I guess this blog is a little more sophisticated than in the old days, when DougJ and I would use the C.R.E.A.M. tag all the time. Still, it does rule everything, two examples incoming.
First, one that’s good for Democrats, and also a cautionary tale. As we’ve discussed earlier here, the Republicans have milked their small donors dry via an incessant stream of ever more panicky fundraising texts and emails. So, instead of relying on donations that are paid directly to the candidate, Republicans rely on PAC spending. Because only candidates pay preferred ad rates, TV stations and other advertising vendors are totally screwing PACS:
New data from AdImpact shows that, across nine of the most competitive Senate contests, Republicans had spent $563 million on advertising through the end of September versus $375 million for Democrats—a gap of 60% to 40% in favor of the GOP.
ut in terms of the actual number of ads aired, the difference is much smaller. In total, Republican ads have run roughly 290,000 times, while the Democrats’ have appeared approximately 250,000 times. That’s a difference of just 54% to 46%.
David Nir, who wrote the post linked above, noted on the Downballot podcast that there was one instance where Talarico paid $50,000 for an ad during a football game, while a PAC supporting Paxton had to pay $450,000 for the same amount of ad time.
It’s not all roses and sunshine on the Democratic ad front, as Ben Wickler points out in a NYT op-ed (that’s a link to LGM that has the basics) — the overwhelming PAC spending on Gubernatorial races is hurting Democrats, especially since we need to have Democratic Governors, Secretaries of State and Attorney Generals to fight the inevitable Republican election fuckery.
Moving on to data centers and “bipartisan” energy reform, there’s a bill that’s being pushed through Congress called the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act (BAAJA). It’s an attempt to get more electricity online:
The bill does this by weakening some of the nation’s bedrock environmental laws, speeding up the timeline for government agencies to issue permits, and making it harder to cancel projects that have already gotten federal approval.
For climate-conscious supporters of the bill, it’s better for the planet to build a lot of clean energy even if it means some fossil fuels get built as well, and even if they cause some damage to the environment on the way. Supporters of the effort argue that if the U.S. builds out new clean capacity, it will be easier to wean off fossil fuels, which are the primary cause of global warming and all its myriad consequences. Opponents say that’s a Faustian bargain, one that will jeopardize tribal nations, other marginalized communities, and endangered species.
And why is the electricity supply such an important issue now? Data centers. One of the big supporters of the bill is Sheldon Whitehouse, who is also the Senator with the biggest investment in data centers ($2.1 to 8.6 million, though his people say it is managed independently). Sen. Martin Heinrich, the only Democrat to vote for Markwayne Mullin’s confirmation, is another big data center beneficiary, and a New Mexico climate activist who’s read the bill says that there are a bunch of carve outs that would allow the buildout of data centers at the expense of public lands.
The rise of politicians like AOC, Mamdani and AES, who do not take corporate money, and who support the reform of Congressional ownership of stocks, is going to put a lot of pressure on people like Whitehouse, Heinrich and Gillibrand, among others, who are way, way too cozy with the industries they ostensibly regulate.
