Craig DeLuz

Writer, Actor, Public Speaker, Media Personality
Posts Tagged ‘Campaigns’

Will Hillary hold the Democratic party hostage?

Everyone, including those who support Hillary Clinton are wondering just how far she will go to before she realizes that she cannot win the Democratic Presidential nomination. Many thought that tomorrow’s final two primaries would signal the end of her 2008 campaign.

Well according to this may not be the case. This afternoon they are reporting:

We can’t get her to sit down and talk,” the Hillary Clinton person was telling me. “We have been having a hard time getting her to stop campaigning long enough to talk about how she actually ends this thing.”

It is understandable. She has been campaigning for so long. She has fought so hard. And, let’s be fair, in recent months she has done so well.

So why talk about losing? You know who talks about losing? Losers. And that is not how she sees herself.

As much as Obama would like to have the delegates won in these final two primaries put him over the top. Unfortunately for him, he will still need to capture about 30-40 more super delegates making him the first Democratic Presidential Nominee since George McGovern in 1972 to win the nomination without winning the popular vote. This very relevant fact is the final thread upon which the Clinton machine will hang their far-reaching hopes of victory.

The only question left to ask is whether or not the fight will go to the DNC convention in August. If Hillary has anything to say about it, I would look forward to a spirited convention battle.

Listen to Craig DeLuz on the Capitol Hour with Eric Hogue

Tomorrow, Tuesday June 3rd at 12:30 pm I will be joining Eric Hogue as we breakdown several local races and discuss the battle for the heart of Sacramento’s Republican Party

Here are the details:

Tuesday, June 3rd (Tomorrow) @12:30 pm

1380 AM KTKZ

Call in numbers :916-923-3300 or 888-923-1380

To listen online simply Click Here. Thenk hit the “Listen Live” button in the upper righthand corner of the page.

Democrat Party’s racist roots are starting to show…

Despite years of trying to portray themselves as “The Party of Diversity” the true face of the Democrats are finally showing through, as exit polling from primary after primary shows that race is playing a major role in how Democrats are voting.

North Carolina & Indiana:

Race again played a pivotal role in Tuesday’s Democratic presidential clashes, as whites in Indiana and North Carolina leaned solidly toward Hillary Rodham Clinton and blacks voted overwhelmingly for Barack Obama, exit polls showed.

West Virginia:

One in five white voters said race was an important factor in their vote and 83 percent of them voted for Clinton against Obama, who would be the first black major-party presidential nominee.


As has been the case in many primary states, Obama won overwhelming support from African-American voters. They went for him over Clinton 91-9 percent.

But Mississippi white voters overwhelmingly backed the New York senator, supporting her over Obama 72 percent to 21 percent.

As a matter of fact Alan Fram of the Associate Press wrote:

Exit polls of voters in Democratic primaries also show that whites who considered the contender’s race _ Clinton is white, Obama is black _ were three times likelier to say they would only be satisfied with Clinton as the nominee than if Obama were chosen.

Isn’t this the enlightened party? … Open to a diversity of cultures?

I could go on and on, but you get the point.

This just goes to show that the party that fought to keep slavery, founded the KKK, instituted Jim Crowe, authored the Southern Manafesto and fought against the 1964 Civil Rights Act hasn’t strayed too far from it’s racist roots.

As far at their modern day racist policies… I’ll leave that for another post.

Obama fails history lesson

Presidential hopeful, Barak Obama continues to demonstrate his ignorance of history as he continues to defend his commitment to meeting, unconditionally with the leaders of country’s that are enemies of the United States.

In his victory speech following the North Carolina Primary, Obama declared, “I trust the American people to understand that it is not weakness, but wisdom to talk not just to our friends, but to our enemies, like Roosevelt did, and Kennedy did, and Truman did.”

Well Real Clear Politics published a commentary by Jack Kelly pointing out that Barak’s statement demonstrates stupidity, not wisdom. Kelly writes:

I assume the Roosevelt to whom Sen. Obama referred is Franklin D. Roosevelt. Our enemies in World War II were Nazi Germany, headed by Adolf Hitler; fascist Italy, headed by Benito Mussolini, and militarist Japan, headed by Hideki Tojo. FDR talked directly with none of them before the outbreak of hostilities, and his policy once war began was unconditional surrender.

FDR died before victory was achieved, and was succeeded by Harry Truman. Truman did not modify the policy of unconditional surrender. He ended that war not with negotiation, but with the atomic bomb.

