MontPIRG's gratuitous piling-on against Flint's student senate campaign prompted him to fight back vigorously, exceeding ASUM's $100 limit on campaign expenses. And now Singer has the nerve to compare the total $114.69 spent (for pizza) with "rich kids throwing rock concerts to achieve votes," to defend the absurd spending cap.
Matt Singer knows all about throwing big money at local politics because he's been doing it for years. And he knows where to get it, and it ain't from tip jars at the Badlander. He spent two years as communications director for Progressive States Network, an "organizational partner" of the Roosevelt Institution, a Soros-funded conglomeration of "progressive" think tanks. Last year PSN received a $30,000 grant from the Proteus Fund, which was founded by, inter alia, money from the Open Society Institute, i.e. George Soros. It probably was not the first time.
And as the Indy story says, Forward Montana started with a $250,000 matching grant from Jon and Peter Lewis at Skyline Public Works in California, and has been nothing less than a political money-laundering conduit for wealthy out-of-state douchebags ever since.
The Lewises and their buddy George Soros previously spent millions on Americans Coming Together (ACT), although that project did not turn out too well. They want to commandeer national power via local GOTV efforts, and they have lately chosen to do it by exploiting the one demo that has not been turning out to vote historically - the 18 to 24 age group.
They try to appeal to them with beer, bunnies and BS, so they can round them up in buses to vote for their candidates on the big day, like they did here in 2006.
"People were voting at 10 p.m. inside the courthouse after the door had been closed. Young people, same day registrants turned out by Forward Montana. Tester’s margin in Missoula and the other major college community, Bozeman, was significant and helped propel him to his narrow victory. That in turn helped change politics in the nation. So a few people, as we often hear—but now with Forward Montana we witnessed—can make a big difference."Got that? Registering and voting at the eleventh hour, because they cared so much about the senate race. Or the pot initiative. Or the minimum wage initiative. Or something. Quite the machine, that. And then they try to tell that this is a "grassroots" or "populist" movement. At least Pendergast and Tammany Hall machines were genuinely local. When scrutinized, Singer and his minions sanctimoniously hide behind the skirts of "getting young people interested in politics."
Query: Just why is it so necessary to go to these extraordinary measure to interest young people in voting? Could it be that those who are not interested don't get it anyway, and are not really ready to cast a vote?
And it's not to say that any of this maneuvering is illegal. It's hard to say, given the lack of transparency with groups like Forward Montana. But see, that's what we've gotten for all our high-minded campaign finance reform since 1974: a wider and weirder proliferation of interlocking funding groups - accountable to no one - through which rich donors launder money they would have given directly to the candidates in the past.
And they call this "progressive"?
23 comments:
...has been nothing less than a political money-laundering conduit for wealthy out-of-state douchebags ever since.
As David Ehrenstein would say: SING OUT LOUISE!!!
I am pasting this on my office wall to remember the grass roots ground swell of Matt Sing er. Well done.
I shudder at the horror ...
Bwahahhahahh!
Ah, another good year for sour grapes I see. And the new whine is superb! And I shudder at Wulfgar's shuddering.
LK
Yo, Larry!
Sour grapes? Heh. I'm just jealous because we're the ones getting by on silent auctions and 50-50 drawings, ie the tip jar.
Great post Carol. One wonders if Forward Montana is as interested in registering people who might not be Democrats. Think they're going door-to-door in the South Hills? Miller Creek? I never thought they were as altruistic as they like the think.
And bunnies are creepy.
http://www.qimera.com/Photos/Darko.jpg
Free alcohol if you register to vote: $500
Free sandwiches for the homeless if you register to vote: $450
Busing voters to the polls: $1200
Electing a leftie with Soros’ money: Priceless
Buying votes is nothing new for the Democrats. Where I grew up (South Texas) it was and is a way of life.
As for sour grapes, how ironic coming from the very lefty trolls who for years whiled about President Bush having "stolen" the 2000 and 2004 elections.
Priceless indeed.
Oops, not whiled, but whined.
Last year, on Election Day, I was a volunteer at the Missoula County Courthouse. At about 6pm, I was standing with a Democrat friend when I was approached by someone who I didn't know, but would turn out to be Matt Singer.
My friend stepped away, and a few other political people joined our conversation circle. As is typical on election night, a crowd of political organizers was eagerly awaiting polls results from across the County.
Not knowing I was not of the same ilk, Singer began to talk about the success of getting students to the polls for same day registration and voting. He spoke about the state-wide operation in play, and how it was an off-the-radar political operation put in play to turn just enough voters to Tester. It was early in the evening, so we didn’t know yet that this would actually be the case.
I found Singer surprisingly candid in answering my questions, although I think he thought I might be a new recruit. He went on to talk for about ten minutes, as he outlined the whole story of the get-out-the-vote operation and even included how it was funded by out of state interests associated with Soros (an insight that is no longer surprising in itself, but was at the time). Singer even told me that is who paid his paycheck.
