US President election 2012: Four Indian Americans among top fund raisers for Barack Obama

ASHINGTON: Four Indian Americans have emerged among the key fund raisers for Barack Obama, raising almost a mn dollars among themselves for the US President's re-election campaign.

According to OpenSecrets.Org, a sum of $ 35 mn of the total $ 86 mn raised by the Obama's campaign so far, has come from 244 individuals.
Among them, the four top Indian American 'bundlers' - Azita Raji, Shefali Razdan Duggal, Deven Parekh andKavita Tankha - alone have raised about a mn among themselves.
In American political lexicon, 'bundlers' refers to the the individuals who help raise money through their friends after they exhaust their limit of personal contribution.
As per latest available figures, California-based investor Azita Raji has helped contribute at least half a mn for Obama's re-election campaign.
She is a member of the Democratic National Committee and the National Advisory Board.
Raji is followed by New York's Deven Parekh of the Insight Venture Partners, who helped raised between $ 200,000 and $ 500,000.
Parekh serves on the Advisory Board of US Export-Import Bank and the Technical Advisory Board of the Federal Communications Commission. He is a Henry Crown Fellow of The Aspen Institute.
Shefali Razdan Duggal and Kavita Tankha - both from California - have each raised between $ 50,000 to $ 100,000, latest campaign fund statistics reveal.
Shefali Razdan Duggal is a member of President Barack Obama's Presidential Partners, the National Finance Committee (NFC) for President Barack Obama's 2012 re-election campaign and the Northern California Finance Committee for the President's 2012 re-election campaign.
She is also a member of the Democratic National Committee Asian American Leadership Council, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) Chairman's Council and the Majority Council of Emily's List, an organisation dedicated to electing Democratic women to all levels of government.
Born in India, she has lived in Cincinnati, Chicago, New York and Boston.
Tankha is an eminent attorney from Los Altos Hills, California.

Source: http://goo.gl/hsuY3

Read More

Scott Keller for President 2012 Anti-War, Pro-Humanity Campaign Announces New Developments

First, the official website, http://www.keller2012.com, for Scott Keller has been launched, with an accompanying Forum, and the YouTube Channel of SKeller4USPresident is quickly loading with new videos by Scott Keller on the issues, plus responses to the recent Iowan Republican Debates.

The campaign has swung into high gear since the launch of the official website,the accompanying forum, and the Youtube channel. These three new internet sites have allowed the campaign to rapidly expand its outreach to other groups, individuals, and associations, allowing for the campaign to reach its goal of National recognition.

The website contains the newly introduced “Red, White & Blue Papers, a series of position papers by Scott Keller on current issues such as the economy,energy, abortion, education, plus more, so come learn about Scott Keller’s unique leadership approach of how he faces challenges, works through these challenges, comes up with creative solutions, and then finds a way to get the people on board with them so that together we can implement these new solutions to very old American problems. This new approach to governing as President also gives the voter an inside look at what a Scott Keller Presidency would look like and how it would function, by participating in the Forum, within a “controlled wiki” where ordinary voters can weigh in and help shape the Scott Keller Presidency.

Also, Scott Keller’s Facebook Page is closing in on over 20,000 “likes”. It is full of questions directed to Mr. Keller, which have received his personal response. You will not find a more accessible candidate than Scott Keller! Please also follow him via Twitter and on internet radio via Blog Talk Radio. All links are available at http://www.keller2012.com.

Scott Keller’s leadership style with a strong emphasis on the people and the mission rather than himself is what is sustaining the campaign’s growth despite a shoestring budget. It is a very collaborative, persistent, and encouraging approach as he knows no one person has all of the answers or can solve all of the problems alone and that solutions do exist amongst the people for every problem.

“We CAN do something about it,” says scott keller, “together!”. “There are many who try to convince the people that they are powerless, but the truth is that the people are VERY powerful.”

“People think the problems of inflation, unemployment, rising national debt, negative trade imbalance, unemployment, poverty, foreclosures, loss of freedom, and runaway oil and gas prices are all beyond them and they cannot do anything about it.” said Scott. “That’s not true. People CAN do something about it and enjoy the process. Peoples’ ability to change the tide is much greater than anyone would ever have them believe.”

Scott insists that people, not money nor greed, is the biggest influencing factor that can change the tide for America. There has been too much greed and self serving and not enough ‘pull together’. Fighting for one’s country is not about sending troops overseas to die. It is about fighting here and now to get this country back on its feet and then up and flying towards a much brighter future.

Scott continues, “There is no time to waste waiting for another election when the problems grow worse by the day. The time to act is now! We can solve the problems now. A grassroots movement of people from all walks of life CAN make a difference very quickly and long before the election.

