Citizens' Daily Lobby

Ok, it’s nepotism, but he’s my eye in AR-01.    It goes without saying that the views expressed in this guest post are not necessarily 100% coincident with my own.

With Election Day 2010 quickly approaching, it’s time we examine the Arkansas District 1 race for Congress. The race is between Democrat Chad Causey and his Republican rival, Rick Crawford. If the voter believed everything they saw on the commercials funded by both parties aimed towards our senior citizens we could safely assume that both candidates could be the antichrist. Also, a debate on KAIT Jonesboro reduced the argument to unicorns and personal insults.   No joke, they really did talk unicorns. So to be able to look clearly at this race, we need to turn away from our mud covered TV sets.

Let’s look closely. Chad Causey has worked in D.C. as Marion Berry’s chief of staff, much to Rick Crawford’s delight. However, he was not a blind devotee to President Obama and Nancy Pelosi.  Instead he criticized healthcare reform, saying we should have waited to get it right instead of right now. This does not seem to be the hallmark of a blind servant to what the conservatives claim to be America’s step towards socialism. Chad Causey is also a hunter and a gun owner, which should appeal to most in Northeast Arkansas. He isn’t taking our guns away yet!

Rick Crawford  should  be thanked for his military service.   That’s to be commended. However, that doesn’t quite qualify him to be a congressman. Also, he’s never offered any real solutions to any real problems. All he’s been able to say so far is that Obama and Pelosi are evil and unicorns don’t exist. He has worked in agribusiness and is also pro-gun which appeals to Northeast Arkansas voters.

If we look at the candidates both tend to appeal to the values expressed by voters in District 1.  While  Chad Causey seems to have the experience needed to be an effective congressman, Rick Crawford most likely will simply follow the Republican agenda of “Just Say No.”  Please don’t just vote on what I  say though.  Research the candidates and make an informed decision.  Wipe the mud off your TV screens.

Robbie Wills’ most recent campaign flyer wins my vote for most reprehensible piece of campaign propaganda for 2010 (so far).    Let’s fact check:

Joyce Elliott wants to restrict gun rights:  Joyce gets a C- from the NRA.   That’s fairly middle of the road, and Mr. Wills only gets a B according to 2008 data.  Joyce Elliott even voted with the Arkansas Rifle and Pistol  Association 86% of the time in 2001 (relying on Project Vote Smart site for this information, because the NRA and ARPA sites are very hard to navigate and it’s almost impossible to find their ratings lists).

Joyce Elliott wants to outlaw school prayer: False. She voted against a bill (AR HB2971) that would have given overly-broad freedoms to student groups.  The bill does NOT seek to outlaw school prayer, and it appropriately died in the Senate.

Joyce Elliott favors legalizing the “radical partial birth abortion” procedure: Misleading: First,  prior to the referenced bill (AR HR1113 of 2009, now AR Act 196)  the rarely performed procedure was not explicitly banned in Arkansas.   Elliott and others voted against this nasty piece of legislation because  inadequate provisions were made to protect physicians performing a late-term abortion for the health of the mother and inadequate provisions were made to protect the woman’s privacy, among other things.   Partial-birth abortion, as vile as it may be when used for reasons other than life of the mother, is performed so rarely as to be a virtual straw man used by the Pro-Life lobby to erode abortion rights in general.

Joyce Elliott is ineffective:   False. Joyce Elliott is the Senate Majority Leader.  She was named one of the 10 most influential legislators in 2009 by Talk Business, and actually ranked higher on this list than Mr. Wills (she was third, he was last).  Try again, Mr. Wills.

When is enough enough?  If Mr. Wills fails to apologize for this outrageous campaign mailer, I will likely not vote for him in any election.

I have been browsing the Center for Responsive Politics website Opensecret.org to get a feel for corporate and individual donations to political parties and candidates.   I highly recommend it for those who want to know who’s getting how much from whom, and also for those who simply enjoy looking at well-presented data.    A good place to get started is the industry profiles summary from 1990-2010.   Here, industry and a limited number of ideological/single issue groups are compared side by side for amounts contributed to candidates over time.   People (corporations are included here, of course) tend to give their money to those who support their agenda, so it may be reasonable to make some conclusions about party principles based on these industry and ideological donations.  (While it is true that corporations tend to spread their money around to both parties it is also true that certain trends are too big to ignore.)   Think of this as party profiling.

Table: Contributions by political party 1990-2010.  x’s  indicate which party receives the majority of campaign contributions from each listed industry/ideological group.

Hmm… Lobbyists give substantially more money to Republicans no matter which party is in power.   Either they are more easily manipulated, or they sell themselves more dearly than Democrats.   Big Tobacco and Bankers lover the GOP, but the education sector steers clear.    Personality:  Show the GOP the money.  Donors get what they pay for.  The nation’s health and education are secondary interests, at best.

Meanwhile, Democrats are the overwhelming favorites of the gambling industry and hedge funds (gambling at a different level).  Interesting.   Democrats are less risk averse?  More susceptible to corruption?  The party is also the favorite recipient of funds from the education sector and  entertainment industry.  Laywers love the Democratic Party.  Personality:  The Democratic Party is overly given to education, debate, and the arts (shades of elitism, some would say) and takes a tolerant view of vice.

I wouldn’t want to leave out those groups that represent the height of corporate cynicism:  Big Pharma, insurance,  health professionals, and telephone utilities will spend money where they presume the power is, as indicated by the sudden reversal of their giving pattern when Democrats gained control of the Congress and the Presidency.

Of course, this table represents a very broad overview, but the general trend remains the same if you look at the top 100 “heavy hitters“, for example.   Politics is a dirty business, and in terms of accepting corporate money, both parties have much of which to be ashamed.

Well, I am certainly glad that John Boozman, 2nd Amendment Task Force warrior is in Congress.  He’s definitely going to vote against legislation that would require the owner of a firearm to have a license.  He doesn’t want the state attorney general to keep a record of gun ownership, either.  For some reason, he thinks that the right to keep and bear arms includes the right to do so without any governmental oversight.

I feel safer, already.  For those of you who care, Boozman boasts that he received an “A” rating from the NRA last year. in his latest newsletter.