But the most interesting thing he said was that Forward Montana had used the student government (ASUM) as a front group to provide the incentives of free transportation, food and drink to get voters to the polls. He also openly joked with his counterparts about how easy is was to get students to vote for Tester. "You just give 'em a free sandwich and they pull the lever for your guy" or something like. He certainly wasn't praising the student’s noble intentions.
A good way into this conversation, my friend returned and introduced me as a Republican poll watcher. As you would expect, everybody shut up. Soon, I was standing alone.
I was a little disappointed my friend returned, because I think Singer was drunk on his own success and willing spill everything. (Something that political insiders see as a HUGE WEAKNESS, but also something that routinely happens)
It was clear to me in that moment that the non-partisan motives Singer represents in the newspaper are false, and that Forward Montana actually represents a network of relationships that are not fully on the up and up...at least compared with how they are publically represented by these organization and in the press.
It also was clear to me that he did not have the concerns of the University students first and foremost in his mind. From what I can tell, he just sees students as the easist pawns to move on the political board.
Unfortunately, Forward Montana has the press totally snowed. With the Missoulian and Independent hoisting on their own set of pink bunny ears, it is nice to see someone talking about what is really going on. It just goes to show how closely tied to the liberal-progressive network our news meida is.
Whenever questioned, Forward Montana strikes back by saying that anyone critical of their actions are fighting open government and participation.
Something I may have believed once, but not after meeting Singer in person and hearing what they are doing in his own words.
" He went on to talk for about ten minutes, "
Whaaaat?? That can't be right! Pat Williams said this:
“When I met him I was impressed by two things. First, he says almost nothing. He’s very quiet,” recalls former nine-term Montana congressman Pat Williams. “
That's because Pat Williams was doing all the talking...
Williams was and is a schmuck.
"The Montana Public Interest Research Group (MontPIRG) is a non-partisan non-profit group working for the public interest in the courts, public agencies, the media and other decision-making areas. Since 1982, we have worked for a clean and healthful environment, strong consumer protection, and an open and accountable government. Additionally, through our campus chapter, we offer University of Montana students the chance to learn real world civic and leadership skills needed to effect social change outside of the classroom"
If that whole "non profit non partisan" line worked once, why not again?
quiet! you'll upset his minions!
Anonymous, anonymous, anonymous. Nobody bought anything and you guys are just jealous. Stop crying because somebody played the game better than you did. You guys have been using churches to your benefit for years. Don't see any of us saying it's illegal.
Also, MontPIRG has never spent money on any political candidate, even Mr. Flint, although he would love to think there was some conspiracy against him. Certainly some students who were members of the group disliked his views, but they had no access to any funds to spend. How do I know? I used to be on staff and we played by the rules, kids. You've already stripped MontPIRG of their funding. I don't know what else you would want.
Well, at last, someone responding directly to me instead of sniveling to the other bloggers.
Yes I for one am jealous, and wish we could play the game as well as Forward MT. As far as I can see nothing's illegal about it..as for using our churches, you don't know how funny that is in Montana. This ain't Ohio, honey. (And wasn't it Dems like Baucus who were playing the religious card here a couple weeks ago?)
And no one ever said MontPIRG spent money on a candidate. They spent money doing their own thing to defeat a candidate. And that's the game to play now that we have all this great campaign finance reform.
"Well, at last, someone responding directly to me instead of sniveling to the other bloggers."
I assume you're referring to the fact that there are those of us who are writing about this on our own blogs. You can come comment on any of our blogs at any time, Carol. We may be writing our own posts about it but you're welcome to jump in the fray.
"And no one ever said MontPIRG spent money on a candidate. They spent money doing their own thing to defeat a candidate. And that's the game to play now that we have all this great campaign finance reform."
I am flat-out flabergasted that some of you haven't made the distinction yet between student government at a University vs. government on the State or Federal level. Call me crazy, but I'm willing to bet ASUM's campaign finance rules had nothing to do with McCain-Feingold.
But then again, I'm also willing to bet that you're blurring the line intentionally.
No, I'm not blurring the line. I realize that third party groups (527s) are "the game" now in politics. MontPIRG acted as sort of a prototype in a college setting. I know it's not the same thing and not subject to McCain-Feingold. But it's definitely becoming the dress rehearsal for the real thing. So it goes.
And I was referring to commenting on other Dextra blogs.
Amazing what you found on the net. Every source you referenced straggled back to György Schwartz, oh I meant to use his american name. The loons are on their roosts cawing about nothing but to mis-direct the apparent truth.
There's a lot more out there, no big secret actually. All perfectly legal, brought to you by McCain-Feingold.
How funny. I'd imagined the Kossacks burying you in angry comments. Guess Kos is no Penny Arcade.
Post a Comment