“People often ask, ‘What can I do? These problems seem so large and I am just one.” The answer is simple. Just get involved to do that which you CAN do rather than letting what you cannot do get in the way. Together, individuals make a huge impact.”

Helen Keller once said, “I am only one but still I am one. I cannot do everything, but still I can do something. I will not refuse to do the something I can do.” Scott Keller believes in this statement, and walks this talk.

Scott maintains, if each person were to realize that they are a very powerful and capable individual, far more so than what they are led to believe through the various forms of media by the politicians and manipulators of the day, then they could accomplish things individually and collectively that would boggle the mind. All of the issues listed above could be resolved so that we can finally move on to bigger, positive and better challenges.

He goes on, “Most of our problems have very basic roots, but the politicians and pundits of the day have us so lost in details that they seem impossible to solve. Even the enormous national debt can be solved in a year’s time once we focus on the simple root of its cause.”

“We are not slaves; the system is not our master though it seems sometimes to be. We are a free nation under one flag. Let’s be proud of our nation. Let’s stop the insanity and do what we’re capable of, now.”

A little girl and her father were walking along the beach on day. There on the sand were hundreds of stranded dying crabs who could not get back to the water. The little girl picked up one and threw it into the water. “Why bother, said her father, it makes no difference to the crabs, there are hundreds of them here.” The little girl replied, “It makes a difference to that one.” This is what a Scott Keller Presidency is all about – you, one person, together with others, making the difference and affecting the nation as a whole.

Source: http://www.newsjunkyjournal.com/tag/scott-keller-for-president-2012/

Read More

Big Banks Shift Campaign Cash Away from Obama in 2012

WASHINGTON — In 2008, Barack Obama was the toast of Wall Street. The nation's biggest banks were among the most lavish contributors to the Democratic upstart's presidential campaign.

But so far in the 2012 race, the six largest U.S. banks have switched sides in a dramatic way, and are giving far more money to GOP hopeful Mitt Romney than they are to the sitting president, according to the most recent campaign-finance reports.

While the fund-raising numbers are not necessarily cause for concern at the White House — Obama has raised more than two and half times as much cash as Romney overall — they offer a vivid illustration of how the president's first 30 months in office have fractured what was once a warm relationship with the largest American banks.

"You could sum it all up in a hyphenated word: Dodd-Frank," said Larry Sabato, director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia, referring to last year's financial reform law. "It's no accident that Romney has now called for total repeal. Bankers generally feel pretty put upon by the Obama administration."

Prior to the 2008 election, Goldman Sachs and its employees gave more than four times as much money to Obama as they gave to Republican John McCain. In 2011, the ratio at Goldman has sharply reversed: more than six dollars to Romney for every one dollar to Obama, according to data obtained from the Center for Responsive Politics. The Washington-based nonprofit organization's data includes contributions from the banks' political action committees and bank employees.

There is plenty of time for that trend to reverse, but so far, similar stories are playing out elsewhere on Wall Street. At Morgan Stanley, which four years ago favored Obama to McCain by nearly a two-to-one margin, Obama now trails Romney by more than five to one. Through June 30, Obama raised less cash from Morgan Stanley and its employees than Tim Pawlenty, who has since dropped out of the race for the Republican nomination.

At the largest commercial banks, the swing is not quite as extreme. But Romney leads Obama in fund-raising at JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Citigroup, and Wells Fargo, whereas in 2008 Obama raised nearly four times as much cash from those four institutions than McCain did.

Representatives of the six banks either declined to comment on the partisan shift in contributions or did not respond to interview requests. Obama's reelection campaign also did not respond to a request for comment.

Scott Talbott, senior vice president for government affairs at the Financial Services Roundtable, a lobbying organization whose members include four of the six largest banks, said that one reason for the partisan shift in contributions involves what he characterized as "pretty heated" rhetoric toward banks from members of the Obama administration.

When Obama appeared on "60 Minutes" in December 2009, he said: "I did not run for office to be helping out a bunch of fat cat bankers on Wall Street."

Though he struck a more conciliatory tone during a meeting with bankers the day after the interview aired, the soundbite stuck.

"That characterization captured it," Talbott said. "But it wasn't just the president. It was the administration broadly."

In explaining the shift in contributions, Talbott also pointed to what he described as an "anti-business" environment.

"The overall regulatory environment, and not just Dodd-Frank, but the overall regulatory environment, has made it very hard for us to conduct business," Talbott said.

Many bankers are still particularly angry about Dodd-Frank, which they view as regulatory overkill. The candidates' views on the regulatory reform law may help explain banks' campaign donation patterns. While Obama has touted Dodd-Frank as a key achievement of his first term, Romney has been critical of the law.

