Russell Mokhiber has this commentary in the July 3 Counterpunch, criticizing the Congressional Black Caucus for its failure to make any statement at all about Cynthia McKinney’s incarceration in Israel (scroll down a little bit to find it). As the commentary mentions, McKinney is a former member of the Caucus. Thanks to Roland Sheppard for the link.
The July 4 New York Times has this editorial, titled “Let Them Run.” It criticizes President Obama and other leading Democrats who are trying to persuade various New York Democrats not to mount a primary challenge in 2010 to appointed incumbent Senator Kirsten Gillibrand. The editorial says, “An election should offer choices.”
The editorial is a refreshing change from a New York Times editorial of June 30, 2000, which said that Ralph Nader and Pat Buchanan should not run for president, so as to make it possible for the two major party candidates to “compete on an uncluttered playing field.”
The July 4 New York Times has this editorial, titled “Let Them Run.” It criticizes President Obama and other leading Democrats who are trying to persuade various New York Democrats not to mount a primary challenge in 2010 to appointed incumbent Senator Kirsten Gillibrand. The editorial says, “An election should offer choices.”
The editorial is a refreshing change from a New York Times editorial of June 30, 2000, which said that Ralph Nader and Pat Buchanan should not run for president, so as to make it possible for the two major party candidates to “compete on an uncluttered playing field.”
California will hold a special election to fill the vacant U.S. House seat, 10th district, on November 3, 2009. The seat is vacant because Ellen Tauscher resigned to join the Obama administration. The seat is in the eastern part of the San Francisco Bay Area.
Minor party or independents who have already announced a run in that election are independent Gino Van Gundy, Peace & Freedom Party member Mary McIlroy, and Green Party member Jeremy Cloward. UPDATE: also Jerry Denham of the American Independent Party.
When the Arizona legislature adjourned on July 1, it had failed to pass two bills concerning the state’s public funding program for candidates for state office. A post here on July 1 noted that the bill to ask the voters if they want to repeal the program had failed. However, the July 1 post failed to note that another bill, to fix the system, had also failed to pass.
SB 1087 would have repaired the constitutional flaws in the “Clean Elections” law. Although it had passed the Senate Judiciary Committee on June 19, it never made any further headway. A federal lawsuit, McComish v Brewer, filed last year, charges that the additional public funding given to participating candidates whose non-participating opponents have raised a great deal of campaign contributions, is unconstitutional. That lawsuit is expected to prevail.
SB 1087 would have deleted the extra contributions given to participating candidates whose non-participating opponents raise a great deal of money (or, who are the beneficiaries of a great deal of independent expenditures). If SB 1087 had passed, the lawsuit would have been moot, but now it will continue. See this article.