Harry Truman also was president when North Korea invaded South Korea in June, 1950. President Truman’s response was not to call up North Korean dictator Kim Il Sung for a chat. It was to send troops.

So apparently, Roosevelt and Truman did not agree with Barak’s belief in unconditional talks with enemy states. In fact, they held that the only condition that merited talks was that of “Unconditional Surrender.” Kelly goes on to debunk the Obama’s “wisdom” when it relates to the actions of President Kennedy:

Sen. Obama is on both sounder and softer ground with regard to John F. Kennedy. The new president held a summit meeting with Soviet leader Nikita Khruschev in Vienna in June, 1961.

Elie Abel, who wrote a history of the Cuban missile crisis (The Missiles of October), said the crisis had its genesis in that summit.

“There is reason to believe that Khrushchev took Kennedy’s measure in June 1961 and decided this was a young man who would shrink from hard decisions,” Mr. Abel wrote. “There is no evidence to support the belief that Khrushchev ever questioned America’s power. He questioned only the president’s readiness to use it. As he once told Robert Frost, he came to believe that Americans are ‘too liberal to fight.'”

That view was supported by New York Times columnist James Reston, who traveled to Vienna with President Kennedy: “Khrushchev had studied the events of the Bay of Pigs,” Mr. Reston wrote. “He would have understood if Kennedy had left Castro alone or destroyed him, but when Kennedy was rash enough to strike at Cuba but not bold enough to finish the job, Khrushchev decided he was dealing with an inexperienced young leader who could be intimidated and blackmailed.”

Ok…. I’m still waiting for the “Wisdom” to which Obama is referring? Like a school yard bully, Khrushcev saw Kennedy’s overtures as a lack of will to fight, which we all know, will provoke said bullies to be even more bold and aggressive. I wonder how much sooner the cold war could have been ended, had Kennedy not compromised our credibility as a military superpower ready to do whatever it took to protect our citizens.

There is a popular saying: “Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” Well, through his own words, Barak Obama demonstrates that not only has he failed to learn vital lessons from history, he hasn’t even learned the facts of history.


So are you saying that Kennedy should have engaged in a nuclear strike with Russia during the Cuban Missle Crisis? Whatever you think of Kennedy, the fact that he did NOT engage nuclear weapons at the time was one of the BEST decisions he could have made.

One example of when a President engages in Diplomacy: Jim Lea writes in

“… Dwight D. Eisenhower was elected U.S. president in November 1952 and fulfilled a campaign promise to go to Korea and attempt to bring an end to the war. He arrived in December and made it clear that he, too, was looking for an armistice rather than a military victory. (NOTE: An amristice is a truce, NOT unconditional surrender).

He let it be known to Moscow, Peking and Pyongyang that if the talks were not reopened and did not proceed satisfactorily toward an armistice, U.N. forces would “move decisively without inhibition in our use of weapons and would no longer be responsible for confining hostilities to the Korean Peninsula.”

There was, however, no response from the communists to Eisenhower’s statement or to a proposal by Clark that the two sides exchange sick and wounded prisoners. Lt. Gen. Maxwell D. Taylor succeeded Van Fleet in February and continued to conduct skirmishes with the North Koreans and Chinese. A break in the Panmunjom deadlock came in March, some three weeks after Soviet leader Joseph Stalin died.

North Korean and Chinese delegates agreed to an exchange of sick and wounded prisoners. The armistice talks resumed in April, the exchange of sick and wounded prisoners took place shortly thereafter, and the POW issue was settled by mid-June.

The two sides agreed that each would be allowed to persuade any prisoners who refused repatriation to change their minds.

With the armistice almost a reality, battlefield action increased as Chinese and North Korean troops made a final attempt to grab more land. On July 13, communist forces drove eight miles into the central sector of the 8th Army line. Taylor counterattacked, but ended the final battle of the war July 20 because negotiators had nearly reached an accord.

The agreement was signed at 10 a.m. July 27, 1953, in a building hastily erected by the North for the ceremony.”

My point: That talking – even when you are a newly-elected president seeking to end a war going nowhere – can produce results.

Wright’s Revenge?

The following is from an article from the New York Post accusing Rev. Jeremiah Wright of intentionally sabotaging the presidential campaign of Barak Obama.

As I am sure you know, I have my own thoughts about this issue, But I wanted to know what Y’all thought about it before I commented. Well David? What say you?


