulations, which provide for 60 days to reconcile all contributions."