Last week, he upped the ante by suggesting it was time to repeal it.

"I'd like to repeal Dodd-Frank, recognizing that some revisions make sense," Romney said at a campaign stop in New Hampshire, according to the Boston Globe. "The extent of regulation in the banking industry has become extraordinarily burdensome following Dodd-Frank."

But Dean Baker, an economist who is co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, said Obama is getting a bad rap from bankers.

"I think Obama's really bent over backwards to be friendly to the business community," he said.

Baker argued that the banks' 2008 spending patterns reflected the fact that Obama seemed like a more competent manager of the economy than McCain. He also said that Wall Street may have been hedging its bets by giving to a Democrat at a time of great economic uncertainty.

"They probably felt that was a sound investment, and it may well have been," Baker said.

The shift in giving by the six largest banks is in line with a broader industry-wide trend. In the 2008 campaign, securities and investment firms, commercial banks and other miscellaneous finance firms gave about $1.50 to Obama for every dollar they gave to McCain, according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics.

So far in the 2012 campaign, those same firms are giving about $2.50 to Romney for every dollar they give to Obama.

The trend in favor of the GOP also extends to congressional races.

In 2008, 79% of all of Goldman Sachs' federal campaign contributions went to Democrats. That figure dropped to 34% in 2010 and to 33% so far in 2012. Similar, though less precipitous, drops occurred at Morgan Stanley, JPMorgan Chase, and Bank of America.

Citigroup is an exception. In 2008, 63% of its contributions went to Democrats. That figure fell to 35% in 2010, but it has risen back to 62% so far in the 2012 election cycle.

Source: http://www.bankinvestmentconsultant.com/news/banks-campaign-contributions-election-2674882-1.html

Read More

U.S. vote in 2012 will be record, $6 billion election

(Reuters) - Forget the struggling economy. There's one U.S. industry -- Big Politics -- that is looking ahead to a record year in 2012.

The U.S. elections will be the most expensive ever, with a total price tag of $6 billion or even more, fueled by millions of dollars in unrestricted donations as Republicans and Democrats vie for control of the White House, Congress and state governments.

"It's safe to say that, given that we had a $5 billion cycle in 2008, it will certainly be more than that and very likely over $6 billion, which is just an astonishing growth rate," said Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks campaign spending.

The cost of the election is surprising given that only the Republican Party is holding presidential primaries, unlike in 2008 when both parties had expensive contests to find a candidate.

One reason it will be so costly this time around is the fundraising power of leading candidates, even with a sputtering economy and high unemployment. President Barack Obama is expected to at least match the record $760 million he raised to win the White House in 2008 and even hit $1 billion.

Obama's Republican challenger will need a similar war chest to compete. Two of the Republican frontrunners, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and Texas Governor Rick Perry, are fundraising heavyweights.

A third Republican, Michele Bachmann, also can bring in the cash and was the House of Representatives' best fundraiser in 2010.

Fundraising in congressional and local races is also mounting with 14 months to go before the November 6 elections. The money to be hauled in and spent in the overall 2012 campaign is equivalent to the GDP of a small country like Nicaragua.

The 2012 candidates for the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives reported raising $295.2 million in the first six months of 2011, the highest total ever reported for the first half of a non-election year.

Candidates will use the money to pay for staff and travel, but if previous campaigns are any measure they will spend about half on advertising. That is a bonanza for television and radio networks, especially in the hardest fought states and areas with competitive Senate and House races.

Analysts forecast perhaps billions of dollars in advertising spending, boosting revenues at a range of U.S. media companies. TV networks like CBS, Fox News, ABC, NBC and CNN will be the biggest benefactors.

NO PARTY WINS IN CASH RACE

But while presidential and congressional candidates cannot run a race without a big checkbook, neither party is seen as gaining a major advantage from the current spending splurge.

More money does not always mean victory, said Michael Malbin, executive director of the Campaign Finance Institute.

"You can point to election after election where a person spent more and spent more, and the more the voters heard of that person, the more that person went down in the polls," Malbin said. "If the person is selling horse meat the people won't eat it."

The cost of U.S. elections has risen steadily but this will be the first presidential race since the landmark "Citizens United" 2010 Supreme Court ruling, which ended most restrictions on donations by corporations and unions.

It also fostered the creation of Super PACs, fundraising committees that can spend money to support a candidate but cannot officially coordinate with campaigns.

The Super PACs worry ethics watchdogs, who say the increased leverage of big donors is limiting the influence of average voters on politics.