(Albany)- The Rev. Jeremiah Wright would be happy to see Barack Obama’s presidential campaign derailed because the pastor is fuming that his former congregant has “betrayed” their 20-year relationship,

The Post has learned. “After 20 years of loving Barack like he was a member of his own family, for Jeremiah to see Barack saying over and over that he didn’t know about Jeremiah’s views during those years, that he wasn’t familiar with what Jeremiah had said, that he may have missed church on this day or that and didn’t hear what Jeremiah said, this is seen by Jeremiah as nonsense and betrayal,” said the source, who has deep roots in Wright’s Chicago community and is familiar with his thinking on the matter.

“Jeremiah is trying to defend his congregation and the work of his ministry by saying what he is saying now,” the source added.

“Jeremiah doesn’t care if he derails Obama’s candidacy or not . . . He knows what he’s doing. Obviously, he’s not a dumb man. He knows he’s not helping.”

The source spoke yesterday about Wright’s motivation for thrusting himself back into the news, the day after the pastor appeared at the National Press Club on Monday and embarrassed Obama by accusing the United States of terrorism.

Wright has said the reason he has begun granting interviews and making public appearances now is that he wants to defend black churches.

But the source said the preacher’s motivation is much more personal.

The source noted that the roots of Wright’s disillusionment with Obama began last year after the Illinois senator unexpectedly yanked him from participating in the public announcement of his presidential campaign.

“That’s why Jeremiah revealed . . . that he had actually been at the [announcement] hotel and prayed privately with the Obama family before the official declaration,” the source told The Post.

“Rev. Wright, as well as other senior members of his church, believe that Obama has betrayed over 20 years of their supposed friendship.”

Obama further angered Wright by trying to distance himself from the pastor ever since videos were made public earlier this year of the preacher alleging that America brought 9/11 upon itself and that people should say “God damn America,” not “God bless America.”

The source added, “After 20 years of loving Barack like he is one of their own, after he was embraced by this congregation as a brother in Christ, after his pastor was a father figure to him and gave him credibility in a city he had not grown up in and in a black community that was suspect of someone from Hawaii and Harvard, he thanks him by not allowing him to speak publicly at his announcement last year?

“A lot of people in the church believe they were there for this man when no one else was, and a lot of people don’t believe it any more when Obama claims he loves the man who did so much for him,” the source added.


This is BS! Dicker and his “source” offer no definitive proof that the Reverend is opening his trap to purposefully hurt Obama’s candidacy. Who is this source? How is he related to Reverend Wright? For all we know, Hillary could have been the source! Just no credibility at all…..

Now, I believe the Good Reverend Wright to be an egomaniac. He is selfish and self-centered. I believe that he did what he did because he is selfish – not out of some twisted sense that Obama “betrayed” him. Remember, Obama stood by him originally; there was no denouncement of Pastor Wright – at least not until after his visit to the National Press Club and the Detroit NAACP… So why would the Reverend do the events to hurt Obama for denouncing him? And as for Obama distancing himself from Wright’s original comments or asking him not to speak at his campaign announcement – I just do not believe that Wright is that dense that he cannot see the bigger picture. He does what he does because he thinks only of himself – not about Barack, the Country or the Church. This consipracy theory just does not add up.

Honestly, I was okay with the bulk of Rev. Wright’s prepared remarks to the National Press Club. He was speaking a very harsh historical truth to an audience that, at times, was egging him on with their positive replies to the Reverend’s ‘call and response’ techniques. He explained that in the sermon which has been the source of all this controversy (the “God Damn America” quote), he was actually quoting someone else. However, this dude then goes on in the Q and A to basically repeat the charges that America brought 9/11 on itself. SHUT UP! SHUT UP MAN!

I am glad that Obama distanced himself from him. It was time, and it is necessary.

Poll shows most ethnic voters support ban on same sex marriage & Democrats believe that voters, not the legislature should decide…

In 2000 California voters overwhelmingly passed Proposition 22, which declared that “only marriage between a man and a woman will be valid or recognized in the state of California”. And an interesting side story was the fact that ethnic voters were amongst the measure’s most ardent supporters with 65% of Hispanics, 62% of Blacks and 57% of Asians voting to protect marriage.

Well, it looks like not much has changed as a recent poll shows that California’s ethnic voters are still vehemently opposed to allowing same sex couples to wed and are among those most likely to support a measure that would protect Prop. 22 from activist judges by making it state constitutional amendment.

