I don’t take to those that don’t set up an opt-in list, and instead claim they have this huge following, but it’s culled from just looking for asian names on massive email lists and then put together. I could do the same thing. I’ll call it the Smith PAC, and I’ll just go ahead and buy all the email lists I have and rip out all the Smith names. Could you imagine the power behind the Smith, and Jones PACs? Ohhh yeah. Not.

PACs rarely go both ways. They usually lean one way or the other. I just checked out the NRA Political Victory Fund, and they simply say that they rank a candidate “irrespective of party affiliation.” This is accurate, as most NRA people are Repubs, although the organization has crossed party lines. They’re not nonpartisan.

S.B. Woo is no longer the president of 80-20, but he’s still the de-facto leader. Back in the day after S.B.’s first term was up, the terms of the 80/20 bylaws said that someone had to run against him. Because all the members were his cronies and friends, no one bothered running. So S.B. had his wife “run” against him just so he could claim he had some opposition. I wish I were making this up, but I’m not. He’s been holding on tightly to the reins ever since.

If you look at the press releases by the current president, she’s constantly quoting S.B., mostly because S.B. is usually the one on the front line making his demands and issuing his threats against people who ignore him. You can see this by checking their website, or Google cache for the stuff they erase. Or you can just check your spam folder. S.B. has been the leader, and he’s still the leader. The titles of the leadership, much like the e-mail list, are just a way for Woo to make the organization look legitimate to the public.

Another thing about the “nonpartisan” claim: they back this up by saying they have an equal number of Dems and Repubs on their committee, along with Independents. S.B. was a lifelong Democrat, so he converted to an Independent and then said that now the committee had equal representation. If this sounds fishy and sleazy, it’s because it is.

Also, if the election goes my way, I’m going to claim that I personally swung it. After all, I did send that Sarah Palin interview to a number of my friends.

Have I voted in Republicans? You betcha. Democrats? Sure thing. But every single politician in my mind is as corrupt as the next one. Plainly proven anything from local all the way to federal politics, which is why I quit screwing with naming myself one way or another and just decided which one was a bigger ass when I vote.

Again, you didn’t dig deep enough. It’s on the Obama site. I have a screenshot of it.

All in all though? It’s not really about Obama as much as they should stay far far away from 80-20. In that sense, McCain actually did do the right thing.

What I want to know is why S.B. Woo sends these things out. He’s not even the president of 80-20 anymore. Yet, he’s the only one on the Executive committee that I’ve seen to send this junk out. The stuff back in April or whatever had his name all over it too. And if you ever read the rhetoric? As much as he tries to play off that he’s an Independent, he has extreme ties to the Democratic Party. Sounds like a one sided deal to me. So much for non-partisan.

The way 80-20’s actions are taken, 8A could just as well boast after elections that we were the ones that swing the vote. Oh, yes…. 8A was the real reason that the vote swung this way, or that way, up, or down.. left or right. It seems like garbage to me.

If they really want to make generic claims like that, they should have a membership list, and voluntary admission to which way they voted.

Personally though? I’d love to see political messages removed from exemption of CAN-SPAM. Then I’ll get to report them. Now that would definitely be a pretty rainbow at the end of dark day.

The question of 80-20’s partisanship in no way changes the following facts (quoting myself from the previous post about them):

1. That 80-20 used common spammer tactics to compile their mailing list, such as culling addresses from Usenet archives and blanket sending to matching usernames on one service (say, yahoo.com) to another service (hotmail.com).
2. That 80-20 had the audacity to boast about their sudden “subscriber growth.”
3. That 80-20 is actually getting financial funding as a result of this unscrupulous practice.
4. That 80-20’s list administrator was in no way responsive when I asked to be removed multiple times.

If they are so eager to “better represents the interests of all APAs,” then they should change the way they ply their influence. Again, I have no objections to someone attempting to create a political voting bloc out of some shared commonality, but I reserve my money and support for people who do so ethically.

1. Ben – I hope you’re not a Republican…

2. Umm. I clicked on a link, and did a “find” and did not find “80-20″ anywhere…

3. 80-20 is partisan in the sense that it endorses candidates that it supports candidates that support Asian American issues…. if those candidates that it endorses are Democrats, so be it.

4. PAC’s can be non-partisan. PAC’s can lobby for an issue – like Israel or Taiwan, and support candidates on both sides of the isle.

John,

Earlier this year, I had a presentation on 80/20 for the Fallout Central podcast, and in preparation for the interview, I researched 80/20 through their own website. When I looked back at the site right before the presentation, Obama had signed their questionnaire the day before, and the site was all changed. Rewritten. Expunged. S.B. Woo almost took me out of my game! Fortunately, Google cache was “nonpartisan” when recording it. If you’re interested in seeing some of 80/20’s “nonpartisan” rhetoric when they were endorsing Clinton in a “nonpartisan” way, check it out here.

By the way, notice the race baiting. In listing his 3 reasons why Obama would lose to Clinton, Woo talks about how Obama will lose the white vote because he was trying too hard to get the black vote. What does this have to do with “equal opportunity and justice for all Asian Americans?”

Secondly, 80-20 has never been “nonpartisan” as it claims. Ever. Let me put it in another fashion. Did you actually even read the letter 80-20 sent out? If not, click the picture that’s in the post. That’s not a “nonpartisan” letter. In fact, that’s extremely partisan.

Third, quoting the website is like saying… when the Japanese were re-writing their history books some years back to make note that Pearl Harbor didn’t happen. There is a pretty strong link between 80-20 and Obama’s campaign in both tracing money, and via just textual references above.

So denying that there’s a connection is ridiculous. The point still remains… moving far away from this PAC would be beneficial to Obama/Biden.

“80-20 is a national, nonpartisan, Political Action Committee dedicated to winning equal opportunity and justice for all Asian Americans through a SWING bloc vote, ideally directing 80% of our community’s votes and money to the presidential candidate endorsed by the 80-20, who better represents the interests of all APAs. Hence, the name “80-20″ was created.”

The Obama campaign has nothing to do with that PAC or who they endorse.