!! History Commons Alert, Exciting News
Events: (Note that this is not the preferable method of finding events because not all events have been assigned topics yet)
Page 54 of 56 (5585 events (use filters to narrow search))previous
Fox Business Channel host Eric Bolling uses a racial smear to characterize President Obama’s visit to Ireland and other European countries. Obama left for Europe shortly after a number of tornadoes caused heavy damage in parts of Missouri. On his Twitter account, Bolling says “Obama chugging 40s in IRE while tornadoes ravage MO.” He repeats the smear on his television show Follow the Money a few hours later. [Media Matters, 5/23/2011; Media Matters, 5/24/2011; Media Matters, 2/16/2012] The progressive media watchdog Web site Media Matters notes that Missouri authorities have praised the White House and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for their quick and effective response to the tornadoes. [Media Matters, 5/24/2011] The progressive news site Think Progress notes that Bolling’s reference to Obama “chugging 40s” is inaccurate and racially motivated. Obama was photographed drinking Guiness from a glass in an Irish pub. More importantly, Bolling’s reference is to malt liquor, usually sold in the US in 40-ounce bottles or cans. Think Progress reporter Alex Seitz-Wald writes: “Throughout the late 80s and 90s, 40 oz malt liquor was rolled out with ‘aggressive marketing campaigns aimed at minority drinkers,’ which often portrayed black actors and rappers in stereotypical or exploitative fashions. There is a fairly large body of academic literature exploring the relationship between malt liquor and African Americans.… Hip hop culture has appropriated malt liquor, with numerous songs with ‘40 oz’ in the title. ‘Rap artists have been popular images in malt liquor advertising and ‘gangsta’ rap performers portray malt liquor as a sign of masculinity,’” according to a 2005 study. Bolling is apparently trying to associate Obama with African-American street gang and rap culture. He is also apparently trying to portray Obama as having a drinking problem, a characterization with no evidence to back it. [Think Progress, 5/24/2011] After facing a barrage of criticism over his racially inflammatory remarks, Bolling attempts to clarify his remarks, saying he intended no racial connotations and merely attempted to imply that Obama is a drunkard. “I took some heat for saying Obama should have delayed his bar crawl, or whatever he’s doing over there,” he tells a Fox Business Channel audience. Media Matters observes: “That, of course, is not what he said. And Bolling did not explain why he thinks it’s OK to call Obama a binge drinker.” [Media Matters, 5/24/2011; Media Matters, 5/25/2011]
MSNBC talk show host Ed Schultz calls right-wing talk show host Laura Ingraham a “right-wing slut” on his radio broadcast. He issues an emotional apology shortly thereafter and is voluntarily suspended from MSNBC for a week. Schultz is discussing the recent spate of tornadoes in Missouri, and the criticisms of President Obama’s response to the tornadoes from some conservatives such as Ingraham. He says to his listeners: “President Obama is going to be visiting Joplin, Missouri, on Sunday but you know what they’re talking about, like this right-wing slut, what’s her name? Laura Ingraham? Yeah, she’s a talk slut. You see, she was, back in the day, praising President Reagan when he was drinking a beer overseas. But now that Obama’s doing it, they’re working him over.” The next day, Schultz delivers a seven-minute apology on his MSNBC show and then leaves the air, replaced by MSNBC anchor Thomas Roberts. Schultz says in part: “On my radio show yesterday I used vile and inappropriate language when talking about talk show host Laura Ingraham. I am deeply sorry and I apologize. It was wrong, uncalled for, and I recognize the severity of what I said. I apologize to you, Laura, and ask for your forgiveness. It doesn’t matter what the circumstances were. It doesn’t matter that it was on radio and I was ad-libbing. None of that matters. None of that matters. What matters is what I said was terribly vile and not of the standards that I or any other person should adhere to. I want all of you to know tonight that I did call Laura Ingraham today and did not make contact with her and I will apologize to her as I did in the message that I left her today. I also met with management here at MSNBC, and understanding the severity of the situation and what I said on the radio and how it reflected terribly on this company, I have offered to take myself off the air for an indefinite period of time with no pay. I want to apologize to Laura Ingraham. I want to apologize to my family, my wife. I have embarrassed my family. I have embarrassed this company.… This is the lowest of low for me.… I stand before you tonight to take full responsibility for what I said and how I said it, and I am deeply sorry.… In this moment, I have failed. And I want you to know that I talked to my sons especially about character and about dignity and about the truth. And I tell you the truth tonight that I am deeply sorry and I tell them every day that they have to live up to standards if they want to be a successful human being in life. And I have let them down. I have never been in this position before to the point where it has affected so many people. And I know that I have let a lot of people down. To the staff here at MSNBC, I apologize for embarrassing the company and the only way that I can really make restitution for you is to give you a guarantee, and the only way that I can prove my sincerity in all of this is if I never use those words again. Tonight, you have my word that I won’t. Laura Ingraham, I am sorry. Very sorry. I’ll be back with you in the coming days.” Ingraham posts on Twitter that she accepts Schultz’s apology. Mediaite’s Tommy Christopher writes: “Schultz’s apology was as full and heartfelt as any I have ever seen from a media figure (as it should have been).… More than anything, Schultz seemed to grasp the gravity of what he had said, and his shame and embarrassment were palpable as he asked Ingraham for forgiveness.” [TPMDC, 5/25/2011; Mediaite, 5/25/2011; ABC News, 3/5/2012]
In response to reported discussions by the Obama administration on the possible issuance of an executive order forcing government contractors to disclose their political contributions (see April 20, 2011), Republicans in the House and Senate introduce legislation that would block such an order. Representative Tom Cole (R-OK) already successfully added a rider to a defense authorization bill that would block the order. Cole says he hopes that the White House will rethink the proposed executive order in light of the opposition from Congressional Republicans. “I am hoping they’re having second thoughts,” he tells a reporter. “This is the executive branch trying to legislate and use a very powerful weapon to do it. And not just legislate, but it is the executive branch trying to intimidate, in my opinion.” In the House, Representatives Cole, Darrell Issa (R-CA), and Sam Graves (R-MO) are sponsoring legislation against the order, while in the Senate, Senators Susan Collins (R-ME), Lamar Alexander (R-TN), Rob Portman (R-OH), and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) are introducing similar legislation. The bills prohibit federal agencies from collecting political information from government contractors as a condition for receiving a government contract. Cole says though his amendment is in the defense bill, he wants to ensure that government contractors are able to keep their political expenditures out of the public eye. “This is one of those things you attack from as many angles and avenues as you possibly can, because it is so important,” he says. “This will get less scrutiny in that process, and it’s a lot easier for Democrats in the Senate to avoid or to kill. A bill is a big statement.” Senate Democrats are likely to vote down the bills. Fred Wertheimer of Democracy 21, an advocacy group that stands for stricter campaign finance laws, says the Republican bills are “continuation[s] of abandonment of campaign finance disclosure by House Republicans, which began last year.” Wertheimer is referring to the DISCLOSE Act, legislation that would have forced outside political groups to disclose their donors, but was blocked by Republicans from coming to a vote (see July 26-27, 2010). Conservative donor organizations such as the US Chamber of Commerce (see January 21-22, 2010, July 26, 2010, August 2, 2010, October 2010, November 1, 2010, and February 10, 2011) support the Republican legislation. The Republican-led House Administration Committee has scheduled a hearing on the draft order. [The Hill, 5/26/2011]
Entity Tags: Obama administration, Darrell E. Issa, DISCLOSE Act of 2010, Fred Wertheimer, Mitch McConnell, US Senate, US Chamber of Commerce, Robert Jones (“Rob”) Portman, Sam Graves, US House of Representatives, Lamar Alexander, Susan Collins, Thomas Jeffery Cole
Timeline Tags: Civil Liberties
US District Judge James Cacheris throws out one count of the indictment against two men accused of illegally reimbursing donors to Democratic Senator Hillary Clinton’s Senate and presidential campaigns. In the ruling, Cacheris holds that the campaign finance law banning corporations from making contributions to federal candidates is unconstitutional. Cacheris rules that under the 2010 Citizens United Supreme Court ruling (see January 21, 2010), corporations have the same right as people to contribute to campaigns. No one has attempted to extend the Citizens United ruling to apply directly to campaign contributions by corporations. Previously, the law has been interpreted to apply only to independent corporate expenditures. In his ruling, Cacheris notes that only one other court has addressed the issue, with a Minnesota federal judge ruling that a state ban on corporate contributions is legal. Cacheris writes: “[F]or better or worse, Citizens United held that there is no distinction between an individual and a corporation with respect to political speech. Thus, if an individual can make direct contributions within [the law’s] limits, a corporation cannot be banned from doing the same thing.… That logic is inescapable here.” In court filings, prosecutors defending campaign finance law in the Virginia case said that overturning the ban on corporate contributions would ignore a century of legal precedent. Prosecutor Mark Lytle wrote: “Defendants would have the court throw out a century of jurisprudence upholding the ban on corporate political contributions, by equating expenditures—which the Court struck down in Citizens United—with contributions. This is, however, equating apples and oranges.” The case, United States v. Danielczyk, concerns accusations that William P. Danielczyk Jr. and Eugene R. Biagi helped funnel a corporate contribution to Clinton’s presidential campaign. The two men allegedly reimbursed $30,200 to eight contributors who gave to Clinton’s 2006 Senate campaign, and reimbursed $156,400 to 35 contributors to her 2008 presidential campaign. Clinton is not named as a defendant in the case. [Associated Press, 5/27/2011; New York Times, 5/27/2011]
Strongly Mixed Reactions - Biaigi’s lawyer Todd Richman says after the ruling: “Corporate political speech can now be regulated, only to the same extent as the speech of individuals or other speakers. That is because Citizens United establishes that there can be no distinction between corporate and other speakers in the regulation of political speech.” Sean Parnell of the Center for Competitive Politics, a group opposing campaign-finance regulations, says, “This was definitely something that is almost incidental in terms of the case it was decided in.” Fred Wertheimer of Democracy 21, a group supporting stricter campaign finance laws, says Cacheris went beyond his purview as a federal judge and ignored laws and Supreme Court rulings before the Citizens United decision that were not impacted (see February 7, 1972, April 26, 1978, and March 27, 2002). Had the Supreme Court wanted to overturn the ban on direct corporate campaign contributions, Wertheimer says, it could have done so in the Citizens United decision. Wertheimer says Cacheris’s ruling should be appealed and overturned. Law professor Daniel Ortiz says the ruling “pushes the outer limits of the Citizens United logic,” and will probably be overturned in a higher court. The Citizens United case differentiates between independent expenditures by corporations that are not coordinating with a candidate’s campaign, and direct campaign contributions. [Associated Press, 5/27/2011; New York Times, 5/27/2011] Ian Millhiser of the liberal news Web site Think Progress writes: “If today’s decision is upheld on appeal, it could be the end of any meaningful restrictions on campaign finance—including limits on the amount of money wealthy individuals and corporations can give to a candidate. In most states, all that is necessary to form a new corporation is to file the right paperwork in the appropriate government office. Moreover, nothing prevents one corporation from owning another corporation. Thus, under Cacheris’s decision, a cap on overall contributions becomes meaningless, because corporate donors can simply create a series of shell corporations for the purpose of evading such caps.” [Think Progress, 5/27/2011] Conservative legal scholar Eugene Volokh writes on his blog that he believes the Cacheris decision is in error. He believes the ban on corporate contributions to be legal and appropriate, though unlike Millhiser, he also supports the Citizens United decision. He cites the Supreme Court’s Buckley v. Valeo decision (see January 30, 1976) as limiting the means by which corporations can donate to political campaigns. He echoes Millhiser’s concerns about “shell corporations,” writing: “[T]he problem with corporate contributions is that they provide an avenue for evading individual contribution limits; if I want to donate $25,000 to a candidate instead of the $2,500 limit, I could set up nine corporations, and then donate myself and also have those corporations make similar donations. Few people would do that, but some people who want to be big political players might. Nor can this easily be dismissed as a supposed ‘sham’ and be thus distinguished from ‘legitimate’ corporate contributions.” The ban on direct corporate contributions does not stop individuals from donating directly to campaigns, Volokh writes, and thusly does not encroach on freedom of speech. [Eugene Volokh, 5/27/2011] Law professor Richard Hasen also believes the decision will be overturned or reconsidered, citing the Supreme Court’s ban on direct corporate spending in Federal Election Commission v. Beaumont (see June 16, 2003), a ruling that other courts have held was not overturned by the Citizens United decision. Neither the prosecution nor the defense referred to the Beaumont decision in their arguments. [Rick Hasen, 5/31/2011] “If this case stood, it would mean the end of campaign contribution limits for everyone, because it would be so easy to get around the law through a straw or sham corporation,” Hasen says. [New York Times, 5/27/2011]
Reconsideration - Four days later, Cacheris will ask for briefs from both sides in the case about the issues raised in his decision, indicating that he may well find that the Beaumont decision means that the ban on direct corporate contributions will remain in effect. [Rick Hasen, 5/31/2011] Cacheris will not reconsider his decision. [New York Times, 6/7/2011; Think Progress, 6/8/2011]
Appeals Court Overturns Decision - A day after Cacheris refuses to reconsider his decision, an appeals court will overrule his decision. [Think Progress, 6/9/2011; United States Court Of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 6/9/2011 ] In June 2012, a federal appeals court will find that the Citizens United ban does not apply to direct corporate contributions. Appellate Judge Royce Gregory will write, “Leaping to this conclusion ignores the well-established principle that independent expenditures and direct contributions are subject to different government interests.” [Thomson Reuters, 6/28/2012]
Entity Tags: Eugene R. Biagi, Eugene Volokh, Fred Wertheimer, Daniel Ortiz, William P. Danielczyk, Jr, Ian Millhiser, Sean Parnell, James Cacheris, Todd Richman, Richard L. Hasen, Mark Lytle, Royce Gregory, Hillary Clinton
Timeline Tags: Civil Liberties
Members of the Patriot Guard Riders block Westboro Baptist Church protesters from the view of memorial proceedings in Joplin, Missouri. [Source: PoliticusUSA]A number of members of the vehemently anti-gay Westboro Baptist Church (WBC—see November 27, 1955 and After) protest at a memorial in Joplin, Missouri, where 125 people died in a recent outbreak of tornadoes. In a press release, the WBC said, “Thank God for 125 dead in Joplin,” and announced its plans to send protesters to the memorial service. WBC members claim Governor Jay Nixon (R-MO) has attacked them by promoting laws banning them from protesting at soldiers’ funerals (see June 2005 and After). President Obama speaks at the memorial service. According to one participant at the memorial service, some 300 members of the Patriot Guard Riders, a group composed largely of veterans who work to form “human shields” between WBC protesters and funeral services, almost completely block the view of the memorial participants from the WBC protesters. One WBC member attempts to walk through the “wall” of Riders toward the memorial, but is accosted and prevented from proceeding; apparently the WBC member is repeatedly pushed and has his shirt torn off. The police succeed in separating the WBC member and the Riders, apparently using pepper spray, and tell the WBC member to “run, you stupid motherf_cker.” A reporter later writes, “No one was injured and the confrontation lasted only seconds.” Allegedly, another group of WBC members is accosted by Riders at a nearby truck stop and prevented from going to the memorial service. [KARK-TV, 5/27/2011; PoliticusUSA, 5/30/2011; Ozarks First, 5/30/2011; Truth Wins Out, 5/30/2011]
Former Republican Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA), joining the race to contend for the Republican presidential nomination, tells an audience at the Faith and Freedom Conference in Washington that America was a much better place before 1965, when the Voting Rights Act (VRA—see August 6, 1965 and June 29, 1989) was enacted and the “welfare state” began. “Social conservatives understand that America was a great country because it was founded great,” Santorum says. “Our founders, calling upon in the Declaration of Independence, the supreme judge, calling upon divine providence, said what was at the heart of American exceptionalism.… ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights.‘… Ladies and gentlemen, America was a great country before 1965.” Reporter David Love notes that in 1965, institutionalized racism was still the law in many areas of the country. Police brutalized voting rights protesters and civil rights workers were murdered without legal repercussions. The civil rights legislation enacted during this time began the variety of federal “safety net” programs such as food stamps, aid for mothers and their children, disabled citizens, and others, and also began stamping out institutionalized, legal racism. Medicare and Medicaid were enacted under the Social Security Act of 1965. The 1965 Omnibus Housing Act provided funds for building housing for indigent Americans, including many African-Americans. The federal government began funding public schools in 1965. And two years later, the courts used 1965 legislation to overturn laws against miscegenation—interracial marriage. Love concludes: “So the question remains, was America better before 1965? Well, it depends on your point of view. If you are a conservative who views the Great Society legacy as a big government intrusion into the lives of people, then the answer is yes. If you think government has no business protecting civil rights, funding schools and feeding hungry children, increasing economic opportunity, and promoting the arts, your answer will undoubtedly be yes. However, if you are an African-American who enjoys exercising the right to vote, or a senior who doesn’t want anyone touching your Medicare, or someone who believes the federal government has a role to play in fighting poverty, chances are you have a different view of things.” [The Grio, 6/7/2011]
Gabon President Ali Bongo (L) and US President Barack Obama labeled as ‘hoods’ by Fox Business Channel. [Source: Media Matters]Fox Business Channel host Eric Bolling uses a number of racially charged characterizations in his report on a visit by an African head of state to the White House. Bolling, hosting a segment on President Ali Bongo of Gabon’s visit with President Obama, titles the segment “Hoods in the House,” and puts the title on screen under footage of Obama sitting with Bongo in a White House meeting room. Bolling introduces the segment by saying: “Guess who’s coming to dinner? A dictator. Mr. Obama shares a laugh with one of Africa’s kleptocrats. It’s not the first time he’s had a hoodlum in the hizzouse.” Apparently Bolling is calling both Obama and Bongo “hoods,” slang often used for African-American street criminals. “Hizzouse,” a term Bolling uses for the White House, is slang for a crack house or a house used by African-American street gangs. Bolling begins the segment by saying: “So what’s with all the hoods in the hizzy? A month after the White House hosted the rapper Common, who glorifies violence on cops, the president opened his doors to one of Africa’s most evil dictators. Here’s Ali Bongo, the Gabonese president, who’s been accused of human rights violations and plundering billions of his country’s dollars.” When Bolling says that Obama has previously hosted “a hoodlum in the hizzouse,” he shows footage of Common. Progressive media watchdog Web site Media Matters will explain that Fox News viewers may recognize Common as the target of a recent smear by Fox News and other conservative media outlets, which marked the instance of his visit to the White House by falsely accusing him of being a “cop killer rapper.” Later in the segment, Bolling says of Bongo: “Smile for the birdie. Our president’s sitting with one of Africa’s most wanted. It’s not the first time he’s had a hood in the big crib.” “Big crib” is more slang for houses used by street gangs. When Bolling says “Smile for the birdie,” he shows an image of Bongo with a lighting effect—a flashing tooth, an apparent reference to some African-American rappers’ preference for gold inserts in their teeth. Media Matters notes, “For the record, it is true that Gabon and Bongo have a troubling human rights record, and Obama pressured Bongo on the issue during their meeting.” During the segment, Bolling’s guest, Human Events editor Jason Mattera, says that “Barack Obama likes to defecate on American allies.” And another of Bolling’s guests, Fox Business reporter Sandra Smith, accuses Obama of preferring to “entertain” America’s enemies in the White House over the nation’s allies. “Do we really have to have them in the White Hizzy?” she asks. [Media Matters, 6/11/2011; Media Matters, 2/16/2012]
Eurozone policymakers fail to reach an agreement over the weekend on financial aid to bail out Greece, resulting in a sharp market drop on Monday morning as disappointed traders react to the leaders’ failure to guarantee the next €12 billion installment of Greece’s original bailout. Widespread speculation is that a disorganized Greek default will send Eurozone single-currency nations, as well as nations around the globe, into another panic. [Guardian, 6/20/2011]
A new “super PAC” aligned with presidential candidate Mitt Romney (R-MA) is being formed by a group of Romney backers and former Romney campaign aides, according to a report by the Washington Post. Super PACs are political organizations that exist to influence elections, which take unlimited amounts of outside money from donors, including individuals, unions, and corporations, and pool that money to advocate for or against a candidate (see March 26, 2010). By law, super PACs are supposed to operate independently of a candidate’s official campaign organization.
Restore Our Future - The Romney super PAC, “Restore Our Future” (ROF), is one of a number of such organizations created in the aftermath of the US Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling (see January 21, 2010). Restore Our Future is apparently the first super PAC to form specifically in support of one of the 2012 presidential contenders, with the sole exception of Priorities USA Action, a super PAC in support of President Obama. ROF treasurer Charles R. Spies, who served as Romney’s general counsel in his 2008 presidential effort, refuses to disclose how much the organization has raised, or who is donating. Spies merely says: “This is an independent effort focused on getting Romney elected president. We will do that by focusing on jobs and his ability to fix the economy.” A Romney campaign aide says that a Federal Election Commission (FEC) filing coming up in July will show the organization having raised some $20 million. A major Romney donor who refuses to allow his identity to be revealed says, “We just want to show that we’ve got more dough than anyone.” The Romney campaign’s communication director, Gail Gitcho, says the campaign welcomes any outside support, and points to the Obama campaign as the largest fundraiser in the race, saying, “We are pleased that independent groups will be active in fighting this entrenched power [the Obama campaign] so the country can get back to work.”
Leaders of ROF - Members of the ROF board of directors include Spies; Carl Forti, political director for Romney’s 2008 campaign; and Larry McCarthy, a member of the Romney media team in 2008. Forti is the co-founder of the Black Rock Group consulting firm and the political director of American Crossroads, a conservative super PAC expected to raise over $120 million for candidates in 2012. Neither Forti nor American Crossroads will discuss the role played by Forti in both organizations. ROF actually registered itself with the FEC in October 2010, but has remained unaffiliated and essentially dormant until recent weeks. Now ROF officials are briefing top donors about the organization’s plans and fundraising goals. Former Obama spokesman Bill Burton, the head of Priorities USA Action, says: “I’m not surprised that there’s even more money coming into this race to help Mitt Romney. He’s a pretty deeply flawed candidate; he’s going to need all the help he can get.” Dave Levinthal of the Center for Responsive Politics says of the super PACs: “The outside groups are akin to the biggest booster club you can imagine for a college football team. The club can’t give cars or gifts to the players, but they can do everything else possible to support them.… It’s a brand-new way to play politics.” [Washington Post, 6/23/2011] The Post fails to note many of the details about ROF’s senior officials. According to the Public Campaign Action Fund, Spies is not only a lawyer and a consultant, but a registered lobbyist for Clark Hill PLC, representing a chain of luxury casinos. ROF’s address as listed on its FEC filings is the same as Clark Hill’s Washington, DC, office. The Action Fund observes, referring to the Republican primary and the number of wealthy donors lined up behind each major candidate, “While [ROF] officially can’t coordinate with the Romney campaign, having lobbyists on your side is definitely a good way to boost one’s standing in the so-called ‘wealth primary.’” [Public Campaign Action Fund, 6/23/2011] The liberal news Web site Think Progress will soon note that McCarthy is a veteran advertising creator for Republican candidates, and was one of the strongest creative forces behind the infamous 1988 “Willie Horton” ad, which many considered to be extraordinarily racist (see September 21 - October 4, 1988). In 2010, McCarthy served as a media strategist for the American Future Fund, which launched attack ads attempting to link Democrats to the Park 51 community center in Manhattan, deemed by conservatives as the “Ground Zero Victory Mosque” and mischaracterized as a monument celebrating the 9/11 attacks. Those ads were decried by many as being bigoted against Muslims. McCarthy has brushed off criticism of his ads, and said the fact-checking organizations that found his ads to be flawed suffered from a pro-Democratic bias. Think Progress reporter Lee Fang will write that when he tried to find the American Future Fund office in Iowa, the address listed for the group turned out to be a UPS mailbox in a strip mall near an airport. Fang will write, “With a record of such secrecy and racist, anything-goes campaign tactics, one can expect Romney’s new outside group to be just as ugly in the presidential race.” [Politico, 10/29/2010; Think Progress, 6/27/2011]
Entity Tags: Charles R. Spies, Washington Post, Willard Mitt Romney, Carl Forti, American Future Fund, American Crossroads, 2012 Obama presidential election campaign, US Supreme Court, Bill Burton, Think Progress (.org), Public Campaign Action Fund, Larry McCarthy, Gail Gitcho, Federal Election Commission, Dave Levinthal, Lee Fang, Restore Our Future, Priorities USA Action, Mitt Romney presidential campaign (2012)
Timeline Tags: Civil Liberties, 2012 Elections
The New York Times reports on fundraising activities by two prominent super PACs, the Republican-favoring American Crossroads and the Democratic-favoring House Majority PAC. American Crossroads reports raising $3.8 million since the beginning of the year, almost all of that money coming from a few wealthy donors: former Univision chairman A. Jerrold Perenchio ($2 million), Robert B. Rowling ($1 million), and Bob Perry ($500,000). The House Majority PAC, which has not been in existence as long as American Crossroads, raised $800,000 in that same time period—less than a fourth of that raised by American Crossroads—with a larger number of lesser donations. Some of its donors include S. Donald Sussman ($150,000), Fred Eychaner ($100,000), George Soros ($75,000), and labor unions such as the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) and the Communications Workers of America (CWA). The House Majority PAC has spent over half of its donations on US House races. Both super PACs filed earlier than the July 15 reporting date because of activity surrounding a recent special House election in New York. Super PACs are allowed to raise and spend unlimited amounts, but must report their donations and their donors. [New York Times, 6/24/2011]
Entity Tags: Communications Workers of America, A. Jerrold Perenchio, American Crossroads, Bobby Jack Perry, S. Donald Sussman, New York Times, Fred Eychaner, George Soros, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, House Majority PAC, Robert B. Rowling
Timeline Tags: Civil Liberties, 2012 Elections
Representative Michele Bachmann (R-MN) tells a CBS News viewing audience that the Obama administration is lying when it says the US government would default on its loans if Congress refuses to raise the US debt ceiling. Bachmann accuses the Obama administration of using “scare tactics” to push for a debt-ceiling increase. Bachmann has said previously that Congress should not raise the debt ceiling (see April 30, 2011). Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and other Obama adminstration members, along with a bevy of economists and financial leaders including Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and former Chairman Alan Greenspan, have urged Congress to raise the debt ceiling by August 2 to avoid the US defaulting on its outstanding loans and engendering what many call an economic catastrophe (see May 20, 2011). The US Treasury has used accounting steps, what it calls “extraordinary measures,” to avoid default since the nation reached its debt limit on May 16. The final deadline for the US to raise its debt limit is August 2. Bernanke and others have said that even a brief US default could cause an uproar in the global economy. But Bachmann says she has “no intention” of voting for a hike to the limit, saying instead: “It isn’t true that the government would default on its debt. Because, very simply, the Treasury secretary can pay the interest on the debt first, and then, from there, we have to just prioritize our spending.” Face the Nation host Bob Schieffer asks Bachman: “Experts inside and outside the government say that, if we don’t raise the debt ceiling, we face the United States having to default on its financial obligations. Are you saying these are scare tactics? Or are you saying that’s not true? How can you say that?” Bachmann replies: “It is scare tactics. Because, Bob, the interest on the debt isn’t any more than 10 percent of what we’re taking in. In fact, it’s less than that. And so the Treasury secretary can very simply pay the interest on the debt first, then we’re not in default.… What it means is we have to seriously prioritize. It would be very tough love. But, I have been here long enough in Washington, DC, that I’ve seen smoke and mirrors time and time again.” Bachmann says if elected president, she would end the nation’s deficit problem by making extreme cuts in spending. “I would begin very seriously by cutting spending,” she says. “President Obama, again, he spent a trillion dollar stimulus program that’s been an abject failure. We need to seriously cut back on spending first and foremost, and then prioritize.” Her only recommendation to handle the job crisis is to cut corporate tax rates; she explains: “We have one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world; we need to drop that significantly, so that we have a pro-business, pro-job creation environment. So if we cut back the corporate tax rate, if we would zero out the capital gains rates, allow for 100 percent expensing when a job creator buys equipment for their business, that would go a long way toward job creators recognizing that this is a pro-business environment.” She says that the administration’s health care package, which she calls “Obamacare,” will cost “800,000 jobs.” Schieffer says, “That is data that other people would question,” and she retorts by saying the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), not she herself, has made that claim. A recent analysis by the St. Petersburg Times’s PolitiFact showed that Bachmann’s claim of “Obamacare” costing 800,000 jobs is an “exaggeration” of the CBO’s figures, and is “misleading.” Bachmann dodges questions about the elimination of the minimum wage, which she has advocated since 2005, and the elimination of farm subsidies, from which she and her family have benefited. [CBS News, 6/26/2011]
Entity Tags: CBS News, Alan Greenspan, Barack Obama, Bob Schieffer, US Department of the Treasury, PolitiFact (.org ), Congressional Budget Office, Ben Bernanke, Obama administration, Michele Bachmann, Timothy Geithner
Timeline Tags: Global Economic Crises
The US Supreme Court strikes down part of an Arizona law providing public funding for political campaigns. In the case of Arizona Free Enterprise Club’s Freedom PAC v. Bennett, the Court rules 5-4 that a provision in Arizona law providing additional funds to publicly funded candidates whose opponents use private donations to outspend them is illegal. Some opponents of unfettered outside spending feared that the Court would use the case to put an end to most, if not all, programs that provide public money to candidates; Think Progress’s Ian Millhiser explains: “Candidates will only agree to accept public financing if it won’t prevent them from running a competitive race. If a state offers only a few thousand dollars in public funds to a candidate whose opponent is backed by tens of millions of corporate dollars, then the non-corporate candidate will have no choice but to raise money on their own. To defend against this problem, Arizona developed a two-tiered public financing system. Candidates receive additional funds if their opponent or corporate interest groups overwhelm them with attack ads, and thus candidates who are determined not to be tainted by the corrupting influence of major donors are not left defenseless.” The ruling will not have an impact on the presidential race, since the federal public financing system lacks such a provision, and since it seems unlikely that either President Obama or his Republican challenger Mitt Romney (R-MA) will use public financing in 2012. The case was brought by two organizations, the Institute for Justice and the Goldwater Institute, on behalf of Arizona state candidates who rejected public funds. The groups argued that the provision infringed on those candidates’ freedom of speech by compelling them to spend less money to avoid triggering the additional funds.
Majority, Minority Opinions - Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts agreed: “We hold that Arizona’s matching funds scheme substantially burdens protected political speech without serving a compelling state interest and, therefore, violates the First Amendment.” The matching funds provision “imposes an unprecedented penalty on any candidate who robustly exercises [his] First Amendment right[s],” Roberts adds. If the provision is allowed to stand, “the vigorous exercise of the right to use personal funds to finance campaign speech” leads to “advantages for opponents in the competitive context of electoral politics.” The privately funded candidate, Roberts writes, must “shoulder a special and potentially significant burden” when choosing to exercise his First Amendment right to spend funds on behalf of his candidacy. Justice Elena Kagan dissents, writing that the plaintiffs “are making a novel argument: that Arizona violated their First Amendment rights by disbursing funds to other speakers even though they could have received—but chose to spurn—the same financial assistance. Some people might call that chutzpah.”
