from Barbara Boxer:

[elleng]

You have to see this: According to respected political scientist Larry Sabato, 13 of the 15 "most imperiled" Senate seats in 2014 are being defended by Democrats.

If we lose just six seats, Republicans will take over the Senate -- and we cannot let that happen.

National Republicans are already coming at us with everything they've got. Republican-affiliated super PACs are being created left and right. Karl Rove just announced he's already raised $328 million for 2014. And in Kentucky, he is even running attack ads against someone who -- get this -- isn't even a candidate.

So, today, we're launching the PAC for a Change 2014 Fund with the goal to raise $100,000 in one week -- to jump start our efforts to protect the Democratic Senate majority.

Will you contribute $10 to help us reach our $100,000 goal -- so we can start defending our Democratic majority right away?

Every day, Democratic candidates are asking PAC for a Change for our help, because they know that -- together -- we deliver. Thanks to you, we made history in 2012. No one thought we would keep our Democratic majority, but we expanded it. In the face of a relentless Republican War on Women, we responded by electing more women to the Senate than ever before.

I know it's tempting to celebrate our victories and rest on our laurels, but we can't afford to do that -- not even for a minute.

The stakes are just too high:

Last week, Senate Republicans filibustered the nomination of their former colleague Chuck Hagel, President Obama's choice to head the Defense Department, and a GOP war hero no less. It's the first time in history a secretary of defense nominee has been filibustered. Outrageous.
Republicans are ready, once again, to lead our economy off the cliff by refusing to avert the so-called “sequester,” which would cost us more than 1 million jobs.
Congressional Republicans continue to block the Violence Against Women Act -- putting countless women and families in danger.
That's the Republicans' extreme agenda. Can you imagine what would happen if they had the power to enact it?

We can't allow that to happen, and that's why we must act now.

Will you contribute $10 to help us reach our $100,000 goal before next Saturday -- and get our PAC for a Change 2014 Fund off to a strong start?

Time and again, we've defied the odds, proved the pundits wrong, and secured victories that moved our country forward. It's time to do it again.

In friendship,

Barbara Boxer
U.S. Senator

https://secure.barbaraboxer.com/?utm_source=sp5191805&utm_medium=e&sc=sp5191805&refcode=sp5191805

[Angry Dragon]

1. MONEY..MONEY..MONEY ....... FOLLOW THE MONEY

Congress works about 100 days per year and the rest of the time they ask for money
It is way past the time to take money out of elections

[elleng]

2. Right. Tell that to the Supremes.

Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States upheld a federal law which set limits on campaign contributions. The court also ruled candidates can give unlimited amounts of money to their own campaigns.

In a lengthy per curiam decision issued on January 30, 1976, the Court sustained the Act's limits on individual contributions, as well as the disclosure and reporting provisions and the public financing scheme. However, the limitations on campaign expenditures, on independent expenditures by individuals and groups, and on expenditures by a candidate from personal funds were struck down.

Importantly, the case held that restrictions on campaign contributions and spending, a form of political speech and association, could not be justified by the desire to equalize candidates, writing, “the concept that government may restrict the speech of some [in] order to enhance the relative voice of others is wholly foreign to the First Amendment.” However, the Court did find that the government's compelling interest in preventing "corruption or its appearance" could justify restrictions that went beyond bribery. The Court ruled that because contributions involved the danger of "quid pro quo" exchanges, in which the candidate would agree, if elected, to take or not to take certain actions in exchange for the contribution, limitations on contributions could generally be justified. However, the Court struck down limitations on spending by candidates and spending by others undertaken independently of candidates, on the grounds that spending money did not, by definition, involve such candidate/donor exchanges.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckley_v._Valeo