According to a Survey USA Poll conducted on April 24, 2008, 58% of Blacks, 60% of Latinos and 57% of Asian voters in California still do not support same-sex marriage. Furthermore, 57% of Blacks, 46% of Hispanics and 55% of Asian voters said they would be willing to support a state constitutional ban on gay marriage.

Another interesting fact: Only 14% of Democrat’s polled believe that the legislature should decide the fate of same sex marriage. As a matter of fact, a whopping 45% of Democrats said that the voter should decide. This flies in the face of the Democrat controlled California Legislature who has for the last two years in a row, violated the law and voted to legalize same sex marriage.

Guilty by Association?

You had to know that I was going to post this!

Now I am not going to spend a lot of time trying to tie this guy to Barak Obama or insinuate that he thinks this way as well. There are enough pundits out there doing this. But I will raise the question about whether one should question his judgment when it comes to following a man who would preach such hate.

And before you get started….By any objective standard, this is hate speech. If you doubt it, ask yourself this question, “If a white pastor were saying the same thing about black people, would you consider it hate speech?” Barak Obama himself has worked to distance himself from his pastor’s comments by comparing his former “Man of God” to a crazy uncle with whom he does not always agree.

Well maybe you can’t choose your family. But you can chose with whom you chose to associate. And you most certainly can choose your pastor. Clearly, Mr. Obama chose this man to be his pastor; the man who married him to his wife, dedicated his children and was his spiritual teacher 20 years. One has to wonder how much his views line up with his pastor’s views and whether someone with that mindset should be president.


I was similarly concerned with the words of Pastor Wright. However, I wanted to wait until Sen. Obama delivered his “Race Speech” to see what his further explanation was going to be regarding this mess. I believe that Obama did a good job explaining – or at least placing into context – his relationship with the man, and his beliefs regarding the role and impact of race in America.

Now Craig, you know me. I am probably the most politically-incorrect person you know and I am not as sensitive as most on this issue. I think in many ways we are all too sensitive to what people say and not what they mean. Regarding the words of Pastor Wright, I’ve heard worse coming from pulpits right here in Sacramento – against liberalism, homosexuality and other such issues that do not play well on the Political Right. I have heard worse spewed against Republicans and so-called conservatives in some quarters around here as well…. 🙂

Do I agree with the pastor’s choice words? Of course not!!! That said, I do understand the anger and pessimism that is behind the meaning of the words uttered by Pastor Wright. Those words are incendiary, but the ideas behind them are at the foundation of the challenge facing our nation that, as Sen. Obama has pointed out, if left unaddressed we stand to continue losing ground as a nation.

I don’t know if Pastor Wright is racist, but I believe his remarks to be offensive to many Americans. But I also believe that someone can sit in that man’s church, listen to those ideas (not from the Word but from the pastor’s opinion) and go out and believe and support ideas which are directly opposite to those preached in the pulpit. I’ve done it. And I believe that Sen. Obama, given his background, experience and personal history is also someone who’s able to do it. Sen. Obama has made clear where he stands regarding the words of his pastor, and on the challenge of overcoming the racial divide in this country. I do not believe there is anyone in position to question his commitment to that cause. Guilty by Association – I think not!


“I’ve heard worse coming from pulpits right here in Sacramento – against liberalism, homosexuality and other such issues that do not play well on the Political Right.”

David, I demand that you defend this statement! Who have you heard? What did they say? Was it consistent with the Word?

I am willing to bet that you cannot come up with anything because, like most liberals, you just assumed it to have happened.

And as far as Wright being racist, let me ask you this… What would you say of a white man who pastored a church who’s statement of faith included the following:

“We are a congregation which is Unashamedly White and Unapologetically Christian… Our roots in the White religious experience and tradition are deep, lasting and permanent. We are an European people, and remain “true to our native land,” … We constantly affirm our trust in God through cultural expression of a White worship service and ministries which address the White Community.”

You, Jessie Jackson, Al Shaprton the rest of the NAACP leadership would not stop until the doors of this racist church were shut for good. Not only would you call the pastor a racist, you would also declare anyone who attended the church to be racist as well.


Has Obamania infected the Main Stream Media?

Before the “You are being mean to Barak!” comments start flowing from youObamaniacs, let me say that this is posted in fun. Because it is funny!

But on a more serious note: It is hard to deny the love affair that the main stream media has with him. But as with their once heated romance with John McCain, the media loves to build people up only to eventually tear them down again. But hey, don’t they say that “All is fair in love and war.”