Reactions - Attorney Bill Maurer, who represented the Institute for Justice, says the ruling “makes clear that the First Amendment is not an exception to campaign finance laws; it is the rule” (see January 30, 1976 and January 21, 2010). He adds that he hopes the ruling will serve as “a clear reminder to government officials that they may not coerce speakers to limit their own speech.” Millhiser writes: “So public financing laws can technically remain, but Arizona’s attempt to protect publicly financed candidates from a wave of corporate attack ads is absolutely forbidden. Moreover, because few candidates can know in advance whether the will face an onslaught of hostile corporate ads, most candidates will hedge their bets and avoid the risk of public financing.… Without unlimited corporate money in elections, most candidates could afford to take public funds unless their opponent had unusual access to wealth or wealthy donors.” Referring to the 5-4 Citizens United decision (see January 21, 2010), Millhiser continues, “In the post-Citizens United America, however, no one is safe from corporate America’s nearly bottomless pool of potential campaign expenditures.” Nick Nyhart of Public Campaign, an organization opposed to the unrestricted influence of outside donors, says, “The five-vote Big Money majority on the court has spoken again in favor of wealthy special interests.” Fred Wertheimer of the campaign finance group Democracy 21 calls the ruling “another seriously misguided campaign finance decision,” but adds “it does not cast any doubt on the continued viability or constitutionality of a number of other existing public financing systems that do not include ‘trigger funds’ or similar provisions.” Common Cause President Bob Edgar says, “This is not the death knell of public financing.” [Politico, 6/27/2011; Think Progress, 6/27/2011]
Plaintiffs Financed by Wealthy Conservative Interests - The next day, Think Progress’s Lee Fang will reveal that the two groups who filed the lawsuit, the Institute for Justice and the Goldwater Institute, are financed by wealthy conservative interests. The Institute for Justice, a group dedicated to bringing cases to court in order to deregulate private corporations and to increase the participation of wealthy corporate interests in elections, was created with “seed money” from oil billionaire Charles Koch (see 1977-Present, 1979-1980, 1981-2010, 1984 and After, May 6, 2006, April 15, 2009, December 6, 2009, November 2009, July 3-4, 2010, August 28, 2010, August 30, 2010, and September 24, 2010). The Walton Family Foundation, a foundation run by the billionaire family of Arkansas retailer Sam Walton (the founder of Wal-Mart), has donated $1.64 million to the group. The Foundation has written that the Citizens United decision and the Arizona case are two top priorities for the Institute. The Goldwater Institute, one of Arizona’s most prominent conservative think tanks, is focused on rolling back health care reform. The Institute is funded by several foundations, including the Walton and the Charles Koch Foundations. Fang notes that much of the funding for both groups remains undisclosed. [Think Progress, 6/28/2011]
Entity Tags: Fred Wertheimer, Elena Kagan, Bob Edgar, Bill Maurer, Barack Obama, Willard Mitt Romney, Walton Family Foundation, US Supreme Court, Nick Nyhart, Institute for Justice, John G. Roberts, Jr, Ian Millhiser, Goldwater Institute, Lee Fang, Charles Koch
Timeline Tags: Civil Liberties
The FBI confirms that it allowed members of the virulently anti-gay Westboro Baptist Church (WBC—see November 27, 1955 and After) to take part in training sessions normally provided to police officers and FBI agents. WBC members participated in training sessions at two Virginia FBI facilities in Quantico and Manassas. The FBI says that it will not allow WBC members to participate in future sessions. An FBI official says the bureau underestimated how strongly the public would react to the news of such participation once it was reported in the media. The bureau was trying to bring in a variety of viewpoints to the training, the official adds, saying that exposure to a wide variety of views was good for investigators in training. [Associated Press, 6/29/2011]
The Reverend Phillip “Flip” Benham, director of Operation Save America, once known as Operation Rescue (see 1986, July 1988, August 1988, July-August 1991, January 7, 1998, April 20, 1998, October 23, 1998, and January 13, 2003), is convicted of stalking a Charlotte, North Carolina, doctor. A jury takes a little over 90 minutes to convict Benham. One juror tells a reporter that it was obvious after looking at the stalking statute that Benham “violated every part of it.… He went to the doctor’s house. He went into the doctor’s office and took pictures. He spoke to neighbors and called him a murderer. That is harassing. That causes fear.” Mecklenburg County prosecutors say Benham sought to scare the doctor from practicing in Charlotte. Benham, whose group operates out of nearby Concord, North Carolina, was convicted of the same charges almost a year earlier (see November 8, 2010), but exercised his right to a jury trial. He is convicted of misdeameanor stalking because he distributed posters with a doctor’s name and photo on “Wanted” posters. The posters read, “Wanted… By Christ, to Stop Killing Babies.” The doctor in question provides abortions. Benham also illegally entered the doctor’s home and his clinic to take photographs, and he and his supporters posted hundreds of the “Wanted” flyers around the doctor’s neighborhood. Benham is sentenced to 18 months’ probation and ordered to stop his behaviors. The “abortion industry” and the city of Charlotte have succeeded in “removing our voice from the street,” Benham says. “I can’t speak. I can’t get within 500 feet. They’ve stolen from innocent babies a voice that has spoken for them.” Several other abortion providers have been murdered after similar flyers were distributed in other cities, including Dr. David Gunn (see March 10, 1993), Dr. George Patterson (see August 21, 1993 and After), Dr. John Britton (see July 29, 1994), and Dr. George Tiller (see May 31, 2009). DuVergne Gaines, the legal coordinator for the Feminist Majority Foundation, which provides legal and security assistance to Charlotte-area women’s health clinics, says, “For too long, Benham and his organization have been able to stalk and terrorize abortion providers and their families with impunity.” Benham’s lawyer says he will file an appeal, and says Benham’s actions have nothing to do with the murders of the previous doctors. Benham says he will continue to protest at other abortion clinics; as for the doctor he was convicted of stalking, he says, “There will be other people who will come and stand up for what’s right.” [Charlotte Observer, 7/2/2011]
Ohio Governor John Kasich (R-OH) signs a sweeping election measure that may, if it goes into effect, prevent hundreds of thousands of Ohio citizens from voting in November. Parts of the law are being challenged in court, and an effort to repeal it via a voter referendum is underway. The law shortens Ohio’s early voting period, bans in-person early voting on Sunday (a measure many believe is designed to thwart the historic “Souls to the Polls” activities often used by African-American churches to help their congregations vote), and prohibits boards of election from mailing absentee ballot requests to voters. Democrats in the Ohio legislature fought against the bill, but were outvoted in the final votes in both chambers. Former Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner (D-OH) says the law places undue barriers on voters and must be repealed. “It’s an accumulation of small procedural changes that add up to be the potential for long lines, dissatisfied voters, and less certainty on election results,” she says. Many of the law’s provisions came from current Secretary of State Jon Husted (R-OH). He has argued that Ohio’s 88 counties need uniform voter procedures. He claims the law has no political aspects nor any political ramifications. Brunner and other critics admit that parts of the bill are positive, particularly language that brings Ohio’s elections laws in line with federal court decisions, and they do not intend to challenge the law’s moving the state’s presidential primary from March to May. Provisions being challenged include:
reducing the early-voting window from the current 35 days before Election Day to 21 days for voting by mail and 17 days for voting in person, eliminating the so-called “golden week” when people could register and vote on the same day;
limiting Saturday in-person, early voting from 8 a.m. to noon and banning Sunday voting outright;
prohibiting in-person early voting the weekend before Election Day;
banning local boards of elections from mailing unsolicited absentee ballot requests to voters and prohibiting the boards from paying the return postage on the applications or ballots; and
specifying that poll workers may—but are not required—to tell voters they are in the wrong precinct. [American Civil Liberties Union, 2011; Associated Press, 7/15/2011; Columbus Dispatch, 7/29/2011]
The law does not contain a controversial voter ID provision, but House Republicans want the Senate to pass a separate photo ID requirement later in July. The Senate seems to be leaning towards allowing a voter ID provision, but giving voters without the “proper” identification the alternative of casting a provisional ballot, a measure supported by Husted. Representative Lou Blessing (R-OH) says, “It’s almost ludicrous to think anyone is being suppressed” by the bill. [Columbus Dispatch, 7/29/2011] Many critics find the provision that allows poll workers to refuse to help voters to be particularly onerous. State Senator Nina Turner (D-OH) notes, “Voting in the wrong precinct led to over 14,000 registered voters statewide [losing] their vote in 2008,” a statement rated “true” by the nonpartisan fact-checking organization PolitiFact. Most of those votes were cast in what the Cleveland Plain Dealer called “urban and impoverished areas of the state,” which traditionally lean Democratic. Turner says of state Republicans, “I guess the loss of votes for some doesn’t matter.” [Think Progress, 7/5/2011] Overall, the Columbus Dispatch will conclude that some 234,000 voters in Columbus alone who successfully cast their ballots in 2008 would find themselves either entirely disenfranchised by the new law or facing new hurdles to casting their votes. Representative Marcia Fudge (D-OH) says the law overturns many of the reform measures passed after the 2004 elections, when many critics believe voter restrictions had a huge impact on the outcome in the presidential election in Ohio. “The only reason to limit these requirements is to limit voting and to strip targeted populations of their right to vote,” she says. “Anyone who values our democracy can understand why it is necessary to make voting easier for citizens, not more difficult.” Ohio Board of Elections chairman Doug Preisse, who chairs the Franklin County Republican Party, is also concerned about the new bill. “I could quibble with a few aspects because I’m looking at it from the challenge of running elections in a big county,” he says. “Did they get it right this time? I’m not sure.” [Think Progress, 7/25/2011]
A group of tea party-affiliated organizations, including the lobbying group Americans for Prosperity (see Late 2004), the Tea Party Patriots, the Heritage Foundation, the Buckeye Foundation, American Majority, and the far-right, extremst John Birch Society (JBS—see March 10, 1961 and December 2011), hosts a two-day event called the “We the People Convention.” The event is designed to help raise money and awareness for Republican political candidates, in part through the auspices of the Ohio Citizens PAC. Some 88 area tea party groups in the Ohio Liberty Council are the local sponsors; the attendance is estimated at around 300 people. According to the organization’s Web site, “The purpose of the convention is to provide educational programs that will help all citizens participate in self governance as provided by the US and Ohio Constitutions by participating in the governance of their township, village, municipality, state, and country.” The convention includes “breakout sessions” that give information on “start[ing] your own Patriot group in your home town, or strengthen[ing] your existing group.” According to a report by the Institute for Research & Education on Human Rights’s Devin Burghart, the workshops advocate the dismantling of public education, Social Security, and Medicaid; the banning of labor unions; and voter suppression efforts against non-white voters. Burghart writes, “A hard look at this conference provides an invaluable window on the way the tea party movement works against even the most minimal efforts to promote the common good.” Many of the workshop presenters engage in what Burghart calls overtly racist jargon, including accusations that blacks who receive government assistance “have no souls” and President Obama is “not American.” Global warming is a fraud perpetuated by socialists to obtain control over private enterprise, one workshop asserts, with global warming advocates being compared to Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels. Another hosted by John McManus of the JBS claims that the Federal Reserve system is a Communist front group, and calls for a return to a gold- and silver-based monetary system. McManus also leads workshops that claim American Democrats are colluding with American neoconservatives to build a “one-world government,” a “New World Order” (see September 11, 1990) that would oppress whites and institute “global socialism.” Matt Spaulding of the Heritage Foundation tells listeners that they are the current equivalent of the Revolutionary War-era patriots, and the enemies of America are the “elites” and “progressive liberals” who intend to subvert American democracy. Progressive liberalism, Spaulding says, is an outgrowth of German Nazism. He cites what he calls “Obamacare,” the 2009 health care legislation bitterly opposed by many tea party groups, as an example of the Obama administration’s drive to “socialize” America and undermine constitutional law. At the welcoming ceremony, tea party spokesman Tom Zawistowski, the incoming president of the Ohio Liberty Council, tells the audience that the Obama administration is a “professional army” of socialists intent on overthrowing the Constitution. Zawistowski tells the assemblage that only they, the heirs and successors to American Revolutionary War figures such as Thomas Jefferson and George Washington, can stop Obama and the “liberal agenda” from destroying America as it currently exists. Vendors sell anti-Obama literature and bumper stickers, along with information on how to purchase weapons engraved with “We the People Convention” and selected phrases from the US Constitution. “[W]e do not hate Obama because he is black,” he says, “we hate him because he is a socialist, fascist, and not American.” While Zawistowski claims that tea parties have no affiliation with Republican politicians, Jenny Beth Martin of the Tea Party Patriots hosts a luncheon where she cautions listeners to avoid voting for Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, and instead consider voting for another Republican, Representative Michele Bachmann (R-MN). [We the People Convention, 7/2011; Institute for Research & Education on Human Rights, 9/16/2011]
Entity Tags: Tea Party Patriots, Tom Zawistowski, Willard Mitt Romney, Ohio Liberty Council, Ohio Citizens PAC, John F. McManus, Matt Spaulding, Michele Bachmann, Barack Obama, Americans for Prosperity, Heritage Foundation, Jenny Beth Martin, Devin Burghart, American Majority, John Birch Society, Buckeye Foundation
Timeline Tags: Domestic Propaganda
President Obama tells CBS News interviewer Scott Pelley that he cannot guarantee Social Security recipients will get paid on August 3 if Congressional Republicans block the government from raising its debt ceiling by August 2. If the debt ceiling is not raised by that date, the US will go into default on the debt it owes to other nations. “I cannot guarantee that those checks go out on August 3rd if we haven’t resolved this issue,” he says, “because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it.” The Obama administration and a large number of economists and financial leaders have warned of economic catastrophe if America defaults on its debt (see May 20, 2011); many Congressional Republicans, led by the House Tea Party Caucus, have refused to consider the idea of raising the debt ceiling (see April 30, 2011 and June 26, 2011), and some even welcome the idea of a debt default. Many Republicans and Democrats are attempting to use the debt ceiling issue to work out a larger economic approach to long-term deficit reduction. Republicans want huge federal spending cuts, mostly from social safety-net programs such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, while Democrats want smaller spending cuts balanced by increased revenue through tax increases on the wealthy and the closing of corporate tax loopholes. Obama warns: “[T]his is not just a matter of Social Security checks. These are veterans checks, these are folks on disability and their checks. There are about 70 million checks that go out.” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) states flatly that Congressional Republicans have no intention of attempting to work with Democrats or the Obama administration to balance the budget or reduce the deficit, saying, “After years of discussions and months of negotiations, I have little question that as long as this president is in the Oval Office, a real solution is probably unattainable.” However, McConnell says Congressional Republicans would work to avoid default. “The president has presented us with three choices: smoke and mirrors, tax hikes, or default,” McConnell says in remarks on the Senate floor. “Republicans choose none of the above. I had hoped to do good, but I refuse to do harm. So Republicans will choose a path that actually reflects the will of the people, which is to do the responsible thing and ensure that the government doesn’t default on its obligations.” Obama says he would refuse to sign a short-term debt ceiling increase, a tactic advocated by Republican strategists who want to bring the issue up again, and perhaps force another economic crisis, in the middle of the 2012 presidential campaign. “This is the United States of America and, you know, we don’t manage our affairs in three-month increments,” Obama tells reporters. “You know, we don’t risk US default on our obligations because we can’t put politics aside.” [CBS News, 7/12/2011; Daily Mail, 7/13/2011] The next day, McConnell offers an “alternative” debt ceiling plan which many see as fraught with political costs for Obama and Congressional Democrats (see July 13, 2011).
Two members of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), Elston McCowan and Perry Molens, are found not guilty of assaulting tea party activist Kenneth Gladney. Gladney claimed he had been beaten by McCowan, Molens, and perhaps others during a contentious town hall forum in St. Louis two years ago (see August 6-8, 2009); Gladney, who was not injured during the momentary altercation between himself and union representatives at the forum, went on Fox News and other media venues in a wheelchair after the incident, claiming to have been badly beaten and asking for donations (see August 8, 2009). McCowan and Molens were charged with assault and interfering with police. The interference charges were later dropped. If convicted, the two could have faced up to a year in prison and a $1,000 fine. The jury deliberated for about 40 minutes before declaring both men innocent. Asked why Gladney lost, Molens, referring to both Gladney and his tea party backers, says, “They lost because they lied, it’s as simple as that.” Molens says he has received death threats from tea party members since the incident. Gladney has become a regular speaker at area events, where he discusses the “savage beating” he received at the hands of “union thugs.” Paul D’Agrosa, the lawyer representing both McCowan and Molens, says his clients were exonerated because the matter was tried in court: “It wasn’t tried on the Internet. It wasn’t tried on the blogosphere.” D’Agrosa is referring to the innumerable videos of the incident, some heavily edited and altered, along with interviews of Gladney and commentaries made by a number of conservative bloggers (see August 7, 2009) as well as a number of national media figures (see August 7-8, 2009 and August 10, 2009), including some from Fox News (see Early November 2009). Keith Gladney, the twin brother of Kenneth Gladney, says of the verdict: “It’s atrocious. It’s obvious. The legal system here has come to the point where you can beat somebody up and still get off.” McCowan and Molens claimed in court that Gladney, who was selling anti-Obama buttons outside the forum, began the altercation by slapping McCowan’s hands when the two asked him about the merchandise he was selling. When Gladney slapped McCowan a second time, McCowan pushed him. According to Molens, Gladney then “started punching him in the face. I tried pulling him off.” The altercation escalated, with more shoving and punches being thrown; McCowan suffered a fractured shoulder during the altercation, but Gladney was the one claiming to have suffered extensive injuries. Video clips and testimony from onlookers supported McCowan and Molens’s version of events. McCowan, a Baptist minister, got chuckles in the courtroom when he testified that he didn’t turn the other cheek because it “hadn’t gotten hit yet.” [St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 7/12/2011; Media Matters, 7/13/2011]
A mysterious company that donated $1 million to a political action committee (PAC) favoring presidential candidate Mitt Romney (R-MA) dissolves just months after its formation, leading some to speculate that its only purpose was to make political donations. The company, W Spann LLC, was formed on March 15, 2011 by Boston lawyer Cameron Casey, who specializes in estate tax planning—“wealth transfer strategies”—for “high net worth individuals,” according to corporate records and the lawyer’s biography on her firm’s Web site. Casey filed a “certificate of formation” with the Delaware Secretary of State’s office, but provided no information about the firm. The only address listed was that of a Wilmington, Delaware, registered agent service, Corporation Service Company, which provides such services for many companies. That firm refuses to discuss its clients. Spann’s address was listed as 590 Madison Avenue, New York City, a midtown Manhattan office building, but the building’s management firm, Minskoff Equities, shows no records of any such tenant. On April 28, W Spann LLC donated $1 million to Restore Our Future, a “super PAC” (see 2000 - 2005 and June 30, 2000) aligned with the Romney campaign (see June 23, 2011). Casey dissolves the company today, two weeks before Restore Our Future makes its first campaign filing of the year reporting the donation, by filing a “certificate of cancellation.” Lawrence Noble, the former general counsel of the Federal Election Commission (FEC), says, “I don’t see how you can do this,” when asked about the donation. If the only purpose of Spann’s formation was to contribute to the pro-Romney group, “There is a real issue of it being just a subterfuge” and that could raise a “serious” legal issue, Noble says. At least, “[w]hat you have here is a roadmap for how people can hide their identities” when making political contributions. Casey will refuse to discuss the matter with the press, and her employer, the law firm Ropes & Gray, will say through a spokesman that it cannot comment. (Ropes & Gray has as a longtime client Bain Capital, the firm formerly headed by Romney. The law firm has its offices at 590 Madison.) Restore Our Future campaign treasurer Charles Spies, a former Romney campaign official, will also refuse to answer questions about Spann. He will say, “Restore Our Future has fully complied with, and will continue to comply with, all FEC disclosure requirements.” A Romney campaign official will later add, “Mitt Romney follows both the letter of the law and the spirit of the law in all circumstances.” Bain Capital spokesperson Alex Stanton says of W Spann: “Bain Capital has many employees who actively participate in civic affairs, and they individually support candidates from both parties. The firm takes no position on any candidate, and the entity in question is not affiliated with Bain Capital or any of our employees.” Critics say the Spann story shows how easily disclosure requirements are being avoided in the aftermath of the Citizens United decision (see January 21, 2010). “This is sham disclosure. It’s a barrier to disclosure,” says Michael Malbin of the Campaign Finance Institute. It is another example of how American political campaigns have gone “back to the future” and to the “pre-Watergate days” (of 1972) when Richard Nixon was raising unlimited amounts of money without disclosure, Malbin says. [MSNBC, 8/4/2011]
Entity Tags: Lawrence M. Noble, Bain Capital, Alex Stanton, Cameron Casey, Corporation Service Company, Restore Our Future, W Spann LLC, Michael Malbin, Minskoff Equities, Charles R. Spies, Ropes & Gray, Willard Mitt Romney
Timeline Tags: Civil Liberties, 2012 Elections
Mitch McConnell. [Source: Daily Political (.com)]Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) proposes an alternative to the Obama administration’s economic proposal to raise the nation’s debt ceiling and avoid the US defaulting on its debt. Republicans in the House and Senate have repeatedly refused to consider raising the debt ceiling (see April 30, 2011, June 26, 2011 and July 13, 2011); some have welcomed the possibility of a default, simultaneously saying that the nation will suffer little real economic damage by defaulting on its debt and blaming the Obama administration for any such damage. Obama officials and an array of economists and financial leaders have warned that if the US defaults on its debt, such a default could trigger a national economic collapse and send the world’s economies into a downward spiral (see May 20, 2011). McConnell’s alternative would raise the debt ceiling in three short-term increments of up to $2.5 trillion in total over the next year, as long as President Obama matched the raises with equivalent spending cuts; House Republicans could vote for non-binding resolutions of disapproval. The London Daily Mail notes that McConnell’s proposal would put the onus of raising the debt ceiling, and the negative impact of draconian spending cuts, directly on Obama and the Democrats, absolving the Republicans of blame and giving Republican presidential candidates the opportunity to slam Obama’s economic policies during the height of the 2012 presidential campaign. McConnell has blamed what he calls the intransigence of the Obama administration for the nation’s deficit, which was largely inherited from the Bush administration, and has told the Senate, “After years of discussions and months of negotiations, I have little question that as long as this president is in the Oval Office, a real solution is probably unattainable.” Obama has said that if Congress does not raise the debt ceiling by August 2, Social Security recipients and veterans may not get the checks they are due to receive on August 3. Few Obama officials or Congressional Democrats have any positive remarks about McConnell’s plan, and House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) refuses to endorse it. [Daily Mail, 7/13/2011]
Three members of the US House of Representatives’ “tea party” caucus introduce a measure to force the federal government to pay the principal and interest on the debt, and to continue to pay military personnel, even if the government goes into default because Congress refuses to raise the debt ceiling. The Obama administration and a bevy of economists and financial leaders have warned that if Congress refuses to raise the debt ceiling by August 2, the US will go into default on its debt, sending the nation’s economy into a tailspin and perhaps triggering a worldwide economic downturn (see May 20, 2011). Representatives Michele Bachmann (R-MN), Steve King (R-IA), and Louis Gohmert (R-TX) introduce House Resolution 2496, the PROMISES Act (Payment Reliability for Our Obligations to Military and Investors to Secure Essential Stability Act). All three accuse the Obama administration of lying about the potentially disastrous effects of a national default (see April 30, 2011 and June 26, 2011). President Obama recently said he could not promise that Social Security and disability checks would go out to senior citizens and veterans on August 3 if the nation defaulted on its debt on August 2 (see July 11-12, 2011); Bachmann and the others accuse Obama of lying and “fear mongering.” Bachmann says, “Don’t allow military men and women to dangle over a fire and claim they won’t get paid.” All three say that even if the government defaults on its loans, there is enough money to pay the Defense Department, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security benefits. Gohmert says that Obama should have told the nation, “The only thing that you have to fear is fear itself,” and says House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) should “not… trust the president anymore.” King says of Obama, “I can’t imagine what his argument would be against paying our military and keeping our credit rating up.” Obama has offered Congress a package containing $4 trillion in spending cuts and small tax increases on the wealthy, a package that has been rejected by Congressional Republicans. Instead, Bachmann says, “President Obama is holding the full faith and credit of the United States hostage so he can continue his spending sprees.” Bachmann refuses to say who would not get paid if the nation went into default, saying instead, “We want to take the politics out of this issue.” [Minnesota Independent, 7/13/2011]
Fox News’s Eric Bolling, hosting The Five, says that he remembers no terrorist attacks on the US during the Bush presidency. Bolling is either ignoring or forgetting that the 9/11 attacks, the most lethal and costly terrorist attacks in US history, occurred eight months into the Bush presidency. Since late 2009, two former Bush administration officials have also denied that 9/11 took place during the Bush presidency (see November 24, 2009 and December 27, 2009), as has former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, who was mayor when his city was stricken (see January 8, 2010). A Las Vegas newspaper publisher has claimed no terrorist attacks occured during the Bush administration after 9/11, another falsehood perpetrated by Bolling (see January 3, 2010). One of the “five” participants in the roundtable discussion on the show is former Bush administration press secretary Dana Perino, who is one of the former administration officials who denied that 9/11 took place during Bush’s presidency. Bolling and the other participants, save for the single “liberal” at the table, Bob Beckel, are criticizing the Obama administration’s economic policies. The topic goes into a quick repudiation of the fact that the Bush administration used false claims about WMDs to drive the US into a war with Iraq, and Bolling shouts over the crosstalk: “America was certainly safe between 2000 and 2008. I don’t remember any terrorist attacks on American soil during that period of time.” No one involved in the panel discussion corrects his misstatement. [Media Matters, 7/13/2011; Huffington Post, 7/14/2011] The Five is the newest Fox News offering, replacing the recently canceled show hosted by Glenn Beck. [Huffington Post, 7/14/2011] The next day, MSNBC talk show host Chris Matthews derides what he calls Bolling’s “revisionist history” regarding 9/11. He plays a brief clip of Bolling making the statement, then sarcastically invites Bolling to “think back to 2001.” While playing a clip from the coverage of the 9/11 attacks, Matthews asks, “Does that trigger your memory?” [Media Matters, 7/14/2011] Hours after Matthews’s correction, Bolling says on The Five: “Yesterday I misspoke when saying that there were no US terror attacks during the Bush years. Obviously I meant in the aftermath of 9/11.” Bolling then swings to the attack, saying: “That’s when the radical liberal left pounced on us and me. [The progressive media watchdog Web site] Media Matters posted my error, saying I forgot about 9/11. No, I haven’t forgotten.” (Bolling is referring to a Media Matters article with the title: “‘Have You Forgotten?’ Conservatives Erase 9/11 From Bush Record,” which cites Bolling’s error among other “misstatements” and omissions by conservatives, and cites the numerous terror attacks that took place on US soil after 9/11 during the Bush presidency.) Bolling continues by saying he was in New York during the attacks, lost friends during the attacks, and comforted the children of friends who were terrified by the attacks. He concludes by saying, “Thank you, liberals, for reminding me how petty you can be.” [Media Matters, 7/14/2009] Shortly after Bolling’s statement on Fox, Media Matters posts another article, again citing the numerous domestic terrorism attacks that took place after 9/11, under the headline, “Eric Bolling Is Still Wrong.” [Media Matters, 7/14/2011]
Mo Brooks. [Source: Public domain / Wikimedia]Many Congressional Republicans, particularly “tea party” freshmen, believe that not only is the Obama administration lying about the potentially catastrophic consequences of a US credit default that would follow the failure of Congress to raise the nation’s debt ceiling (see April 30, 2011, May 20, 2011, June 26, 2011, and July 11-12, 2011), but some even say that a credit default would be ultimately good for the nation. President Obama is joined by House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), the chairman of the Federal Reserve, and Moody’s credit rating agency in saying that Congress’s failure to raise the debt ceiling by August 2 would be an economic disaster and must be avoided. But Representative Eric A “Rick” Crawford (R-AK) says otherwise. Crawford says all Obama would have to do to handle a default and the subsequent halt in US borrowing would be to use existing tax revenue to pay for what Crawford sees as “essential” federal services: the military, Medicare and Social Security, and interest on existing debt. If other government services, programs, and agencies such as the FBI, veterans’ benefits, and others would be interrupted, Crawford says that would be acceptable. “That wouldn’t work for just a few days. That would work for a few years,” he says, adding that he will not vote for a debt ceiling increase unless it is coupled with massive federal spending cuts. Budget deficits require “that we take some painful measures now. I’d rather swallow that bitter pill today.” Most of the cuts Crawford and fellow Republicans want would be in social safety-net programs, from Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and disability benefits to funding for education and veterans programs. Crawford and a number of House Republicans simply refuse to accept statements that economic calamity would result from a missed deadline, the Washington Post reports. That opinion, the Post says, will make raising the debt ceiling far more difficult than similar ceiling raises of previous years. Representative Mo Brooks (R-AL) says that not raising the debt ceiling would actually benefit the economy in the long run. Raising the debt ceiling, he says, just enables the federal government to spend itself into more debt. “A debt ceiling problem, as large as it is, is not anywhere near as a big or as bad as” more debt, he says. He adds that the government can continue paying creditors even if it is refused further credit. “There should be no default on August 2,” he says. “In fact, our credit rating should be improved by not raising the debt ceiling.” Most financial leaders in government and the private sector believe that the US credit rating will be dropped, perhaps significantly, if the US defaults on its debt, and the consequences of that drop could send the nation’s economy into a full-blown recession or even a depression. Even Boehner says the debt ceiling must be lifted. “Missing August 2nd could spook the [stock] market,” he says. “And you could have a real catastrophe. Nobody wants that to happen.” An Obama official recently said of legislators like Crawford and Brooks, “These are the kinds of people who get eaten by bears.” Washington Monthly editor Steve Benen writes: “The problem that plagues the nation is not about competing parties, ideologies, or creeds. It comes down to a dispute between those who believe empirical reality exists and deserves to be taken seriously vs. those who don’t. With Republican members of Congress and their supporters choosing the latter, it’s increasingly difficult to imagine the United States thriving in the 21st century.” [Politico, 5/13/2011; Washington Post, 7/14/2011; Washington Monthly, 7/15/2011]