In particular, the need to get big donations early in campaigns is keeping candidates with fewer donors from even running for office, particularly in congressional races. And the reign of big money in politics inevitably will give too much clout to big donors, activists say.

"Those who fund the candidates are the ones who get listened to," said Meredith McGehee, policy director at the Campaign Legal Center, which works on campaign finance and government ethics. "And a Super PAC and others that can deliver millions of dollars, any supposed notion that they are not going to have a leg up is wrong. It's not just a leg up, it's going to be that the system runs for them."

All of the leading Republican candidates have Super PACs.

A half dozen are backing Perry, who has rocketed to the top of polls in the Republican nomination race.

A Super PAC associated with Romney received $1 million from W Spann, a corporation that existed for four months and apparently engaged in no activity other than the donation. Edward Conard, a former executive of Romney's old company, Bain Capital, came forward early this month and said he was behind W Spann, but said he did not intend to circumvent campaign finance law by creating the company.

(Editing by Alistair Bell and Bill Trott)

Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/30/us-usa-campaign-spending-idUSTRE77T3ZX20110830

Read More

Powell Less Sure About Obama 2012

The former defense secretary also says Martin Luther King Jr. would be "disappointed" in the state of American politics.  

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell made headlines in 2008 when he crossed party lines to publiclyendorse Barack Obama’s presidential bid. Back then, he described Obama as a “transformational figure,” but now, he says, he’s unsure whom he’ll support in 2012.

“I haven’t decided who I’m going to vote for,” Powell said Sunday on CBS’ “Face the Nation.” “Just as was the case in 2008, I am going to watch the campaign unfold. In the course of my life I have voted for Democrats, I have voted for Republicans, I have changed from one four-year cycle to another. I’ve always felt it my responsibility as a citizen to take a look at the issues, examine the candidates, and pick the person that I think is best qualified for the office of the president in that year. And not just solely on the basis of party affiliation,” he said.

And, like many Republicans, he appears to be underwhelmed by his party’s current presidential contenders. There are some “interesting candidates” in the field, he said, but “let’s see if anybody else is going to join, and we’ve got a long way to go.”

Powell, who served under President George H. W. Bush as the nation’s first African-American secretary of state, also discussed what Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. means to him. He had been stationed in Vietnam when King delivered his famous “I Have a Dream" Speech, and was preparing to return there when the civil rights leader was killed, and his wife and children were living in Birmingham, Alabama during that racially charged period.

“And what Dr. King meant to me was that this second revolution, this second civil war was underway. It was time now to meet the dream set out for us by our founding fathers,” said the general, who helped raise more than $1 million for the King memorial. “And what Dr. King did was not just free African-Americans. He freed all of America. He caused us — through his sacrifice and his service, he caused America — to look at a mirror of itself; look in that mirror and what do you see? Is this who we want to be? Is this the inspiration we want to be to the rest of the world? And the answer was no.”

Powell also said that if King were alive today he would be disappointed by how Washington politics have become so bitterly partisan and uncivil that it’s nearly impossible for lawmakers to reach compromise, and that he’d be “raging” over the social inequities in American society, particularly in the area of education. He’d also hold African-American children accountable for ensuring that they take advantage of the educational opportunities that are available to them.

“He'd also be chewing them out a bit, saying, you know, you've got work harder to get your education. We have to bring back intact families so we can raise children in loving, intact families. And he would also be on the world stage talking about poverty and inequality throughout the world,” Powell said. “He was a man who transcended the African-American experience. He became an American icon, and he became an icon to the rest of the world.”

Source: http://www.bet.com/news/politics/2011/08/29/powell-less-sure-about-obama-2012.html

Read More

Obama Wins Reelection In 2012. Seriously.

We at Ology know you Democrats don’t have a ton to crow about these days. We know, besides special House elections, there is only bad news for liberals and progressives. Obama is becoming less and less popular despite everything he tries, the economy is stagnant and natural disasters are testing our economic weakness to the breaking point. Well, we dug up some good news for you Democrats and here it is: Obama wins reelection in 2012… No, seriously.

Obama has some troubles, but none he cannot overcome.

Dems are Mad, but Not Mad Enough to Ditch Obama

POLITICO is silly, nakedly biased

Gingrich, Surviving Savage Attacks that Exist Only in his Mind

Political Professor and never wrong political prognosticator, Allan Licthman, says Obama has this 2012 thing locked.

Lichtman’s book, “The Keys to the White House,” which is a quick read and I recommend it to all of you interested in the history of presidential elections and electoral politics, identifies 13 keys to the presidency with “yes” or “no” questions. If six of these questions go against the incumbent, the incumbent loses. If it is less than six, the incumbent wins. End of story.

