Nate Silver over at FiveThirtyEight believes that the remaining votes to be counted in the Begich-Stevens Alaska Senate race will favor Begich. The former Democratic mayor of Anchorage remains 3,500 votes behind newly convicted felon Ted Stevens and may end up passing him with the remaining early voting ballots yet to be counted. And there's no reason not to trust Nate's analysis -- his prediction for an Obama victory was dead on.

If you want to help get him out, checkout our petition, "Thanks for the memories, Ted Stevens."

My interest has been peaked of late. What is the fate of publicly funded campaigns given the "Obama phenomenon?" A recent NPR article Did Obama Kill Public Campaign Finance? asks the question, "Is something rotten in the state of public financing for presidential campaigns?"

The article continues:

Sen. John McCain, one of the most vocal proponents of campaign finance reform, is being hoisted by his own petard by choosing to accept federal funding for his general election campaign. Meanwhile, Sen. Barack Obama, the choice of the Democratic Party — the very party that cried out for finance reform in the wake of the Watergate scandal — has chosen to bypass public funds and, as a result, is pummeling McCain in the fundraising arena.

Irony alert: The Republican standard-bearer is using federal grants, while the Democrat extols the free-market virtues of individual campaign donations.

One could argue that Obama's campaign is 'publicly funded,' after all, he and the DNC have forgone Lobby and PAC money and the majority of his campaign contributions come from small donations made by lots of people. However, the "Obama phenomenon" does not take into account an average person seeking office. This is where public funding would level the playing field so that ordinary citizens could run for office. Obama's 'star quality' and fund raising ability, plus the current political climate, cloud the argument for killing public funding.

McCain opted in to public funds, thus agreeing to cap out at $84 million for his campaign. The RNC supplements his allocated funds by raising money and they do take Lobby and PAC money. Neither candidate, in my opinion, represents 'clean money.'

No matter which candidate wins the White House, both will be faced with determining the fate of public campaign financing, in fact, both have an obligation. At Change Congress, we would also argue that the issue needs to go beyond Presidential and on to Congressional elections -- a more difficult battle.

A smart conversation took place on KQED's Forum with Scott Shafer. I encourage you all to have listen and weigh in on the conversation through our comments section. Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics is on the panel and directs people to the OpenSecrets site so you can follow the money yourself. You can listen in below:

As you probably know, the Federal Elections Commission requires political committees to disclose information about all donors who contribute over $200, including their name, address, occupation, and employer. (There are some great sites, like OpenSecrets.org and FundRace.org, that help make sense of this data.) But this is just a minimum -- campaigns can do more. John McCain has been disclosing his sub-$200 donors and he recently criticized Barack Obama for not dong the same.

By looking at the disclosed records, the RNC and other Obama critics have found donations that Obama isn't legally permitted to accept -- contributions from overseas, contributions over the legal limit, contributions under apparently-fictitious names. Presumably, McCain thinks that if Obama opens up the rest of the data, they'll find even more. Obama has received contributions from literally millions of people, so it's a lot of data to look thru.

To put the pressure on, the RNC has released RNCDonors.com, which provides a near-real time search interface to all sub-$200 contributions to the RNC. (Why only sub-$200?) Very little data is disclosed about each contribution, but it's still fun to type in the names of Republican friends and see if they donated. So far Obama and the DNC haven't responded to these tactics.

Lessig's slideshow asking DSCC's Chuck Schumer and DCCC's Chris Van Hollen to follow Barack Obama and the DNC's refusal of lobbyist money is up on Youtube. Embed and send around as you wish.

Our Political Director, Japhet Els, is on the ground in Denver at DNC08 running a campaign to ensure once and for all that there is no corporate influence in the Democratic Party and they can truly stand unified as a part of the people.

Barack Obama, pledged not to take corporate lobby and PAC money. Not only has the Obama campaign refused money from lobbyists, they've checked records to be sure and in April of '07 returned over $50,000 in contributions tied to lobbyists. Chairman Howard Dean and the DNC followed suit by taking the same pledge.

In contrast, Senator Chuck Schumer of the DSCC and Representative Charles Van Hollen of the DCCC have stood silent and taken millions of dollars for their own Congressional and Senatorial Committees from corporate lobbyists and PAC’s. This is creating a schism in the Democratic Party that must be bridged immediately.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has raised upwards of $109 million in 2008. This is almost $30 million more than what its Republican counterpart, the RNCC has raised. You can see for yourself where this money comes from.

Just arrived last night to an already bustling Democratic Convention in Denver. The night included setting up my air mattress, wolfing down a veggie sub from Jimmy John's, being delayed by Code Pink protests, and watching Virginia Governor Tim Kaine, Robert F.Kennedy Jr. and Colorado Governor Bill Ritter introduce Dave Matthews for a benefit concert organized by global warming specialist Laurie David.

The Big Tent next to the Pepsi Center serves as the hub of anything online related. Flat screen TVs, couches, tables full of bloggers, press, and journalists scatter the bottom level. The second level is designated for panel discussions with a small stage and a few hundred chairs.

The Sunlight Foundation's Gabriela Schneider and Nancy Watzman tried to get into several parties last night but were denied, and they weren't the only ones. Also, Markos over on DailyKos has a great post about his recent invite to a "reactionary corporate PAC money" party. Stay tuned....