Entity Tags: Morris Jackson (“Mo”) Brooks, Jr., Barack Obama, Eric A. (“Rick”) Crawford, Moody’s Investors Service, US Congress, John Boehner, Washington Post, Obama administration, US Federal Reserve, Steve Benen
Timeline Tags: Global Economic Crises
On a 259-169 vote, the US House of Representatives passes an amendment that would “prohibit the use of funds to implement any rule, regulation, or executive order regarding the disclosure of political contributions.” The amendment to an unrelated bill was introduced by Representative Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-NJ) on June 24, 2011. The amendment is aimed at preventing the Obama administration from implementing any policy or executive order that would force disclosure on the anonymous corporate donors that have spent tens of millions of dollars influencing elections since the Citizens United ruling (see January 21, 2010). Eighteen Democrats join almost every Republican in voting for the amendment. Ian Millhiser of the liberal news Web site Think Progress speculates that many of those voting for the amendment were influenced by a huge corporate public relations and lobbying effort against campaign finance. After the media revealed that the Obama administration was considering issuing an executive order that would force government contractors to disclose their campaign donations (see April 20, 2011 and May 26, 2011), as Millhiser writes, “industry groups responded by ginning up paranoid fantasies claiming that the administration would use these disclosures to create a ‘pay to play’ scenario where only contractors who donate to Democratic causes could receive contracts.” Recent history, however, indicates that mandated disclosure would bring about the opposite effect, Millhiser writes. He recalls the 2008 resignation of Housing and Urban Development Secretary Alphonso Jackson, who was implicated in a huge scandal involving his office’s illegal contracting practices, wherein President Bush’s political opponents were denied government contracts while “personal cronies” were awarded contracts. “Had a disclosure rule been in effect,” Millhiser writes, “it would have been possible to compare the donation patterns of all government contractors against who was awarding them contracts, and systematically uncover examples of political corruption. Transparency is the enemy of corruption—not the means to implement it.” [Washington Post, 5/15/2011; US House of Representatives, 7/15/2011; Think Progress, 7/18/2011]
Law professor John Yoo, who during his tenure at the Justice Department wrote memos defending torture and the right of the executive branch to conduct its business in secret (see March 1996, September 25, 2001, September 25, 2001, October 4, 2001, October 23, 2001, October 23, 2001, November 2, 2001, November 5, 2001, and November 6-10, 2001), co-authors an article for the far-right American Enterprise Institute that attacks the Obama administration for considering the idea of an executive order to require government contractors to disclose their political contributions (see April 20, 2011 and May 26, 2011). The article, by Yoo and lawyer David W. Marston, is entitled “Overruling Citizens United with Chicago-Style Politics,” a reference to some of the unsavory and often-illegal political machinations undertaken by Chicago Democrats. The article repeatedly compares the Obama administration to the Nixon administration’s attempts to “use the available federal machinery to screw [their] political enemies,” as Yoo and Marston quote from a 1971 Nixon White House memo. Yoo and Marston say that the Obama administration, in an effort to recoup its losses from the Citizens United decision (see January 21, 2010]), “is making an unprecedented assault on free speech” by considering the executive order and by pushing the DISCLOSE Act (see July 26-27, 2010). (Yoo and Marston claim that the DISCLOSE Act, if passed into law, “would have forced all those doing business with the government to give up their ability to participate in the political process, as is their right under the First Amendment, aside from just voting on Election Day.”) They write: “Under the guise of ‘transparency’ and ‘accountability,’ the order curtails constitutionally protected speech rights and opens the door for retaliation against those not supporting the administration politically,” and go on to observe that in their opinion, this “assault on free speech” (see January 21, 2010 and January 22, 2010) is being joined by “the media [and] defenders of free speech.” Yoo and Marston claim that the Founding Fathers intended for corporations and other entities to be able to involve themselves in politics entirely anonymously, citing the example of Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison publishing the Federalist Papers under the nom de plume “Publius.” Indeed, Yoo and Marston write, “disclosure of political contributions may be a prelude to the thuggish suppression of political speech by harassment and intimidation,” and they cite the instances of boycotts, vandalism, and death threats against people in California who donated money in support of Proposition 8, which declared gay marriage illegal. “Mandated disclosure of financial support for a political viewpoint can become the springboard for lawless retaliation against citizens for holding unpopular views,” the authors write. “Disclosure” and “transparency,” the “wonder drugs du jour,” are already “being used to silence core First Amendment speech rights and to threaten America’s long protection of anonymous political speech,” they contend, and claim that “thugs” are attempting to use violence and intimidation to nullify the Citizens United decision, force the issuance of the Obama executive order, and push the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to expand disclosure requirements. Only allowing financial donors to remain secret, the authors say, protects their rights to free speech and political involvement. “[D]isclosure invites retaliation,” they argue; only secrecy can protect free speech. The authors even cite a case brought on behalf of the NAACP, in which the organization was allowed to keep its membership lists secret for fear of attacks on its members or their families by white supremacists. [American Enterprise Institute, 7/20/2011] Ian Millhiser, a legal expert for the liberal news Web site Think Progress, angrily rebuts Yoo and Marston’s claims. Millhiser, referencing Yoo’s opinions issued during his stint in the Bush administration, writes, “If there is anyone in the universe who should think twice before criticizing a government lawyer for enabling a president to break the law, it is John Yoo.” He goes on to criticize Yoo’s legal thinking in the article, noting that the Citizens United ruling held that “disclosure could be justified based on a governmental interest in ‘provid[ing] the electorate with information’ about the sources of election-related spending.” Millhiser writes: “President Obama’s proposed executive order provides the electorate with information about the sources of election-related spending. So Yoo’s entire argument can be rebutted in exactly two sentences.” After rebutting other portions of Yoo and Marston’s arguments, Millhiser concludes, “Yoo’s defense of corporate America’s power to secretly buy elections is weak even by his own tragically incompetent standards.” [Think Progress, 7/22/2011]
Doug Lamborn. [Source: Huffington Post]Representative Doug Lamborn (R-CO) calls President Obama a “tar baby,” a racially explosive characterization, in an interview on a Colorado radio show. Lamborn says: “Even if some people say, ‘Well, the Republicans should have done this or they should have done that,’ they will hold the president responsible. Now, I don’t want to even have to be associated with him. It’s like touching a tar baby and you get, you get it, you know, you get in and you are stuck and you are part of the problem now and you can’t get away. I don’t want that to happen to us, but if it does, or not, he’ll still get, properly so, the blame because his policies for four years will have failed the American people. Look at the economic numbers.” Many Lamborn supporters quickly move to defend his statement, saying he is ignorant of the term’s racial connotations, but liberal radio host and author David Sirota writes, “[T]he ignorance plea would be absurd because he explicitly used the term to describe a black person.” Moreover, Sirota writes: “Tellingly, this openly derogatory epithet comes from not just any old politician. Lamborn is a United States congressman from Colorado Springs—one of the most conservative tea party-loving districts in America. In the hard-core right-wing political circles he runs in, describing a black person as a ‘tar baby’ is probably more than acceptable—it may even be celebrated, especially when aimed at a political opponent like President Obama.… [W]hile he may insist he didn’t mean to use the term the way he did, the comment reveals how various forms of racism are still being mainstreamed by the fringe right.” After his statement begins receiving media attention, Lamborn calls the characterization a “misunderstanding,” then issues an apology to Obama. Lamborn’s office says in a press release: “Congressman Doug Lamborn (CO-05) today sent a personal letter to President Barack Obama apologizing for using a term some find insensitive. Lamborn was attempting to tell a radio audience last week that the president’s policies have created an economic quagmire for the nation and are responsible for the dismal economic conditions our country faces. He regrets that he chose the phrase ‘tar baby,’ rather than the word ‘quagmire.’ The congressman is confident that the president will accept his heartfelt apology.” Sirota observes, “Sadly, rather than fully apologizing for using an obviously racist term, Lamborn felt the need to try to pretend that only ‘some’ find the words he used insensitive.” Mediaite reporter Frances Martel calls Lamborn’s characterization “an unfortunate idiom” and observes that Lamborn’s wish to have used “quagmire” instead of “tar baby” “a bit of a grammatical stretch, but an improvement.” [Salon, 8/1/2011; AM760, 8/1/2011; Mediaite, 8/2/2011] “Congressman Lamborn’s ignorant comments are intolerable,” says Rick Palacio, Colorado Democratic Party chairman. Lamborn says he believes Obama will accept his apology, telling a Denver reporter, “I absolutely intended no offense, and if this is at all on his radar screen, I am sure that he will not take offense and he’ll be happy to accept my apology because he is a man of character.” The White House issues no comment on the issue. [Denver Post, 8/2/2011] In response to the protests outside his office in Colorado Springs, Lamborn implements a “no-protesting” rule for his office, posting a sign that reads: “Private Property—No Soliciting, No Protesting, No Loitering.” Sirota says of the sign: “A US congressman should not be declaring his public taxpayer-funded Congressional office ‘private property’ and shouldn’t be putting a sign out telling his constituents they have no right to peaceably assemble and protest. That’s just fundamentally un-American.” [Huffington Post, 8/15/2011]
In an interview with CBS News’s Scott Pelley, House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) says that he got “98 percent” of what he wanted in a deal with Senate Democrats and the White House in the just-concluded debt ceiling extension legislation. Boehner says he and his House Republicans successfully blocked a comprehensive “grand bargain” with the Obama administration because, as he says, the “president was insisting on more taxes [and] never got serious about the kind of spending cuts that were necessary in order to get America back on a sound fiscal footing.” He tells Pelley that he “walked away” from Obama’s final proposal. “We had a lot of productive conversations, a lot of tense conversations,” Boehner says. “But it became pretty clear to me that I wasn’t going to be for higher taxes, and the president wasn’t going to cut spending as he should.… I told the president: ‘I’m not going there. I can’t do that.’” Boehner says that he has no intention at this time of ever supporting revenue increases of any sort, whether it be tax increases, closing of corporate tax loopholes, or other ways to bring more revenue into federal government; instead, he hopes that the future focus of Congressional debate “will be on reducing expenditures coming out of Washington.” Asked if Republicans would ever support tax increases, Boehner says: “I think that would be a stretch. It doesn’t seem likely to me that that would be recommended, much less supported, but I’ve been surprised before.” He concludes: “When you look at this final agreement that we came to with the White House, I got 98 percent of what I wanted. I’m pretty happy.” Sixty-six House Republicans voted against Boehner’s final plan, though it passed both chambers and was signed into law by Obama hours before the US would have defaulted on its debt. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the deal cuts federal deficits by $2.1 trillion over 10 years while also raising the debt limit by an equal amount. The deal also creates a joint, bicameral committee of legislators charged with finding additional cuts. [CBS News, 8/1/2011; The Hill, 8/1/2011] Days later, Standard & Poor’s cuts the US credit rating (see August 5, 2011). Republicans, including Boehner, will blame Obama for the legislation and the resulting credit reduction (see August 6-9, 2011).
A dozen wealthy donors have contributed over half of the money collected by so-called “super PACs” in the first half of 2011, according to an analysis by USA Today. Super PACs are political organizations that exist to influence elections, which take unlimited amounts of outside money from donors, including individuals, unions, and corporations, and pool that money to advocate for or against a candidate (see March 26, 2010). By law, super PACs are supposed to operate independently of a candidate’s official campaign organization.
Majority of Donors Republican Contributors - The majority of those donors are contributing to Republican/conservative organizations, and overall, Republican organizations are outraising Democratic organizations by a 2-1 margin. American Crossroads, the organization formed by former Bush political advisor Karl Rove, has collected $2 million from billionaire Jerry Perenchio, another million from billionaire Robert B. Rowling, and $500,000 from Texas real estate billionaire Bob Perry. The super PAC supporting the Obama reelection campaign, Priorities USA Action, founded by former Obama spokesperson Bill Burton, has collected $2 million from Hollywood mogul Jeffrey Katzenberg, and $500,000 each from media owner Fred Eychaner and from the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). The super PAC supporting the presidential campaign of Mitt Romney (R-MA), Restore Our Future (see June 23, 2011), has received million-dollar donations from hedge fund manager John Paulson, Utah firms Eli Publishing and F8 LLC, and the shadowy W Spann LLC (see July 12, 2011). It has also received half a million each from Perry, financiers Louis Moore Bacon and Paul Edgerly, Edgerly’s wife Sandra Edgerly, New Balance Athletic Shoes executive James S. Davis, J.W. Marriott of the hotel chain Marriott International, and Richard Marriott of Host Hotels and Resorts. Meredith McGehee of the Campaign Legal Center says: “The super PACs are for the wealthy, by the wealthy, and of the wealthy. You’re setting up a dynamic where the candidates could become bit players in their own campaigns,” particularly in less-expensive races for the House of Representatives. Katzenberg says his donation to the Obama-supporting super PAC was because of the increasing dominance of “Republican extremists” in national elections: “The stakes are too high for us to simply allow the extremism of a small but well-funded right wing minority to go unchallenged.” Charles Spies, the treasurer of Restore Our Future and Romney’s former general counsel, refuses to discuss donors, but says, “Donors recognize Mitt Romney is the most experienced and qualified candidate to challenge President Obama’s record of out-of-control, big government spending.” One donation drawing scrutiny is a $193,000 donation to the presidential campaign of Governor Rick Perry (R-TX) from a group called Americans for Rick Perry. The primary funder of that group is Texas billionaire Harold Simmons, who gave $100,000 to the group 10 days after Perry signed legislation allowing Simmons’s company to accept low-level radioactive waste from other states at its West Texas facility. A Perry spokesman denies any coordination between Simmons and his campaign, and says Perry has not even decided whether to run for president. Simmons helped fund the 2004 group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, which launched a powerful campaign that smeared then-presidential candidate John Kerry (D-MA) and his Vietnam War record. American Crossroads has reported raising $3.9 million during the first six months of 2011. Its affiliate, Crossroads GPS, has spent $19 million on anti-Democrat advertising so far. That group does not have to report its donors or the amounts it receives. [USA Today, 8/4/2011]
'Recipe for Corruption - Legal expert Ian Millhiser of the liberal news Web site Think Progress comments: “It’s tough to imagine a surer recipe for corruption. Although super PAC’s are prohibited from giving money directly to candidates—one of the few remaining campaign finance laws that wasn’t eviscerated by Citizens United and similar cases (see January 21, 2010)—it’s not like a presidential candidate isn’t perfectly capable of finding out which billionaires funded the shadowy groups that supported their campaign. Moreover, if just a handful of people are responsible for the bulk of these donations, a newly elected president will have no problem figuring out who to lavish favors on once they enter the White House.” [Think Progress, 8/4/2011]
Entity Tags: Charles R. Spies, Robert B. Rowling, Richard Marriott, Bobby Jack Perry, Sandra Edgerly, Service Employees International Union, USA Today, W Spann LLC, A. Jerrold Perenchio, American Crossroads, American Crossroads GPS, Priorities USA Action, Paul Edgerly, Restore Our Future, Bill Burton, Harold Simmons, Meredith McGehee, Fred Eychaner, Eli Publishing, F8 LLC, Ian Millhiser, Louis Moore Bacon, James S. Davis, John Paulson, Karl C. Rove, James Richard (“Rick”) Perry, Jeffrey Katzenberg, J. W. (“Bill”) Marriott
Timeline Tags: Civil Liberties
The outside of the Standard & Poor’s office complex on Wall Street. [Source: Satellite Radio Playground (.com)]The US loses its top-rank AAA credit rating from the financial services company Standard & Poor’s; the firm drops the US credit rating one notch to AA-plus. The US has never had anything but top-tier credit ratings in its financial history, and has top credit ratings from S&P since 1941. S&P makes its decision based on the huge Congressional battle over raising the US’s debt ceiling, normally a routine procedural matter that was used by Congressional Republicans, who threatened to block the ceiling raise unless they were given dramatic spending cuts by the entire Congress and the White House. (House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) boasted that he and his Republican colleagues got “98 percent” of what they wanted in the debt ceiling deal—see August 1, 2011.) Because of the dispute, the US was hours away from an unprecedented credit default until legislation was finally signed and the default avoided. S&P also cites the government’s budget deficit and rising debt burden as reasons for the rating reduction, saying in a statement, “The downgrade reflects our opinion that the fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the administration recently agreed to falls short of what, in our view, would be necessary to stabilize the government’s medium-term debt dynamics.” The drop in the US credit rating will result in a rise in US borrowing costs for American consumers, companies, and the government. US treasury bonds, once seen as the safest securities in the world, are now rated lower than bonds issued by countries such as Britain, France, Germany, and Canada. S&P says the outlook on the US’s credit rating is “negative,” implying another downgrade is possible in the next 12 to 18 months. A senior investment officer with a West Coast management company says such a downgrade was “once unthinkable,” and says the entire global economic system will be affected. After the fierce Congressional battle, President Obama signed legislation mandating $2.1 trillion in spending cuts over the next decade, but S&P officials had asked for $4 trillion in savings as a “down payment” for restoring the US’s financial stability. Part of S&P’s rationale for the downgrade is its assumption that Congressional Republicans will not allow tax cuts implemented by the Bush administration in 2001 and 2003 to expire as scheduled by the end of 2012. The Obama administration immediately notes that S&P’s made a $2 trillion error in calculating the US debt, an error that the firm acknowledges but says does not affect its decision to downgrade the US credit rating. A Treasury Department spokeswoman says, “A judgment flawed by a $2 trillion error speaks for itself.” [New York Times, 8/5/2011; Reuters, 8/6/2011] Credit rating agencies such as S&P have suffered tremendous damage to their credibility in recent years; a Congressional panel called the firms “essential cogs in the wheel of financial destruction” after what the New York Times calls “their wildly optimistic models [that] led them to give top-flight reviews to complex mortgage securities that later collapsed.” [New York Times, 8/5/2011]
S&P Explains Decision: 'Political Brinksmanship' - S&P explains its decision in a press release. The firm is “pessimistic about the capacity of Congress and the [Obama a]dministration to be able to leverage their agreement this week into a broader fiscal consolidation plan that stabilizes the government’s debt dynamics any time soon.” Fiscal policy decisions between Congress and the White House, the firm says, “will remain a contentious and fitful process.” The firm accuses Congressional Republicans in particular of “political brinksmanship” in threatening to allow a debt default if their conditions were not met, and says such tactics destabilize both the US and the global economy. “The statutory debt ceiling and the threat of default have become political bargaining chips in the debate over fiscal policy,” the firm says. “[T]he majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues, a position we believe Congress reinforced by passing the” legislation. “The outlook on the long-term rating is negative.” [Standard and Poor's, 8/5/2011] In an email before the debt ceiling was raised, S&P’s global head of sovereign ratings wrote: “What’s changed is the political gridlock. Even now, it’s an open question as to whether or when Congress and the administration can agree on fiscal measures that will stabilize the upward trajectory of the US government debt burden.” [New York Times, 8/5/2011]
GOP Presidential Candidates, Congressional Members Blame Obama - The day after the downgrade, Republicans in Congress and on the campaign trail blame the Obama administration for the downgrade (see August 6-9, 2011).
Economist Lambasts S&P, Blames Congressional Republicans - Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman lambasts S&P and blames Congressional Republicans for the downgrade (see August 5-6, 2011).
Hours after financial services firm Standard & Poor’s downgrades the US credit rating from AAA to AA+ (see August 5, 2011), Paul Krugman, a liberal economist and Nobel Prize winner, blasts both the firm and Congressional Republicans for the downgrade. “On one hand, there is a case to be made that the madness of the right has made America a fundamentally unsound nation,” he writes. “And yes, it is the madness of the right: if not for the extremism of anti-tax Republicans, we would have no trouble reaching an agreement that would ensure long-run solvency. On the other hand, it’s hard to think of anyone less qualified to pass judgment on America than the rating agencies. The people who rated subprime-backed securities are now declaring that they are the judges of fiscal policy? Really?” Krugman states that he and other economists believe S&P’s call for a $4 trillion cut in US spending is “nonsense,” writing: “US solvency depends hardly at all on what happens in the near or even medium term: an extra trillion in debt adds only a fraction of a percent of GDP to future interest costs, so a couple of trillion more or less barely signifies in the long term. What matters is the longer-term prospect, which in turn mainly depends on health care costs.” He concludes that S&P is “in no position to pass judgment” on the US economic situation. [New York Times, 8/5/2011] The next day, the National Journal’s Edmund Andrews agrees with Krugman, writing: “[I]t’s hard to read the S&P analysis as anything other than a blast at Republicans. In denouncing the threat of default as a ‘bargaining chip,’ the agency was saying that the GOP strategy had shaken its confidence. Though S&P didn’t mention it, the agency must have been unnerved by the number of Republicans who insisted that it would be fine to blow through the debt ceiling and provoke a default.” [National Journal, 8/6/2011] Krugman’s criticisms are echoed a week later by an array of economists and private-sector financial leaders (see August 12, 2011).
Robert Bryce, a senior fellow at the conservative Manhattan Institute and the author of Power Hungry: The Myths of ‘Green’ Energy and the Real Fuels of the Future, writes an op-ed for the New York Times claiming that solar power production is too costly in part because of the “huge” amount of land it requires. “[W]hile energy sources like sunlight and wind are free and naturally replenished, converting them into large quantities of electricity requires vast amounts of natural resources—most notably, land,” he writes. “Even a cursory look at these costs exposes the deep contradictions in the renewable energy movement.” Bryce cites as one example the Ivanpah solar plant, which takes up about five and a half acres in the Mojave Desert and will generate about 370 megawatts of power when completed (see September 22, 2013). “The math is simple: to have 8,500 megawatts of solar capacity, California would need at least 23 projects the size of Ivanpah, covering about 129 square miles, an area more than five times as large as Manhattan,” he writes. “While there’s plenty of land in the Mojave, projects as big as Ivanpah raise environmental concerns. In April, the federal Bureau of Land Management ordered a halt to construction on part of the facility out of concern for the desert tortoise, which is protected under the Endangered Species Act” (see August 13, 2013). Wind power generation consumes even more land, he writes, citing the example of a wind farm in Texas that covers 154 square miles and generates over 781 megawatts of energy. Add to that the need for “long swaths of land for power lines,” and you have what one conservation group calls “energy sprawl,” the need for large amounts of land to generate power. He concludes: “All energy and power systems exact a toll. If we are to [keep power generation systems small] while also reducing the rate of growth of greenhouse gas emissions, we must exploit the low-carbon energy sources—natural gas and, yes, nuclear—that have smaller footprints.” [New York Times, 8/6/2011]
'Gusher of Lies' - In 2010, the progressive news Web site Think Progress called Bryce’s book “a gusher of lies,” and recruited renewable energy expert Adam Siegel to debunk it. Siegel wrote: “Masquerading as an unbiased, fact-based look at America’s energy situation and viable paths forward into the future, Robert Bryce’s Power Hungry is a mixed collection of factual material, thought-provoking constructs, selective ‘truthiness,’ questionable (if not simply wrong) data crunching, and outright deceptions. This mix of material makes Bryce’s work dangerous reading for those without a serious grounding in energy (related) issues while that same mix calls into question this work’s value for anyone with that more serious background.” [Think Progress, 9/14/2010]
Counter-Claims - In 2003, the US Department of Energy concluded that most of the land needed for renewable energy sites could be supplied by abandoned industrial sites. Moreover, “with today’s commercial systems, the solar energy resource in a 100-by-100-mile area of Nevada could supply the United States with all of its electricity. If these systems were distributed to the 50 states, the land required from each state would be an area of about 17 by 17 miles. This area is available now from parking lots, rooftops, and vacant land. In fact, 90 percent of America’s current electricity needs could be supplied with solar electric systems built on the estimated 5 million acres of abandoned industrial sites in our nation’s cities.” The federal government is expanding its efforts to find “disturbed and abandoned lands that are suitable for renewable energy development.” Groups concerned with minimizing the impacts of energy development on wildlife prefer prioritizing these areas for development. The Energy Information Administration says: “Covering 4 percent of the world’s desert area with photovoltaics could supply the equivalent of all of the world’s electricity. The Gobi Desert alone could supply almost all of the world’s total electricity demand.” And a 2009 study found that “in most cases” solar arrays in areas with plenty of sunlight use “less land than the coal-fuel cycle coupled with surface mining.” [National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 1/2003 ; US Energy Information Administration, 12/19/2011; Defenders of Wildlife, 1/14/2013 ; Media Matters, 1/24/2013]
Stung by the recent decision by Standard & Poor’s to downgrade the US government’s credit rating (see August 5, 2011) and the economic turmoil triggered by that decision in response to Republican-backed debt ceiling legislation (see May 20, 2011), US Republicans begin blaming the Obama administration for the downgrade. After the legislation passed, House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) boasted that he and his fellow Republicans had gotten “98 percent” of what they wanted from the legislation (see August 1, 2011). Boehner now says, “Democrats who run Washington remain unwilling to make the tough choices required to put America on solid ground.” He quotes the S&P report in making his criticisms of Washington Democrats, failing to note that the S&P report singled out Republicans as responsible for the legislative decisions that led to the downgrade. “This decision by S&P is the latest consequence of the out-of-control spending that has taken place in Washington for decades. The spending binge has resulted in job-destroying economic uncertainty and now threatens to send destructive ripple effects across our credit markets.” Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) says the downgrade and subsequent stock market plummet “provide further evidence that President Obama’s agenda has been a disaster for our economy.” Mitt Romney (R-MA), the former governor of Massachusetts and a frontrunner for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination, says the downgrade is “a deeply troubling indicator of our country’s decline under President Obama.” Longshot GOP candidate Jon Huntsman (R-UT) says the downgrade is due to the spreading of a “cancerous debt afflicting our nation” and calls for “new leadership in Washington” to address the ongoing crisis. Republican presidential candidate Tim Pawlenty (R-MN) calls Obama “inept.” Michele Bachmann (R-MN), a House Republican who led the “tea party” fight to block the debt ceiling from being raised (and thereby triggering a government debt default—see April 30, 2011, June 26, 2011, July 13, 2011, and July 14, 2011), now blames the Obama administration and particularly US Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner for the debacle. Campaigning for the Republican presidential nomination in Des Moines, Iowa, Bachmann says that President Obama should fire Geithner: “The president’s refusal to remove Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner shows the president has no plan to restore the AAA credit rating to the United States of America. The president is not listening to the people of this country, nor is he providing the leadership that is necessary to bring about economic recovery.… I once again, today, in Polk County, Iowa, call for Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner to resign immediately for the sake of our country and to return our economy to full status.” Bachmann accuses Obama of “destroying the foundations of the US economy one beam at a time.” In robocalls targeting House Democrats, the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) pins the blame for the downgrade on House Democrats. One call targeting David Loebsack (D-IA) says: “… Loebsack continues to oppose a [Constitutional] Balanced Budget Amendment that would force Washington to live within its means. Loebsack and his fellow Democrats’ addiction to big government spending has led to a downgrade of America’s credit rating and a dramatic loss in the global markets that could force you to pay more for everyday expenses. While David Loebsack keeps standing in the way of real fiscal reform, middle-class families in Iowa could now see a loss in retirement savings while mortgage rates, car payments, and student loans could become even more expensive.” Democrats respond with criticisms of their own. Tim Kaine (D-VA), a Senate candidate, says that “the continuing resistance of Congressional Republicans to entertain the need for new revenue as part of a reasonable solution is a critical part of the downgrade decision.” Senator Chris Coons (D-DE) adds, “By refusing to negotiate in good faith, Republicans turned the debt-ceiling debate into a hostage crisis and last night we saw its first casualty.” Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt says, “The Republican candidates would have put our economy at great risk by allowing the nation to default on its obligations.” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) calls for a “balanced approach” to future economic decisions, which would include revenue increases such as tax hikes and the closing of tax loopholes for rich corporations as well as spending cuts. [Washington Post, 8/6/2011; Reuters, 8/6/2011; National Journal, 8/6/2011; Politico, 8/7/2011; Politico, 8/9/2011]
Entity Tags: Harry Reid, Timothy Geithner, David Loebsack, Ben LaBolt, Tim Pawlenty, Tim Kaine, Willard Mitt Romney, Obama administration, John Boehner, Jon Huntsman, Chris Coons, Ronald H. Johnson, National Republican Congressional Committee, Michele Bachmann
Timeline Tags: Global Economic Crises
A three-judge district court in Washington, DC, denies a lawsuit, Bluman v. Federal Election Commission, filed by two foreign citizens asking that they be allowed to contribute money to US political campaigns (see March 2011). Two of the judges, Brett Kavanaugh and Rosemary Collyer, were both appointed to the bench by the Bush administration. The court finds: “[I]t is undisputed that the government may bar foreign citizens from voting and serving as elected officers. It follows that the government may bar foreign citizens (at least those who are not lawful permanent residents of the United States) from participating in the campaign process that seeks to influence how voters will cast their ballots in the elections. Those limitations on the activities of foreign citizens are of a piece and are all ‘part of the sovereign’s obligation to preserve the basic conception of a political community.’” Kavanaugh’s concurrence even cites, briefly, foreign law: “It bears mentioning, moreover, that plaintiffs’ home countries—Israel and Canada—and many other democratic countries impose similar restraints on political spending by foreign citizens. See, e.g., Canada Elections Act [and] Knesset Election Law.” The plaintiffs, identified as Benjamin Bluman and Asenath Steiman, had argued that the Citizens United decision (see January 21, 2010) opened the door for foreign involvement in US elections. The case can be appealed to the Supreme Court. [Memorandum Opinion, 8/8/2011; Think Progress, 8/8/2011; New York Times, 1/5/2012] The Supreme Court will deny the Bluman appeal (see January 9, 2012).
