Looks like Soros really doesn't like Bush. Here's hoping he buys out all the electronic voting companies. (Note: The GOP flack quote is hilarious given the Scaife and company shenanigans over the last ten years or so.) _____________ Soros's Deep Pockets vs. Bush Financier Contributes $5 Million More in Effort to Oust President By Laura Blumenfeld Washington Post Staff Writer Tuesday, November 11, 2003; Page A03 NEW YORK -- George Soros, one of the world's richest men, has given away nearly $5 billion to promote democracy in the former Soviet bloc, Africa and Asia. Now he has a new project: defeating President Bush. "It is the central focus of my life," Soros said, his blue eyes settled on an unseen target. The 2004 presidential race, he said in an interview, is "a matter of life and death." Soros, who has financed efforts to promote open societies in more than 50 countries around the world, is bringing the fight home, he said. On Monday, he and a partner committed up to $5 million to MoveOn.org, a liberal activist group, bringing to $15.5 million the total of his personal contributions to oust Bush. Overnight, Soros, 74, has become the major financial player of the left. He has elicited cries of foul play from the right. And with a tight nod, he pledged: "If necessary, I would give more money." "America, under Bush, is a danger to the world," Soros said. Then he smiled: "And I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is." Soros believes that a "supremacist ideology" guides this White House. He hears echoes in its rhetoric of his childhood in occupied Hungary. "When I hear Bush say, 'You're either with us or against us,' it reminds me of the Germans." It conjures up memories, he said, of Nazi slogans on the walls, Der Feind Hort mit ("The enemy is listening"). "My experiences under Nazi and Soviet rule have sensitized me," he said in a soft Hungarian accent. Soros's contributions are filling a gap in Democratic Party finances that opened after the restrictions in the 2002 McCain-Feingold law took effect. In the past, political parties paid a large share of television and get-out-the-vote costs with unregulated "soft money" contributions from corporations, unions and rich individuals. The parties are now barred from accepting such money. But non-party groups in both camps are stepping in, accepting soft money and taking over voter mobilization. "It's incredibly ironic that George Soros is trying to create a more open society by using an unregulated, under-the-radar-screen, shadowy, soft-money group to do it," Republican National Committee spokeswoman Christine Iverson said. "George Soros has purchased the Democratic Party." In past election cycles, Soros contributed relatively modest sums. In 2000, his aide said, he gave $122,000, mostly to Democratic causes and candidates. But recently, Soros has grown alarmed at the influence of neoconservatives, whom he calls "a bunch of extremists guided by a crude form of social Darwinism." Neoconservatives, Soros said, are exploiting the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, to promote a preexisting agenda of preemptive war and world dominion. "Bush feels that on September 11th he was anointed by God," Soros said. "He's leading the U.S. and the world toward a vicious circle of escalating violence." Soros said he had been waking at 3 a.m., his thoughts shaking him "like an alarm clock." Sitting in his robe, he wrote his ideas down, longhand, on a stack of pads. In January, PublicAffairs will publish them as a book, "The Bubble of American Supremacy" (an excerpt appears in December's Atlantic Monthly). In it, he argues for a collective approach to security, increased foreign aid and "preventive action." "It would be too immodest for a private person to set himself up against the president," he said. "But it is, in fact" -- he chuckled -- "the Soros Doctorine." His campaign began last summer with the help of Morton H. Halperin, a liberal think tank veteran. Soros invited Democratic strategists to his house in Southampton, Long Island, including Clinton chief of staff John D. Podesta, Jeremy Rosner, Robert Boorstin and Carl Pope. They discussed the coming election. Standing on the back deck, the evening sun angling into their eyes, Soros took aside Steve Rosenthal, CEO of the liberal activist group America Coming Together (ACT), and Ellen Malcolm, its president. They were proposing to mobilize voters in 17 battleground states. Soros told them he would give ACT $10 million. Asked about his moment in the sun, Rosenthal deadpanned: "We were disappointed. We thought a guy like George Soros could do more." Then he laughed. "No, kidding! It was thrilling." Malcolm: "It was like getting his Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval." "They were ready to kiss me," Soros quipped. Before coffee the next morning, his friend Peter Lewis, chairman of the Progressive Corp., had pledged $10 million to ACT. Rob Glaser, founder and CEO of RealNetworks, promised $2 million. Rob McKay, president of the McKay Family Foundation, gave $1 million and benefactors Lewis and Dorothy Cullman committed $500,000. Soros also promised up to $3 million to Podesta's new think tank, the Center for American Progress. Soros will continue to recruit wealthy donors for his campaign. Having put a lot of money into the war of ideas around the world, he has learned that "money buys talent; you can advocate more effectively." At his home in Westchester, N.Y., he raised $115,000 for Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean. He also supports Democratic presidential contenders Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.), retired Gen. Wesley K. Clark and Rep. Richard A. Gephardt (Mo.). In an effort to limit Soros's influence, the RNC sent a letter to Dean Monday, asking him to request that ACT and similar organizations follow the McCain-Feingold restrictions limiting individual contributions to $2,000. The RNC is not the only group irked by Soros. Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21, which promotes changes in campaign finance , has benefited from Soros's grants over the years. Soros has backed altering campaign finance, an aide said, donating close to $18 million over the past seven years. "There's some irony, given the supporting role he played in helping to end the soft money system," Wertheimer said. "I'm sorry that Mr. Soros has decided to put so much money into a political effort to defeat a candidate. We will be watchdogging him closely." An aide said Soros welcomes the scrutiny. Soros has become as rich as he has, the aide said, because he has a preternatural instinct for a good deal. Asked whether he would trade his $7 billion fortune to unseat Bush, Soros opened his mouth. Then he closed it. The proposal hung in the air: Would he become poor to beat Bush? He said, "If someone guaranteed it."
I hope his donations help chuck Bush out on his ass, but it honestly sickens me how much money is involved in elections. Until "donations" are removed from the election process, politicians (and government) will *always* favor special interests and the corporate elite over the rest of us.
"Contributions" are bribes. This guy doesn't seem like he's trying to buy anyone, he's just trying to get rid of Bush by counter-balancing the bribes that Bush is travelling around the country collecting. And it sounds like he has a personal reason for doing so - it's not exactly altruism, but all the same it's for a goal that will be beneficial to America. Of course, there is self-interest involved in the realization that Bush Administration policy, and the methods they use to pursue that policy, are well on their way to destabilizing the internal political/social structure of the U.S. - and NO ONE (repeat - NO ONE) is financially secure when they live in a destabilized society. He's confronting the very real fact that even a billionaire can have his home ransacked in an environment where the vast majority of people are unable to provide for their basic needs and unable to get ahead...a situation that is increasingly closer to becoming reality as the Bush Administration/arch-conservatives consolidate power (and millions of Americans continue to believe that the United States is somehow exempt from the proofs of history). The donations to activist groups are great, it's just too bad that the only viable candidates Soros can support are Democrats.
OK, the admin is a bunch of meglomanical racists bent on world domination. If I had 7 billion-with-a-B I'd be fishing down in Costa Rica not worrying about a damned thing. If you want to be a loser, fine. But a 7 billion dollar election loser? Why don't just give the money to a real charity rather than blowing it on these leftists?
Some people have opened their eyes and are seeing the horrid things that GWB & Co. are doing to this country. You made positive comments about the content of Gore's speech yesterday, so you seem to agree about some of the serious problems inherent in some of the policies this administration has put forth. He would not have to give so much money to the "leftists" if GWB weren't going to spend $200 million plus this campaign cycle (and that is without a primary). Seriously folks, we need to completely revamp how elections happen in this country. When one candidate for President is expected to spend over $200 million and the other is going to have to spend nearly that much just to remain competitive, don't you think we spend FAR too much to elect our officials? We will almost certainly spend over a half billion dollars this election cycle to elect the President and Congress and I think that is outrageous. I know it would probably take a constitutional amendment, but I believe that the entire process of electing our officials should be fully funded by the government and "issue ads" should be banned to take money out of politics. As long as big money gets people elected, big money interests are the only ones that will get any play in D.C.
Amen Brother. IMO, both parties are to dependent on "contributions" to fund their election and outspend their opponent. Until there is no outside influence on the candidates the American Public {aka: Average Joe American} will get the shaft.
