Massachusetts Republican Exposed.

This link.

Not that I am changing politics, or a regular MDE reader; just this ... something misleading has a simple answer, see below.

That screenshot, if you click and enlarge the image, shows a "Siefert" endorsement in a prominent location - but appearances are deceiving. Especially to the occasional site visitor - me, as the example.

For it is not an endorement, not yet.

It is a paid-for political advertisement [these days a corporation could pay] and not any indication MDE is yet, offically, committed to one of the several GOP guv hopefuls.

This link explains things, and I hope Luke at MDE will appreciate my helping get this message out that, although the site is no longer run by Brodkorb as Brodkorb ran it, (we know that for we have been told that), there has not been any policy change to endorsing any individual, on the site, this early in things.

Now one confusing thing remains, or it is confusing to me because I see it having no explanation. The fact that Joe Repya is running for governor on the IP ticket, or seeking that endorsement, which is big-time news, gets this inattention on GOP blogs - see the "Repya" Googles for MDE and Let Freedom Ring. There are hits, the Googles show that, but nothing recent, about the candidacy for Governor. I would have thought Repya still had substantial grassroots support and credibility among Republicans, particularly those initially liking Pat Anderson and now Tom Emmer and whose orientation can only be guessed at should their favorites end up short of endorsement. It seems it would be noteworthy news that Repya is a candidate, to at least parts of the GOP.

But not a peep.

Yet in the past, there was this positive on Repya's service, while negative on Kerry.

This, singing praises.

Now it's time to bury Ceaser, not to praise him?

Old soldiers never die, might they just fade away?

I am confused.

Could anyone explain this to me. I have exchanged email with Gary Gross, (not Luke Hellier), but that's nothing public. From the email I think it is fair to say Gary discounts Repya's candidacy as inconsequential. By implication it appears MDE as policy or opinion, does too.

I kind of like the guy for having been willing to not blindly follow a beaten path.

Clearly Joe Repya is not within my range of politics, not a progressive - barely arguably a moderate as I see it - but he is a maverick military man, like GOP regular, John McCain.

Maybe, now this is my thought alone, I've not discussed it with anyone, but maybe to get his name and, indeed, his ongoing existence recognized on MDE these days, he should run a prominently featured paid advertisement.

_________UPDATE_________
Here's a screenshot of the Repya website opening page. Like the Rybak site it has an opening "Join the team" page, with a toggle to get into the detail of the website.



Somebody should give the guy attention. I expect the IP will. I expect he will be their endorsed choice. There's a Minnesota nice look to it. But get inside and look around - especially if an independent unsure of whether GOP or DFL two party choices would appeal.

What do you figure it would cost the Repya campaign, to get that same page as the opening page to access MDE? As a paid advertisement, which they're accepting.

You can contact MDE. I have contacted MDE. We all can anticipate prompt replies.

Wow.

I just looked at that.

I hope Luke realizes I was contacting MDE with regard to this post:

http://www.minnesotademocratsexposed.com/2010/01/20/tarryl-clark-still-lacks-substance/

He's a really bright guy but to be sure, I will send a follow-up contact to remove ambiguity.

I am 100% certain, Luke Hellier's prompt reply will not lack substance!

It is the campaign manager for Maureen Reed expressing the opinion, but the final quarter of 2009 cash flow was credible.

How it stacks up to others is a matter awaiting others to disclose. My understanding is that Jan 30, is the deadline for federal FEC filings for the final quarter of 2009.

We wait. We see. The Reed campaign, by email, noted:

I want to share with you our latest fund raising numbers for the last quarter of 2009. With your help and generosity Maureen raised over $200,000 in the last quarter – a significant increase from our last report! What’s even more important is that individuals made up 99% of our donors, and, we raised our money without any high profile political endorsements.

What’s the secret to our success? Our candidate.

People are responding well to Maureen’s real world approach to solving the problems facing the sixth district. Her energy, hard work and experience give people the confidence they need in these tough times – they need to know there is a candidate who will make their needs a priority. Maureen brings a fresh perspective to public service and will not take any voter for granted.

As we all saw in Massachusetts, the frontrunner who had high profile endorsements and a great deal of money in the bank thought her victory was inevitable. She stopped working hard after the primary and expected to win. And, sadly, she was out hustled by someone who no one thought had a chance.

Maureen will never, ever stop working to earn your support! She is getting support from Democrats, Independents, and even moderate Republicans – and will build on this coalition to beat Michele Bachmann.

With our esteemed Justices opining as they did, corporations, unions, all such can dump enough cash into the district to sink a cruise ship. More money in than little Tea Baggers can collect and throw overboard, bless them.

Bachmann's wheels will get greased, she's been the Wall Street darling of the House Financial Services Committee.

Corporations - Speak for Michele.

Bark, and roll over.