In a Republican presidential primary debate in Iowa, candidate Michele Bachmann (R-MN) claims that the recent decision by financial services firm Standard & Poor’s to downgrade the US credit rating (see August 5, 2011) proved that she and her fellow “tea party” Republicans in the House of Representatives were right to resist an increase in the debt ceiling. S&P itself (see August 11, 2011), along with an array of economists and private-sector financial leaders (see May 20, 2011, August 5-6, 2011, and August 12, 2011), says that the battle by Bachmann and her fellow House Republicans to refuse a debt-ceiling increase, even if it meant the US would default on its debt, is what led to the downgrade. But Bachmann sees the issue very differently. She reiterates her position in a post-debate interview on Fox News, saying, “Standard & Poor’s essentially proved me right.” The firm’s decision to downgrade the US credit rating came about, she says, because “we don’t have an ability to repay our debt.… We just heard from Standard & Poor’s, when they dropped our credit rating and what they said is we don’t have an ability to repay our debt. That’s what the final word was from them. I was proved right in my position. We should not have raised the debt ceiling.” Pat Garofalo of the progressive news Web site Think Progress writes that “it’s blatantly clear that Bachmann has no idea what S&P said, because just about every word out of her mouth regarding the agency’s decision was incorrect.” Garofalo notes that “S&P never said ‘we don’t have an ability to pay our debt.’ After all, the agency still rates the US as AA+, meaning it has a ‘very strong capacity to meet financial commitments.’ One S&P analyst characterized the difference between AA+ and AAA as just ‘degrees of excellence.’” Moreover, Garofalo notes, S&P downgraded the nation’s credit rating because, as it said in its own press releases and subsequent statements, “the use of the debt ceiling as a political football and GOP intransigence on taxes.” Bachmann has long derided the idea that not raising the debt ceiling would be detrimental to the US economy (see June 26, 2011, and July 13, 2011). [Think Progress, 8/12/2011]
Joydeep Mukherji, the senior director for the credit firm Standard & Poor’s, says that one of the key reasons the US lost its AAA credit rating (see August 5, 2011) was because many Congressional figures expressed little worry about the consequences of a US credit default, and some even said that a credit default would not necessarily be a bad thing (see May 20, 2011). Politico notes that this position was “put forth by some Republicans.” Mukherji does not name either political party, but does say that the stability and effectiveness of American political institutions were undermined by the fact that “people in the political arena were even talking about a potential default. That a country even has such voices, albeit a minority, is something notable. This kind of rhetoric is not common amongst AAA sovereigns.” Since the US lost its AAA credit rating, many Republicans have sought to blame the Obama administration (see August 6-9, 2011), even though House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) said that he and his fellow Republicans “got 98 percent” of what they wanted in the debt ceiling legislation whose passage led to the downgrade (see August 1, 2011). Representative Michele Bachmann (R-MN), running for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012, led many Republican “tea party” members in voting against raising the nation’s debt ceiling, and claimed that even if the US did not raise its debt ceiling, it would not go into default, a statement unsupported by either facts or observations by leading economists (see April 30, 2011, June 26, 2011, July 13, 2011, and July 14, 2011). “I want to state unequivocally for the world, as well as for the markets, as well as for the American people: I have no doubt that we will not lose the full faith and credit of the United States,” she said. Now, however, one of Bachmann’s colleagues, Representative Tom McClintock (R-CA), says that the media, and S&P, misinterpreted the Republican position. “No one said that would be acceptable,” McClintock says of a possible default. “What we said was in the event of a deadlock it was imperative that bondholders retain their confidence that loans made to the United States be repaid on schedule.” Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner says of S&P’s response to the default crisis: “They, like many people, looked at this terrible debate we’ve had over the past few months, should the US default or not, really a remarkable thing for a country like the United States. And that was very damaging.” [Politico, 8/11/2011] TPMDC reporter Brian Beutler recalls: “For weeks, high-profile conservative lawmakers practically welcomed the notion of exhausting the country’s borrowing authority, or even technically defaulting. Others brazenly dismissed the risks of doing so. And for a period of days, in an earlier stage of the debate, Republican leaders said technical default would be an acceptable consequence, if it meant the GOP walked away with massive entitlement cuts in the end.” He accuses McClintock of trying to “sweep the mess they’ve made down the memory hole” by lying about what he and fellow Republicans said in the days and weeks before the debt ceiling legislation was passed. Beutler notes statements made by House Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA), where they either made light of the consequences of a possible credit default or said that a default was worthwhile if it, as Cantor said, triggered “real reform.” Representative Louis Gohmert (R-TX), one of the “tea party” members, accused the Obama administration of lying about the consequences of default; Beutler writes, “This was a fairly common view among conservative Republicans, particularly in the House” (see July 14, 2011). [TPMDC, 8/11/2011]
Entity Tags: Michele Bachmann, Eric Cantor, Brian Beutler, Joydeep Mukherji, US Congress, Standard & Poor’s, Timothy Geithner, Paul Ryan, Obama administration, John Boehner, Tom McClintock, Politico
Timeline Tags: Global Economic Crises
The US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit issues a pair of rulings in two related cases that affirm campaign finance disclosure provisions in Maine and Rhode Island. Both cases were brought by the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), a conservative group that opposes, among other things, state and federal laws granting gays and lesbians the right to marry. The Citizens United ruling (see January 21, 2010) allows for unlimited donations from corporations and labor unions, but also upholds disclosure laws that can be “justified based on a governmental interest in ‘provid[ing] the electorate with information’ about the sources of election-related spending.” NOM’s pair of lawsuits challenged those areas of campaign finance laws in the two states, asking that NOM’s donors be allowed to remain secret. The court denies the lawsuits, writing in part: “In an age characterized by the rapid multiplication of media outlets and the rise of internet reporting, the ‘marketplace of ideas’ has become flooded with a profusion of information and political messages. Citizens rely ever more on a message’s source as a proxy for reliability and a barometer of political spin. Disclosing the identity and constituency of a speaker engaged in political speech thus ‘enables the electorate to make informed decisions and give proper weight to different speakers and messages.‘… Additionally, in the case of corporate or organizational speakers, disclosure allows shareholders and members to ‘hold them accountable for their positions.‘… In short, ‘the First Amendment protects political speech; and disclosure permits citizens and shareholders to react to that speech in a proper way.’” Unless the appellate court’s decisions are overturned, the two states’ campaign disclosure statutes will remain in effect. NOM attorney James Bopp used a number of arguments in court that legal analyst Ian Millhiser will characterize as “paranoid fantasies regarding the impact of disclosure laws,” such as the need for anti-gay groups to keep their donors secret to protect those donors from harassment and threats. Industry groups have argued that government officials intend to use disclosure laws to reward their political allies. Millhiser will observe sardonically, “Because there is nothing dirtier than requiring wealthy individuals and corporations to come out from the shadows and reveal which elections they want to buy.” Similar lawsuits against campaign disclosure laws in Florida and New York, which Millhiser will say are the product of a “coordinated campaign” against disclosure, are pending. A lower court dismissed the New York case, and that decision is in the process of being appealed. [NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR MARRIAGE et al v. WALTER F. MCKEE et al, 8/11/2011; NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR MARRIAGE v. JOHN DALUZ, 8/11/2011; Policy Shop, 8/16/2011; Think Progress, 8/17/2011] Shortly after the Citizens United ruling, Bopp confirmed that this case, like the Citizens United case and others (see Mid-2004 and After), is part of a long-term strategy to completely dismantle campaign finance law (see January 25, 2010).
Presidential candidate Mitt Romney (R-MA) visits the Iowa State Fair. He is flanked by several campaign volunteers. [Source: Washington Post]Presidential contender Mitt Romney (R-MA) delivers a speech at the Iowa State Fair, just before a Republican presidential debate the same evening and an upcoming Iowa straw poll, and after the speech, he tells the crowd that “corporations are people.” Romney has some difficulty with members of the audience during the question-and-answer session. The first questioner asks if Romney, as president, would be willing to raise the cap on payroll taxes so that rich people would have to pay more into the system. Romney, who is worth well over $200 million, answers that such a move would be the same as “attacking people because of their success,” and adds, “You know, there was a time in this country when we didn’t celebrate attacking people based on their success and when we didn’t go after people because they were successful.” He then attacks President Obama’s fiscal policies (later saying that he believes Obama may “take… his political inspiration from the social Democrats of Europe”), and claims that “half” of Americans “pay no taxes at all.” He also claims that if the country intends to pay the same Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid benefits to citizens in the future as it pays today, taxes for those programs would have to be raised from 15 percent of income to 44 percent. A second questioner asks Romney what he intends to do to strengthen Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare without cutting benefits. He shouts down the questioner, and answers another crowd member who says, “You came here to listen to the people,” by saying, “No, no, no, no, I came here to speak, and you’ll get to answer your question.” Some in the crowd boo him. He then says about Social Security and Medicare: “I’m not going to raise taxes. That’s my answer.” As he delivers his answer, some in the crowd begin chanting: “Wall Street greed! Wall Street greed!” He tells the crowd that in order to “save” Social Security, “completely eliminating the cap without increasing benefits actually creates a long-term surplus, and eliminating the cap while increasing benefits comes close.” During the exchange, Romney supporters, who make up the majority of the crowd, cheer the candidate on. Ian Millhiser of the liberal news Web site Think Progress writes that Romney “frequently responded belligerently to their anger.” Romney spurs further ire when he says that the US “should consider a higher retirement age” for Social Security and Medicare in order to preserve tax breaks for corporations. He says he does not support preserving Social Security by raising taxes on people, and some in the crowd shout: “Corporations! Corporations!” Romney then responds, “Corporations are people, my friend.” Some in the crowd shout back, “No they’re not!” and Romney replies: “Of course they are. Everything corporations earn ultimately goes to people. Where do you think it goes?” Someone shouts, “It goes into your pocket!” and Romney retorts: “Whose pockets? Whose pockets? People’s pockets. Human beings, my friend.” Millhiser writes of the exchange: “Romney’s antagonists are right that corporate money flows right into Romney’s pockets. Indeed, Romney has taken more money from corporate and other lobbyists than all the other GOP candidates put together, and this will likely only be the beginning for Romney if he becomes the GOP nominee.” Millhiser writes that it is likely Romney is referring to the Citizens United decision (see January 21, 2010) in characterizing “corporations [as] people.” [Washington Post, 8/11/2011; Think Progress, 8/11/2011; Think Progress, 8/11/2011]
'Debate Prep' - The Washington Post’s Philip Rucker calls the “testy” interactions between Romney and the audience “the best debate prep session he could have hoped for.” Democratic National Committee (DNC) chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) is less impressed, saying in a statement that Romney’s characterization of corporations as people is a “shocking admission.” She adds, “Mitt Romney’s comment today that ‘corporations are people’ is one more indication that Romney and the Republicans on the campaign trail and in Washington have misplaced priorities.” [Washington Post, 8/11/2011]
Romney Campaign Defends Characterization - Later in the day, Romney spokesperson Eric Fehrnstrom defends the “corporations are people” statement on Twitter, posting: “Do folks think corporations are buildings? They’re people who incorporate to conduct business. They create jobs and hire more people.” Romney’s Republican opponent Jon Huntsman (R-UT) counters through spokesperson Tim Miller, again on Twitter; Miller posts, “Was American Pad & Paper Company a person/friend?” The reference is to the firm American Pad and Paper (AMPAD), which was a thriving company before Romney’s firm Bain Capital acquired it, closed two of its US plants, laid off 385 workers, and drove the firm into bankruptcy. [TPM DC, 8/11/2011]
'Gift' to Opponents - National Public Radio’s Frank James calls the statement “a gift” to Romney’s political opponents, and says it may well follow him all the way into the November presidential elections if Romney wins the Republican nomination. “He just made their goal of pushing the narrative that he is a tool of corporate America much easier by providing them with that handy piece of video,” James writes. He also notes that Twitter is almost immediately inundated with posts mocking the comment. James’s NPR colleague Liz Halloran, who is in the crowd, later writes of the comment, “Not his best moment.” She praises Romney for being willing to engage with his critics during the exchange. [National Public Radio, 8/11/2011]
Entity Tags: Eric Fehrnstrom, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Bain Capital, American Pad and Paper, Barack Obama, Tim Miller, Willard Mitt Romney, Liz Halloran, Jon Huntsman, Ian Millhiser, Frank James, Philip Rucker, Iowa State Fair
Timeline Tags: Civil Liberties
New Republic senior editor John Judis writes of his disappointment that the financial services firm Standard & Poor’s did not explicitly cite the actions of House Republicans as the reason why it issued its downgrade to the US credit rating (see August 5, 2011). One of the reasons why S&P issued its credit downgrade, it said, was because of the “political brinksmanship” waged by members of Congress, resulting in policymaking that has become “less stable, less effective, and less predictable.” Judis notes that while it is virtually indisputable that the firm was referring to the actions of House Republicans who worked furiously to block debt-ceiling legislation (see July 13, 2011 and August 11, 2011), “the statement was sufficiently vague that Republicans could take it as laying the blame on the Obama administration for not agreeing to their proposals for raising the debt ceiling. And, indeed, Mitt Romney and other Republican presidential candidates have blamed President Barack Obama for S&P’s decision” (see August 6-9, 2011). “[T]hose appearing to discount the danger of a default were right-wing Republicans like Representative Michelle Bachmann and Senator Pat Toomey, who are identified with the Tea Party,” Judis writes. Senior S&P director Joydeep Mukherji “acknowledged that a major factor driving the downgrade was the utter irresponsibility and ignorance of a significant minority of Republican legislators,” but refused to cite those Republican lawmakers as responsible for the downgrade. Judis writes: “Why didn’t S&P say this more clearly in the original statement? I suspect it was out of a desire to appear non-partisan, but the effect was to apportion the blame equally on both parties. That is a disservice to the country because it allows a deranged faction of the Republican Party to continue to run riot in the Congress and to undermine any possible of a constructive response to the economic crisis.” Judis concludes, “I stand second to no one in criticizing the White House for failing to fight the Republicans, but it is worth recalling here that the principal cause of our counterproductive fiscal policy is the Republican opposition.” [New Republic, 8/12/2011]
Business Insider reporter Zeke Miller says flatly that Representative Michele Bachmann (R-MN), a leading candidate for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination, is the reason why the US suffered a recent credit downgrade (see August 5, 2011). Yesterday, Bachmann insisted that the credit downgrade proved her argument against raising the US debt ceiling was correct (see August 11, 2011), but, Miller writes, the evidence, including statements by Standard & Poor’s, the agency that lowered the nation’s credit rating, shows that she and her fellow Congressional Republicans who fought to prevent Congress from authorizing the raising of the debt ceiling (see April 30, 2011, June 26, 2011, July 13, 2011, July 13, 2011, and July 14, 2011), are themselves responsible. S&P officials have said that Congress’s intransigence on raising revenues in any fashion is one of the central reasons why it lowered the US’s credit rating (see August 11, 2011). Bachmann led “tea party” Republicans in voting against every plan offered to raise the debt ceiling; she told reporters that the only way she would even consider voting for a raise in the debt ceiling was if the same legislation repealed entirely the health care reform act recently passed by Congress. Miller goes on to note that all eight Republican presidential candidates, including Bachmann, have said that they would not sign a bill into law that provided 10 times the amount of government spending cuts as it authorized tax and revenue increases. Miller concludes: “Bachmann’s statements on the debt ceiling come off either as stunningly uninformed about the issue, or deliberately misleading. Either way, this line of attack will only weaken her campaign with mainstream and business voters.” [Business Insider, 8/12/2011]
Pat Delany. [Source: Addiego, Rudder and Delany]New Jersey Assemblyman Pat Delany (R-LD8) resigns from his position after his wife, Jennifer Delany, sent an email to Carl Lewis, the former Olympic gold medalist who is running as a Democrat for a state Senate seat. Lewis is African-American; the email from Jennifer Delany is seen by many as having a racist slant. On July 7, Jennifer Delany responded to a routine mass email from the Lewis campaign with the following: “Imagine, not having to pay NJ state income taxes.… It must be nice. Imagine getting a court ruling overturned so your name could get put on the ballot. Imagine having dark skin and name recognition and the nerve to think that equalled [sic] knowing something about politics. Sure, knowing someone with fat purse strings is nice, but you have no knowledge. Remove my email. To think you STOLE my email and name from a complaint letter. I’m reporting you as SPAM.” She referred to a controversy surrounding Lewis’s residency in New Jersey; the former California resident was ruled ineligible for the race by New Jersey’s top elections official, Republican Lieutenant Governor Kim Guadagno. Lewis challenged her ruling in state and federal courts, and though a federal appeals court allowed his name to appear on June primary ballots, and he won that primary, the case remains unsettled. In late August, Pat Delany will issue a statement after the press learns of his wife’s email to Lewis that states: “I am deeply disappointed in my wife’s decision to send that email to Mr. Lewis’ campaign; it does not reflect my personal beliefs whatsoever. In an attempt to repair the serious damage this has caused to our marriage, and to protect our kids from public humiliation, I decided to leave public life. On behalf of my family, we sincerely apologize to Mr. Lewis for any pain this caused him.” Delany resigns after learning of his wife’s email, and informs the Burlington County Republican Committee that he will not run for the seat in 2012. Sources will say Delany wants to protect his children from the possible impact of the story if it becomes public knowledge. Committee chairman Bill Layton and senior committee officials agree to “let [Delany] go quietly.” Publicly, Delany says that his reason for resigning centers on an unspecified family issue; the press will not learn about his wife’s email until almost two weeks later. Layton later says: “Former Assemblyman Pat Delany’s wife inexplicably sent an offensive and racist email in response to a routine email from Carl Lewis’ campaign; her actions were inexcusable. To his credit, Pat voluntarily disclosed the email to me after he found out about it. In an attempt to protect his young children from a hurtful and embarrassing public spectacle involving their mother, Pat decided he would step down from the Assembly and not seek election to a full term this November. After much deliberation, I agreed to let Pat leave public life without disclosing the reasons for his sudden departure to the press beyond the fact that he was dealing with a serious family issue. In this case, that issue was the severe damage done to his marriage in the aftermath of his wife’s decision to send this offensive email. While it may have been politically expedient to publicly throw Pat under the bus, I believe letting him walk away quietly was the honorable, compassionate thing to do for someone who personally had done nothing wrong. At the same time, I was very clear with Pat from the beginning that if he chose to stay on the ballot, the Burlington County Republican Party would have withdrawn our support. The Burlington County Republican Party has a proud tradition of being the most inclusive, diverse Republican organization in the state and it’s something we are extremely proud of. On behalf of the party, I offer Mr. Lewis our apologies for any pain this issue may cause him or his family, and we stand with all Burlington County residents who believe this kind of language has no place in society or in public discourse.” The Lewis campaign will refuse to comment on the email. [PolitickerNJ, 8/22/2011; Associated Press, 8/22/2011] Delany is a small business owner and a seven-year Navy veteran. [Addiego, Rudder and Delany, 2011]
Ethan Harris of Bank of America. [Source: National Association for Business Economics]Many prominent economists and financial leaders lay the blame for the US credit rating downgrade (see August 5, 2011) at the feet of Congressional Republicans. Republicans have been unified in blaming the Obama administration’s economic policies for the downgrade (see August 6-9, 2011), though House Speaker John Boehner boasted that he and his fellow Republicans received “98 percent” of what they wanted in the debt-ceiling legislation that led to the downgrade (see August 1, 2011). Nobel Prize-winning Paul Krugman, a self-described liberal, blamed Congressional Republicans for the downgrade hours after credit rating agency Standard & Poor’s announced it (see August 5-6, 2011), and S&P itself implied that Republicans were at fault for the downgrade for being willing to risk sending the nation into default if they were blocked from getting their way in the debt-ceiling legislation (see August 11, 2011). Even before the credit rating downgrade, the New York Times reports, “macroeconomists and private sector forecasters were warning that the direction in which the new House Republican majority had pushed the White House and Congress this year—for immediate spending cuts, no further stimulus measures and no tax increases, ever—was wrong for addressing the nation’s two main ills, a weak economy now and projections of unsustainably high federal debt in coming years” (see May 20, 2011). These economists and forecasters generally agree with the Obama administration’s wishes to immediately stimulate the economy to include greater private-sector spending and create more jobs, with spending cuts more useful as a long-term remedy. Republicans in Congress and on the presidential campaign trail, however, continue to insist that their policies are what will rescue the US economy; House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) says that he and his fellow Republicans “were not elected to raise taxes or take more money out of the pockets of hardworking families and business people,” and will never consider tax or revenue increases of any sort. Even Republican economic figures such as Reagan advisor Martin Feldstein and Henry Paulson, the Treasury secretary under President George W. Bush, say that revenue increases should balance any spending cuts, a position Congressional Republicans—particularly “tea party” Republicans such as presidential candidate Michele Bachmann (R-MN)—refuse to countenance. Bank of America senior economics research official Ethan Harris writes: “Given the scale of the debt problem, a credible plan requires both revenue enhancement measures and entitlement reform. Washington’s recent debt deal did not include either.” Ian C. Shepherdson, the chief US economist for research firm High Frequency Economist, says, “I think the US has every chance of having a good year next year, but the politicians are doing their damnedest to prevent it from happening—the Republicans are—and the Democrats to my eternal bafflement have not stood their ground.” Joel Prakken, chairman of Macroeconomic Advisers, and Laurence H. Meyer, former Federal Reserve governor, both call the Republicans’ calls for spending cuts “job-kill[ers].” Bill Gross, head of the bond-trading firm Pimco, lambasts Republicans and what he calls “co-opted Democrats” for throwing aside widely accepted economic theory for Republican-led insistence that draconian spending cuts, largely in social safety-net programs such as Social Security and Medicare, will “cure” the US’s economic ills. Instead, Gross writes: “An anti-Keynesian, budget-balancing immediacy imparts a constrictive noose around whatever demand remains alive and kicking. Washington hassles over debt ceilings instead of job creation in the mistaken belief that a balanced budget will produce a balanced economy. It will not.” [New York Times, 8/12/2011]
Entity Tags: Ian Shepherdson, US Congress, Eric Cantor, Bill Gross, Standard & Poor’s, Henry Paulson, Paul Krugman, New York Times, Joel Prakken, John Boehner, Laurence H. Meyer, Martin Feldstein, Michele Bachmann, Ethan Harris, Obama administration
Timeline Tags: Global Economic Crises
Researchers David E. Campbell and Robert D. Putnam, the authors of American Grace: How Religion Divides and Unites Us, conducted extensive polling and research on the ideology and beliefs of those who consider themselves affiliated with the “tea party” movement for their book. Campbell and Putnam write that their findings indicate what many have long believed: that by and large, the American “tea party” movement is made up of people who populate the right wing of the Republican Party. Moreover, they note, their and other polling indicates that the “tea party” is fighting an increasing tide of American disapproval. Within the last year, the number of people who label themselves as “opponents” of the “tea party” movement has doubled to around 40 percent, while those considering themselves “supporters” have dwindled to around 20 percent. In the authors’ polling, the “tea party” movement ranks lower than Republicans or Democrats in favorability, and even lower than groups such as atheists and Muslims. Their approval numbers are similar to those of the Christian Right. “Tea party” members tend to be overwhelmingly white, and their tolerance and approval of immigrants and minorities are significantly lower than even mainstream Republicans. They embrace many positions taken by so-called “social conservatives”—strong opposition to abortion, for example, and strong support for increasing the role of religion in politics. The authors write, “The tea party’s generals may say their overriding concern is a smaller government, but not their rank and file, who are more concerned about putting God in government.” “Tea party” members tend to support Republican presidential candidates like Michele Bachmann (R-MN) and Rick Perry (R-TX), who proclaim their affinity for religion in politics. However, mainstream Americans tend to frown on increasing the role of religion in politics. According to the authors’ research, while the media narrative has portrayed the “tea party” movement as what they term “nonpartisan political neophytes,” in fact the early members of the movement were what the authors call “highly partisan Republicans.” Today, they observe, “past Republican affiliation is the single strongest predictor of tea party support today.” The authors conclude: “On everything but the size of government, tea party supporters are increasingly out of step with most Americans, even many Republicans. Indeed, at the opposite end of the ideological spectrum, today’s tea party parallels the anti-Vietnam War movement which rallied behind George S. McGovern (D-SD) in 1972. The McGovernite activists brought energy, but also stridency, to the Democratic Party—repelling moderate voters and damaging the Democratic brand for a generation. By embracing the tea party, Republicans risk repeating history.” [New York Times, 8/16/2011]
Liberal columnist Joan Walsh uses a recent op-ed by authors and researchers David Campbell and Robert Putnam (see August 16, 2011) to ask why the media portrays the “tea party” movement as a powerful new force of non-partisan advocates of small government, when research shows that the movement is, as Walsh and others have long argued, largely formed of right-wing social conservatives. Walsh writes: “It’s great to have data, but this is something a lot of us believed all along—the tea party was the Republican base dressed up in silly costumes. Why was the media so quick to declare them a vital new force in politics?” Walsh points to the early involvement of the billionaire Koch brothers (see July 3-4, 2010 and August 30, 2010), lobbying groups such as FreedomWorks (see April 8, 2009 and April 14, 2009) and Americans for Prosperity (see Late 2004), and Fox News, whom she says did early and “energetic publicity for… tea party rallies” (see March 23-24, 2009, April 6-13, 2009, April 6-7, 2009, April 8, 2009, April 13-15, 2009, April 15, 2009, April 16, 2009, May 13-14, 2009, July 28, 2009, August 3, 2009, August 3, 2009, August 8, 2009, August 10, 2009, August 11, 2009, August 28, 2009, September 1, 2009, September 12, 2009, September 18, 2009, Early November 2009, and May 22, 2011). Former Fox News talk show host Glenn Beck helped start one of the earliest nationwide “tea party” organizations, the “9-12 movement” (see March 13, 2009 and After). The first “tea party” rally Walsh attended, in San Francisco in April 2009, was sponsored by right-wing talk radio station KSFO and featured speakers such as Melanie Morgan, who, Walsh recalls, “whipped the crowd into an anti-government frenzy that day.” Many “birthers”—people who insist that President Obama is not the legitimate president because he is not an American citizen—were on hand. Race is a big issue for many “tea party” members, Walsh writes: while Obama’s race is a bone of contention for many “tea partiers,” “it’s worth noting that these are the same people who’ve been fighting the Democratic Party since the days of the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, and the beginning of the War on Poverty, almost 50 years ago. They associate those long overdue social reforms with giving folks, mainly black people, something they don’t deserve. I sometimes think just calling them racist against our black president obscures the depths of their hatred for Democrats, period.” [Salon, 8/17/2011] Walsh is echoing similar claims made by Mother Jones columnist Kevin Drum almost a year ago (see September 2010).
Allen West. [Source: Newscom / Zumawire]US Representative Allen West (R-FL), a hard-right African-American conservative who won the 2010 race for his seat with a large contingent of “tea party” support, accuses black Democrats of being “overseers” on what he calls a “21st century plantation.” West says he is a “modern-day Harriet Tubman” leading people away from the “plantation.” West, discussing unemployement issues among black Americans with Fox News host Laura Ingraham, says: “So you have this 21st Century plantation… where the Democrat party [sic] has forever taken the black vote for granted, and you have established certain black leaders who are nothing more than the overseers of that plantation. And now the people on that plantation are upset because they’ve been disregarded, disrespected, and their concerns are not cared about. So I’m here as the modern-day Harriet Tubman to kind of lead people on the Underground Railroad away from that plantation into a sense of sensibility.” West, a member of the heavily Democratic Congressional Black Caucus (CBC), agrees with Ingraham when she says that Democratic members of the CBC such as Maxine Waters (R-CA) and Barbara Lee function as “plantation boss[es].” He adds civil rights leaders Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton to his list of “overseers,” and accuses Jackson, Sharpton, and others of bowing to the wishes of white liberals. “What you end up having—I’m going to be brutally honest—is that white liberals have turned over to certain leaders or ‘perceived leaders’ in the black community, like a Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, or Maxine Waters or Barbara Lee, and said, you know, pacify and keep the black community firmly behind us, regardless of the failures of our social welfare policies.” Black Democrats have done nothing to address the issue of rampant unemployment among African-Americans, he says: “That’s the absence of this ‘leadership’ in the black community, which as I say are nothing more than overseers of this 21st century plantation.” West later issues a statement clarifying his “Harriet Tubman” analogy: “Harriet Tubman is known for her efforts to rescue slaves and bring them off of the plantations to freedom. It took one person to begin a process which eventually led to the end of slavery. Today in the black community, we see individuals who are either wedded to a subsistence check or an employment check. Democrat [sic] physical enslavement has now become liberal economic enslavement, which is just as horrible. When unemployment is at more than 15 percent in the black community and we see the vicious cycle of fatherless children generation after generation, we need to find a new path. I am willing to stand up for the conservative principles that I believe can help move our community forward.” Lee spokeswoman Kristal DeKleer responds, “Congressman West’s comments are absurd on their face, and are simply another in a long stream of incendiary comments designed to fan the flames of the extreme right while they continue to do nothing to create jobs and address the tremendous disparities we face in this nation.” Waters says of West’s comments: “It’s a little bit outrageous. It’s a little bit ridiculous” and “hard to respond to.” Waters also notes that she and other CBC members were at a CBC-sponsored job fair in Atlanta, where West’s brother Arlen West, unemployed for two months, came looking for a job; according to Waters, Arlen West told job fair staffers that when he asked his brother for assistance in finding a job, Allen West advised him to go to the CBC job fair. West, interviewed by MSNBC’s Ed Schultz, says that his brother’s incendiary rhetoric is “not productive.” Asked about his advice to his brother, West tells Schultz’s producers in a statement that he has “stood by” his brother like millions of other Americans have been forced to do, saying that he has given his brother “suggestions and encouragement” on finding a job. He then blames “the economic policies of President Obama” for his brother’s inability to find a job along with others in “the black community.” In a rejoinder, Schultz says to West, “You have not offered one jobs initiative” during his time as a congressman. “You have not put your name to one effort to get Americans back to work, other than to sit on the sidelines and heckle the president, and heckle the Democrats, and complain about the economy, but you haven’t done a damn thing about it. In fact, you told your brother to go to a jobs fair that was hosted by the Democrats. So hypocritical, isn’t it?” [New York Times, 5/4/2010; Huffington Post, 8/18/2011; USA Today, 8/18/2011; MSNBC, 8/18/2011]
Entity Tags: Fox News, Arlen West, Allen West, Al Sharpton, Barbara Lee, Edward Andrew (“Ed”) Schultz, Jesse Jackson, MSNBC, Maxine Waters, Laura Ingraham, Congressional Black Caucus, Kristal DeKleer
Timeline Tags: Domestic Propaganda
Andre Carson. [Source: United Muslim Masjid Online]Representative Andre Carson (D-IN) tells an audience at a town hall that “tea party” members of Congress view African-Americans as “second-class citizens” and would like to see them “hanging on a tree,” characterizations that the Washington Post later terms “incendiary.” Carson makes the remarks at a Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) Job Tour event in Miami, Florida. Carson tells the audience: “I’m saying right now, under [CBC] Chairman Emanuel Cleaver’s leadership, we have seen change in Congress… but the tea party is stopping that change. And this is beyond symbolic change. This is the effort that we’re seeing, of Jim Crow.… Some of these folks in Congress right now would love to see us as second-class citizens. Some of them in Congress right now with this tea party movement would love to see you and me—I’m sorry, Tamron—hanging on a tree.” “Tamron” is a reference to MSNBC news anchor Tamron Hall, who moderates the event. Carson adds: “Some of them right now in Congress right now are comfortable with where we were 50 or 60 years ago. But it’s a new day with a black president and a Congressional Black Caucus.” His office later confirms that Carson stands by the statements, saying they were “prompted in response to frustration voiced by many in Miami and in his home district in Indianapolis regarding Congress’ inability to bolster the economy.” Carson spokesman Jason Tomcsi adds: “The tea party is protecting its millionaire and oil company friends while gutting critical services that they know protect the livelihood of African-Americans, as well as Latinos and other disadvantaged minorities. We are talking about child nutrition, job creation, job training, housing assistance, and Head Start, and that is just the beginning. A child without basic nutrition, secure housing, and quality education has no real chance at a meaningful and productive life. So, yes, the congressman used strong language because the tea party agenda jeopardizes our most vulnerable and leaves them without the ability to improve their economic standing.” The Blaze, a Web site launched by conservative commentator and former Fox News host Glenn Beck, begins circulating clips of Carson’s statements, interspersed with other statements made by CBC members at other town halls, calling them “dangerous” and “violent.” Carson was one of the CBC members called a “n_gger” by tea party ralliers outside the Capitol in March 2010 (see March 20, 2010). [Washington Post, 8/30/2011; ABC News, 8/30/2011]
William Gheen, the leader of the political action committee Americans for Legal Immigration PAC (ALIPAC), tells conservative radio host Janet Mefferd that President Obama is a “dictator” who is waging war on “white America,” and recommends “illegal and violent” actions to remove him from office. Gheen has previously labeled Obama a “traitor” and accused him of “replacing many core Americans,” referring to whites. ALIPAC is considered a “nativist,” anti-immigrant organization by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). Gheen and ALIPAC insist that Obama is leading an “invasion” of “white America” by “illegal immigrants” with the ultimate purpose of giving the nation to said immigrants. ALIPAC was instrumental in getting draconian anti-immigration laws passed in Arizona and other states.
