Al Gore, global warming rock star, will grab the media spotlight today before Sen. Barbara Boxer's Environment and Public Works Committee — and Boxer is using Gore's appearance to help raise money for her 2010 re-election campaign.
In an e-mail sent earlier this month, Boxer asked her supporters to sign an online thank-you card to Gore "for his many years of leadership and hard work," which she plans to give to him today. So far, more than 63,000 people have signed the card, according to a campaign consultant.
Next to the link for signing the card is a link to "contribute today" to the Friends of Barbara Boxer, which takes the user to instructions on how to donate online.
One campaign finance watchdog, Melanie Sloan, called the e-mail "inappropriate, coming close to an ethical line," because it suggests a link between a congressional hearing, legislative activity and campaign contributions.
Politician is head of a committtee. Politician schedules a hearing on a subject that she knows certain activist constituents will find of interest. Politician emails those activists/constituents to announce the impending hearing and uses the hook of a "thank you card" to get them to the website. Politician then asks for campaign money.
Sounds pretty cut-and-dried to me. However here's the defense:
A Boxer campaign consultant in Los Angeles, Rose Kapolczynski, defended the e-mail: "The entire focus is on Al Gore, not on making a contribution. There is a pro forma 'contribute' button at the bottom of the e-mail. There is no special access or benefit to the donor."
The text of the e-mail does not ask for a campaign donation.
"A campaign is never completely disconnected from the important issues of the day," said Kapolczynski, who ran Boxer's three previous Senate campaigns. "Sen. Boxer has always focused on the issues, and she runs on her positions."
Kapolczynski said the e-mail was sent only to supporters, not to people or groups coming before Boxer's committee.
Heh ... a "pro-forma button"? So, if the "entire focus" is on Al Gore, then why is a "pro-forma" button on page? Doesn't that distract from the "entire focus". Well, yeah, not that you'd expect anyone from the Boxer camp to admit it.
To those that are going to beam in and claim "both sides do it", my question is, yeah, so what ... is it an acceptable practice? What if the Senator was McConnell? Still ok?
Why is anyone suppressed? The AGW scare has become a political, not scientific issue. Politicians see VOTES in “Them Thar Hills.” What was a scientific concern has now been morphed into “The Big Lie” by politicians seizing it for political gain. Gore’s propaganda was always a political ploy, designed to frighten the public into accepting greater central control for “the greater good.” Demagogues throughout the ages would be proud.
The Democrats will now pound the American public with “The Big Lie” in their attempt to control both the legislative and executive branches. The sad thing is, they probably will succeed. You can never go broke by underestimating the public. They respond to heat not logic. Global Warming is a great issue to frighten them into giving more power to Washington.
As an opponent of campaign finance laws, I don’t think there is anything wrong with a politician saying ’I am worried about issue X, I am using my position to make issue X a priority, if you are worried about issue X support me by donating to my campaign.’
The other side then should say ’My opponent thinks issue X is important, here is why I think it isn’t, support me by donating to my campaign.’
Curious to see what a "pro-forma button" looks like, I went out in search of the site in question. I don’t know if the site inviting folks to sign the card - here - has been changed, but I saw no button. Only after "signing" the card, was I taken to a screen that may or may not show up here, where, as you may or may not be able to see, there’s the paragraph
And if you can, please contribute to Senator Boxer’s re-election campaign today — to make sure she has the early resources she needs to win!
- with the part shown here in bold text functioning as the pro-forma hyperlink.
Why is anyone suppressed? Although this was a typo in a rhetorical question, the more I think about, the object of Al Gore and the eco-freaks is to suppress the freedom of every one they can. Global Warming is one of the arrows in their quiver.
I’m simply asking if this fills the bill(of being a politicized issue) and if so, is it acceptable to everyone (thus the little dig about McConnell) as such?
If it is, then let’s all ignore the next yahoo who whines about it, OK? Let us pelt them with whatever is handy and tell ’em to STFU. Politicians politicize, right? Thus their name.
Wait, so the supposed equivalence being made here, is that if politicians ever ask for money in relation to an issue, and that is okay, they can also do anything else they want in regards to that subject, and that will also be okay? Because some forms of politicalization are okay, anything further that happens is fine? If Al Gore was to, for example, suppress scientific evidence that all the CO2 in the atmosphere is going to be sucked out of our atmosphere in the next 10 years by invisible alien rotary fans, but kept pushing the issue anyway, that would be ok? Just ’politicization?’
Is that really what you’re trying to hash out here?