Don't mess with tens, twenties, fifties, roll in the Loomis trucks, unload for Bachmann.

CHANGE - Finally Obama proposes non-cosmetic "Change I can believe in." We can believe in Paul Volcker's defanging the bank-too-large-to-fail snake.

Financial services market reform will be an ongoing topic in national coverage and on Crabgrass. Much could be said, but for now I will use screenshot and email images for this post. First, edited from this link:



[as always click images to enlarge and read]

The House Financial Services Committee, chaired by Rep. Barney Frank, with Reps. Bachmann and Ellison being Minnesota members, has proposed legislation which Ellison supports, and Bachmann opposes; it being explained by Chairman Frank via committee emails as shown in the three thumbnails - click to enlarge and read.

My brother-in-law asked me, "Now, if I form a corporation, can it run for office?"

If the corporate "person" has all the rights of a natural real non-fictional human being, citizen, what answer would you give?

My thoughts are three, first, to run for certain offices there are age limits so if you formed the corporation today, you'd have to wait.

Second, if you wanted your corporation to run for President, be certain it is formed in the US of A. Make it "Born in the USA," as the Boss sang, and the Gip alluded if not quoted. The "birthers" have made the point an indelible issue of their minds, and mouths; so we should not slip up.

Third, and this is the tough one, if you formed your corporation in Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, could it run for President, since it's been jiggered that they can label their sweatshop clothing items "Made in USA."?

I understand the third point could be debated, since it's a "free trade" arrangement and not a true indicia of full citizenship; but when the Supreme Court of the nation published an opinion where a majority of the able and learned Justices said, "Money Talks," then how is a "free trade" arrangement of the kind under consideration less than citizenship - since it is talking money at its heart?

But then I suppose there are SCSU Scholars who could explain things to me, in simple as-used-on-Fox-News wording, and then I could understand. As with how the Minnesota Supreme Court should rule on unallotment in favor of Pawlenty, the Scholarship is behind that position, explaining why.

I guess I do have one further question in all this most recent judicial scholarship. If your message is "Money Talks" why take so many pages and words for the five Justices in the majority to say that? Are they paid by the word? Otherwise, it is as if they perhaps felt some motive to hide in rhetoric the gist of their thinking.

Finally, it makes good sense, for Mr. or Ms. Corporation, run directly and don't bother buying politicians where the risk always is they won't stay bought. The risk it's been a rental not a purchase.

________UPDATE________
My brother-in-law disputes things. Since a corporation can last "in perpetuity" and has no natural or predetermined limit on its age, time is irrelevant, and a newly formed entity need not wait over age limits applied to real people. Beyond that a French or German corporation, for example, could be naturalized or even reincorporated in the US and once so it would be unfettered - unlike Schwartzeneger.

I am not sure I agree.

________FURTHER UPDATE_______
My brother-in-law further asks, "Could we appoint a corporation to the Supreme Court, indeed, have we already?"

On reflection I could see advantages if we all were represented directly by corporations in both houses of congress. For example, since corporations are not constrained by time and place as are real persons, they would not need to adjoin hearings for a floor vote (or to go to the bathroom), and travel expenses for junketing would be nil since these are "creatures of statute" and not real individuals - meaning also, no worry about exploding underpants on an air flight, since they can be present at more than a single place and time, and can move and translocate in a non-material sense due to their Incorporeality.

Along those lines, could we have a corporation as Pope?

And do we already? (Incorporeality)

Final question, how might we foresee a Supreme Court made up of nine corporations ruling on the rights of natural persons to fund political campaigns and political speech?

_________SUGGESTED READING________
Norwegianity. Emptywheel. A couple of lawyers who think they know what they're talking about. Readers feeling they've trenchantly analytical links of quality to highlight, are invited to post them via the comments.

As citizens, are we not entitled to the best government money can buy? Seems so.

From Gary Gross' blog, info that the truly enlightened weigh in, here and here. We are blest. Unfortunately we must await learned analysis of this news, here, here, here and here. I am eager in anticipation. I expect there is waiting on this, on those fronts along with Newt Gingrich, to see in the next few days how cause and effect play out, that is, how the cash flow flows. Palin wants you to buy her book.

What jail do you put a corporation in, if it breaks criminal law? But - don't the rights, risks, and benefits balance?? There has to be some jail, somewhere ...

More reading, Joe Bodell, Minnesota Progressive Project: No noise about activist judges?

Joe, what really did you expect - fair and balanced thinking? Thinking vs. reflex?