Advocacy of Military Coup d'Etat, Calls for 'Illegal and Violent' Actions to Remove 'Dictator Barack Obama' - Gheen tells Mefford: “What Janet Napolitano [the director of homeland security] has spent most of her time doing in the last couple of months has been, one, preparing the new spy network that’s available now, the new data-collecting, see everything you do online, beyond the normal terrorist list that they’re creating, they’re creating a much larger list now of people who might be troublesome here in the country. And putting out videos and propaganda telegraphing what I believe to be a conflict with white America they’re preparing for after they get another 10 or 15 million people in the country to back them up.… We’re no longer referring to him as President Barack Obama, our national organization has made the decision and made the announcement we now refer to him as Dictator Barack Obama. That’s what he is. And basically at this point, if you’re looking for a peaceful, political recourse, there really isn’t one that we can think of, and I’m really not sure what to tell people out there than I guess they need to make decisions soon to just accept whatever comes next or some type of extra-political activities that I can’t really talk about because they’re all illegal and violent.” Gheen goes on to accuse Obama of trying to “integrate” the US economy with those of Canada and Mexico “in a way that bypasses the legislatures,” and says that the military should forcibly remove Obama from office. Later in the interview, Gheen calls on Congressional Republicans to impeach Obama, and says his organization cannot hold marches in Washington, DC, against Obama because he fears Obama has too many supporters among the city’s black and Latino residents. [Right Wing Watch, 8/22/2011; Southern Poverty Law Center, 8/23/2011; Right Wing Watch, 8/24/2011]
'Sharp Rightward Lurch' - The SPLC says that Gheen’s statements “mark a sharp rightward lurch” for him; in recent months, he has pulled ALIPAC out of anti-immigration rallies in Arizona because of the participation of neo-Nazi and skinhead groups in those rallies, and has told group members to have nothing to do with the nativist Minuteman groups after an Arizona Minuteman leader was arrested for the murder of a Latino man and his nine-year-old daughter. However, Gheen and ALIPAC have issued a number of bigoted and racist statements, mostly against Hispanics and homosexuals. [Southern Poverty Law Center, 8/23/2011]
'Clarification' Insists No Call for Violence, Denounces 'Left Wing' 'Attackers' - The day after his appearance on Mefferd’s show, Gheen issues a “clarification” of his statement that accuses “left wing bloggers and groups” of “attack[ing]” him over his comments, and denies making any calls for violence against Obama. “I have always been and remain dedicated to the peaceful political and civic processes to which I have dedicated my life in America,” he writes. “I would never jeopardize my reputation or my cause of securing America’s border by engaging in violent rhetoric or advocacy. I should have been more specific about my comments and indicated that I was reporting the conditions Americans face at the hands of Obama. I should have spoken more like an attorney writing fine print, as I usually have to do. I was asked what people should do now that Barack Obama has bypassed Congress and the US Constitution and instituted the Dream Act Amnesty via dictatorial decree. I mentioned that some groups were looking into lawsuits,” and, referring to his recommendation that groups use “illegal and violent” acts to “depose” the “Dictator Obama,” continues, “I meant that I cannot talk about such things because my job has been to support political campaigns, lobby Congress, do media appearances, send emails, faxes, and educate the public about illegal immigration. I have made it very clear that I disavow any form of violence on many occasions. I cannot delve into the options Barack Obama is forcing on Americans that are concerned about the illegal alien invasion of America.… The only reason I even mentioned that people in America are being forced into a decision between submission or more revolutionary means is because that is the situation that is being created by Dictator Barack Obama, not me.” He boasts that he has “never started a physical fight, but I’ve finished a few in my time and I would never engage in violence against anyone for any reason other than to protect myself and my family from physical harm,” says he has no intention of backing away from any conflicts, and makes more allegations of unfair “attacks” by a number of people and groups, including the SPLC and liberal radio host Alan Colmes. “I never said that any violence was ‘needed,’” he writes, “and I certainly never put the words about anything violent towards Obama. I know clearly that is a violation of federal law. But in the case of many of these supporters of Dictator Obama, they certainly don’t let the truth stop them from going after their enemies.” He goes on to accuse Obama and his administration of shipping thousands of Hispanic immigrants into America for the purpose of attacking white citizens, accuses “illegal aliens” of engineering the “illegitimate” takeover of the US Senate under Democratic leadership, accuses the “left” of “demonizing” the “tea party” movement, and says Obama is using “our stimulus tax dollars” and a number of federal agencies, including “the [B]ATF, DEA, DOJ, FBI, and CIA… to buy thousands of assault rifles for the invading Mexican cartels that are smuggling cocaine, methamphetamine, and illegal aliens into America!” His rhetoric, he writes, is intended to bring America together, not divide it. He concludes by saying that if there is indeed a violent revolution to overthrow the government, he is under too much “scrutiny and hatred” to be able to take part in it, and “will never advocate nor join nor support any violent actions outside of personal self defense because I am committed to the path of peace and nonviolence. I will walk right into the heart of Washington, DC, and confront this dictator unarmed and unafraid with full confidence in my Lord and I will walk as a sheep among wolves. I do not believe that the forces that at are destroying America can be vanquished with the force or arms. I believe this is a spiritual conflict. I believe that only through divine Providence will God save the United States of America.” [Americans for Legal Immigration PAC, 8/23/2011; Right Wing Watch, 8/24/2011]
Denies Using the Words 'Illegal' and 'Violent' - This evening he goes on Colmes’s radio show. Gheen claims he never used the words “illegal and violent” even after Colmes plays that segment of the interview, accuses Colmes of “exploit[ing]” his words, and says that because he advocates non-violence on his Web site, he does not need to do the same on-air: “I should’ve prepared my comments a little bit better so they wouldn’t be exploited by the opposition.” [Alan Colmes, 8/23/2011; Right Wing Watch, 8/24/2011]
The online news site Daily Beast writes that the tea party movement that once swept American politics seems to be “losing… steam.” Reporter Patty Murphy writes: “Gone is the white-hot rage that famously defined the town hall meetings of August 2009 and sent incumbents from both parties packing a year later. In its place is… lingering frustration and continued anger with Washington, but a growing realization within the upstart movement that sustaining a revolution is harder than starting it—and that merely electing conservatives doesn’t guarantee they’ll buck the system they promised to overthrow.” Utah tea party member Jerry Stotler blames the lawmakers elected as a result of tea party activism. Speaking of a recent budget compromise between Congressional Republicans and Democrats, he says: “One of the most powerful words in the English language is ‘no.’ The tea party has failed to use their power of ‘no.’ If they would’ve just stood strong on their principles, this [compromise] wouldn’t have happened.” Murray notes that many of the tea party’s favorite lawmakers, such as Representative Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), organization leader and 2012 House candidate Jamie Radtke (R-VA), and Governor Paul LePage (R-ME), are disappointing followers. Chaffetz has chosen not to run against Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Radtke is struggling for momentum against George Allen (R-VA) in the 2012 Senate race, and LePage has endorsed moderate Senator Olympia Snowe (R-ME) instead of Snowe’s more conservative challengers. One Republican aide says incumbents like Hatch, Snowe, and Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) are working harder to curry favor among tea party activists. Graham tells Murray: “The tea party has added an energy on the big issues we haven’t had before. These people are fearless.… [T]hey’re doing the nation a great service.” But Graham, like some other Republicans, is showing a willingness to buck tea party ideology at times; for example, he insists that he is “for clean air and clean water,” a direct rebuke to the tea party’s stated desire to abolish the Environmental Protection Agency and its opposition to any dealings with “climate change” science. Graham tells Murray that the tea party has to do more than merely oppose ideas if they want their movement to last. “The question for the tea party is, what is your vision?” he says. “I buy into their vision of limiting the size and scope of government. I’ve been doing that for years. The problem that parties have, tea party, Republican Party, Democratic Party, is you can disconnect yourself from the people. The tea party has got to convince people that you can find common ground.” Polls show that the tea party’s popularity among registered voters has dwindled dramatically since 2009; Graham, for one, is not worried about a tea party challenger when he runs for re-election in 2014. [Daily Beast, 8/25/2011]
Entity Tags: Lindsey Graham, George F. Allen, Daily Beast (.com), Jamie Radtke, Jerry Stotler, Olympia Snowe, Patty Murphy, US Senate, Paul LePage, US House of Representatives, Jason Chaffetz
Timeline Tags: Domestic Propaganda
Rolling Stone reporter Ari Berman writes that Republican lawmakers across the nation have launched “an unprecedented, centrally coordinated campaign to suppress the elements of the Democratic vote that helped elect Barack Obama in 2008. Just as Dixiecrats once used poll taxes and literacy tests to bar black Southerners from voting, a new crop of GOP governors and state legislators has passed a series of seemingly disconnected measures that could prevent millions of students, minorities, immigrants, ex-convicts and the elderly from casting ballots.” The initiative is ostensibly to counter the “epidemic” of “voter fraud” that Republicans insist is not only plaguing the nation, but affecting the outcome of elections. (In 2007, the Brennan Center released a report that found the instance of voter fraud vanishingly small, and concluded that more people die by lightning strikes than commit voter fraud—see 2007). Judith Browne-Dianis of the Advancement Project tells Berman, “What has happened this year is the most significant setback to voting rights in this country in a century.” As far back as 1980, powerful Republican operative Paul Weyrich told evangelical leaders: “I don’t want everybody to vote. As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down.” In 2010, the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a group founded by Weyrich and funded in part by the billionaire Koch brothers (see 1977-Present, 1979-1980, 1981-2010, 1984 and After, Late 2004, May 6, 2006, April 15, 2009, May 29, 2009, December 6, 2009, November 2009, July 3-4, 2010, August 28, 2010, August 30, 2010, September 24, 2010, January 5, 2011, October 4, 2011, and February 14, 2011), began working to disenfranchise hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of legitimate voters, almost of all identified as being part of ethnic or gender groups that are more likely to vote Democratic. Thirty-eight states have submitted legislation designed to impede voting “at almost every step of the electoral process.”
Requiring Proof of Citizenship - Kansas and Alabama now require would-be voters to show proof of US citizenship before being allowed to vote.
Impeding Voter Registration - Florida and Texas have passed legislation making it more difficult for groups like the League of Women Voters, an organization widely considered to lean Democratic, to register new voters. Maine repealed same-day registration, which had been in effect since 1973 and had worked to significantly increase voter participation. The Florida legislature passed a law requiring groups to hand in voter registration forms within 48 hours of collection, and imposed what Berman calls “a barrage of onerous, bureaucratic requirements” and serious criminal penalties for those who fail to comply. As a result, many people who once volunteered to help register voters are afraid to do so again. The League of Women Voters says it will no longer operate in Florida, and called Florida’s efforts “good old-fashioned voter suppression.” The Florida statute took effect one day after its passage, under an emergency statute designed for “an immediate danger to the public health, safety or welfare.” Since 2009, Florida has arrested a total of three people for suspected voter fraud. Republican state senator Mike Fasano, one of the few in his party to oppose the restrictions on registrations, says, “No one could give me an example of all this fraud they speak about.”
Curbing Early Voting - Florida, Georgia, Ohio, Tennessee, and West Virginia have cut short early-voting periods. Six states have moved to impose new restrictions on voter registration drives. In 2004, then-Florida governor Jeb Bush (R-FL) said he thought early voting was “great.… It’s another reform we added that has helped provide access to the polls and provide a convenience. And we’re going to have a high voter turnout here, and I think that’s wonderful.” However, his successor Rick Scott (R-FL) does not agree, and neither do most Republicans. After analysis showed what a benefit early voting was for Obama’s numbers, early voting became a key target. Florida has cut early voting days from 14 to 8 days. Ohio, where early voting numbers gave Obama a narrow victory in 2008, has cut its early voting days from 35 to 11, with only limited hours on weekends. Both states have banned voting on the Sunday before elections, when many black churches historically mobilize their constituents. The Early Voting Information Center at Reed College states, “There is no evidence that any form of convenience voting has led to higher levels of fraud.”
Denying Convicted Felons the Right to Vote - Florida and Iowa have passed laws denying convicted felons the right to vote, disenfranchising thousands of previously eligible voters even if they have already served their sentences and have returned to society. Former Florida Governor Charlie Crist (R-FL) restored the voting rights of 154,000 felons convicted of non-violent crimes. In March 2011, after 30 minutes of public debate, Governor Scott overturned that decision, instantly disenfranchising almost 98,000 citizens and prohibiting another 1.1 million convicts from being allowed to vote after they are released from prison. Former President Bill Clinton asked in July: “Why should we disenfranchise people forever once they’ve paid their price? Because most of them in Florida were African-Americans and Hispanics and would tend to vote for Democrats—that’s why.” Iowa Governor Terry Branstad (R-IA) recently took a similar action, overturning his predecessor’s decision to restore voting rights to some 100,000 ex-felons. Until recent years, Iowa saw up to five percent of its residents ineligible to vote, including 33 percent of its African-American residents. Florida, Iowa, Kentucky, and Virginia require former felons to apply for the right to vote to be restored.
Voter Identification - Six states—Alabama, Kansas, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Wisconsin, all controlled by Republican governors and legislatures—have passed laws requiring an official government ID to cast a ballot. Berman notes that some 10 percent of US citizens lack such identification, and the number of young and black voters, groups that traditionally lean Democratic, are much higher. The turn towards voter ID requirements began in 2008, when the US Supreme Court upheld an Indiana photo-ID requirement even though state lawyers could not produce a single instance of the kind of voter fraud that photo ID laws are designed to prevent. After the ruling, ALEC orchestrated a nationwide move towards photo ID requirements. ALEC wrote draft legislation for Republican legislators based on Indiana’s ID requirement. Five of the states that passed those laws had their legislation submitted by legislators who belong to ALEC. Heather Smith, president of the voter-registration group Rock the Vote, says: “We’re seeing the same legislation being proposed state by state by state. And they’re not being shy in any of these places about clearly and blatantly targeting specific demographic groups, including students.” In Texas, the Republican-dominated legislature passed “emergency” legislation that was signed into law by Governor Rick Perry saying that a concealed-weapons permit is acceptable ID, but a college ID is not. Republicans in Wisconsin effectively disenfranchised every college student by requiring that acceptable IDs contain information that no colleges put on their IDs. Dane County board supervisor Analiese Eicher says, “It’s like creating a second class of citizens in terms of who gets to vote.” In Wisconsin, for example, about half of African- and Hispanic-American citizens do not have a driver’s license, and the state has an extremely small number of Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) offices—some of which are only open one day a month. Governor Scott Walker (R-WI) attempted to close 16 DMV offices, all in heavily Democratic-voting areas. Berman notes, “Walker planned to close a DMV in Fort Atkinson, a liberal stronghold, while opening a new office 30 minutes away in the conservative district of Watertown.” Democratic governors in five states—Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, and North Carolina—have all vetoed ID laws. Voters in Mississippi and Montana are considering ballot initiatives requiring voter IDs. Legislation is currently pending in Pennsylvania. Perhaps the most restrictive law was signed into effect by South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley (R-SC). Voters must have a free state ID to vote—but they must pay for a passport or birth certificate. Brown-Dianis says, “It’s the stepsister of the poll tax.” Many elderly black residents who were born at home in the segregated South and were never issued birth certificates can no longer vote unless they go to family court to prove their identity.
Significant Impact on 2012 Voting - Berman writes that when these measures are taken in the aggregate, the turnout of Democrats to the 2012 votes will be significantly smaller, perhaps enough to throw races to Republican candidates. In July, Clinton told a group of student activists: “One of the most pervasive political movements going on outside Washington today is the disciplined, passionate, determined effort of Republican governors and legislators to keep most of you from voting next time. Why is all of this going on? This is not rocket science. They are trying to make the 2012 electorate look more like the 2010 electorate than the 2008 electorate.” Clinton was referring to the 2010 elections, widely considered a Republican “wave” election in part because of far smaller turnouts among young and minority voters than in 2008, and because of a large number of “tea party” voters. Clinton added, “There has never been in my lifetime, since we got rid of the poll tax and all the Jim Crow burdens on voting, the determined effort to limit the franchise that we see today.”
Cracking Down on Voter Fraud? - Republicans insist that voter fraud is rampant in America. Since George W. Bush took office in 2001 after losing the popular vote (see 9:54 p.m. December 12, 2000), his administration made “voter fraud” a top priority for Justice Department prosecutors. In 2006, the DOJ fired two US Attorneys who refused to prosecute patently fraudulent voter fraud allegations. Bush advisor Karl Rove called voter fraud “an enormous and growing problem.” He told the Republican National Lawyers Association that America is “beginning to look like we have elections like those run in countries where the guys in charge are colonels in mirrored sunglasses.” The Republicans successfully destroyed the community activism group ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) after false allegations were made that it was, as Berman writes, “actively recruiting armies of fake voters to misrepresent themselves at the polls and cast illegal ballots for the Democrats.” A massive DOJ probe in 2006 and 2007 failed to prosecute a single person for intentionally impersonating another person at the polls, an action that the DOJ claimed was at the heart of the voter fraud investigation. Eighty-six cases of voter fraud did win convictions, but most of those were immigrants and former felons who did not intentionally cast illegal votes. An enormous investigation in Wisconsin resulted in 0.0007 percent of the electorate being prosecuted for voter fraud. And the Brennan Center report found the instance of voter fraud in America extraordinarily small (see 2007).
Voter Fraud Allegations Dog Obama Victory - Republican lawmakers and activists made a raft of allegations after the November 2008 elections that placed the White House in the hands of Barack Obama (D-IL). The 29 states that register voter affiliation showed a roughly 2-1 increase in new Democratic voters over Republicans for 2008, and Obama won almost 70 percent of those votes. Election reform expert Tova Wang says flatly, “This latest flood of attacks on voting rights is a direct shot at the communities that came out in historic numbers for the first time in 2008 and put Obama over the top.” Berman cites Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach as emblematic of the Republican pushback against the Obama victory. Kobach is a former Bush-era Justice Department advisor who helped push through his state’s requirement that every voter prove his or her citizenship, ignoring the fact that Kansas has prosecuted exactly one case of voter fraud since 2006. Kobach used fear of illegal immigrants to help push his requirement through, stating without evidence, “In Kansas, the illegal registration of alien voters has become pervasive.” He also stated that many people were casting ballots in the name of dead voters, and cited the example of Alfred K. Brewer as a dead voter who mysteriously voted in 2008. However, as the Wichita Eagle showed, Brewer is very much alive. “I don’t think this is heaven,” Brewer told the Eagle, “[n]ot when I’m raking leaves.” Representative John Lewis (D-AL), a civil rights crusader who was brutally beaten during the 1960s effort to win voting rights for African-Americans, says bluntly, “Voting rights are under attack in America.” On the House floor in July, Lewis told the assemblage, “There’s a deliberate and systematic attempt to prevent millions of elderly voters, young voters, students, minority and low-income voters from exercising their constitutional right to engage in the democratic process.”
Fighting Voter Disenfranchisement - Voting-rights organizations are fighting back as best they can. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is challenging several of the new voter-restriction laws in court. Congressional Democrats are pushing the Department of Justice to block or weaken laws that impede minority voters from exercising their rights. Lewis says, “The Justice Department should be much more aggressive in areas covered by the Voting Rights Act.” Meanwhile, many voting-rights experts predict chaos at the polls in November 2012, as voters react with confusion, frustration, and anger at being barred from voting. “Our democracy is supposed to be a government by, of, and for the people,” says Browne-Dianis. “It doesn’t matter how much money you have, what race you are, or where you live in the country—we all get to have the same amount of power by going into the voting booth on Election Day. But those who passed these laws believe that only some people should participate. The restrictions undermine democracy by cutting off the voices of the people.” [Rolling Stone, 8/30/2011]
Entity Tags: Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Scott Kevin Walker, Rick Scott, Republican Party, Ari Berman, Tova Wang, US Department of Justice, US Supreme Court, Alfred K. Brewer, Paul Weyrich, American Civil Liberties Union, William Jefferson (“Bill”) Clinton, American Legislative Exchange Council, Analiese Eicher, Terry Branstad, League of Women Voters, Mike Fasano, Charles Koch, Charles Joseph (“Charlie”) Crist, Jr, Brennan Center for Justice, Barack Obama, David Koch, Early Voting Information Center, Nikki Haley, Heather Smith, John Lewis, Judith Browne-Dianis, John Ellis (“Jeb”) Bush, George W. Bush, Kris Kobach, Karl C. Rove
Timeline Tags: Civil Liberties
Matthew Vadum. [Source: YouTube / TPM Muckraker]Author and columnist Matthew Vadum writes that it is un-American to register poor citizens to vote. Writing a column for the far-right Web site American Thinker, Vadum, the author of a book accusing the defunct Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) of being a Communist organization colluding with President Obama to bring down American democracy, asserts that “left-wing activist groups” are “keen on registering the poor to vote” because poor citizens “can be counted on to vote themselves more benefits by electing redistributionist politicians. Welfare recipients are particularly open to demagoguery and bribery. Registering them to vote is like handing out burglary tools to criminals. It is profoundly antisocial and un-American to empower the nonproductive segments of the population to destroy the country—which is precisely why Barack Obama zealously supports registering welfare recipients to vote.” Vadum says Obama, along with civil rights organizations such as the NAACP, are “zealously” working to register poor citizens to ensure that “leftists” are voted en masse into public office. Vadum writes: “Encouraging those who burden society to participate in elections isn’t about helping the poor. It’s about helping the poor to help themselves to others’ money. It’s about raw so-called social justice. It’s about moving America ever farther away from the small-government ideals of the Founding Fathers.” The proof of his claims, he writes, is an obscure 1966 article in The Nation written by two academics, Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, whom he labels “small-c communists” and “Marxists,” and accuses of using strategies advanced by Marxist revolutionary Leon Trotsky to “use the poor as a battering ram against the systems they sought to overthrow… to use the ‘weight’ of the poor to bring down American capitalism and democracy.” He cites another Piven-Cloward article from 1983, published by ACORN, to bolster his argument. Obama, he concludes, is following in Piven and Cloward’s footsteps to “bring vast numbers of unproductive people into the political process,” engender “massive voter fraud,” and destroy democracy. [Nation, 5/2/1966; Matthew Vadum, 9/1/2011] A day after Vadum’s article appears, TPM Muckraker reporter Ryan J. Reilly writes: “Most conservative criticism of voter registration drives aimed at poor and minority communities has been under the guise of worries about voter fraud. Vadum’s column is notable because he isn’t just pretending to be worried about the nearly non-existent threat of in-person voter fraud—he just doesn’t think poor people should be voting.” [TPM Muckraker, 9/2/2011]
After President Obama exhorts Congress to pass his jobs legislation package, which he calls the “American Jobs Act of 2011,” during his address to a joint session on September 8, some Republican lawmakers note that no legislator has officially submitted the bill and thusly there is no legislation to pass. Representative Louis Gohmert (R-TX) submits his own quickly written “American Jobs Act of 2011” hours before a Democratic House member can submit Obama’s 155-page, $447 billion legislative package. Gohmert’s bill is two pages long and would “amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the corporate income tax.” Gohmert issues a press release that reads: “We have heard a lot of rhetoric about job creation from President Obama over the last several days. After waiting to see what the president would actually put into legislative language, and then waiting to see if anybody would actually introduce the president’s bill in the House, today I took the initiative and introduced the ‘American Jobs Act of 2011.’ It is a very simple bill, which will eliminate the corporate tax which serves as a tariff that our American companies pay on goods they produce here in America. This bill will actually create jobs in America. Right now, American manufacturing jobs are shipped overseas. What is really insidious about this tax is that corporate taxes are paid by the consumer—built in to the cost of the good or service. Corporate taxes are paid for by people in the form of lower wages to American workers and less money paid out in dividends in everything from 401K retirement accounts and to those who would risk their capital in business ventures. This type of capital investment is where jobs come from. Unlike President Obama’s bill, which clocks in at 155 pages, the ‘American Jobs Act’ is only two pages. The American people want to see jobs and economic growth and this bill guarantees that outcome. America would instantly become a safe haven for businesses resulting in an explosion in revenue increases. If we really want to create jobs and grow the economy, we must pass ‘The American Jobs Act’ now.” [Daily Caller, 9/14/2011; Louis Gohmert, 9/14/2011; Los Angeles Times, 9/15/2011] Gohmert objects to a provision in the Obama legislative package which would forbid employers from discriminating against unemployed workers, accusing Obama of trying to create a “new protected class” of Americans and saying that the point of the anti-discrimination language would be to give “trial lawyers… 14 million new clients.” The National Employment Law Project (NELP) says that Gohmert is wrong in his accusations, and that the legislation “would not make employment status a protected class like race or sex,” but “simply bans hiring discrimination against the jobless.” Employer discrimination against unemployed job applicants is well-documented and on the rise, according to NELP. [Huffington Post, 8/11/2011; Huffington Post, 9/14/2011] Kirsten Boyd Johnson of the satirical political news Web site Wonkette calls Gohmert’s legislation “childish,” and says that, according to recent polls, Americans largely blame Congressional Republicans for, as she writes, “destroying America with their petulant refusal to govern like a dignified body of elected lawmakers in favor of running around like naughty children stealing other peoples’ homework.” Bloomberg News, which reports on the polling, quotes retired New York citizen Ray DiPietro as saying: “I’ve been a registered Republican for 50 years or more, but I don’t like what they are doing. [Republicans] are more concerned about getting Obama out of office than with making things right.” DiPietro says he receives emails on a daily basis from Republicans who denigrate Obama and “tear him apart, and that’s no way for grownups to talk.” Indianapolis Republican Nicole Olin agrees, saying: “I do put the majority of the blame on the Republicans, because they seem to be the least willing to give up anything. Just because a majority votes you in doesn’t mean you don’t have to compromise in one way, shape, or form to make sure you do what’s good for everyone.” Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) warns of the dangers of taking any set of polls in “isolation,” and says the poll result “highlights a broad dissatisfaction among the American people with the way their government has been operating.” [Wonkette, 9/15/2011; Bloomberg, 9/15/2011] David Weigel of Slate writes that Gohmert “prank[ed]” the White House in submitting his legislation, which has no real chance of ever being enacted. Although House Democrats have not yet formally submitted the actual American Jobs Act, it has been posted online by the Obama administration. [Slate, 9/12/2011; Slate, 9/15/2011] Democrats can submit the bill under its original title, as House rules do not forbid two separate pieces of legislation having the same name, though as Los Angeles Times reporter James Oliphant notes, “[I]t could result in a lot of Democrats and Republicans shouting on the floor about two different bills.” [Los Angeles Times, 9/15/2011] In the past, Gohmert has accused the Obama administration of orchestrating the deaths of “one in five” Americans through its health care legislation (see July 16, 2009), of implementing “eugenics” and creating Nazi-like “youth brigades” (see July 24, 2009), and of lying about the likelihood that failing to raise the debt ceiling would lower the nation’s credit rating (see July 13, 2011).
Entity Tags: Kirsten Boyd Johnson, Obama administration, Nicole Olin, Louis Gohmert, Michael Shumway (“Mike”) Lee, James Oliphant, National Employment Law Project, David Weigel, US House of Representatives, Barack Obama, Bloomberg News, Ray DiPietro, US Congress
Timeline Tags: Global Economic Crises, Domestic Propaganda
Representatives John Conyers (D-MI) and Donna Edwards (D-MD) introduce legislation that, if adopted, would move to amend the Constitution to empower Congress and the states to limit corporate spending on political activities. The legislation is a direct move against the Citizens United ruling (see January 21, 2010). Conyers tells reporters: “Last year, the Supreme Court overturned decades of law and declared open season on our democracy. It is individual voters who should determine the future of this nation, not corporate money.” Edwards adds, “Since that flawed ruling was issued, campaign spending by outside groups including corporations surged more than four-fold to reach nearly $300 million in the 2010 election cycle.” Reversing the Citizens United ruling, she says, “is the only way to once and for all put the American people, and not corporations, in charge of our treasured democracy.” [The Hill, 9/20/2011]
Army soldier Stephen Hill. [Source: The Week]The conservative gay rights group GOProud blasts former Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA), a presidential contender, for making what it calls disrespectful comments towards a gay soldier in the evening’s GOP presidential debate. During the debate in Orlando, Florida, Stephen Hill asks the debaters if they would work to “circumvent” the repeal of the “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” (DADT) statute barring gay service personnel from discussing their sexual orientation. Some members of the debate audience boo and catcall the soldier during the question, an incident which none on the stage choose to address. Santorum answers the question, and says of DADT: “I would say any type of sexual activity has absolutely no place in the military. And the fact that they’re making a point to include it as a provision within the military that we are going to recognize a group of people and give them a special privilege to—and removing ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’ I think tries to inject social policy into the military. And the military’s job is to do one thing, and that is to defend our country.… What we’re doing is playing social experimentation with our military right now. And that’s tragic.” GOProud issues a statement condemning Santorum’s remarks. Two organization leaders, Christopher Barron and Jimmy LaSalvia, write: “Tonight, Rick Santorum disrespected our brave men and women in uniform, and he owes Stephen Hill, the gay soldier who asked him the question about Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell repeal, an immediate apology. That brave gay soldier is doing something Rick Santorum has never done—put his life on the line to defend our freedoms and our way of life [referring to Santorum’s lack of military service]. It is telling that Rick Santorum is so blinded by his anti-gay bigotry that he couldn’t even bring himself to thank that gay soldier for his service. Stephen Hill is serving our country in Iraq, fighting a war Senator Santorum says he supports. How can Senator Santorum claim to support this war if he doesn’t support the brave men and women who are fighting it?” [GOProud, 9/22/2011; CBS News, 9/23/2011] Santorum achieved notoriety in 2003 for his comments that legalizing homosexual acts would lead to incest, child rape, and bestiality (see April 7, 2003).
