CitizenLink leans on high-profile religious-right attorney and Republican National Committeeman James Bopp Jr. to make the case against disclosure.

“We are certainly going to pursue the case vigorously, because the result of the judge’s decision is going to literally be a free-fire zone when we talk about the court sanctioning harassment of people who participate in our democratic process,” Bopp said. “Absent the prospect of protection in future cases, I think the whole idea here by the homosexual lobby is they now have a threat. They [will seek the names of donors] and put them on the Internet. So they already know they’ve got a weapon of intimidation, and without the courts’ protection, they’ll continue to use it.”

The ruling upholding California’s campaign finance disclosure laws was handed down by U.S. District Judge Morrison England Jr. on Thursday. California requires political campaigns to disclose the identity of anyone who donates more than $100.

During the 2008 heated Prop 8 campaign, gay-rights websites like Californians Against Hate that opposed the ballot initiative posted information such as the names, addresses and employers of donors to the campaign. In Washington state a similar proposal saw the same kind of websites appear. There, the sites included Whosigned.org and Knowthyneighbor.org.

CitizenLink refers readers to the conservative think-tank Heritage Foundation’s report on harassment against Prop 8 supporters. Heritage authors placed the harassment into three categories: vandalism, hostility and slurs, and violence and threats of violence.

Vandals also hit houses of worship. Perpetrators used orange paint to vandalize a statue of the Virgin Mary outside one church. Offices at the Cornerstone Church in Fresno were egged. Swastikas and other graffiti were scrawled on the walls of the Most Holy Redeemer Catholic Church in San Francisco, a parish known widely as being “gay-friendly.” In San Luis Obispo, the Assembly of God Church was egged and toilet-papered, and a Mormon church had an adhesive poured onto a doormat and keypad. Signs supporting Prop 8 were twisted into a swastika at Our Lady of Perpetual Help Catholic Church in Riverside. Someone used a heavy object wrapped with a Yes on 8 sign to smash the window of a pastor’s office at Messiah Lutheran Church in Downey.

In a previous ruling on the matter, Judge England pointed out that, if there were crimes committed by supporters of either side of the debate, they could and should be prosecuted. He said, as for the rest, the heated exchanges were part of the political process and weren’t reason to limit the ability of Californians to fully inform themselves on an issue they were being asked to decide at the ballot box.

Bopp plans to appeal England’s decision once the written version is made available for review.

In the coda to yet another Washington ethics scandal, Paul Magliocchetti, founder of the once influential defense lobbying firm PMA Group, was indicted yesterday in federal court for making hundreds of thousands of dollars in illegal campaign contributions.

For example, on Dec. 10, one of the lawmakers under investigation, Representative Joseph Crowley, a New York Democrat who sits on the Ways and Means Committee, left the Capitol during the House debate to attend a fund-raising event for him hosted by a lobbyist at her nearby Capitol Hill town house that featured financial firms, along with other donors. After collecting thousands of dollars in checks, Mr. Crowley returned to the floor of the House just in time to vote against a series of amendments that would have imposed tougher restrictions on Wall Street.

That same day, Representative Tom Price, a Georgia Republican on the Financial Services Committee, scheduled what he called a “Financial Services Luncheon” at the Capitol Hill Club, as part of a fund-raising push that netted him nearly $23,000 in contributions from the industry in a two-month period around the vote.

The Office of Congressional Ethics is an independent office, led by a former federal prosecutor, that has been riling members on the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct with its aggressive pursuit of what it considers unethical conduct. The New York Times notes that given the two groups’ differences, it’s unlikely that the committee will punish any of the accused members even if the investigation ends up recommending action.

And why would Bean be so interested in protecting big banks from stricter state regulations? One reason may be that, as Mike Elk in The Huffington Post points out, Bean is Wall Street’s favorite Democrat. She has already pocketed $338,125 in campaign contributions from the financial services and banking industries so far this year, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks money in politics. And it’s not like the rest of that committee had huge incentives to push back against Bean’s amendment. The House Financial Services Committee as a whole has benefited greatly from Wall Street’s largesse, taking in a total of $77.6 million in campaign cash since 1989, figures show.CRP’s

Elk clearly has had just about enough:

We shouldn’t stand for Democrats doing the work of Wall Street when they are supposed to be doing the work of the American people. We need to get our cops back on the beat protecting Main Street from Wall Street.

But the problem isn’t a lack of cops on the beat – it’s Rep. Barney Frank’s (D-Mass.) committee, after all. The bigger issue seems to be the money the cops are taking in from Wall Street.

From a regional perspective this makes sense. Like Connecticut, Nebraska is home to a high concentration of insurance companies, boasting the headquarters of Mutual of Omaha Health Plans, Physicians Mutual and Continental General, to name a few. Before entering politics, Nelson himself was the president of the Central National Insurance Company of Omaha.

