Posted on 09/29/2007 7:09:48 PM PDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist
Initiative To Change Distirbution Of Calif.'s Electoral Votes Funded By Supporter Of GOP Front-Runner
(AP) SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- A top donor to presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani was the source of the one - and only - contribution to a proposed California ballot measure that would have made it much harder for Democrats to win the White House, according to a published report.
The campaign to qualify the measure for next year's ballot collapsed Thursday when two of its top consultants quit, complaining they had not been told who gave the money.
The donor, hedge fund giant Paul Singer, came out of the shadows Friday in a statement to the New York Daily News. Singer, a founding partner of the hedge fund Elliot Associates, said he gave $175,000 to a mystery-shrouded Missouri-based corporation called Take Initiative America.
The money was given to a California group so it could gather signatures to qualify the measure for next year's June primary and alter the rules before the November vote.
The measure would have changed California's winner-take-all system to one in which all but two of the state's electoral votes would be awarded to the top vote-getter in each Congressional district.
Since about 22 of California's districts are heavily Republican, the Republican nominee would almost certainly win them, gaining nearly half California's 55 electoral votes - about the equivalent of winning Ohio. That would make it almost impossible for a Democrat to win the national contest.
Singer told the Daily News that he made the contribution "without any restrictions, including whether or how it would need to be disclosed. I left disclosure completely up to TIA."
The Giuliani campaign denied any prior knowledge of the contribution, although Singer is a member of the campaign's national finance committee.
"This is completely independent from our campaign," said Jarrod Agen, a spokesman for Giuliani's campaign in California.
But Democrat Chris Lehane said Singer's donation raised legal questions.
"Federal law prohibits a presidential candidate or that candidate's agents from directing funds to a committee that could impact the presidential campaign," he said via e-mail. "The California initiative was designed to specifically benefit the Republican presidential nominee by rigging the Electoral College system to guarantee that the Republican presidential candidate would win the White House in 2008."
Giuliani has denied any involvement in the Missouri corporation's donation. At a campaign stop in Northern California wine country, he said he believed he could win the state outright.
"If anything it's probably something that I would have opposed," Guiliani said of the scuttled ballot measure. "It doesn't make sense to try to change the rules in midstream like this."
yuk, yuk!
But - let a conservative fund a ballot initiative ... And all hell breaks loose, and (politically-connected) consultants drop like flies.
Pugilistic, consistently conservative and constitutionally correct PING!!! (just a vituperation for rural representation restoration to original founding!!!)
For Lehane to question anyone else’s ethics is the height of chutzpah. One of the worst of the Clintonistas...
What? Nearly half of California's congressional districts are "heavily Republican"??? That can't be! It must be something ElkGroveDan is making up again. Freepers from Texas and Maryland and places like that who read the news alot but have never been here have told us it's Kommiefornia where everyone is a raging socialist. I read it right here on FreeRepublic.
It ain’t dead yet, though. That’s what doesn’t make sense to me and makes me think there is something else coming down the pike. Hiltachk’s proposition just started collecting signatures less than 3 weeks ago and the deadline isn’t until next February for the (low-turnout) June Election. ... But NOW I see there are two of these in the works! (not including the Dem proposition to move to the popular vote). Sumthin’ doesn’t smell right. Maybe a new marketing ploy? (”Oh, NO! This isn’t *that* petition—this is a new one without the problems cited in all those democrat advertisements....”)
http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/elections_j.htm
1250. (07-0016, Amdt. #1NS )
Requirements for Presidential Electors. Statute.
Summary Date: 7/2/07 Circulation Deadline: 11/29/07 Signatures Required: 433,971
Proponent: Anthony F. Andrade Jr. (916) 230-2123
Requires political parties to nominate a presidential elector from each congressional district and two additional statewide electors. Requires presidential electors to pledge that they will cast their ballots for the presidential and vice-presidential candidates who receive the plurality of votes in their congressional districts or, in the case of the statewide electors, for the candidates who receive the plurality of votes in the state. Eliminates compensation and reimbursement for travel expenses for presidential electors. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: Reduced state expenses of less than $10,000 every four years. (Initiative 07-0016.) (Full Text)
1268. (07-0032)
Presidential Electors. Political Party Nomination and Election by Congressional District. Statute.
Summary Date: 9/5/07 Circulation Deadline: 2/4/08 Signatures Required: 433,971
Proponent: Thomas W. Hiltachk (916) 442-7757
Requires California to join two other states in selecting electors for president by the plurality vote in each congressional district. Provides for political party nomination of electors pledged to vote for that party’s candidate. Independent electors to be chosen by independent presidential candidates and also elected by congressional district. Two at-large electors to be selected based on plurality of statewide vote for president. Mandates that electors vote for candidate for whom they are pledged. Eliminates $10 compensation and 5 cents per mile reimbursement of electors. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: Reduced state expenses of less than $10,000 every four years. (Initiative 07-0032.) (Full Text)
Come on, Dan. That's not fair!
I myself saw some post that they'd been to either San Francisco or Hollywood at least once, or both! ;-)
That thought had crossed my mind as well. Given the damage that McCain-Feingold "CFR" has wrought, it would be nice to think that there are a few GOP "sugar-daddies" out there.
Well, I don’t support it for a host of reasons, but I pinged ya since you are one who watches initiatives coming down the pike. I didn’t realize ther were two before seeing the other one tonight. I’d only been watching the one under Hiltachk’s name (which was tied indirectly to Pete Wilson’s bunch).
Did ya see that Petey and Dick Riordan both endorsed Giuliani? pfffft! RINOs, all!
I just love the hypocrisy on this. The donks were the ones in 2000 clamoring to get rid of the electoral college — but now they’re shocked, SHOCKED that someone would move to effect something similar.
That said, it’s absolutely ludicrous to think that Giuliani didn’t know about this, or that he would have opposed it. Please — more shamelessness from him.
Finally, I think it’s a terrible idea to move away from winner-take-all state contests. That system is one of the mechanisms that defines statehood and gives states some power. I understand that it’s already happening, but I would like to see us fight against it rather than hasten it. Trust Giuliani to slash and burn an approach our Founders developed more than 200 years ago for his own personal gain. Again he reminds me of the ‘toon — he doesn’t care what happens to our party or even the country long-term as long as he personally wins short-term.
Yet another classic case of those pesky little facts. They ruins a liberals's or a moderate's day every time.
bingo!!!
you never hear about illegalities when the financial terrorist jorge soros give money....
Singer needs to tell whoever is complaining to take a hike.
He is backing down so easily. Surprising for a HEDGE FUND dude..
It is a really good idea.
I mistyped Dan's screen name as "ElkGroveDna" at first and had to correct it!!!
Bump! I like the way you think.
Moderates not only want to appear to be the smartest people in the world government to come, they actually believe they are!!!
LOL.
I didn’t think I needed the sarcasm tag but you are right—can’t be too careful these days.
Watching these characters would be a full time job--for an army!
I don't trust the whole lot!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.