Fox News chief Roger Ailes acknowledges that Fox News has undergone what he calls a “course correction” over the last year, dialing back some of the most inflammatory and partisan rhetoric that is its brand. The release of talk show host Glenn Beck (see March 28 - April 6, 2011) is one of the actions Ailes has taken to “moderate” Fox News’s stance, as is the lower profile given former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as a prominent Fox personality—once aggressively promoted by the network as the savior of the Republican Party, Palin is much less visible on the network now. Fox executives admit that after Barack Obama’s election in 2008 (see January 2009), “the entire network took a hard right turn (see February 2, 2009, February 9-10, 2009, February 10, 2009, February 20, 2009, March 16-17, 2009, March 17, 2009, March 17-24, 2009, March 18, 2009, March 23-24, 2009, March 24, 2009, March 24, 2009, March 31, 2009, April 1, 2009, April 1, 2009, April 1-2, 2009, April 3, 2009, April 3-7, 2009, April 6, 2009, April 6-13, 2009, April 6-7, 2009, April 13-15, 2009, April 15, 2009, April 16, 2009, April 22, 2009, April 23, 2009, April 28, 2009, April 29, 2009, May 5-6, 2009, May 6, 2009, May 8-15, 2009, May 13-14, 2009, May 26, 2009, May 27, 2009, June 2, 2009, July 8, 2009, July 23, 2009, July 27, 2009, July 28, 2009, July 28-29, 2009, July 30, 2009, August 3, 2009, August 3, 2009, August 7, 2009, August 8, 2009, August 10, 2009, August 10, 2009, August 11, 2009, August 11, 2009, August 14, 2009, August 28, 2009, September 1, 2009, September 12, 2009, September 18, 2009, September 29, 2009, October 11, 2009, October 16, 2009, November 3, 2009, November 5-8, 2009, November 18-19, 2009, November 24, 2009, January 27, 2010, May 20-22, 2010, June 11, 2010, June 24, 2010 and After, July 2, 2010, July 24, 2010, September 1, 2010, September 4, 2010, September 4, 2010, September 15-16, 2010, September 18, 2010, September 18, 2010, September 27, 2010, September 28, 2010, September 29, 2010, September 29, 2010, September 30, 2010, October 1, 2010, October 3, 2010, October 26, 2010, November 9-11, 2010 and After, and November 9-11, 2010 and After)… but, as the tea party’s popularity fades (see August 25, 2011), is edging back toward the mainstream” (see November 16, 2010, November 17-18, 2010, February 23, 2011, February 28, 2011, March 19-24, 2011, March 23, 2011, March 23, 2011, March 24, 2011, March 27-28, 2011, March 30, 2011, April 26, 2011, April 26, 2011, April 27, 2011, April 27, 2011, April 27, 2011, April 28, 2011, May 22, 2011, May 23-24, 2011, June 10, 2011, July 13-14, 2011, January 14, 2012, January 17-18, 2012, February 11-16, 2012, and February 12-13, 2012). Ailes has ordered the opinion show hosts such as Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly to tone down the rhetoric, in part in response to the shooting of Representative Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) and the resultant debate about the aggressive, violent rhetoric being promulgated on the right (see March 24, 2010). Moreover, as media pundit Howard Kurtz writes, “[i]t was, in his view, a chance to boost profits by grabbing a more moderate audience.” Ailes’s contract is up in 2013, and some expect the 71-year-old media magnate not to renew his contract thereafter. Ailes continues to insist that his news network is the only “fair and balanced” (see 1995) news outlet on television, with the other broadcast and cable news providers being relentlessly liberal in their presentations, but on the other hand implicitly admits that he routinely pushes right-wing memes and talking points on his network. Today, for example, he is touting Fox News’s new “Regulation Nation” series, pushing the idea that government regulations have a stranglehold on American business. “[N]o other network will cover that subject,” he says. “I think regulations are totally out of control.” Government bureaucrats hire Ph.D.s to “sit in the basement and draw up regulations to try to ruin your life,” he says. Under Ailes’s direction, Fox News will feature stories on “over-regulation” in many of its straight-news and opinion shows. Some non-Fox News conservative pundits, such as radio host Rush Limbaugh, wonder if Ailes hasn’t given up on his commitment to conservative principles in return for ratings, saying, “Fox wants these people [Republican primary candidates] to tear each other up, ‘cause they want approval from the mainstream media.” Kurtz says that Ailes has turned the Republican primary into his own “reality show” for ratings and profits, essentially agreeing with Limbaugh. Overall, others are registering that Ailes is attempting to dial back the hyperpartisan posturing, even former Obama administration aide Anita Dunn, who says, “You have the sense that they’re trying to at least appear less of the hyperpartisan political network they had been.” [Newsweek, 9/25/2011]
Entity Tags: Gabrielle Giffords, Anita Dunn, Barack Obama, Fox News, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Bill O’Reilly, Roger Ailes, Howard Kurtz, Sarah Palin
Timeline Tags: Domestic Propaganda
The New York Times reports that labor unions are attempting to change the way they engage in political activities in light of the 2010 Citizens United ruling (see January 21, 2010), so as to counter enormous corporate donating and influence nonunion households for the 2012 elections. Labor unions had opposed the ruling, but that opposition has borne little fruit. Now the unions are beginning to use an element of the ruling that for the first time allows unions to reach out to nonunion households. Unions can also form their own super PACs, and some are doing just that. Richard L. Trumka, president of the AFL-CIO, says organized labor will function independently of the Democratic Party, refusing to support Democratic candidates who are not union-friendly and perhaps even opposing individual Democrats in some elections. Trumka says the time for Democrats to take union support for granted has ended. Some labor leaders have been critical of Democrats after unions spent more than $200 million to help elect President Obama and Congressional Democrats in 2008, but did not get some of the legislative attention the unions desired from the newly elected Democrats. The Times writes, “In distancing themselves, at least a bit, from the Democrats, unions are becoming part of a trend in which newly empowered outside groups build what are essentially party structures of their own—in this case, to somewhat offset the money flowing into conservative groups that are doing the same thing.” Trumka says the AFL-CIO will infuse $10 million into a new, as-yet-unnamed super PAC in order to begin building a permanent political structure for labor. “The way we used to do politics is we’d set up a structure six months before the election, and after Election Day we’d dismantle it,” he says. “Now we’re going to have a full-time campaign, and that campaign will be able to move, hopefully, from electoral politics to issue advocacy and accountability.” The AFL-CIO’s political director, Michael A. Podhorzer, says that the unions learned a lesson in 2010, when labor-backed Democrats such as former Ohio Governor Ted Strickland (D-OH) lost to Republican challengers. “It became apparent that even in races where union members voted overwhelmingly in support of a pro-worker candidate, we could still lose,” says Podhorzer. “President Trumka asked, ‘How do we get programs that win elections and not just put up a good fight?’” [New York Times, 9/25/2011]
The campaign of presidential candidate Mitt Romney (R-MA), the former governor of Massachusetts, acknowleges the influence of the Koch brothers (see July 3-4, 2010 and August 30, 2010) on Republican politics and the “tea party” movement. According to an internal campaign memo, the Koch brothers, particularly David Koch, are the “financial engine of the tea party” even though Koch “denies being directly involved.” The memo explicates the attempts that Romney and the campaign have taken to secure the support of the Koch brothers, including a January 2011 meeting between Romney and David Koch at an elite club in Manhattan, and an August 28 meeting that was canceled because of Hurricane Irene. David Koch publicly endorsed Romney for president in 2008, and one of Romney’s first major campaign fundraisers for the 2012 race was held at Koch’s mansion in the Hamptons. Political strategists acknowledge the success the Koch brothers have had in getting dozens of far-right candidates elected to Congress in 2010 and creating a network of tea party members who can help Romney secure the 2012 presidential nomination. Strategists have also noted Romney’s lack of support among many tea party members and organizations, and the likelihood that Romney will fail to capture the 2012 Republican presidential nomination without tea party support. “In many national surveys, Romney has had difficulty breaking 25 percent in support and that’s because [tea party] conservatives are suspicious of him and doubt his commitment to their issues,” says the Brookings Institution’s Darrell West. “He’s courting the tea party because he needs them to win.” But that support is far from certain. Judson Phillips, the co-founder of Tea Party Nation, says: “Our vote is split up among so many candidates—none of whom are Romney. Romney’s problem with a lot of tea party voters, myself included, is at this point I don’t know what he believes and I don’t care—because even if he tells me, ‘When I get to the White House I’m going to be fiscally conservative,’ he will probably change his mind, depending on which way the political winds are blowing.” Romney has a reputation as a “flip-flopper” who has changed his mind on a number of key issues, and a closet moderate who once supported abortion rights, the 2008 government bank bailouts, gay rights, and gun control. [Washington Examiner, 11/2/2011; Think Progress, 11/3/2011]
Margie Phelps, a leader of the virulently anti-gay Westboro Baptist Church (WBC—see November 27, 1955 and After), posts abusive comments to the parents of a Birmingham, England, boy who died from an inoperable brain tumor hours earlier. Eleven-year-old Harry Moseley had raised some £500,000 in donations during the last months of his life. Phelps posts three comments on Twitter berating Moseley and his family. One reads: “No #RIPHarry for Harry Moseley. Hating parents made him an idol; now you raise $$ on his dead body! #shame #nooneisinnocent.” Another strikes out at prominent area football (soccer) players who had supported Harry’s quest to raise money for charity before his death. Phelps says the “emotional tributes” of the over 70,000 messages of love and condolence sent to the Moseley family on Twitter were “phony” and the posters “[s]hould’ve told Harry Moseley to obey God!” Finally, she posts: “What Harry Moseley needed more than cancer treatment was the TRUTH about God, Heaven & Hell. He didn’t get that. Now it’s too late.” Moseley’s mother Georgie Moseley calls Phelps’s comments “vile,” and adds, “I am very, very angry that someone can say that about an 11-year-old boy who has just died.” [Birmingham Mail, 10/10/2011]
Senator Mike Lee (R-UT). [Source: Gabe Skidmore / Telestial State (.com)]Senator Mike Lee (R-UT)‘s “leadership PAC,” the Constitutional Conservatives Fund PAC (CCFPAC), writes to the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to ask for permission to collect unlimited contributions from corporations, labor unions, and individual donors for independent spending on behalf of other candidates. So-called “leadership PACs” are political committees set up and run by members of Congress, and other elected officials, to allow them to make contributions to other candidates and spend money on their behalf. It is a well-established method for Congressional members to build influence within their parties. The CCFPAC’s lawyers argue that there is no danger of other candidates being corrupted, because CCFPAC’s spending to help candidates get elected (or to attack their opponents) will be independent of those candidates. The request cites the controversial Citizens United Supreme Court decision (see January 21, 2010) that allowed corporations and labor unions to spend unlimited amounts in independent expenditures on behalf of candidates. Law professor Richard Hasen will argue that such a contention—that a candidate will not be corrupted because the spending on his or her behalf—is specious, and moreover, another danger exists, that of the corruption of the head(s) of the leadership PAC. He will write, “Corporations or labor unions (acting through other organizations to shield their identity from public view) could give unlimited sums to an elected official’s leadership PAC, which could then be used for the official to yield influence with others.” Any member of Congress could use his or her leadership PAC to effectively become the fundraising arm of their party, Hasen will write, merely by funneling all the money through that leadership PAC. Hasen argues that the McCain-Feingold ban on such “soft money” collections (see March 27, 2002) was not set aside by Citizens United, though he will cite a single sentence of the majority opinion in that decision as being a possible means of giving the CCFPAC request a veneer of legal justification: “We now conclude that independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.” That sentence, Hasen will argue, “which denies the reality that large independent spending favoring a candidate can sometimes corrupt or create the appearance of corruption, looks like it may doom those soft-money rules too. The result of all this is that federal campaign finance law is unraveling even faster than pessimists expected after Citizens United.” [PAC, 10/17/2011 ; Slate, 10/25/2011] Think Progress legal analyst Ian Millhiser will agree with Hasen, writing that “[i]n essence, Lee just sought permission to set up his own slush fund, powered by unlimited corporate donors, and use this slush fund to buy influence with his fellow lawmakers by running ads in their districts.… So Lee’s idea is that corporate CEOs, Wall Street tycoons, and other well-moneyed interests can show up at his office and turn over completely unlimited amounts of funds. Lee can then buy new friends in Washington and in state governments by channeling these corporate funds to an army of grateful politicians. And the more money corporate America gives him, the more powerful Lee becomes—and the more he owes this new found power to his brand new corporate sugar daddies.” [Think Progress, 10/26/2011]
The cover of ‘Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025?’ [Source: Occidental Dissident (.com)]Conservative commentator and author Pat Buchanan publishes his latest book, Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025? Kirkus Reviews, reviewing an advance copy, wrote before its public release that Buchanan “laments the fading of the Christian religion from American life because he sees it as an indispensable underpinning of our common culture.” Buchanan, the review notes, “fears the nation has abandoned its historic commitment to liberty and equality of opportunity to pursue a chimerical utopia of diversity and equality of result.” Buchanan does not actually predict the dissolution or destruction of America, but predicts “culture wars without end and a continuing self-segregation of Americans by ethnic group.” The review concludes: “Liberals may rightly dismiss this sprawling, often rambling book as nativist claptrap. Readers willing to excuse the nods to predictable right-wing shibboleths and bogeymen will find it a troubling analysis of how America has changed for the worse in the last half century, and how difficult it will be to pull it back from the loss of freedom and prosperity Buchanan sees not far ahead.” [Kirkus Reviews, 9/15/2011]
Heavy Criticism for 'Racist' Content' - Jillian Rayfield of the progressive news Web site TPM Muckraker reprints what she calls twelve “pretty racist or just crazy quotes” from the book. One accuses Barack Obama of engaging in a “long and successful campaign to expel Christianity from the public square, diminish its presence in our public life, and reduce its role to that of just another religion.” Many focus on Buchanan’s prediction that white Americans will soon become a minority, and as a result, American culture will collapse. Another accuses black Americans of benefiting from “Jim Crow in reverse,” where whites are systematically and legally disenfranchised and oppressed by minorities. “Back then, black and white lived apart, went to different schools and churches, played on different playgrounds, and went to different restaurants, bars, theaters, and soda fountains. But we shared a country and a culture. We were one nation. We were Americans.” Liberal whites, Buchanan writes, “may discover what it is like to ride in the back of the bus.” The 1964 and 1965 Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act took away key rights from white Americans, Buchanan asserts, instead of mandating equality for all Americans. Only before those laws took effect was America a nation of equality. Buchanan says that his desire to “expel” minorities is not racially motivated, merely an attempt to rescue American civilization and its “European majority.” He says that “49 of 50 muggings in New York City” are perpetrated by blacks. And he says that the Republican Party must become “the white party” if it is to retain its identity, arguing, “[W]hy should Republicans be ashamed to represent the progeny of the men who founded, built, and defended America since her birth as a nation?” [TPM Muckraker, 10/24/2011] Jeneba Ghatt of the Washington Times accuses Buchanan of repackaging long-disproven stereotypes of non-whites’ genetic and intellectual inferiority. “Anyone can attempt to sell books delivering doomsday-like message based on racist pseudo-Eugenics-based theories as Buchanan,” she writes. “Organizing, galvanizing, and trying to make a colossal effort to effectuate real change is a genuine challenge.” Instead of trying to change society for the better, she writes, Buchanan is “playing that old tired game of scapegoat.” Many Times commenters post scathing rebuttals to Ghatt’s article, citing “scientific” evidence of whites’ and Asians’ intellectual superiority over blacks and Hispanics, with one post calling Ghatt, an African-American, “still a slave” because she advocates equality for blacks. Others attack her given name as un-American and question why the Times would print her material. [Washington Times, 10/23/2011] Janet Shan of The Moderate Voice notes the bluntly racial and racist material in a chapter entitled “The End of White America,” where Buchanan cites statistics showing that within a few generations, whites in America will be a minority, largely because of the increasing number of non-white immigrants and whites being “outbred” by minority citizens. Buchanan focuses strongly on Hispanic-Americans, writing: “Mexico is moving north.… Will this Mexican nation within a nation advance the goals of the Constitution—to ‘insure domestic tranquility’ and ‘make us a more perfect union’? Or have we imperiled our union?” Shan responds: “In other words, America is heading for disaster since whites won’t be a majority. Really? Only Pat Buchanan could make a black or Latino feel dirty, just because of the color of their skin.” In a later chapter, “Equality vs. Freedom,” Buchanan claims that “the end to segregation and the legislated equality of rights for African Americans” have led to a “socialist utopia” and the collapse of everything he values about American society. Shan writes: “Is he condoning Jim Crow, segregation, and racial injustice in this country? Gee, I can’t seem to remember hearing Pat Buchanan’s name being mentioned in the struggle for racial justice and equality. Every time he is embroiled in controversy it is because of racially motivated comments emanating from his lips on national television. So, I guess, in other words, inequality is just fine for Pat Buchanan and his posse. Just as long as the white right-wing evangelicals are calling the shots.” She concludes: “Pat Buchanan is of the viewpoint that we can never create a nation in which all the races, tribes, cultures, and creeds of Earth are all equal. That utopia can never exist.… We can’t all be equal but that doesn’t mean we lose sight of the Biblical truth of taking care of the least among us. That doesn’t mean we can’t give each child the opportunity to succeed despite the color of his or her skin. I will say, this was a very riveting book and I suspect it will be a New York Times bestseller, but the racial undertones will continue to fan the flames of distrust and hatred for everything Pat Buchanan stands for.” [Janet Shan, 10/14/2011]
Conservative Support - At GoodReads (.com), reviewer John Caneday “admire[s]” Buchanan’s “Christian wisdom” as shown in the book, and writes: “He recognizes the spiritual decline in America is responsible for the cultural and political decline we are experiencing now.… He argues that the flood of third world immigration into the Western nations is one of the greatest forces for destruction in the modern world.… Many will charge Buchanan with racism, but the careful reader will realize that Buchanan sees these forces at work in every culture and every nation on earth. Diversity cannot possibly be a source of strength, as everywhere there is diversity, there is conflict.” [John Caneday, 12/15/2011] Free Republic (.com) blogger William L. Houston calls the book “the bluntest and most cogent statement of the truth about the present course of Western civilization that has been seen in American bookstores in many years.… Everything that real conservatives have privately known to be true for generations is finally aired in this brave and long overdue new book.” Buchanan calls the American left “a utopian death cult” bent on destroying America before it destroys itself. “The Baby Boomer elite that was captured by the counterculture in the 1960s has set America on a course to national oblivion: radical multiculturalism, open borders, the welfare state, affirmative action, the obsession with diversity, the embrace of the sick and degenerate ‘free love movement,’ the embrace of abortion and family planning, the embrace of an adversary secular culture that has flatly declared war on Christianity. As a historian, Pat Buchanan is here to remind us of the awful truth that this sort of progressive worldview and the lifestyle that accompanies it has consequences.” Whites are carrying non-white Americans “on [their] back[s]” now, Houston asserts; when “freedom loving European-Christian Americans” become the minority in America in 2042, the economy and the social underpinnings of America will collapse entirely. “Black America is culturally and economically a basket case,” Houston writes. “Hispanic America is worse off in some ways, better in others. White America has gone completely off the rails under the influence of the counterculture. Even Asian America has been negatively affected by the sickness of the dominant culture.” Whites are genetically and environmentally superior, Houston argues, and must continue to steer the nation to ensure its survival. [William L. Houston, 10/31/2011]
Praise from White Supremacists - Conservative blogger Hunter Wallace, a neo-Confederate and white supremacist, posts a lengthy, favorable review of the book, saying that it is Buchanan’s “boldest affront yet to the reigning racial and cultural taboos of Black Run Amerika.” Wallace, like Buchanan, focuses much of his attention on American minorities, decrying the fact that “[b]y 2042, White Americans are scheduled to become a minority in the United States.” He continues: “African-American and Hispanic tax consumers are becoming more aggressive and explicitly racial in their agenda. White taxpayers are becoming more defensive. The myth of a ‘post-racial’ society is collapsing. White racial attitudes are hardening again.” Both political parties, according to Buchanan and Wallace, are in danger of being overrun by what they call “officially aggrieved minorities,” especially since white birthrates are declining. America, a fundamentally Christian nation in their view, is also under siege from non-Christian religions and ideologies, and as a result, the “Western culture” that once sustained the nation “has collapsed and nihilism and chaos now reign in the realm of morality. Secular fantasy ideologies like liberalism, humanism, and communism have moved into the vacuum of faith. America is disintegrating as a nation because its people no longer share a common moral tradition. Instead, they bark at each other from across the ‘partisan divide.’ This is the inevitable prelude to our demise as a nation-state.” America’s economic system has become irrevocably corrupted, Buchanan and Wallace assert, by “a confused hybrid” of “liberal capitalist democracy [and] Marxism.” Gay rights, interracial marriage, the American celebration of diversity, and other “corrosive” phenomena, they observe, are heralding the final collapse of American culture, where “the scum of society” is allowed “to punch through the traditional racial, cultural, and religious restraints that have held degeneracy in check for generations and to rise to elite status in the former countries of Western civilization.” Wallace notess Buchanan’s failure to address what he calls “the Jewish question,” but says Buchanan’s decision to do so was “wise” “because 50 percent of American Jewry is scheduled to vacate the earth by 2050.” Wallace concludes, “Buchanan clearly believes that America will be torn apart by ethnonationalism in the 21st century in much the same that Europe was torn about by ethnonationalism in the 20th century,” and says the white, Christian values of “Middle America” are the only ideology that will “save” the nation. [Hunter Wallace, 10/26/2011] Steve Sailer, one of the owners of the white supremacist Web site VDare (.com), lauds Buchanan as a personal friend who “quotes me several times, citing my VDARE.com articles on the ‘racial ratio’—Affirmative Action beneficiaries vs. benefactors i.e. losers—and the real meaning of the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) scores among others.” Sailer praises Buchanan’s “genial honesty” in the book as well as his “bareknuckles” approach to the “truth” of the “decline” of American culture. After spending much of his review lambasting Barack Obama and the American left, Sailer concludes that Buchanan “is now perhaps the wisest, most objective-minded man in American public affairs.” [Steve Sailer, 10/19/2011]
Entity Tags: Jeneba Ghatt, Hunter Wallace, Barack Obama, Janet Shan, Civil Rights Act of 1964, Voting Rights Act of 1965, William L. Houston, John Caneday, Steve Sailer, Kirkus Reviews, Republican Party, Jillian Rayfield, Patrick Buchanan
Timeline Tags: Domestic Propaganda
Presidential candidate Rick Santorum (R-PA) gives an interview to the owner of the evangelical blog Caffeinated Thoughts. The video of the interview is placed on YouTube, where it goes largely unnoticed until mid-February 2012. In the interview, Santorum says that he does not believe in contraception and, if elected president, he would confront the “dangers of contraception” and challenge religious groups who accept its use. “One of the things I will talk about that no president has talked about before is I think the dangers of contraception in this country, the whole sexual libertine idea,” he says. “Many in the Christian faith have said: ‘Well, that’s okay. Contraception’s okay.’ It’s not okay because it’s a license to do things in the sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be. They’re supposed to be within marriage, they are supposed to be for purposes that are, yes, conjugal, but also… procreative. That’s the perfect way that a sexual union should happen. We take any part of that out, we diminish the act. And if you can take one part out that’s not for purposes of procreation, that’s not one of the reasons, then you diminish this very special bond between men and women, so why can’t you take other parts of that out? And all of a sudden, it becomes deconstructed to the point where it’s simply pleasure. And that’s certainly a part of it—and it’s an important part of it, don’t get me wrong—but there’s a lot of things we do for pleasure, and this is special, and it needs to be seen as special. Again, I know most presidents don’t talk about those things, and maybe people don’t want us to talk about those things, but I think it’s important that you are who you are. I’m not running for preacher. I’m not running for pastor, but these are important public policy issues. These how profound impact on the health of our society.” Time magazine’s Michael Scherer notes poll data that show some 99 percent of American women having used a form of contraception. “In politics, it is generally not a good thing to characterize something nearly every adult in the country has happily used as ‘a license to do things in the sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be,’” Scherer writes. [Time, 2/14/2012; Newser, 2/15/2012] The Atlantic’s Conor Friedersdorf writes: “What separates issues that are in the proper purview of politics from matters best left to individuals? I’d hate to draw that line for everyone, but watching Rick Santorum… I’m confident in declaring that he’s put himself on the wrong side of it.” Friedersdorf writes that Santorum obviously believes it is in the president’s purview “to opine on and shape public policy according to his notion of what is ‘special.’ As he surely knows, what is ‘special,’ what ought to be kept ‘special,’ and what is required to keep sex ‘special’ are all deeply contested matters. They inevitably turn on judgments shaped by faith, moral reasoning, and intuition. The American people, having wrestled with these questions, have concluded in overwhelming numbers either that contraception doesn’t make sex less special—or that if it does make sex less special, the tradeoff (less special sex in return for fewer unwanted pregnancies or abortions or STDs or more pleasure or human connection) is worthwhile.” Friedersdorf goes on to note that Santorum cannot credibly claim to be a supporter of smaller, limited government if he believes the president should have a say in whether contraception is available to American citizens or not. [The Atlantic, 2/15/2012] Matt K. Lewis of the conservative news blog The Daily Caller writes that Santorum’s position is likely to hurt his chances of winning the presidency, and continues: “When it comes to discussing such issues, Santorum should have practiced abstinence. He did not.” [Daily Caller, 2/15/2012] Nick Gillespie of the libertarian news publication Reason agrees with Friedersdorf about Santorum’s questionable allegiance to the concept of limited government: “Calling all conservatives: Is this the sort of anti-Obama limited-government candidate you really want to get behind? And indeed, Santorum is out of touch in at least two distinct ways: First, the president shouldn’t be concerning herself with rubbers, IUDs, and birth control pills (whether she’s a Republican or a Democrat). Second, all the social indicators he seems to be worried about—including sexual activity among teens and teen pregnancy rates—have been declining.” [Reason, 2/15/2012]
A new report by the Brennan Center for Justice shows that just three “independent” corporate political organizations outspent the US labor movement in judicial elections for 2009-10. The report, entitled “The New Politics of Judicial Elections 2009-10,” shows that three corporate interest groups—the Ohio Chamber of Commerce (Partnership for America’s Future), the Business Council of Alabama, and the Illinois Civil Justice League (JustPAC) outspent the US labor movement 13-1 in trying to influence state Supreme Court elections. Together, the three groups spent $3,554,445 on activities involving judicial elections. In total, organized labor groups spent $261,4230. Labor unions have always contended that they could not spend nearly as much on election activities as corporations. [Skaggs et al., 10/2011 ; Think Progress, 10/27/2011]
An unofficial logo for the Cain presidential campaign. [Source: Draft Cain (.org)]Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain (R-GA), who is battling allegations that he sexually harassed two former employees, is further shaken by reports that his campaign may have accepted illegal corporate donations. The apparently-defunct corporation, Prosperity USA, was run by Wisconsin political operatives Mark Block and Linda Hansen, who now serve as Cain’s chief of staff and deputy chief of staff, respectively. The corporation, which incorporated itself as a nonprofit, tax-exempt organization under federal tax law, helped get Cain’s campaign up and running by paying for tens of thousands of dollars in expenses, including computers, chartered flights, and travel to several states. Such payouts are possible violations of federal tax and campaign law. According to documents obtained by the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, Prosperity USA claims it was owed about $40,000 by the Cain campaign for a variety of items in February and March. It is unclear whether the Cain campaign has reimbursed Prosperity USA. Cain began taking donations for his presidential bid on January 1, 2011, but records indicate Prosperity USA may have been spending money on behalf of him well before that date. The records have been verified as authentic by sources close to Prosperity USA. Cain’s federal election filings make no mention of monies owed to Prosperity USA, and the figures in the documents do not match payments made by the Cain Campaign. Other payouts include a $100,000 fee to the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE), a conservative black organization; Cain spoke at the organization’s annual Martin Luther King Jr. dinner in mid-January, an event hosted by controversial conservative blogger Andrew Breitbart. CORE is heavily involved in tea party events. Apparently Cain was not paid for the appearance, inasmuch as his personal financial disclosure forms do not show any honorariums for speeches. [Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, 10/30/2011; USA, 10/31/2011 ]
Apparent Violations of Tax, Campaign Law - Election law experts say the transactions raise many questions about Priorities USA and its connection to the Cain campaign. A Washington, DC, lawyer who advises many Republican candidates and conservative groups on campaign issues, and refuses to be publicly identified, says, “If the records accurately reflect what occurred, this is way out of bounds.” She says it is a violation of tax law for Prosperity USA to advance money to the Cain campaign for the items invoiced, and the expenditures also seem to violate federal campaign regulations. “I just don’t see how they can justify this,” she says. “It’s a total mess.” Wisconsin campaign attorney Michael Maistelman, a Democrat who has worked for candidates from both parties, agrees, saying, “The number of questionable and possibly illegal transactions conducted on behalf of Herman Cain is staggering.” Think Progress legal expert Ian Millhiser writes that “if Prosperity USA effectively donated money to the Cain campaign by fronting money to them and agreeing not to be paid back, that is a violation of federal election law,” even if the Cain campaign eventually pays the money back. Block and Hansen have refused to comment on the issue. In 1997, Block, then advising the campaign of former Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Jon Wilcox, settled allegations of election-law violations by agreeing to pay a $15,000 fine and to stay out of Wisconsin politics for three years. [Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, 10/30/2011; Think Progress, 10/31/2011] Election lawyer Lawrence H. Norton, who formerly served as a general counsel for the Federal Election Commission (FEC), later says, “If they are supporting his campaign, whether directly or indirectly, they are violating the law.” [New York Times, 11/3/2011]
Connections to Koch-Funded Political Organization - In recent years, Block has run the Wisconsin chapter of Americans for Prosperity (AFP—see Late 2004), a nonprofit conservative lobbying and political action group co-founded by the conservative Koch brothers (see 1977-Present, 1979-1980, 1981-2010, 1984 and After, May 6, 2006, April 15, 2009, May 29, 2009, December 6, 2009, November 2009, July 3-4, 2010, August 28, 2010, August 30, 2010, September 24, 2010, January 5, 2011, October 4, 2011, and February 14, 2011). AFP played a key role in organizing the tea party movement. Block met Cain through AFP, and encouraged him to run for president. Block has incorporated a number of offshoot organizations and corporations from AFP, most of which bore the word “prosperity” in their names. AFP officials insist that Block’s organizations are legally separate from theirs. Documents show that when Block left AFP at the beginning of 2011, he left behind tens of thousands of dollars in unpaid invoices.
