Get free daily email updates

Syndicate this site - RSS

Recent Posts

Blogger Menu

Click here to blog

Shawn Steel

Electoral College Reform: Putting California in Play ; Paul Singer vs. Stephen Bing

What could be more important that electing a Republican to the White House in 2008?

The winner will likely serve as President until 2016. That’s a long time. Controlling foreign policy, fighting the War against Radical Islam, safeguarding America, supporting pro-growth economic policies and protecting the nuclear family is what is at stake. 

Our friend, attorney Tom Hiltachk,  submitted an Initiative proposal that absolutely rocks the Democrats.  Squeals could be heard ranging from Howard Dean to every California Democrat elected official, crying about everything from disenfranchisement to "stealing" elections.

Everyone understands if proportional voting is legal in California in 2008,  Democrats will not win the White House.  By having each electoral vote based on the votes of each Congressional district,
Republicans will win at least 19 electoral votes of California’s 55.  California is 20% of what’s needed to win the 270 Electoral College votes nationwide. 

Wasting no time Clinton, supporters instantly cried foul and created an outfit called Californians for Fair Election Reform.  Clintonista Chris Lehane and fortune inheritor Stephen Bing put together a multi million-effort to defeat the Electoral Reform Initiative.

Few Republicans know much about Stephen Bing. But, Bing is clearly the George Soros of the California Democrat Party. By living until he was 18 years, Bing inherited his granddad’s $600,000,000 million fortune. He has financed such films as Kangaroo Jack and Get Carter. He also successfully got actress Elizabeth Hurley pregnant. A London newspaper reports that Hurley calls him "Bing Laden".  This dilettante is the key money man for the Democrats, including defeating this Initiative.

Bing has spent many millions supporting Democrat politicians. But his $43.5 breathtaking million funding against  Prop 87 to tax Big Oil is an all time record. 

Riding to the rescue in proposing the Electoral Reform Initiative, that would impact our lives, was a non-Californian, New Yorker Paul Singer. The committee, Take Initiative America, was too good to be true. Paul Singer, a hedge fund billionaire, is one of Rudy Giuliani early supporters. Thinking big, he and his team apparently sought to finance the Initiative in time to impact the 2008 elections. 

For whatever reason, Singer pulled stakes and is now weathering Democrat attacks including threatening criminal penalties. We’ll see if we ever see Singer again. You can rest assure all the Democrat national and state officials will be looking for the latest prosecutorial weapons. All Singer did was to exercise his 1st Amendment right. What he did was to anger Clinton, Inc.

What we have is California unearned rich playboy Bing "protecting" the Democrats’ California monopoly and a New Yorker challenging the rules. Singer is a capitalist who made his own money and employs people. The difference between could not be more stark. 

We are sorry that Singer did not want to stay in the fight and give Californians a choice for President. There are too many questions here. 

Where are the self made capitalists who made up Ronald Reagan’s kitchen cabinet? Self made  Henry Salvatori, Holmes Tuttle and others financed Republican operations for years. The last angel was Congressman Darrell Issa who financed the Recall signatures to throw out Governor Gray Davis. 

Even Big Oil, facing Bing’s 43 million, produced no heroes. Big Oil like anything else "Big" is composed of nondescript corportatists. Too afraid to anger the ruling democrats, too afraid to lead. They just was to live under the radar. They buy "protection".

Our Party needs to answer the question. Where are the new capitalists willing to finance political freedom?

One Response to “Electoral College Reform: Putting California in Play ; Paul Singer vs. Stephen Bing”

  1. kinney@calstrat.com Says:

    From day one, this hamhanded effort to rig the election has been a losing proposition that reflects, in the words of our Republican Governor, “a loser’s mentality.” While Mr. Steel may have no problem throwing other people’s money down an electoral rathole, I think most Republican funders are smart enough not to invest millions of dollars in an embarrassing high-profile political train wreck with no clear path to victory and no chance of making a difference.