Lichtman has correctly predicted who would win and who would lose in every presidential election since 1984. He nailed George H. W. Bush’s 1992 loss to Bill Clinton at the height of Bush’s popularity in early 1991 following the defeat of Saddam Hussein’s Iraqi Army and the withdrawal of their forces from occupied Kuwait.

Lichtman says, even at this early date, that he does not believe Obama has a credible chance of losing his reelection bid in 2012. “Even if I am being conservative, I don’t see how Obama can lose,” Lichtman told U.S. News.

Here are those keys and how Obama stacks up:

1. Party Mandate: After the midterm election, the incumbent party holds more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives than they did after the previous midterm elections. – Yeah, this one is a loss for the president. But, it’s early. Let’s keep going.

2. Contest: There is no contest for the incumbent party nomination. – Nope. There is definitely grumbling in the Democratic set but it's objectively hard to conceive of a major challenge to Obama for the Democratic nomination. The president wins.

3. Incumbency: The incumbent party candidate is the president. – Yep. Another win.

4. Third Party: There is no significant third party challenge. – Well… yet to be seen. “significant” is probably the saving grace here. There has been a third and even fourth party candidate with some national stature in every election since 1992, so it’s a safe bet that there will be a third party candidate of some kind. How major a challenge that third party is to either party is debatable. But, Lichtman give this one to Obama so I will too. Win.

5. Short Term Economy: The economy is not in recession during the campaign. – Lichtman gives this an “undecided” ranking, meaning that it is uncounted. Given the trends we are seeing it is hard to think that this is a growing economy. I know, officially the recession ended in 2009 and 2010 was the start of the recovery, but all that is Orwellian “new speak” compared to the reality on the ground. I’m inclined to give Obama a losing score on this point, but we’ll count our tallies later.

6. Long-Term Economy: Real per capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth during the previous two terms. – Yeah, inherited or no, this economy blows and Obama will take it on the chin for it. Obama loses this one objectively.

7. Policy Change: The incumbent administration effects major changes in national policy. – Without question. Some of the most sweeping policy changes we’ve seen in a decade or more. Obama wins. (The popularity of those sweeping changes is not taken into account).

8. Social Unrest: There is no sustained social unrest. – Obama wins this too. The Tea Party may have counted but its intensity has dissipated after the 2010 elections. Also, the Tea Party label is becoming less and less popular, signifying that this movement will not be “sustained” into 2012.

9. Scandal: The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal. – Lichtman gives this one to Obama. Although his assessment that “this administration has been squeaky clean,” is overly complimentary. I have not seen a “squeaky clean” administration in my lifetime and this is no exception. We’ll see how Cash for Firearms plays out… As that matures, however, it’s a win.

10. Foreign / Military Failure: The incumbent administration suffers no major failure in foreign or military affairs. – Nothing significant. Big win for Obama.

11. Foreign / Military Success: The incumbent administration achieves a major success in foreign or military affairs. – Oh yeah. Bin Laden, Libya… Obama win.

12. Incumbent Charisma: The incumbent party candidate is charismatic or a national hero. – Lichtman does not give this one to Obama. He cites the doctrine of “leading from behind,” in foreign affairs and in domestic policy debates as the problem. This one, despite expectations to the contrary in 2008, is a loss for Obama.

13. Challenger Charisma: The challenging party candidate is not charismatic or a national hero. – This is a win for Obama. Unless Gen. David Patraeus jumps in, the GOP race is devoid of national heroes.

So how did this shape up? Well, Professor Lichtman’s score is: 8 wins for Obama, 4 losses and 1 abstention (undecided). That’s well short of the 6 keys needed for him to lose. So, Obama wins.

My assessment? … Well, Obama wins. Although, I came off the fence on the short – term economy question, but that only gets me to 8 wins for Obama and 5 loses. It’s a long way to 2012, but for the never-wrong Professor Allan Lichtman, it’s already in the bag.

Source: http://www.ology.com/politics/obama-wins-reelection-2012-seriously

Read More

United States presidential election, 2012

The United States presidential election of 2012 is the next United States presidential election, to be held on Tuesday, November 6, 2012. It will be the 57th quadrennial presidential election in which presidential electors, who will actually elect the President and the Vice President of theUnited States on December 17, 2012, will be chosen. Barack Obama, who is eligible for a second and final term as President, has announced that he will seek nomination to be the Democratic Party's candidate in this election.^[1]

The 2012 presidential election will coincide with the United States Senate elections where 33 races will be occurring as well as the United States House of Representatives elections to elect the members for the 113th Congress. The election will also encompass eleven gubernatorial races as well as many state legislature races.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012

Read More