History of Involvement with Cain Campaign - Block’s largest group was the now-defunct Wisconsin Prosperity Network (WPN), envisioned as an umbrella organization that would spend over $6 million a year underwriting other conservative political organizations. Hansen was the group’s executive director. WPN was also set up as a tax-exempt nonprofit organization. Under the law, neither WPN nor Prosperity USA can have direct political involvement with any candidate or candidate organization. Sources familiar with the situation say the two organizations were closely linked, and raised hundreds of thousands of dollars from Wisconsin conservatives. One supporter, who still advocates for Cain and thusly refuses to have his name publicly disclosed, says he and many others are very upset with the groups for failing to use the money they raised for their intended purposes. The supporter names Hansen as being particularly responsible for the groups’ money usage. By February 2011, both groups were deeply in debt, with WPN showing a net loss of $62,000 and Prosperity USA showing net losses of $110,000. Prosperity USA’s biggest debt was an almost-$40,000 debit to “FOH,” which records show means “Friends of Herman Cain,” the name of Cain’s presidential operation. The debt includes almost $15,000 for what is called an “Atlanta invoice”; $17,000 for chartered flight service; $5,000 for travel and meetings in Iowa, Las Vegas, Dallas, Houston, and Louisiana; and $3,700 for iPads purchased for the Cain campaign. Other small-ticket items for travel and expenses by Block are listed as “not billed to FOH but due from them.” Other expenses include a September 2010 bill for $5,000 for costs incurred by Cain’s speech to the conservative Right Nation rally in Chicago, which records show Cain attended at the request of AFP; the Cain campaign later used a segment from that speech in a campaign ad. Prosperity USA also paid for a trip by Block to Washington, DC, to meet with billionaire oil magnate and conservative financier David Koch. Singer Krista Branch, who recorded “I Am America,” the unofficial anthem of the tea party movement, was supposed to be paid $3,000 by Prosperity USA; Cain has since adopted the song as his campaign theme. Branch’s husband, Michael, is a Cain campaign and fundraising consultant. The records also show $150,000 in loans from individuals who are not identified. Sources say Hansen paid much of that loan money to CORE earlier in the year. Michael Dean, the attorney for both Prosperity USA and WPN, resigned his position with WPN in the summer of 2011, and contacted the IRS about the organization’s tax-exempt status. And WPN is a listed litigant in a case pending before the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
'Outside Counsel' Will Review Allegations - The Cain campaign will respond by saying that an “outside” lawyer will review the allegations. “As with any suggestions of this type, we have asked outside counsel to investigate the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel’s suggestions and may comment, if appropriate, when that review is completed,” says campaign spokesman J.D. Gordon. Gordon refuses to identify the “outside counsel,” or give a time frame as to when the review will be complete. [Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, 10/30/2011; New York Times, 11/3/2011]
Entity Tags: Herman Cain, Americans for Prosperity, Ian Millhiser, Andrew Breitbart, Congress of Racial Equality, Herman Cain presidential campaign (2012), Wisconsin Prosperity Network, J.D. Gordon, Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, Prosperity USA, Linda Hansen, Lawrence H. Norton, Mark Block, Michael Dean, Michael Maistelman, Jon Wilcox
Timeline Tags: Civil Liberties, 2012 Elections
Six US Senators led by Tom Udall (D-NM) introduce a constitutional amendment that would give Congress the right to regulate the federal campaign finance system. The amendment is directed towards overturning the Citizens United decision that allows almost unregulated spending by corporations, unions, and special interests in political campaigns (see January 21, 2010). Udall is joined in sponsoring the amendment by Michael Bennett (D-CO), Tom Harkin (D-IA), Richard Durbin (D-IL), Charles Schumer (D-NY), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), and Jeff Merkley (D-OR). In a press release from his office, Udall is quoted as saying: “As we head into another election year, we are about to see unprecedented amounts of money spent on efforts to influence the outcome of our elections. With the Supreme Court striking down the sensible regulations Congress has passed, the only way to address the root cause of this problem is to give Congress clear authority to regulate the campaign finance system.” In the same release, Bennett adds: “The Supreme Court’s reversal of its own direction in the Citizens United decision and other recent cases has had a major effect on our election system. State legislatures and Congress now may not be allowed to approve even small regulations to our campaign finance system. This proposal would bring some badly needed stability to an area of law that has been thrown off course by the new direction the Court has taken.” Harkin is quoted as saying: “By limiting the influence of big money in politics, elections can be more about the voters and their voices, not big money donors and their deep pockets. We need to have a campaign finance structure that limits the influence of the special interests and restores confidence in our democracy. This amendment goes to the heart of that effort.” And Merkley is quoted as saying: “It was President Lincoln who described the genius of American democracy as ‘government of the people, by the people, and for the people.’ We office holders work for the people. They elect us. They are in charge. Citizens United puts in motion the opposite: it moves us towards government by and for the powerful. As such, it is a dagger poised at the heart of American democracy. If we are going to preserve a government responsive to its citizens, we need commonsense reforms that give the American people a full voice. This constitutional amendment is essential for the people to be heard.” The amendment would:
authorize Congress to regulate and limit the raising and spending of money for federal political campaigns and allow states to regulate such spending at their level;
include the authority to regulate and limit independent expenditures, such as those from Super PACs, made in support of or opposition to candidates;
not dictate any specific policies or regulations, but instead allow Congress to pass campaign finance reform legislation that withstands constitutional challenges. [US Senate, 11/1/2011]
Passing a constitutional amendment is not an easy task. Two-thirds of Congress must agree to the amendment, or two-thirds of state legislatures must call for the amendment. Once proposed, three-quarters of state legislatures must vote to ratify the amendment. [Think Progress, 11/2/2011] This is not the first proposal to amend the Constitution to limit corporate spending (see September 20, 2011).
The image of Obama as a bullet-riddled zombie disseminated by a Republican party official in Virginia. [Source: Washington Post]A Loudoun County, Virginia, Republican Committee official resigns after the media reports his emailing pictures of President Obama as a zombie with part of his skull missing and a large bullet wound in his forehead. Robert Jesionowski, the committee’s communications director, admits to sending the emails. The reports originated on a conservative blog, Too Conservative, that used the image to promote the committee’s activities at a recent Halloween parade. The blog also displayed a similar image of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). State and local Republican officials strongly condemned the image. Virginia GOP chairman Pat Mullins said: “The disgusting image used today on a mass email has no place in our politics. Ever. The Republican Party of Virginia condemns the image and its use in the strongest possible terms.” Governor Robert F. McDonnell (R-VA) said Jesionowski’s email was “shameful and offensive,” and issued a call through his office to have “those involved to apologize for their actions and to immediately ensure that such imagery is never used again.… The governor has long stressed the need for more civility and respect in our politics. An email like this one undermines those goals, offends all Virginians, and discredits our entire political process. It will not be tolerated.” Jesionowski’s resignation is apparently in response to the criticism. Matt Sell, chairman of the Loudoun County Republican Committee, issues a statement calling Jesionowski’s email “a light-hearted attempt to inject satire humor into the Halloween holiday.” However, Sell continues: “Apparently, some individuals have interpreted an image of Barack Obama that appeared within the email as intending to portray the president as a victim of a violent crime. Nothing could be further from the truth, and we deeply and sincerely apologize to the president and anyone who viewed the image if that was the impression that was left. The LCRC deplores any effort to display, suggest, or promote violence against the president or any other political figure.” [Washington Post, 10/31/2011; Washington Post, 11/2/2011]
’We Are Ohio’ logo. [Source: ProgressOhio (.org)]Ohio Senate Bill 5, known as the Ohio Collective Bargaining Limit Repeal, is defeated by a voter referendum. The bill would enable severe limitations on collective bargaining for public employees in the state, and make it difficult for those employees to strike and collectively bargain for wages, health insurance, and pensions, and would have increased employee contributions for pensions and health insurance. The hard-fought campaign pitted Governor John Kasich (R-OH) and Ohio Republicans against the state’s teachers, firefighters, police officers, and unions. The bargaining limit repeal was supported by farmers and a number of independent corporate organizations, including Citizens United, the Ohio Chamber of Commerce, and the National Federation of Independent Business; it was opposed by labor unions, Democrats, and some independent organizations, including the bipartisan political action committee We Are Ohio, which helped launch the referendum. Over $50 million was spent on the campaign by outside parties and both political parties. Ohio Democrats and labor leaders call the repeal a win for progressives and worker rights, and the first step in recapturing the state government, which has been dominated by Republicans since the 2010 elections. Doug Stern, a firefighter who joined We Are Ohio, says: “Hey, I’m a Republican, but I’m telling you, Republican firefighters and police officers aren’t going to be voting Republican around here for a while. We’ll see what happens in 2012, but our guys have a long memory. We’re angry and disgusted.” Supporters, relying on large infusions of cash from corporate and other interests, relied largely on media advertising to support the repeal, while opponents staged mass protests and organized grassroots volunteers who they say will continue to work to defeat Republican interests. One $100,000 television ad paid for by Citizens United depicted schoolchildren while a voiceover told viewers that the bill allows schools to “replace” bad teachers, and added, “We parents and educators deserve the right to run our own schools.” Citizens United president David Bossie (see May 1998) told a reporter that his organization “decided to get in and play a role right at the end to educate the voting public and try to persuade them that this is the right way to go.” We Are Ohio called such ads “desperate attempt[s] by another shadowy out-of-state group that refuses to disclose the source of its money” (see January 21, 2010). Kasich repeatedly argued that the harsh measures against public employees and labor unions were necessary to balance the state’s budget. One senior state Republican says that Kasich “snatch[ed] defeat from the jaws of victory” by alienating labor-friendly independents in the state. [Politico, 11/2/2011; Think Progress, 11/3/2011; Politico, 11/8/2011]
The US government’s Nixon Presidential Library begins making the grand jury testimony of former President Richard Nixon available to the public. In June 1975, Nixon testified about his involvement in the Watergate scandal after his resignation (see August 8, 1974) to a California grand jury. Although he was protected by the pardon granted him by his successor, Gerald Ford (see September 8, 1974), he could have been charged with perjury if he lied under oath. No such charges were filed against Nixon. Judge Royce Lambeth ordered the testimony made public in July 2011 over the opposition of the Obama administration, which argued that too many people from the Nixon administration were still alive for secret testimony involving them to be made public. Lambeth wrote, “The court is confident that disclosure will greatly benefit the public and its understanding of Watergate without compromising the tradition and objectives of grand jury secrecy.” The records are available at the California home of the library and online. Historian Stanley Kutler, who was one of the principal figures involved in the lawsuit to bring the testimony to light, says, “This is Nixon unplugged.” However, he adds: “I have no illusions. Richard Nixon knew how to dodge questions with the best of them. I am sure that he danced, skipped, around a number of things.” Nixon’s testimony, conducted for 11 hours over two days, was the first time an ex-president ever testified before a grand jury. The library is also releasing thousands of pages of other Watergate-era documents, several oral histories from that time, and 45 minutes of recordings made by Nixon with a dictating machine. Some portions of the Nixon grand jury testimony have not yet been made public, due to the fact that they deal with people still alive. Some or all of that information may be made public at a future date. Kutler says it is doubtful the public will learn much more about Watergate from the new records: “The grand jury after that testimony had a chance to sit and indict but they did not, so I don’t expect it to be that important.” He adds that the opening of grand jury records is a milestone by itself, “another precedent for opening up secretiveness in public life.” [Associated Press, 11/10/2011] After initially reviewing the transcripts, Kutner says: “It’s Nixon being Nixon. It’s a virtuoso performance. How about $10 for every time he says, ‘I don’t recall’?” [Daily Mail, 11/11/2011] According to reporters who review the transcripts, Nixon spent much of his time before the grand jury defending his legacy as president and denying first-hand knowledge of any of the activities that made up the Watergate scandal, but acknowledging his administration committed some questionable acts. “I want the jury and the special prosecutors to kick the hell out of us for wiretapping and for the plumbers and the rest,” he said, “because obviously, you may have concluded it is wrong.” [Associated Press, 11/11/2011] Nixon reiterated the story that his secretary Rose Mary Woods accidentally erased 18 1/2 minutes of an audiotape that might have shown his complicity in the Watergate conspiracy (see November 21, 1973), saying: “Rose had thought it was four minutes, or something like that. Now the counsel have found that it is 18-and-a-half minutes, and I practically blew my stack.… If you are interested in my view as to what happened, it is very simple. It is that it was an accident.” Nixon was harsh with the Watergate prosecutors, accusing them of persecuting him and employing what he called double standards against him as opposed to his Democratic adversaries. “If I could give one last bit of advice,” he told the prosecutors, “taking the double standard is going to make you much more popular with the Washington press corps, with the Georgetown social set, if you ever go to Georgetown, with the power elite in this country. But on the other hand, think of your children—they are going to judge you in the pages of history.… I mean, I am not unaware of the fact that the great majority of the people working in special prosecutor’s office did not support me for president.” [Daily Mail, 11/11/2011]
The president of a Texas university branch of the College Republicans makes a post on Twitter saying that the assassination of President Obama is a “tempting” idea. The post appears just hours after a gunman is arrested for shooting at the White House in an apparent assassination attempt (see November 11-17, 2011). Lauren Pierce, the president of the College Republicans at the University of Texas in Austin, posts the following “tweet”: “Y’all as tempting as it may be, don’t shoot Obama. We need him to go down in history as the WORST president we’ve EVER had! #2012.” When ABC News posts an article about her comment, Pierce initially laughs about it, saying that “it must be a slow news day” for ABC to bother reporting her comment. She gives an interview to an ABC News reporter in which she giggles through much of the interview; she claims that the post was a “joke,” calls the attempted assassination attempt “stupid,” and says that for someone to assassinate Obama would “only make the situation worse.” The group’s vice president, Cassie Wright, says: “Insofar as she’s a representative [of the College Republicans], maybe it shouldn’t be said, but she’s made a positive statement in a way.… I don’t really see anything wrong with it. It’s just a personal comment, not representative of any group. Just freedom of speech, you know?” Later, Pierce removes the post from Twitter and instead makes the following comment: “It’s never funny to joke about such a serious matter. I have learned a very valuable lesson.” [Huffington Post, 11/16/2011; ABC News, 11/16/2011]
Newt Gingrich during a recent debate among Republican presidential candidates. [Source: Associated Press]Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA), a Republican candidate for the 2012 presidential nomination, says that schools should save educational expenses by firing all custodians except for one “master janitor” and have the children do the rest of the maintenance work for their schools. Gingrich recommends this particularly for schools in poorer areas.
Attacks Unions, Child Labor Laws - Child labor laws prohibit such actions; Gingrich blames these laws, and the unions to which many maintenance workers and custodians belong, for causing “unnecessary” expenditures and for what he says is blocking poorer children from bootstrapping their way to economic success. “This is something that no liberal wants to deal with,” he tells an audience at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard. “Core policies of protecting unionization and bureaucratization against children in the poorest neighborhoods, crippling them by putting them in schools that fail has done more to create income inequality in the United States than any other single policy,” he continues. “It is tragic what we do in the poorest neighborhoods, entrapping children in, first of all, child laws, which are truly stupid. You say to somebody, you shouldn’t go to work before you’re what, 14, 16 years of age, fine. You’re totally poor. You’re in a school that is failing with a teacher that is failing. I’ve tried for years to have a very simple model. Most of these schools ought to get rid of the unionized janitors, have one master janitor, and pay local students to take care of the school. The kids would actually do work, they would have cash, they would have pride in the schools, they’d begin the process of rising.… You go out and talk to people, as I do, you go out and talk to people who are really successful in one generation. They all started their first job between nine and 14 years of age. They all were either selling newspapers, going door to door, they were doing something, they were washing cars. They all learned how to make money at a very early age. What do we say to poor kids in poor neighborhoods? Don’t do it. Remember all that stuff about don’t get a hamburger flipping job? The worst possible advice you could give to poor children. Get any job that teaches you to show up on Monday. Get any job that teaches you to stay all day even if you are in a fight with your girlfriend. The whole process of making work worthwhile is central.”
Proposal Called 'Absurd,' 'Insane' - Gingrich, who in 1994 proposed placing children whose families were on welfare into state-run orphanages, is quickly targeted for criticism by experts and observers. Randi Weingarten, the president of the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), calls Gingrich’s proposal “absurd,” and says: “Who in their right mind would lay off janitors and replace them with disadvantaged children—who should be in school, and not cleaning schools? And who would start backtracking on laws designed to halt the exploitation of children?” Gingrich says he has a number of “extraordinarily radical proposals to fundamentally change the culture of poverty in America and give people a chance to rise very rapidly.” [Politico, 11/18/2011; New York Times, 11/19/2011] Jordan Weissman, an associate editor of The Atlantic, calls Gingrich’s proposal “insane.” He writes: “This suggestion is, on its face, insane. It sounds like a bad Stephen Colbert joke [referring to a popular political satirist]. But if you stop and consider its merits for a minute or two… well no, it’s still quite insane. And if you spend an evening researching the nitty gritty of what public school custodians actually do for a living, it turns out to be downright cruel.” He says the proposal is “a jarring illustration of Gingrich’s casual disdain for American workers.” Weissmann refers to a job description for a New York City public school custodial engineer: that job requires the worker to use hazardous chemicals such as hydrochloric acid; repair heating and air conditioning systems; do electrical and plumbing repair; and other potentially dangerous tasks. Weissman asks, “What parent wants a nine-year-old, or even a 13-year-old, toying with the HVAC in her school?” Custodial jobs are among the most physically taxing of all jobs, causing workers to suffer an unusually high number of on-the-job injuries and causing long-term physical debilitation. Weissman concludes: “It would be easy to chalk Gingrich’s comments up simply to his well-known animus towards unions. But I don’t think that quite explains it. Rational people can argue about how much someone should be paid to clean.… But that decision starts from the respectful assumption that maintaining a school is something worthwhile for an adult to spend their lives on. That’s not the case in Gingrich’s worldview. Forget that an adult might need that job to put food on the table for their own children. Forget that he’s suggesting we flood an ailing job market with part time, minimum-wage-earning students. This isn’t about labor economics. It’s about respect, and the fact that the leading Republican presidential candidate doesn’t have a spit’s worth of it for manual labor. In his eyes, a janitor’s job just doesn’t mean much. It’s so easy, a child could do it.” [Atlantic Monthly`, 11/21/2011]
Former Custodian: Gingrich 'Doesn't Even Know Why' He is Wrong - A diarist for the liberal blog Daily Kos describes himself as a former “custodian for a very large child care center.” He writes: “I was the guy mopping up vast amounts of wet, sticky rice from the floor, sanitizing the tables, chairs and high-chairs, and washing the dishes. I sanitized doorknobs. I filed down jagged parts of metal that somehow, every once in a while, stuck out from steel door jam[b]s and bathroom stalls. I hauled out dozens of bags of dirty diapers Every Single Day… and yes, I cleaned up an unholy amount of poop from a dozen itty bitty toilets. [T]hese are many of the things Newt Gingrich believes should be jobs for poor children in our public school systems. Cleaning up vomit. Cleaning feces off of toilet seats. Handling cleaning solvents that can eat right through latex gloves. Washing dishes with an industrial dish washer that heats the water over 180 degrees, enough to scald young skin.… Plunging toilets plugged with diarrhea and toilet paper, then sanitizing the toilet seat for the Non Poor students. Newt Gingrich wants our children cleaning blood, mucous, feces, urine, dried snot, vomit loaded with God-Knows-What pathogens from floors and walls and door knobs with chemicles [sic] that can eat the skin right off your arm or cause permanent blindness if it splashed into the eyes or loss of smell if some Janitor Kid jammed his finger up his nose… which kids never do, right? Never. Because an eight-year-old is going to observe strict safety regulations, right?” The diarist concludes: “[Gingrich] should be embarrassed for suggesting we make poor children clean our schools. There is SO much wrong with that statement and the most irritating thing is, he doesn’t even know WHY.” [Daily Kos, 11/21/2011]
Representative Ted Deutch (D-FL) introduces a resolution proposing a constitutional amendment that would ban corporate money in politics and end “corporate personhood.” Deutch calls his proposal the Outlawing Corporate Cash Undermining the Public Interest in our Elections and Democracy (OCCUPIED) Amendment. The proposal reads, “Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to expressly exclude for-profit corporations from the rights given to natural persons by the Constitution of the United States, prohibit corporate spending in all elections, and affirm the authority of Congress and the states to regulate corporations and to regulate and set limits on all election contributions and expenditures.” The amendment, if adopted, would overturn the Citizens United decision (see January 21, 2010), re-establish the right of Congress and the states to regulate campaign finance laws, and effectively outlaw the ability of for-profit corporations to contribute to campaign spending. Deutch says in a statement that refers to the Occupy protesters demonstrating throughout the nation: “No matter how long protesters camp out across America, big banks will continue to pour money into shadow groups promoting candidates more likely to slash Medicaid for poor children than help families facing foreclosure. No matter how strongly Ohio families fight for basic fairness for workers, the Koch brothers will continue to pour millions into campaigns aimed at protecting the wealthiest 1 percent (see November 8, 2011). No matter how fed up seniors in South Florida are with an agenda that puts oil subsidies ahead of Social Security and Medicare, corporations will continue to fund massive publicity campaigns and malicious attack ads against the public interest. Americans of all stripes agree that for far too long, corporations have occupied Washington and drowned out the voices of the people. I introduced the OCCUPIED Amendment because the days of corporate control of our democracy. It is time to return the nation’s capital and our democracy to the people.” [US House of Representatives, 11/18/2011 ; Think Progress, 11/18/2011] Three weeks ago, a group of Democratic senators introduced a similar amendment (see November 1, 2011). On December 8, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) will introduce a version of the OCCUPIED Amendment in the Senate that he calls the Saving American Democracy Amendment. Deutch will say of Sanders’s action: “There comes a time when an issue is so important that the only way to address it is by a constitutional amendment. I am thrilled that Senator Bernie Sanders has introduced the Saving American Democracy Amendment, a companion bill to H.J. Res 90, my legislation in the House. The dominance of corporations in Washington has imperiled the economic security of the American people and left our citizens profoundly disenchanted with our democracy. I look forward to working with Senator Sanders to save American democracy by banning all corporate spending in our elections and cracking down on secret front groups using anonymous corporate cash to undermine the public interest.” [Think Progress, 12/8/2011] Two House Democrats introduced similar legislation in September 2011 (see September 20, 2011).
The Federal Election Commission (FEC) unanimously rejects a petition by Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) for him to be allowed to head his own “super PAC” (see March 26, 2010). Lee’s “leadership PAC,” the Constitutional Conservatives Fund PAC (CCFPAC), had requested permission from the FEC to turn itself into a PAC capable of accepting donations directly from corporations and unions (see October 17, 2011). Previously, the FEC had released a draft opinion opposing the request, but Lee’s lawyer Dan Backer had said he felt the FEC would approve the request. Lee spokesperson Brian Phillips calls the decision “a head-scratcher.” Backer and Lee had counted on the controversial Citizens United Supreme Court decision (see January 21, 2010) that allowed corporations and labor unions to spend unlimited amounts in independent expenditures on behalf of candidates, and essentially say that if corporations and unions can run super PACs, politicians should be able to do so as well. They argued that because the law bars Lee from spending the money on his own reelection efforts, and because he is willing to pledge that he would not personally solicit large donations, the FEC should grant the request. The draft opinion said that Lee’s request violates campaign finance law that expressly prohibits elected officials from being associated with a political entity that collects money beyond the legal limits (see March 27, 2002), and the unanimous decision echoes that finding. A PAC such as the CCFPAC is limited to collecting $5,000 per person per year and is banned entirely from accepting corporate donations. Lee, a “tea party” favorite, would have been the first politician in the country to have his own super PAC. Commissioner Donald McGahn, the most conservative commissioner and an opponent of most campaign finance laws, told Lee and his legal team: “Your argument essentially does away with contribution limits. It’s well beyond what we do here and well beyond what I do here, which is saying something.” McGahn says he agrees that the government should not discriminate when applying regulations on independent expenditures, but that the statute and regulations clearly limit contributions to members of Congress to protect against corruption or the appearance of corruption. Lee’s office says that letting Lee run a super PAC of his own would actually increase transparency and accountability. Lee may yet appeal the decision to the Supreme Court. [Salt Lake Tribune, 11/24/2011; Think Progress, 11/28/2011; Deseret News, 12/1/2011]
Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich (R-GA) issues accusations that Americans on government aid programs are in many cases wasteful drug users who use their aid money to go on lavish vacations. Gingrich, riding a surge of popularity as the Iowa caucuses approach, calls President Obama “the food stamp president” during his stump speeches. In an appearance in Council Bluffs, Iowa, Gingrich says: “Remember, this is the best food stamp president in history. So more Americans today get food stamps than before. And we now give it away as cash—you don’t get food stamps. You get a credit card, and the credit card can be used for anything. We have people who take their food stamp money and use it to go to Hawaii. They give food stamps now to millionaires because, after all, don’t you want to be compassionate? You know, the Obama model: isn’t there somebody you’d like to give money to this week. That’s why we’re now going to help bailout Italy because we haven’t bailed out enough people this week, the president thought let’s write another check. After all, we have so much extra money.” The nonpartisan fact-checking entity PolitiFact calls Gingrich’s accusations complete lies. The “food stamp program,” known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), has very strict guidelines about what can and cannot be bought with federal aid dollars. Except for very limited exceptions, SNAP recipients cannot use aid money for restaurant meals or to buy anything other than groceries. SNAP funds cannot be used to buy alcoholic beverages. The “electronic benefits transfer” card, or EBT cards, are similar in appearance to credit cards, but have a very different function. EBT cardholders cannot use their cards to buy airline tickets, whether it be for Hawaiian vacations or anything else. PolitiFact doubts that any recipients would have enough funds to buy such tickets in the first place; the average monthly SNAP benefit is $134 per person. Julia Isaacs of the Brookings Institution says, “There is undoubtedly some illegal bartering of EBT cards—though I understand trafficking in EBT cards is less than under the old food stamps—but I am having trouble imagining how you could barter an EBT card for an airplane ticket.” PolitiFact notes that Gingrich’s claims may have come from a recent news broadcast in St. Louis, which found that some Missouri SNAP recipients spent $2,737 on food in Hawaii in January 2011. The money, though spent out of state, was spent on legitimate goods such as groceries. The amount was .07 percent of the total money allocated to SNAP residents in Missouri for January 2011. And the Missouri beneficiaries had legitimate reasons to be in Hawaii—some of them were members of the military transferred to new duty bases, for example. If the Missouri story is the source of Gingrich’s claims, PolitiFact notes, then Gingrich completely misrepresented the facts of the story. As far as the “food stamps for millionaires” claim, anyone who earns over 130 percent of the poverty line cannot receive benefits. No such beneficiaries have been identified, and if they do exist, they are breaking the law. Michael Wiseman of George Washington University says, “I would challenge Newt Gingrich to find a millionaire in annual income who gets on food stamps legally.” PolitiFact says that Gingrich’s claims are “so ridiculous” that the researchers thought for a time that he might be joking. Think Progress reporter Marie Diamond calls Gingrich’s claims “absurd.” At a recent campaign event in Iowa, citizen Don Brantz confronted Gingrich, saying: “You don’t always tell the truth, Mr. Gingrich, and that food stamp thing is one of them. Iowa already has a computer system. We do not pay money so the people on food stamps can buy beer and anything else. It’s a very specific thing.” (Diamond notes that Gingrich is a frequent world traveller, taking lengthy vacations in luxury spots around the world. In one instance, he told reporters that after taking a luxury cruise in Greece, he came away with a deeper understanding of the European financial crisis.) [St. Petersburg Times, 12/1/2011; Think Progress, 12/2/2011; ABC News, 1/2/2012] MSNBC talk show host Ed Schultz will say that Gingrich, like fellow Republican candidate Rick Santorum (R-PA), “is also quick to connect programs like food stamps to the African-American community.” Schultz’s guest, author and radio host Michael Eric Dyson, says: “I don’t think we need Newt Gingrich’s pedagogy in the NAACP. I think this is condescension at its most poignant. And, as with Rick Santorum, when you have pet Negro causes, you tend to treat Negros like pets.” New York Times columnist Charles Blow will say of Gingrich’s remarks that “this sort of racial pandering is exactly what happens at this point in a race.” Blow calls Gingrich’s remarks “extreme, very racist.” [Politico, 1/6/2012]
Entity Tags: Michael Wiseman, Don Brantz, Charles M. Blow, Barack Obama, Edward Andrew (“Ed”) Schultz, Michael Eric Dyson, PolitiFact (.org ), Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, Marie Diamond, Newt Gingrich
Timeline Tags: Global Economic Crises, Domestic Propaganda, 2012 Elections
John Birch Society logo. [Source: John Birch Society]John F. McManus, the head of the far-right, anti-Communist John Birch Society (JBS), releases a booklet through the organization entitled “Reality vs. Myth” that attempts to, in the words of the JBS, “set the record straight” about what the organization is and is not. According to McManus, the JBS has never held anti-Semitic or racist views, or tolerated such within its organization. All such assertions come from “enemies” of the organization, often from persons or organizations with Communist affiliations (see March 10, 1961 and 1963), he writes. [John Birch Society, 2011]
History of Anti-Communism - The organization was founded in 1958 by candy magnate Robert Welch, a former Massachusetts Republican Party official who began railing about what he considered the “pervasive” influence of Communism in all aspects of American society, particularly in the federal government. Liberals are inherently opposed to freedom and democracy, Welch argued, because liberals are in favor of collectivism/socialism, and therefore are witting or unwitting traitors to the individualist tenets that underlie the US Constitution. The JBS became a vocal opponent of the United Nations, alleging as early as 1959 that the UN intended to establish a “New World Order” (NWO) or “one-world government” (see September 11, 1990). The JBS has also portrayed itself as a fundamentally Christian organization, and views Communism and other non-American forms of government as inherently “godless.” Since the end of World War II, the organization has asserted, the US government has been actively attempting to implement “godless Communism” in place of a Constitutional democracy, including a 1958 claim by Welch that then-President Eisenhower was “a dedicated conscious agent of the communist conspiracy.” Some “Bircher” officials have touted the NWO as being rooted in the alleged Illuminati Freemason conspiracy. In 1964, the JBS enthusiastically supported the presidential candidacy of Senator Barry Goldwater (R-AZ), though a large number of members supported Eisenhower’s vice-president, Richard Nixon (R-CA) over Goldwater. The organization opposed John F. Kennedy (D-MA), accusing him of being a traitor and a Communist dupe (see November 1963), accusations it had also leveled against Eisenhower. After Goldwater’s defeat, Welch attempted to land the segregationist governor of Alabama, George Wallace (D-AL), as a standardbearer for the JBS. [Political Research Associates, 2010] McManus insists that the JBS’s overarching loyalty is to the Christian Bible, the US Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. ” Our organization was created to uphold the truths in the Declaration and the limitations upon government in the Constitution,” he writes. “Not alone in such an endeavor, we welcome all who treasure what our nation’s Founders produced.” [John Birch Society, 2011]
Less Overt Racist, Anti-Semitic Stances - During the Kennedy and Johnson administrations, the JBS painted the civil rights movement as a Communist conspiracy, accusing “ignorant” and “uneducated” African-Americans of either being witting or unwitting dupes of a Communist conspiracy against America. It launched a powerful and well-organized assault on the civil rights movement, calling it a “fraud” and labeling it the “Negro Revolutionary Movement.” Some JBS publications and officials also asserted that the nation’s financial system was controlled largely by Jews with little if any loyalty to the US, and in some instances actively working to undermine and destabilize America’s economy. Such assertions led many to characterize the JBS as a racist and anti-Semitic organization, characterizations that the organization has always disputed. It has touted its very small number of African-American and Jewish members as proof of its claims not to be institutionally racist or anti-Semitic. In 2010, the liberal Political Research Associates (PRA) wrote: “The JBS… discouraged overt displays of racism, while it promoted policies that had the effect of racist oppression by its opposition to the Civil Rights movement. The degree of political racism expressed by the JBS was not ‘extremist’ but similar to that of many mainstream Republican and Democratic elected officials at the time. This level of mainstream racism should not be dismissed lightly, as it was often crude and sometimes violent, treating Black people in particular as second-class citizens, most of whom had limited intelligence and little ambition. In [one JBS publication], Martin Luther King, Jr. is portrayed as an agent of a massive communist conspiracy to agitate among otherwise happy Negroes to foment revolution, or at least promote demands for more collectivist federal government intrusion.” PRA also went on to note that one of its founders, Revilo P. Oliver, was forced to resign from the JBS after making anti-Semitic and racist comments at a 1996 JBS rally. And, the PRA wrote, “When crude antisemitism was detected in JBS members, their membership was revoked[,]” though the organization still held that anti-American Jews were attempting to do damage to the nation’s economy. “At its core, however, the Birch view of the conspiracy does not reveal it to be controlled or significantly influenced by Jews in general, or a secret group of conniving Jews, nor is their evidence of a hidden agenda within the Society to promote suspicion of Jews. The Society always struggled against what it saw as objectionable forms of prejudice against Jews, but it can still be criticized for having continuously promoted mild antisemitic stereotyping. Nevertheless, the JBS was closer to mainstream stereotyping and bigotry than the naked race hate and genocidal antisemitism of neonazi or KKK groups. In a sense, the Birch society pioneered the encoding of implicit cultural forms of ethnocentric White racism and Christian nationalist antisemitism rather than relying on the White supremacist biological determinism and open loathing of Jews that had typified the old right prior to WWII. Throughout its existence, however, the Society has promoted open homophobia and sexism. The Society’s anti-communism and states rights libertarianism was based on sincere principles, but it clearly served as a cover for organizing by segregationists and White supremacists. How much of this was conscious, and how much unconscious, is difficult to determine.” [Political Research Associates, 2010] McManus calls attempts to point out the JBS’s history of implicit racism and anti-Semitism as deliberate, dishonest attempts to “stigmatize” the group, usually by persons and organizations who are working to implement a one-world government and see the JBS as a roadblock to that goal. “There was no evidence that the Society was racist, neo-Nazi, anti-Semitic, or subversive of good order,” McManus claims. “But that didn’t stop many from making such charges.… There were some attempts to defend JBS against the flood of vicious characterizations but these were overwhelmed by widespread and undeserved nastiness. No private organization in our nation’s history had ever been treated so unfairly.” He calls efforts to show the JBS as racist “vicious” and false. “If truth were told,” he writes, “the John Birch Society should be congratulated nationally for its important work in diffusing racial animosities.” [John Birch Society, 2011] Many prominent white supremacist leaders used their membership in the JBS to help promote their more overtly racist organizations (see 1970-1974 and 1973). Former Ku Klux Klan leader Johnny Lee Clary has said the JBS “is just a political version of the KKK, without the name of the KKK. They center on the political ideas of the Klan and are not as vocal in public on the ideas of the racial superiority, but they attract the same people and say the same things behind closed doors.… They are racist, and full of hate and are officially listed as a hate group with several civil rights organizations throughout the USA” (see April 13, 2009). Among other non-white leaders, the JBS has labeled South Africa’s Nelson Mandela as a “Communist tyrant” (see December 11, 2009).