More Joe, this link. Joe's on a roll. And you need not go as far as allowing corporations to vote, or hold office, the alternative being to allow sitting politicians to incorporate themselves, selling shares, and when a governmental issue arises to a voting stage, let each incorporated politician put it, outside of the halls of government, to a shareholder vote; the individual then going, in fairness, to the floor to vote the majority shareholder opinion. It would differ, somewhat, from how things are done now in DC. Possibilities are endless. With Full Faith and Credit, we in Minnesota could write our corporate law to give more political power to our incorporated entities - can you imaging the giant sucking sound in Delaware when all those firms would move their seat of incorporation to Minnesota? The filing fees alone with the Secretary of State could be adjusted so that Timmy P. could keep his "no taxes" pledge because the money would be flowing into here in wheelbarrows - at least until North Dakota or Utah undercut us. Never mind pigs flying, with this five-Justice majority, we could have unicorns, flying unicorns, spending as much as they like in our elections. Indeed, endless possibilities, when the Court majority says so. They could even write a hundred even two hundred page opinion, with dissent, that this guy is a Democrat.



________FURTHER UPDATE________
Wikipedia claims:

[Sen. Joe Lieberman's spouse, Hadassah Lieberman] has also worked for the lobbying company, APCO Associates, that had many pharmaceutical and healthcare corporations among its clients, as well as four major drug companies such as Pfizer. In March 2005, Hadassah was hired by Hill & Knowlton as "senior counselor" in the firm's "health care and pharmaceuticals practice." Hadassah's work with the pharmaceutical and healthcare industries has led to controversy pertaining to her involvement with the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation.

Remember that scene from Treasure of the Sierra Madre, "Badges? We don't need no stinking badges!"? The bandits said that and broke into shooting at Bogart and the other gold miners, aiming to steal the gold.

To discount the SCOTUS opinion's impact somewhat, can't you simply envision seeing the Lieberman pair, each with that same offensive smirk, saying,

"Corporations? We don't need no stinking corporations."

An email arrived seeking Feb. 2 precinct caucus straw poll support from progressives for Tom Bakk. It did not mention Polymet.

From the email, bullet-point highlights:

As chair of the powerful Senate Tax Committee, I passed a bill for a more progressive income tax system to fairly provide our state much needed revenue. As a legislator I have:

--- A 100 positive rating from NARAL and was supported in my last senate election by Planned Parenthood.
--- A 97 percent rating from AFL-CIO.
--- Co-authored the Minnesota Health Plan which guarantees health care to all Minnesotans.
--- Worked with the GLBT community to pass legislation extending benefits to partners of state employees.
--- Supported the creation of Lake Vermilion State Park, which recently took a step closer to becoming a reality.

As your governor, I will work tirelessly to create jobs and improve Minnesota's economy. I will get Minnesotans back to work with a significant investment in public works, which will jumpstart our construction economy and create long-term jobs; incentives to banks to loan again; and I will use my tax policy experience to create programs to aid small start-up businesses, help existing businesses with sales tax exemptions on capital equipment, and give communities assistance to attract and retain businesses.

There is this Bakk campaign website screenshot which you can click to enlarge and read:



Another Mesabi Daily News editorial featured here on the Bakk website states:

Everyone knows what is at the core of the state budget deficit. It’s about jobs and more jobs and more jobs.

And that means there needs to be a vocal uprising by the public and those representing them regardless of political persuasion on issues such as a bonding bill, or providing more tax incentives for small businesses or getting the bureaucracy moving on job-producing projects such as the copper/nickel/precious metals PolyMet venture near Hoyt Lakes.

We have a jobs crisis.

Despite the saying all politics are local, there is the air we all breathe, the water we all drink, and the condition of the planet we may alter in ways that will be passed on to future generations, well after jobs of today have run their course.



__________UPDATE__________
A fresh Bakk email arrived, he will be in Anoka, Jan. 28, per this text:

An experienced leader who will build a stronger Minnesota

Please come and meet Sen. Tom Bakk,
chair of the Senate Tax Committee and a candidate for governor,
and discuss how we can build a stronger Minnesota.

Thursday, Jan. 28
11 a.m.
Avant Garden
215 E. Main St., Anoka

Refreshments will be served.

For more information, contact peter@bakk2010.com or 651-379-0272.

www.bakk2010.com

This will be his big chance to explain to caucus goers and press in attendance, what aside from jobs, he has to say about the safeguards, guarantees, and ongoing escrow arangements he would demand before any Polymet copper and other sulfide mineral mining is started - so as to assure there is sufficient cash at the end of things that there is remediation of the scars on the landscape and a full cleaning up of all the waste and pollution that shall occur in the course of a few Iron Range jobs being created for a time.

It is news we await, the detail of how initial and ongoing contributions to an escrow might be guaranteed to more than cover the end costs as inflation eats into the value of an escrowed balance, and scale of the mining might grow.

Short of that, others seek the office. Others have shown environmental awareness.

I will email peter@bakk2010.com at the address in the invitation email, sending this link and a "the ball's in your court" message.

I hope a large contingent of the press attends so that on the eve of the DFL caucusing the gaps and uncertainties about a stance on a key Minnesota environmental concern can be clarified, recorded, and reported.