Huckabee: More of Miracle Guy

Just a bit of GOP humor I thought you would appreciate.

McCain to Obama “al Qaeda is already in Iraq”

Are the primaries over already? You would think so the way John McCain and Barak Obama are going after each other.

In a series of back and forth comments on the topic of al Qaeda in Iraq, the two presumptive presidential nominees had no shortage of witty barbs for one another. And while I think both earned high marks for delivery and rhetoric, Mr. Barak’s final statement fell short in the area of true substance and accuracy.

His statement that “there was no such thing as al Qaeda in Iraq until George Bush and John McCain decided to invade Iraq” is not entirely accurate.

A 2007 White House Fact sheet on Iraq stated the following about Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab Al Zarqawi, who founded Al Qaeda In Iraq and Pledged Allegiance To Osama Bin Laden: “In 2001, Zaraqawi left Afghanistan and eventually went to Iraq to set up operations with terrorist associates after Coalition forces destroyed his Afghan training camp.”

Now in his defense, the same fact sheet also states that it wasn’t until 2004 when “Zarqawi and his terrorist group formally joined al Qaeda, pledged allegiance to Osama bin Laden, and promised to ‘follow his orders in jihad.’” And that “al Qaeda in Iraq is an organization founded by foreign terrorists, led largely by foreign terrorists…”

So maybe there was no official group known as “al Qaeda in Iraq” before the war. However, those who founded it were already running terrorist organizations in Iraq that were in existence well before the beginning of the war. They simply decided to become an al Qaeda franchise.

What does Barak Obama have in common with a former KKK Grand Dragon? Chris Dodd thinks they are great senators

Today, Democratic Senator and former presidential candidate Christopher Dodd officially announced his endorsement of fellow Senator and Presidential hopeful, Barak Obama. Interestingly, this is the same Senator Dodd who once sang the praises of another collegue in the senate who is a former Grand Dragon in the Klu Klux Klan, voted against the nomination of Thurgood Marshall to the Supreme Court and voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

In 2004, Dodd spoke in honor of Senator Robert Byrds 17,000th vote stating:

“You would have been a great senator at any moment….you would have been right at the founding of this country, right during the Civil War….I can’t think of a single moment in this nation’s 220+ year history where you would not have been a valuable asset to this country.” Democrat Senator Christopher Dodd 04-05-04

Now while I realize that this is hardly a big deal for most of you on the left, I do find it amusing that someone who recently sang the praises of a Klansman would endorse a black man for president.

I also wanted to bring to your remembrance how the PC police (i.e. Al Sharpton, Jessie Jackson and the National NAACP) once again gave a liberal a pass on “racially insensitive” comments. Just once I would like to see them hold their fellow liberals to the same standards.

BTW. I esspecially like the photos of each of them in their native garb.


Senator Dodd’s endorsement of Senator Obama is not surprising, especially when you consider that his one comment about Senator Byrd is the only issue that has been raised regarding Dodd’s stance on race or his relationship to minority interests. According to, Dodd is substantively in line with Clinton and Obama:

Additionally, there have been no other indications that Dodd has an ongoing affinity for hood-wearing, cross-burning hillbillies.

As his voting scores attest, Senator Byrd may be an out of step populist compared to the rest of his party, which is slowly dragging itself into the reality of the 21st Century. And no one can “whitewash” his record with the Klan which may be more extensive than Byrd publicly admits to.

That said, Byrd does have the distinction of being the “Dean” of the U.S. Senate, having been elected to more terms (8 full six year terms) and casting more votes (over 17,000) than any other member in history. He has publicly apologized for his association with the Klan (no matter how pro-forma it may appear) and, according to the NAACP staff on the Hill, has been a good partner. The same cannot be said of Trent Lott. As for Thurmond, well, may be rest in peace.

You wonder why some Democrats get a pass while Republicans, by and large, do not? Its because Republicans are consistently voting against the identified and substantive interests of the poor and political minorities. In spite of the rich GOP history as the party founded to end slavery, the modern version is simply a shadow of its former self. Today’s Republican Party in no way aspires to the same grand vision if its founders, yet the Democratic Party – while certainly not transformative in its leadership and vision in its recent history – is at least engaging in some transactional policy making that “Keeps Hope Alive” for many Americans.


Did I say that I was surprised by the endorsement? I believe that my specific words were, “Now while I realize that this is hardly a big deal for most of you on the left, I do find it amusing that someone who recently sang the praises of a Klansman would endorse a black man for president.”