So in the face of a public-plan proposal that would threaten the profits of private insurers, he’s protecting the industry that made him wealthy and showers him with tons of campaign cash. Easy enough, right?

If only it were so neat and clean.

Nelson’s decision to protect one of Nebraska’s largest economic engines is neither surprising nor uncommon, and lawmakers much more liberal than Nelson have built entire careers on that strategy. Sometimes the regional protectionism is a boon to local industry; sometimes it results in a bust. But whichever direction the insurance industry is headed, you can bet that a vote for a proposal harming local companies would do little to win Nelson support at the ballot box when he’s up for reelection in 2012.

The dilemma facing Democratic leaders — on health care, climate change, finance regulation, everything — is how to pass the strong industry reforms they prefer and still keep congressional seats in the districts where those industries are most entrenched.

The charge against Nelson will be that he’s putting corporations above the people. The deeper problem, though, is that in Nebraska — as in in many other parts of the country — they’re largely one in the same.

Davis offered sardonic praise for Obama’s record-setting fund-raising for the month of September — $150 million — and said Obama will go down as “the greatest fund-raiser in presidential political history.”

However, Davis took the opportunity to question some of Obama campaign’s contributors. Specifically, he mentioned a report that an Obama supporter in the Gaza Strip ordered $30,000 worth of T-shirts from the campaign.

Davis also announced that the Republican National Committee will unveil a searchable Website tomorrow that will disclose all donors within 24 hours of their contribution.

Unfortunately for the McCain campaign, as is so often the case, even when it is probably right, Davis’ message is somewhat overshadowed by reports that the campaign solicited contributions — which, if given, would be illegal — from the Russian envoy to the United Nations.

Among other things, you can follow the personal campaign contributions of individual lobbyists. It also lets you see which candidates have received the most money from lobbyists and political action committees (PACs).

Naturally, the first thing I did was look up Sen. John McCain and Sen. Barack Obama. McCain has raised vastly more campaign cash from lobbyists than Obama this year. Here are the figures, as of Aug. 19:

John McCain (R)
Recipient Detail

Contribution(s) found: 867
Total: $676,346
Total from individuals: $446,496
Total from PACs: $229,850

Total from joint fundraising: $692,016 [Money raised jointly with the Republican National Committee]

Barack Obama (D)
Recipient Detail

Contribution(s) found: 114
Total: $49,453
Total from individuals: $42,233
Total from PACs: $7,220

If one counts only the money from lobbyists and PACS, McCain has out-raised Obama by a margin of more than 13 to one.

However, that margin balloons rapidly when McCain’s fund-raising in conjunction with the RNC is factored in. The joint account allows McCain to continue raising money after the deadline imposed as a condition of his accepting federal financing for the general election, which Obama declined. It also allows individuals to contribute far larger amounts than allowed under federal law for direct contributions to a campaign.

Unfortunately, it is impossible to know exactly how much of the joint money goes directly to the McCain campaign. McCain receives the bulk of the joint funds, but the party takes a share, and some is distributed to support GOP congressional candidates.

Overall, Democratic candidates have raised more money from lobbyists than Republicans, according to OpenSecrets.org — $75.2 million to $65.6 million. This isn’t too surprising, given widespread expectations that 2008 will be a good election year for Democrats.

But when it comes to the race for the White House, McCain is the lobbyists’ clear favorite.

Following a Newsweek report that the commission flagged some donors to Sen. Barack Obama for exceeding contribution limits with numerous small donations using fake names,  Sean Cairncross, RNC chief counsel, yesterday accused the Obama campaign of “looking the other way” on excessive contributions. Newsweek reported the Obama campaign has since returned the donations in question. From the Post:

The FEC sent a letter to Sen. John McCain’s campaign treasurer Sept. 30 demanding the candidate turn over more information about “contributions that appear to exceed the limits.”

The letter is accompanied by a nine-page list showing scores of overages from [Sen. John] McCain’s August campaign finance report, including nearly $13,000 from Texas rancher Ray R. Barrett Jr.; $9,200 from an Iraqi security consultant, H. Carter Andress; and $5,000 from Joseph F. Davolio, an executive at a major national liquor, beer, and wine distributor.

“Please inform the Commission of your corrective action immediately in writing and provide photocopies of any refund checks and/or letters reattributing or redesignating the contributions in question,” the letter from the FEC’s senior campaign finance analyst, Leah S. Palmer, says. “The acceptance of excessive contributions is a serious problem.”

It appears that the Newsweek article comes at a very convenient time for the McCain campaign — it lent a little political cover to lessen the blow from a potentially embarrassing revelation.

However, there seems to be a pattern developing here:

Remember McCain’s attacks on Obama for being beholden to Fannie Mae — while several of McCain’s closest advisers and staff members lobbied on behalf of Freddie Mac and the mortgage industry?

Perhaps it is true that the surest sign that the McCain campaign is guilty of something is if it accuses the Obama camp of the same deed.