There’s a simple solution to all of this.  When politicians want to use their influence to raise money for charity, the money should go directly to the charity.  They get the credit, the charity gets their money, everyone’s happy.  But that’s not what’s happening, and too many questions are being raised about just what the politicians are doing with the money.

The chairman of California’s political watchdog agency says the growing practice of politicians soliciting millions for pet causes apparently is being abused for self-serving gain and needs to be reined in.

“If I could, with the stroke of a pen, I’d do away with it,” said Ross Johnson, chairman of the Fair Political Practices Commission.

“It’s a huge end run around the contribution limits that the people of California voted for” in Proposition 34 seven years ago, he said.

Payments “at the behest of” should clearly be abolished.  There’s absolutely no reason for them.  If you want to look like a good politician by raising money for charity, let the charity have it directly.  Otherwise, you get stuff like this.

More than $5 million has been donated at politicians’ request both this year and last – far more than any year since disclosure began nearly a decade ago.

The money is meant for public benefit and cannot be used for campaigning, but some has been spent in ways that enhance a politician’s image, such as for billboards or television ads.

Days before a fiercely contested Democratic primary last year, for example, John Garamendi solicited $300,000 in public-benefit funds for a TV advertisement in which he touted his performance as insurance commissioner without specifically asking voters to support him in his bid for lieutenant governor, a post he ultimately won.

Just cut it out.  It’s nonsense.

Today’s Los Angeles Times has an article about the dirty trickster’s attempts.

As you may recall, Debra Bowen suggested a deadline of November 29th to get the signatures in. Well, that was Thursday.

According to the article, the campaign manager Dave Gilliard says that they’ll be out all weekend attempting to get people to sign the ballot. And would expect to turn in the signatures by the middle of next week. Gilliard also said that they haven’t raised the $2 million to pay the petition circulators. But he’s sure the money will come along.

I especially enjoyed this bit of the article:

The Electoral College initiative has had a troubled past. Its original campaign team, including its author, Sacramento attorney Thomas Hiltachk, abandoned the measure in October.

Hiltachk and his team had been unable to raise sufficient money. Hiltachk also became angry when the one donation he received — $175,000 from Wall Street mogul Paul E. Singer — took a circuitous route through a Missouri attorney and a hitherto unknown corporation. That route hid, at least for a time, the true source of the contribution.

And they say that if they can’t get it on the ballot for June, well, they’ll just keep trying for the November ballot.

Well, Dennis Kucinich continues to speak for America rather than gross party politics. Speaking in New Hampshire, Wednesday, Kucinich stated:

the vow from his party’s leadership in Congress to stand up to President Bush on ending the war in Iraq amounts to a “total fraud.”

The Ohio congressman said the most recent House-passed plan to set a timetable for ending the war still would permit permanent bases in Iraq and allow Americans soldiers to train Iraqi military and police and to fight off insurgents.

It really does seem to me that only Kucinich understands, or at least is willing to admit, that this country is in serious danger right now. Kucinich, seems alone among the candidates who believes that this election is much less about reclaiming the White House for the Democratic Party, than it is about reclaiming the United States for all of its citizens.

Yet, there is such a disconnect within our political system that the Democratic Leadership will not act upon the wishes of a majority of Americans regarding the war/occupation or even in protecting the essence of our Democracy through accountability and beginning impeachment investigations. As kucinich duly noted:

“I think the outrage is building among the voting public, but to the political system, it’s business as usual.”

State Rep. Betty Hall, D-Brookline, who attended, decided to endorse Kucinich after he forced consideration of V.P. Cheney’s Impeachment a few weeks ago. Hall tried to bring in a non-binding resolution to the New Hampshire House supporting an impeachment proceeding against Bush and Cheney, which House leaders from both parties opposed, not allowing an up or down vote.

“It isn’t popular to speak up; I know. When I spoke in the Legislature, some people were angry, but we must talk about it. We must learn about it,” Hall said.

Hall also showed Kucinich an article in the New Hampshire State Constitution, which reads inpart:

“The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power and repression is absurd, slavish and destructive of the good of all mankind.”

Kucinich, who is now promising to bring more detailed articles of Impeachment against President George W. Bush, said:

“I’m going to quote that language from the New Hampshire Constitution all over the country. Clearly New Hampshire is the place to bring this message.

Seems fitting for New Hampshire: “Live free or die”…

Kucinich will be a leading speaker Monday night at Dartmouth College for an “Impeachment Teach-In” sponsored by state and national liberal-leaning organizations.