I love George. the thing I first likedabout him is when Ted turner and cronies very publicly donated a billion dollars to nato for toppling communism or whatever, Sorros quietly gave a billion to the starving people of the former soviet union for humanitarian reasons. he is definately a man that cares about the world and humanity in general
It is his money, let him spend it how he likes. Having a change in the direction of this country every few years is good for it. You don't go too far down either path....... DD
I personally would rather Soros give billions to think tanks or to the creation of alternative media to provide an alternative to the steady stream of spin put out out by the right wing think tanks and media. Their conservative spin, which always economically benefits their wealty funders, often to the detriment of the average American, is now seen by many ordinary people as just common sense or common moderate viewpoints.. Defeating Bush, who after all is in danger of losing anyway, is not as important in the long run as starting to change the oveall conception of what is possible for this wealthy and basically secure country. It is much harder to get seed money for these policy infrastructure projects, than to get money to defeat Bush.
The problem with banning issue ads is do so would be an obvious assault on the First Amendment, which says "Congress shall make NO law....... I don't like the huge masses of money flowing into election coffers either, but I don't want to abridge my 1st Amendment rights to do so. Also the problem with "taking the money" out of politics is that as a challenger, you have to buy time on the airwaves where you can reach potential voters, whereas as an incumbent, you have free media time since they have to cover govt. Most studies show that people re-elect their congressmen on the simple principle of name recognition. Lets say that you are the incumbent Congressman and I'm trying to unseat you. When you speak, the cameras are there because you are Rep. Andymoon (I)-Texas. I'm just Joe Schmo challenger. With all the Federal limitations on my financing and since you have all that free time via the media, I have little or no chance unless you are very unpopular. Take this other example an ATL talk show host gave on why this isn't a good idea (banning issue ads before an election) and why it helps incumbents.. Lets say you and I live in a nice neighborhood in the suburbs, but the GDOT wants to put an interstate through our front yards. There is an election being held for Congress and the challenger is on our side, opposed to the project. With the laws as they stand, our first amendment right to simply inform the public of the fact the incumbent, who has all the media at his beck and call since he is a major govt. figure, has been abridged. We can not air those ads because they would be considered an campaign ad.
This is the entire reason it would have to be a constitutional amendment. When the founders put all this together, I do not believe that they could have imagined a half billion dollars being spent in one election cycle. So we include equal time laws so that if the media covers a story that is about an incumbent, they have to give an equal amount of time to the challenger. In addition, I think the government should buy ALL ads from the media up front and dole that ad space out to the top people in the election (I have several ideas on how to decide who those top people are). It should be difficult to unseat me if I am a popular incumbent. If I am doing a good job by my constituents, they will want to reelect me and if I am not, they will want to replace me. The ads about the interstate could run (without information on the candidates) and the challenger could use HIS ads to point out that he opposes the road. Issue ads are an unregulated form of soft money that allow any organization to campaign for anyone they want and spend as much as they want. Elections should be held by and for the people, not for any particular special interest. There is a reason we have the best government money can buy.
So we include equal time laws so that if the media covers a story that is about an incumbent, they have to give an equal amount of time to the challenger. The coverage bamaslammer is talking about isn't campaign coverage. It's the fact that the candidate, by virtue of being in public office, gets covered for government stuff. Like when Perry goes and gives a speech about his budget, that's going to get covered as news, so he has a platform that the challenger doesn't have. Whether it's right or not, tons of voters are simply going to vote for the guy who's name they recognize, and people will recognize the incumbent far more than any non-famous challenger.
Exactly. Any time during a non-election (or election) year, a Congressman or a Mayor or a city councilman can call a press conference and they show up. They get free face time and mentions in every newspaper story written about govt. And my point about the name recognition issue is that when you receive all that free coverage (the media doing its job of informing us of the activities of govt.) is that these incumbents get free time because of their position as a newsfigure. Joe Schmo running against him, a prominent businessman, isn't going to get the same coverage. If I call a press conference, you think anyone will show up? I didn't think so.
i started to ask whether democrats would be comfortable with the fact that their biggest donor goes around comparing the president of the United States to Hitler, then, given the tenor of comments from so many of the reactionary left i realized the answer is self-evident. Anger is not a political platform...
Yeah that is careless and irresponsible to compare Bush with Hitler. I agree that anyone who does that isn't being responsible. But it pales in comparison with lying about WMD, it pales in comparison with the president going AWOL while serving in the national guard during wartime. It pales in comparison with piling on the national debt etc. So it's way down on the list of things that bother me about politicians.