Wal-Mart is showing off its political savvy of late. Recent reports show that Wal-Mart's PAC, (Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. PAC for Responsible Government) is on pace to fork over more money to House democrats than House Republicans for the first time ever. At the same time, they're pressuring employees to support John McCain in November warning that an Obama administration would be "bad for labor." (Note the irony: Wal-Mart organizing its labor not to vote for someone who will allow their labor to organize).

Mixed signals? Perhaps, but it's also a sign that America's biggest corporation has the ability to stay tight with whoever is in power. In the House of Representatives, the Democrats are poised to capture another significant majority, something Wal-Mart is betting on by funneling big checks to key Democrats. Let's call it a smart investment. Or, we could call it bribery. This from the Rothenberg Political Report:

Through June, Wal-Mart’s PAC had contributed to 86 House Democrats this cycle, amounting to just more than one-third of the Caucus. That’s more than the 77 House Democrats Wal-Mart supported in 2006 and the 62 that received PAC money in 2004.

Since 2004, Wal-Mart has given $27,500 to House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (Md.), $22,500 to House Majority Whip James Clyburn (S.C.), $12,000 to Chief Deputy Whip Debbie Wasserman Schultz (Fla.), and $20,500 to House Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel (N.Y.).

Earlier, the Wall Street Journal reported that Wal-Mart managers and executives were warning their employees that an Obama victory in 2008 would be a threat to the corporation because it would invite pressure to unionize.

The Wal-Mart human-resources managers who run the meetings don't specifically tell attendees how to vote in November's election, but make it clear that voting for Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obama would be tantamount to inviting unions in, according to Wal-Mart employees who attended gatherings in Maryland, Missouri and other states.

"The meeting leader said, 'I am not telling you how to vote, but if the Democrats win, this bill will pass and you won't have a vote on whether you want a union,'" said a Wal-Mart customer-service supervisor from Missouri. "I am not a stupid person. They were telling me how to vote," she said.

Wal-Mart is playing it smart. They understand the value of having a Republican president but also of having a Congress who will defend their interests (but not those of their workers').

At the heart of this strategy is the power of incumbency.

In a few cases, it is clear that Wal-Mart values incumbency rather than a political party. For example, in Texas’ 23rd district, Wal-Mart gave then-Rep. Henry Bonilla (R) contributions in 2004 ($7,500) and 2006 ($15,000), but this cycle gave $10,000 to the man who defeated him, Democratic Rep. Ciro Rodriguez.

In Florida’s 22nd district, then-Rep. Clay Shaw (R) received Wal-Mart PAC money in 2004 ($5,000) and 2006 ($10,000), but the company gave $10,000 this cycle to Rep. Ron Klein (D), who defeated Wal-Mart’s candidate in 2006. Similar giving patterns can be seen in Pennsylvania’s 4th district, Indiana’s 2nd, Georgia’s 12th, North Carolina’s 11th and Indiana’s 9th.

In New York’s 24th district, Wal-Mart’s PAC contributed $5,000 for then-Rep. Sherwood Boehlert’s 2004 re-election and $10,000 to Ray Meier, the Republican who ran unsuccessfully to replace him in 2006. But this cycle, Wal-Mart has maxed out ($10,000) to Rep. Michael Arcuri (D), whom it once opposed.

The message Wal-Mart is sending with its political contributions is not a regard for "responsible government" (or whatever harmless sounding PAC title they choose) but rather, a desire to buy power from it.

Many have called for the Democratic beneficiaries to give back the Wal-Mart loot, but no action has since been seen from recipients like Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (M.d), Majority Whip James Clyburn (S.C.), and House Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel (N.Y.).

August is in full swing and some much-needed cash is flowing into Denver's Democratic National Convention (and, incidentally, so is sponsored by a host of corporations) looking to schmooze our lawmakers. Ellen Miller at the Sunlight Foundation posted in May and followed up about the Democrats' plans to ameliorate the rising costs of the DNC at Denver's Pepsi Center with corporate contributions . Like any Pop-concert or Nuggets game at the Center, corporations are snatching up the Center's wall-space, but this time there's an added bonus: Congressional hand-shakes or "access."

In May, The Rocky Mountain News' Kevin Vaughan convincingly suggested the donations to the DNC are a quid pro quo for favors later on:

"Qwest, for example, is interested in a rewrite of the 1996 Telecommunications Act. Molson Coors has an interest in tax policy, alcohol advertising and self- regulation, excise taxes on beer and other issues. Coca-Cola is looking at the Child Nutrition Promotion and School Lunch Protection Act of 2007 and other issues."

Companies can buy tickets for exclusive convention receptions at upwards of $200,000. One such event honors Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and costs corporate lobbyists a whopping $155,000. This type of funding circumvents existing campaign contribution legislation, in which individuals can donate $2,300 to candidates. Who's in your wallet?

Big news coming from the DNC this evening as Barack Obama, the Democrat's presumed nominee for 2008, made it crystal clear how seriously his party will take addressing corruption inside the beltway.

"We will not take a dime from Washington lobbyists or special interest PACs," he said. "They will not fund our campaign, they will not run our party, they will not drown out the voices of the American people."

Not only has Obama's campaign taken this pledge but now so has the Democratic Party.

This is good news and a big step forward for Change Congress' goals. Having one of this country's two leading parties refuse donations from PACs and registered lobbyists is a defining moment. This is where we should be heading to keep this government free from special interest control and corruption. Whether or not Democratic candidates will follow the lead of the DNC is yet to be seen and is the real test behind this proclamation, where the rubber meets the road.

However, there is still work to be done. We hope that John McCain and the Republican National Committee will respond in similar fashion, but as of yet there is no official word.