MoveOn Members Call for Change

move-on did a fantastic job, they deserve nothing but praise as far as i can see. if anyone knows to the contrary let’s hear it.

Posted by hawaii jack on Jan 3, 2007 at 11:59 AM

Some campaign finance reform proposals recommend prohibiting money being raised outside of the district represented by an elected official. Would national call programs, such as MoveOn’s also be prohibited?

I’ll throw out a couple possibilities for the effectiveness of the MoveOn calls. One, people might be happy to learn that anybody is paying attention to the campaign. Two, people are used to national call centers.

Were the callers identifying themselves as MoveOn volunteers? Were the calls focusing on some well-publicized slip? My concern with instant call strategy changes would be that the calls did not play up issues of government but merely issues of high publicity.

Posted by SillyLeftist on Jan 5, 2007 at 6:19 AM

I’d be opposed to the first idea you list because the voters in a given district might be backward fools and big local money could always control the outcome. Campaign finance reform might bring up more problems than it solves. Sometimes you need to spend big time in order to defeat an entrenched incumbent. You need power to fight
power. Nixon was not brought down by the High School Bugle.

Posted by hawaii jack on Jan 5, 2007 at 12:16 PM

In August, MoveOn.org, and the 5 million Americans who rally to its banner, tried to defend the body politic. To no avail. MoveOn.org set out to buy commercial time on MSNBC to target Target for its decision to fund Minnesota testking MB2-632
testking 70-270
testking 70-236
testking 650-251
Tea Party gubernatorial hopeful Tom Emmer. (See “Targeting Soft Money” on page 7.) MSNBC (soon to be a seed of Comcast—bye-bye Maddow?) explained that it could not air the MoveOn.org commercial because it violated network policy that prohibits ads attacking an individual corporation (potential advertiser?).

Posted by Clark Anderson on Dec 15, 2010 at 2:59 AM