Since President Teddy Roosevelt first proposed the idea of public financing of elections in 1907, the talk of campaigns has been that we need to find “some way” to reform the influence of big money and special interests. After each election, however, that “some way” became “some day.” It took almost 70 years before the Federal Election Commission was created and the earliest forms of voluntary public financing of presidential elections was born. Nothing has yet been done for Congressional elections.

In the 2006 election cycle, the average winning Congressional candidate spent $1.6 million. For Senators, a staggering $9.6 million. The average Senator spends 30% of his or her time tending to fund raising chores, not to mention accommodating those few who have been financially generous. Senator Chambliss said recently that he may have to raise $15 million.

Early attempts at voluntarily limiting contributions were mixed at best. In addition to some successful local races, John Raugh, founder of public financing advocacy group Just $6 ran a close, but unsuccessful, race for the Senate with a self-imposed $100 contribution limit. I am doing the same in this election to the scoffs of “ridiculous” and “crazy scheme.” Dale Cardwell is limiting contributions to only individuals with similar reaction.

That may be changing. Recently, Barack Obama, a co-sponsor of the Fair Elections Now Act, floated the idea that he may limit the amount of further contributions to his presidential campaign to something less than the current FEC maximum of $2,300 per person for the general election. That decision has not been made but, should he go forward with limiting donations, the idea will signal a coming sea change in campaign finance. Money quote:



Indeed it is.

Photo credit: Getty Images

Often secondary in discussions of the Iraq war is a the highly dangerous risk position in which the Administration and its supporters have cornered our national security, particularly the readiness of our military. It has been stretched dangerously thin by the intensity of its missions in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the repeated and extended rotations placed on our troops.

A recent survey of 3,400 military officers finds high morale but deep concern that it would be unreasonable to ask our military to fight another major war today. Asked to rate the health of our military today on a scale of 1 (no concern) to 10 (grave concern), the officers rated the combined forces at a worrisome 6.6, with the Army (7.9) and Marines (7.0) at alarming levels of risk.

Amongst many money quotes:

These officers see a military apparatus severely strained by the grinding demands of war. Sixty percent say the U.S. military is weaker today than it was five years ago. Asked why, more than half cite the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the pace of troop deployments those conflicts require. More than half the officers say the military is weaker than it was either 10 or 15 years ago. But asked whether “the demands of the war in Iraq have broken the U.S. military,” 56 percent of the officers say they disagree. That is not to say, however, that they are without concern. Nearly 90 percent say that they believe the demands of the war in Iraq have “stretched the U.S. military dangerously thin.”

Twice in 2007, the Senate had the opportunity to ease this dangerous weakening of our military readiness. Twice it was presented with an amendment by Senator Jim Webb (D-VA) to bring our troop deployments back into minimum rotations. Twice that amendment was fought by the Bush Administration as an impediment to the “surge.” Twice there were a majority of votes in the Senate to pass the Webb Amendment. Twice a filibuster, requiring 60 votes to cloture, was used by Republicans to block a vote. Twice Senator Chambliss voted the Bush position and against allowing a vote on the amendment. Twice the Senate was denied the opportunity to vote on the amendment to protect our troops and our military readiness.

By early 2008, in concert with the latest report on the “surge,” and expressing the concern of military leaders for the readiness of our troops, the Bush Adminstration announced that it was working toward reducing the rotation cycles of troops deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

There has been, and will likely continue to be, a great deal of talk about the “military tradition in Georgia.” Any such conversation must include the greatest military tradition of all: “We take care of our own.”

Senator Chambliss must answer for this.

A group quite angry with former President Jimmy Carter's visit to the Middle East is apparently recruiting members and then using the members' personal information in an email campaign to office holders and candidates. I've received at least 100 identical emails that blast Carter and include the name, address and home phone number of the purported senders. Those called, however, didn't know about any email or why they would be called. And the season has begun.

Just as Republicans are gearing up for another round of fear for the fall campaign, their propensity for shock words – jihadist, Islamofacist, Islamic terrorist, holy warriors – is found damaging to security efforts by the State Department and Homeland Security.