I was simply amused by the irony.

But as for Republicans, “…consistently voting against the identified and substantive interests of the poor and political minorities.” Let’s take a closer look at this. Shall we?

Republicans support the partial privatization of Social Security, which will take the money once was unlikely to ever be seen again, and place it into lock box, so that they can pass that money on to their children. For many, this will constitute most of the wealth that they will have to pass on to future generations. Additionally, because this money will be invested it will earn far greater return what they are paying into the current failing system. (See Social Insecurity- A Bad Investment For Black America) Democrats are in favor of continuing to rob blacks of this opportunity to pass on this hard earned wealth to their children.

Republicans agree with 72% of black parents in their support of school choice. But it is Democrats who have bought off by teachers unions who continue to force our children to stay in failing public schools (not that all public schools are failing mind you).

Republicans support the end of a practice that has killed twice as many African Americans as AIDS, Violent Crime, Accidents, Cancer and Heart Disease combined- Abortion (See Abortion = Modern Day Genocide!). But thanks to Democrats, Planned Parenthood have accomplished what the Klu Klux Klan could have only dreamed of… GOVERNMENT FUNDED GENOCIDE!

In the end, it is Democrats who for the last 50 years have ruled over the communities with the worst schools, highest crime rates, highest unemployment and poorest quality of life. And many of these communities happen to be largely black.

Study shows that contribution limits increased influence of special interests groups

Who knew that limiting the amount of money someone could give to politicians would increase the strangle hold special interests have on our government…. CONSERVATIVES!!!! THAT’S WHO!!!

According to the Sacramento Bee:

The state’s campaign finance watch group says independent expenditure committees have given more than $88 million since 2000 to candidates for state offices, raising questions about whether campaign contribution limits have done anything to curtail money in politics.

The Fair Political Practices Commission is holding a hearing today to explore the explosion of independent expenditure spending on candidates. Chairman Ross Johnson says he’d like to find better ways for the public to track spending because it’s not always clear who’s controlling them. Johnson says even if committees don’t coordinate with candidates, candidates can see who’s helping them.
Back in 2000, voters approved contribution limits to candidate campaigns under Proposition 34. Since then, the commission found, independent committees have pumped millions into state races on behalf of candidates.
For example, in 2000, independent expenditure committees gave $376,000 to legislative races. Six years later, that figure jumped to $23.5 million.
For statewide candidates, committees gave $526,000 in 2002, but that figure skyrocketed to $29.5 million by 2006.
Here’s a list of the top 10 committees that have given to state candidates since 2000:
1. Californians for a Better Government, A Coalition of Firefighters, Police, Deputy Sheriffs, Teachers, Home Builders and Developers – $9,855,582
2. Alliance for a Better California, Educators, Firefighters, School Employees, Health Care Givers and Labor Organizations – $5,245,109
3. First Americans for a Better California Independent Expenditure Committee – $4,256,754
4. JOBS PAC – An Independent Expenditure Committee Sponsored by the California Chamber of Commerce – $3,900,501
5. California Correctional Peace Officers Association (CCPOA) Independent Expenditure Committee – $3,536,698
6. Morongo Band of Mission Indians Native American Rights PAC – $3,378,853
7. Strengthening Our Lives Through Education, Community Action and Civic Participation, A Coalition of Labor Organizations Candidate PAC – $3,306,944
8. Team 2006, Sponsored by California Sovereign Indian Nations -$3,093,391
9. Alliance for Progress and Education, An Alliance of Professional, Employers and Small Business – $2,953,948
10. Working Californians – $2,637,860

It seems that big money always finds a way to get back into the pockets of the politicians. Every time we try to pass a law to limit their influence, it just seems to give them more power. This is why I have always said that the only thing that will remove the influence of money in politics is an informed and engaged electorate. Voters must start to do their own research and stop relying on campaign advertising to be their primary information source on candidates and issues.

But the untold story here is who makes up these “Top 10 Committees”. Liberals would have us believe that Big Business is controlling politics here in Sacramento. The truth is that liberal interest groups have given the most and have given most (if not all) of their money to Democrats. These groups include: Six groups that are controlled by labor, Three by Indian tribes and only one (Jobs PAC) is a business group. But Jobs PAC actually contributed as much (if not more) money to Democrats as they did to Republicans.

So the next time you hear a Democrat proclaim that he/she plans to end the strangle hold that special interests have on Sacramento, remember to check his bank account.