Reframing Itself - In the late 1970s, the JBS saw its influence waning as more modern organizations comprising what some have called the “New Right” came to the fore. In the 1980s, the JBS lost even more influence after attacking Reagan administration policies. It managed to revive itself by toning down its anti-Communist rhetoric and emphasizing its warnings about the New World Order and positioning itself as a long-time advocate of right-wing, muscularly patriotic popularism. Author and journalist Andrew Reinbach notes that the JBS provided an ideological “seed bank” for many of the tenets currently embraced by the various “tea party” organizations on the right (see February 4-8, 2010 and February 15, 2010), an assertion echoed by conservative journalist Matthew Boyle. [Huffington Post, 9/12/2011; Daily Caller, 11/29/2011] McManus credits the JBS with helping bring about the impeachment of then-President Clinton, stopping the establishment of a free-trade entity in the Western Hemisphere, and putting an end to what it calls “the drive to a sovereignty-compromising North American Union.” McManus says JBS efforts to “educate” the world about the UN has prevented that organization “from becoming the tyrannical world government intended by its founders.” He writes that the JBS successfully thwarted the federal government’s alleged plans to federalize all American law enforcement, and credits the JBS’s black membership with preventing wholesale rioting and insurrection during the Civil Rights Era. He touts the JBS as being one of the primary organizations that blocked the passage of the Equal Rights Amendment. And he credits the JBS with being among the first organizations to warn about what it calls the dangers of illegal immigration. He touts the support of, among others, presidential candidate Ron Paul (R-TX—see 1978-1996 and July 22, 2007) and conservative commentator Pat Buchanan (see June 12, 2009, June 20, 2009, July 16, 2009, and October 18, 2011 and After) as validating the organization’s ideology and positions, and notes that in recent years, the JBS was an official sponsor of the Conservative Political Action Conference (see April 19, 2010 and February 9-11, 2012). And he claims that attempts to paint tea party organizations as far-right, racist, or homophobic are similar to the efforts by Communists and NWO conspiratists to destroy the Society. He concludes by writing to prospective members: “Don’t allow yourself to be influenced by the false image created by the Society’s enemies. Our country is under attack and The John Birch Society offers a workable plan to combat it.” [John Birch Society, 2011]
Entity Tags: John F. Kennedy, John Birch Society, Dwight Eisenhower, Conservative Political Action Conference, Barry Goldwater, Andrew Reinbach, George C. Wallace, Ron Paul, United Nations, Richard M. Nixon, Political Research Associates, Patrick Buchanan, Martin Luther King, Jr., Nelson Mandela, Revilo P. Oliver, Johnny Lee Clary, Robert Welch, John F. McManus
Timeline Tags: Domestic Propaganda
The House of Representatives votes 235-190 to eliminate the Presidential Election Campaign Fund (PECF), which provides for voluntary public funding of presidential candidates. The legislation would also shut down the Election Assistance Commission (EAC), a national clearinghouse on the mechanics of voting. Public financing of campaigns has been a target of Republicans since the Citizens United decision allowed corporations and labor unions to give unlimited amounts to campaigns (see January 21, 2010 and June 27, 2011). House Republicans failed in a previous attempt to eliminate the PECF (see January 26, 2011 and After). Representative Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) gives an impassioned defense of the PECF, saying that it is one of the few obstacles that remains to impede what she calls the takeover of the US political system by well-financed special interests. She asks her colleagues whether they believe the “99 percent of Americans that don’t have lobbyists” would benefit in any way by abolishing PECF. She then notes that the Republican National Committee (RNC) got 18 million dollars from this fund and suggests it give the money back, saying: “The level of spending by corporations and special interests since the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United should give every American reason for concern. So do my Republican colleagues really believe that more corporate and special interest money in politics is going to benefit in any way the 99 percent of Americans who don’t have lobbyists? The current public financial [sic] system for the presidential elections has problems. Most notably, it has not kept pace with the cost of modern campaigns. So we should fix it instead of eliminating it. I would note that the Republican National Committee recently received 18 million dollars from this fund. If the Republicans think it’s such a bad idea, perhaps they should ask the RNC to return the money.” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) says the bill has no chance in the Senate, and is critical of House Republicans for advancing it, stating: “Instead of making it so it’s easier for people to vote, they want to do everything they can to make it harder for people to vote. I don’t understand this. They want to have as few people to vote as possible.” Representative Gregg Harper (R-MS), the sponsor of the bill, says the elimination of the PECF would help reduce the deficit. “If we do not eliminate some programs, then a $15 trillion debt will be our decline into a European-style financial crisis,” he says. [Roll Call, 12/1/2011; Think Progress, 12/1/2011] The bill will not pass the Senate.
According to a Washington Post analysis, 10 percent of US billionaires have given to the presidential campaign of Mitt Romney (R-MA), who seems to be securing enough primary wins to be named the Republican Party’s presidential nominee. Romney himself is a former venture capitalist worth at least $250 million. Forty-two of the US’s 412 billionaires have donated to Romney’s campaign and third-party “super PACs” (see March 26, 2010, June 23, 2011, and November 23, 2011). President Obama has 30 billionaires on his donor list, or something over 7 percent. Romney opponents Rick Perry (R-TX) and Jon Huntsman (R-UT) have 20 and 12, respectively. The Washington Post reports: “Very wealthy donors are likely to play a greater role in this election cycle in the wake of recent court decisions that have loosened rules for campaign contributions (see January 21, 2010). That will only heighten one of the dominant narratives of the 2012 campaign: the nation’s rising income inequality and the outsize political influence of the super-wealthy.” Donors can only give $5,000 directly to candidates’ campaigns, but under the Citizens United ruling, they can give unlimited amounts to super PACs that run independent ads on behalf of, or in opposition to, candidates. “The only limit on the resources is the willingness of the donors to give,” says government professor Anthony Corrado, a former Democratic official. “It doesn’t take long to transfer $500,000 from one account to another.” Obama had a head start in raising campaign funds going into October 2010, largely because the Republican candidates were spending money against one another in primary battles. But now that Romney seems more and more assured as the Republican nominee, Republican donors are expected to focus on donating to his campaign and super PACs, and are expected to catch up to and surpass Obama and the Democrats in short order (see August 2, 2010, September 20, 2010, September 13-16, 2010, October 2010, Around October 27, 2010, May 5, 2011, and August 4, 2011). In 2008, Obama distanced his campaign from third-party donors, and donations from those individuals and interests were relatively down. But, perhaps recognizing the advantage Republicans have in raising money from the wealthy, Obama no longer objects to those donations. Romney’s largest donor so far is hedge-fund billionaire John Paulson, who has given $1 million to Romney’s super PAC Restore Our Future (see June 23, 2011). Think Progress’s Travis Waldron notes that Paulson made millions by shorting the housing market before the mortgage collapse that sparked the global financial crisis and drove the US economy into a recession. Other billionaires supporting Romney include Washington Redskins owner Dan Snyder, California real estate developer Donald Bren, and developer and publisher Sam Zell. Several billionaires who used to support Romney’s primary opponent Newt Gingrich (R-GA), including casino mogul Sheldon Adelson and Amway founder Richard DeVos, are expected to begin giving generously to the Romney campaign or to his super PAC. Obama’s richest donor is Len Blavatnik, a Russian-American industrialist who has also donated to Romney. Other billionaires supporting Obama include insurance magnate Peter Lewis, former Google executive Eric Schmidt, and venture capitalist John Doerr. Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt downplays the billionaire contributions, saying, “Our campaign is fueled by donations from more than 1 million Americans, 98 percent of which were in amounts of $250 or less.” Corrado says that as the November elections approach, spending will only increase. “One of the things about large investors in campaigns is that they’re very interested in getting results,” he says. “And it is much easier to get a large effect in a race if you can give to directly advocate for and against a candidate.” [Washington Post, 12/1/2011; Think Progress, 12/6/2011]
Entity Tags: Dan Snyder, Sam Zell, Sheldon Adelson, Washington Post, Willard Mitt Romney, Anthony J. Corrado Jr., 2012 Obama presidential election campaign, Ben LaBolt, Restore Our Future, Richard DeVos, Newt Gingrich, James Richard (“Rick”) Perry, Eric Schmidt, Donald Bren, Peter Lewis, Mitt Romney presidential campaign (2012), John Paulson, Barack Obama, Len Blavatnik, Jon Huntsman, John Doerr
Timeline Tags: Civil Liberties, 2012 Elections
Donald Trump and Newt Gingrich. The two have combined to offer 10 poor children a chance to become Trump’s ‘apprentices.’ [Source: MSNBC / Raw Story]Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich (R-GA) modifies his previously stated stance that union janitors at public schools should be fired and poor schoolchildren should be put to maintenance and custodial tasks in their places (see November 18, 2011 and After). Gingrich now says that he recognizes some custodial jobs are dangerous, and says that poor students should be limited to jobs such as cleaning bathrooms. During a campaign rally, he asks, “What if they became assistant janitors and their jobs were to mop the floor and clean the bathroom?” Gingrich goes on to say that making poor kids work as janitors is similar to a successful program, Earning by Learning, that pays children to read books. He also says that poor children “have no habit of work” and no knowledge of how to make an income “unless it’s illegal.” He says: “Really poor children in really poor neighborhoods have no habits of working and have nobody around them who works, so they literally have no habit of showing up on Monday. They have no habit of staying all day. They have no habit of ‘I do this and you give me cash’ unless it’s illegal.” Gingrich then goes on to attack child labor laws and the “liberals” who support them, saying: “This is something that no liberal wants to deal with. Core policies of protecting unionization and bureaucratization against children in the poorest neighborhoods, crippling them by putting them in schools that fail has done more to create income inequality in the United States than any other single policy. It is tragic what we do in the poorest neighborhoods, entrapping children in, first of all, child laws, which are truly stupid.… If we are all endowed by our creator with the right to pursue happiness, that has to apply to the poorest neighborhoods in the poorest counties, and I am prepared to find something that works, that breaks us out of the cycles we have now to find a way for poor children to work and earn honest money.” Alex Seitz-Wald of the progressive news Web site Think Progress responds, “Of course, reading books is not hard labor and is directly relevant to education—cleaning bathrooms is not.” [Think Progress, 12/1/2011; The Hill, 12/1/2011; ABC News, 12/1/2011] The next day, Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly opines, “He seemed to try to clarify that… and say what he’s talking about is maybe having kids be assistants to those union members.” Jeremy Holden of the progressive media watchdog site Media Matters says of Gingrich’s entire proposal: “Here’s a thought. What if we focused on fixing the economy and schools, and the students’ ‘job’ was to go to school?” [Media Matters, 12/2/2011] Fox News correspondent Geraldo Rivera later writes that it is obvious Gingrich knows little to nothing about the daily lives of poor people: “If he knew about the culture of poverty… Gingrich never would have proposed suspending child labor laws and putting ghetto public school students to work as junior janitors in fifth or sixth Grade. Like his earlier calls to bring back orphanages and to deny support to unmarried woman who have children while on welfare, this Gingrich proposal is crass and creepy.” Rivera notes that many poor families have breadwinners who work long hours in menial, physically demanding jobs, so poor children have many, many working role models in their lives. “[T]hese children know about work,” Rivera observes. [Fox News, 12/8/2011] Gingrich later says that he will address the issue of poor children and work by taking part in a “program” by billionaire Donald Trump, the host of NBC’s The Apprentice, where Trump will hire 10 poor children as “apprentices.” Gingrich will elaborate, “I’ve asked [Trump] to take one of the poorer schools in New York and basically offer at least 10 apprenticeships to kids from that school to get them into the world of work, and to get them into an opportunity to earn money, and get them into the habit of showing up and realizing that effort gets rewarded, and that American is all about the work ethic.” [Raw Story, 12/5/2011]
A screenshot from the Hutchinson, Kansas, Patriot Freedom Alliance Web site comparing President Obama to a skunk. The photo and accompanying text was quickly removed after it was reported in a local newspaper. [Source: Hutchinson News]Thomas Hymer, the leader of the Hutchinson, Kansas, Patriot Freedom Alliance (PFA), also known as the Hutchinson Tea Party, places a picture of a skunk on the PFA’s Web site and says it should supplant the bald eagle as the symbol for President Obama. The Web site explains why a skunk should represent Obama, stating, “It is half black, half white, and almost everything it does, stinks.” Hymer calls the picture “satire in a politically incorrect form,” but Hutchinson NAACP leader Darrell Pope says it is “a blatant statement of racism… intended to be malicious.” Pope says that tea party organizations like Hymer’s can pretend to support Herman Cain, a black Republican presidential candidate, all they like, but the skunk posting is “a statement of what they’re all about.” Local tea party activist Chuck Sankey agrees with Hymer, saying: “It just makes a point that we’re in trouble and what’s happening doesn’t smell right. That’s what it means to me.” As for the half-black, half-white reference, Sankey asks: “Isn’t that the truth? What’s wrong with the truth?… It may be offensive to some, of course, but in humor there is always an element of truth.” Sankey, who denies he is a racist, says if people are offended, then “Don’t look at it.” Sankey adds that the graphic is justified because former Republican vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin (R-AK) has been the target of worse insults. After the article about the skunk graphic is posted to the Hutchinson News Web site, Hymer or another Hutchinson Tea Party member removes the graphic from the site. A Web post by The New Civil Rights Movement says another anti-Obama Web site, ObamaForwards.com, displayed the same photo and text accompaniment in July 2010. A commenter on the article says the Hutchinson Tea Party sported a Confederate flag on its float in a recent Christmas parade. [Hutchinson News, 12/10/2011; TPM Muckraker, 12/12/2011; David Badash, 12/12/2011]
Republican presidential contender Mitt Romney (R-MA) uses a phrase made familiar by the Ku Klux Klan in his stump speeches. In a speech given to supporters in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, Romney says: “There are people in this room who are informed and who care about this election, who recognize that this is a defining time for America. We have on one side a president who wants to transform America into a European-style nation, and you have on other hand someone like myself that wants to turn around America and keep America America.” Reporters and bloggers note that Romney, inadvertently or not, is echoing the phrase “Keep America American” as used for nearly a century by the KKK. A 1920 pamphlet published by the United Klans of America and archived at Yale University was entitled “Why you should become a klansman: of interest to white, protestant, native born Americans who want to keep America American.” On the eve of World War II, a Klan-affiliated organization called the American Coalition pressured the US government not to admit Jewish refugees into the country. And in 1950, a pamphlet with the phrase “Keep America American” was sold in Dallas, Texas, just before a wave of bombings of African-American-owned homes rocked the city. Reporter Steve Benen also notes that the 2008 Romney campaign intended to use a similar “keep America America” attack against the Democratic nominee for that year if Romney had survived the primary process: focusing then on Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton, the Romney campaign intended to run on the platform that Clinton and the Democrats wanted to “drag America down to Europe’s standards.… That’s where Hillary and Dems would take us. Hillary = France.” The Romney campaign planned to print “First, not France” bumper stickers to go along with the campaign rhetoric. [Washington Monthly, 12/12/2011; Booman Tribune, 12/12/2011; Los Angeles Times, 12/10/2012] After initially refusing to comment on the allegation of the campaign using a KKK slogan, Romney spokespersons claim that their candidate is using the phrase “Keep America America,” and not the KKK phrase. Liberal blogger John Aravosis calls the campaign’s claim “a nuance without a difference” and says, somewhat sarcastically, that if it is fair to use President Obama’s rhetoric to label him a “socialist,” then it is equally fair to use Romney’s phraseology to label him a member of the Klan. MSNBC talk show host Chris Matthews reports on the story, and is quickly pressured by NBC senior management to issue an apology to the Romney campaign, calling his reporting “irresponsible and incendiary” and indicative of “an appalling lack of judgment.” [John Aravosis, 12/13/2011; Mediaite, 12/14/2011; John Aravosis, 12/14/2011] In line with MSNBC’s retreat from its reporting, Washington Post editor Patrick B. Pexton calls the Post’s own reporting of the controversial slogan usage “error-filled,” and repeats the Romney campaign’s claim that the phrase “Keep America America” is different from the KKK’s “Keep America American.” Pexton also notes that a campaign ad on YouTube using the phrase is not an actual Romney campaign ad, but an ad by an “independent” political organization in support of Romney. [Washington Post, 12/16/2011] AlterNet’s Chauncey DeVega later writes of the controversy: “The dropping of one letter from the Ku Klux Klan’s slogan, ‘Keep America American,’ does not remove the intent behind Romney’s repeated use of such a virulently bigoted phrase. While Mitt Romney can claim ignorance of the slogan’s origins, he is intentionally channeling its energy.” DeVega notes the intensely “nativist” connotations of the phrase, and writes that Romney, like the remainder of his fellow Republican presidential contenders, is “hostile” to immigrants of any stripe, a hostility reflected in the phrase. “Romney’s slogan, ‘Keep America America,’ begs the obvious question: Just who is American? Who gets to decide?” [AlterNet, 1/25/2012]
Presidential candidate Mitt Romney (R-MA) criticizes the influence of super PACs and third-party organizations in political campaigns, calling the “new entities” a “disaster” and claiming that campaign finance laws have “made a mockery of our political campaign season.” Romney was the first to form a presidential super PAC, Restore Our Future (ROF—see June 23, 2011), and that organization has been extraordinarily successful in raising money to use for Romney’s benefit (see January 31, 2012, February 6, 2012, March 11, 2012, May 21, 2012, and Late May 2012). In an appearance on MSNBC, Romney says: “This is a strange thing in these campaign finance laws. They set up these new entities, which I think is a disaster, by the way. Campaign finance law has made a mockery of our political campaign season.… We really ought to let campaigns raise the money they need and just get rid of these super PACs.” Republicans have advocated for unlimited direct contributions (see April 27, 2011, May 26, 2011 and After, January 10, 2012, January 21, 2012, and January 31, 2012) to candidates’ campaigns. Such direct contributions are currently illegal. Asked if he would ask ROF to stop running an ad that drew criticism from its target, Romney’s primary challenger Newt Gingrich (R-GA), he answers: “It’s illegal, as you probably know. Super PACs have to be entirely separate from a campaign and a candidate. I’m not allowed to communicate with a super PAC in any way, shape, or form. If we coordinate in any way whatsoever, we go to the big house.” Gingrich has recently said that the idea of super PACs running entirely independently of the campaigns they work to assist is “baloney,” stating: “They ought to take this junk [negative ads] off the air. And don’t hide behind some baloney about, this ‘super PAC that I actually have no control over that happens to be run by five of my former staff.’ That’s just baloney.” ROF was created by, and is staffed by, many former aides and colleagues of Romney’s. Gingrich has named a former aide, Rick Tyler, to work with his super PAC, Winning Our Future. [CBS News, 12/11/2011]
A federal appeals court strikes down a Wisconsin law limiting how much a single person can donate to independent political action committees, or PACs. The ruling is made in favor of a lawsuit filed by Wisconsin Right to Life (WRTL), which sued in August 2011 just before a round of recall elections targeting nine state senators. The courts issued a temporary injunction on the law, and the appeals court makes the repeal permanent. Before the ruling, Wisconsin law mandated that individuals could give no more than $10,000 to a PAC. The court rules that such limitations restrict free speech. WRTL’s Barbara Lyons calls the ruling a “sweeping victory” that will allow the group to “significantly contribute to the state and national dialogue on speech and elections.” But Mike McCabe of the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign disagrees, saying that the ruling renders candidates almost irrelevant as special interest groups and their money become dominant in campaigns: “I’m not sure that very many people will notice a difference because money is flowing so freely in Wisconsin politics,” he says. “There’s no shortage of channels through which special interest funds can flow.” The court cites the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, which allows unlimited contributions to campaign organizations by corporate and union donors (see January 21, 2010), as the basis for its ruling. Judge Diane Sykes writes in the majority opinion: ”Citizens United held that independent expenditures do not pose a threat of actual or apparent quid pro quo corruption, which is the only governmental interest strong enough to justify restrictions on political speech. Accordingly, applying the $10,000 aggregate annual cap to contributions made to organizations engaged only in independent spending for political speech violates the First Amendment.” The ruling is expected to have a tremendous impact on recall elections scheduled for 2012, including the recall of Governor Scott Walker (R-WI), as groups both in support of and opposition to the recalls can spend large amounts of money on campaign advertising. [Associated Press, 12/11/2011; Think Progress, 12/13/2011] WRTL won a landmark Supreme Court case in 2007 that struck down restrictions on so-called “issue advertising” (see June 25, 2007), a ruling that directly impacted today’s court finding. Days later, the local Chippewa Herald will write an editorial criticizing the ruling. The editorial specifies the “dialogue” that WRTL’s Lyons means “a heavy rotation of television and radio ads, phone calls, and direct-mail pieces.” WRTL’s purpose in its electioneering is fairly transparent, the Herald states, but many of the special interest groups involved in such electioneering are not transparent at all. “Do we want our campaigns to be about what the candidates stand for—heard directly from them—or about issue ads where candidates are either supported or attacked through a thinly veiled message urging people to contact a particular candidate?” The Herald notes that much of the $44 million spent on the state senate recalls “came from groups not subject to the state campaign contribution limit,” and few Wisconsin citizens know who those groups are. “The courts have ruled that political contributions and campaign spending is a First Amendment right,” the Herald states. “But those contributions and spending should not be done in secret or through a maze of groups and organizations that operate like legal money launderers.” The Herald advocates “complete disclosure” to “ensure openness and a clean and healthy democracy.” [Chippewa Herald, 12/14/2011]
Jon Stewart and Larry Wilmore on The Daily Show. [Source: The Darkest Berry (.com)]Political satirist Jon Stewart, the host of Comedy Central’s The Daily Show, mocks Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich’s recent calls to have public schools fire most of their professional custodial and maintenance staff and replace them with poor schoolchildren (see November 18, 2011 and After and December 1-2, 2011). Stewart. along with Daily Show contributor Larry Wilmore, says that Gingrich’s proposal is an example of coded racism. Stewart notes that Gingrich modified his original claim that poor people have no work experience, and plays a video clip of Gingrich saying: “Some people who suggest that the working poor by definition know how to work, which is true, that’s why they’re called the working poor. I was talking about the people who come out of areas of neighborhoods where they may not have that experience.” Wilmore says, “Oh, okay, he’s not talking about poor people, he’s talking about poor black people.” Wilmore explains that Gingrich’s choice of phrasing, “in neighborhoods where they may not have that experience,” is “code for inner city, which is code for urban, which is code for black.” Stewart, pretending confusion, says, “It’s a lot of code,” to which Wilmore responds, “[I]t’s 2011, you can’t just call poor black people lazy.” According to Wilmore, Gingrich implied poor blacks were lazy by saying that they “have no habit of showing up on Monday.” Wilmore continues: “[S]omehow when black people are poor, it’s their fault. They’re on welfare and lazy, but down in poor white Appalachia, you’re not the problem. It’s China’s fault, or India’s fault, or all the money we’re spending on black people on welfare! I’m sorry, inner city government subsidy recipients. It’s code, Jon.” Wilmore points out that Gingrich’s solution, in Gingrich’s own words, is to have “poor neighborhood schools” hire schoolchildren to clean bathrooms and mop floors. Wilmore says: “Wait, Jon, so his plan to fix America is for black kids to start cleaning toilets?… He wants to give kids jobs by firing their parents from one of the few jobs they can get to support their kids!” The only other jobs those children see adults having, Gingrich says, is “a pimp or a prostitute or a drug dealer.” Wilmore concludes by proclaiming sarcastically: “Yep, dream big, black people. Hey, you don’t have to be a pimp, prostitute, or drug dealer. You can clean up people’s sh_t! Hey, that sounds… come on! Gingrich 2012, Yes We Clean!” [Daily Show, 12/13/2011; Daily Kos, 12/14/2011]
A ‘tweet’ sent by College Republican Cassie Wright regarding President Obama. [Source: Twitter / Black Entertainment Television]The president of a Texas university branch of the College Republicans posts a racially charged rhyme about President Obama on Twitter. Cassandra Wright, the president of the University of Texas College Republicans, posts the following on Twitter: “My president is black, he snorts a lot of crack. Holla. #2012 #Obama.” The post comes a month after Wright’s predecessor as the president of the UT College Republicans, Lauren Pierce, said on Twitter that the idea of assassinating Obama was “tempting” (see November 16, 2011). Pierce retweets Wright’s “crack” post. Shortly after a progressive blog, the Burnt Orange Report, writes about Wright’s Twitter post, Wright takes her account private, thusly rendering her “tweets” inaccessible. Wright was chosen to succeed Pierce as the president of the UT chapter of the College Republicans on December 1; Pierce is the secretary of the Texas College Republicans. Wright refuses to confirm that the “crack” post is hers, and her grandmother says Wright’s Twitter account may have been hacked. Huey Fischer, president of the UT College Democrats, says: “I was really surprised by her tweet last night. It was clearly offensive and it definitely had that strain of racism in it. She seems like a really smart girl. She’s a really upbeat person. someone who seems politically correct most of the time.… I don’t know if her account was hacked or not. It could definitely have been just a careless remark. It was definitely insensitive. It was definitely inappropriate and not something someone in her position should have tweeted.” However, according to the Huffington Post, Wright recently posted the following racially inflammatory remark on Facebook: “What kind of messed up world is it when I’m studying hard in the library and the Asian guy next to me is watching America’s Next Top Model episodes on his laptop??” [Austin American-Statesman, 12/19/2011; KVUE-TV, 12/19/2011; Huffington Post, 12/20/2011] Asked by a commenter what being Asian had to do with anything, Wright responded: “Because Asians study a lot.… If you’re offended by my use of a stereotype then gtfo” (Internet slang for “get the f_ck out”). [Ben Sherman, 12/19/2011] A source described by KVUE-TV reporter Shelton Green as “a Republican insider” says that Wright may have gotten the idea for the tweet from a rap song titled “My President is Black.” The song contains no references to crack cocaine nor to Obama doing any drugs. [Austin American-Statesman, 12/19/2011; KVUE-TV, 12/19/2011; Huffington Post, 12/20/2011] A spokesman for the UT College Republicans issues a statement that reads: “The UT College Republicans neither condones any ‘tweeted’ remarks, nor any statements made by any member of our organization that may be hurtful and lacking in sensitivity. The opinion of our President Wright is that of her own not in keeping with our core values, our standards, and our code of conduct. While some within our organization may not respect the current president, UT College Republicans does respect the office of the president of the United States. We are all Americans, and even if we do not agree with certain policies, the UT College Republicans wish all our leaders well, as they are all dedicated to public service. I personally apologize for [the] ‘tweeted’ remark.” BET’s Joyce Jones observes: “Like Pierce before her, Wright’s tweets are marked private. And like Pierce, she will likely be looking for a new student leadership position soon. Not that her predecessor has learned her lesson one month after having to apologize for her poor taste.” [Black Entertainment Television, 12/16/2011] Burnt Orange Report blogger Ben Sherman will write: “In less than 140 characters, Wright brought shame upon her club, her university, and herself. This may be news to President Wright, but crack cocaine use is not limited to one race. Nor is this the year 1811, when such hate speech might be accepted in American political dialogue. Clearly, Wright did not learn anything from the [Pierce post]. Disgusting, hateful beliefs have been legitimized in the Republican Party so completely that the next generation of Republican leaders are barely distinguishable from the current crop of hate mongers.… This would be the time to call for Wright’s resignation if her resignation would make any difference at the College Republicans. But, clearly, it won’t. For now, all we can do is endure and publicly condemn this emblematic parade of hate.” [Ben Sherman, 12/19/2011]
Presidential candidate Newt Gingrich explains why he feels the president can arrest judges with whom he disagrees. [Source: CBS News / Talking Points Memo]Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich (R-GA) tells a CBS audience that if he becomes president, he would send federal law enforcement officials to arrest judges who make rulings he finds unacceptable. Interviewed by CBS’s Bob Schieffer, he says the president should send Capitol Police officers or US Marshals to arrest “activist” judges who make controversial rulings, and compel them to appear before Congress to justify their decisions. Schieffer asks: “Let me just ask you this and we’ll talk about enforcing it, because one of the things you say is that if you don’t like what a court has done, the Congress should subpoena the judge and bring him before Congress and hold a congressional hearing. Some people say that’s unconstitutional. But I’ll let that go for a minute. I just want to ask you from a practical standpoint, how would you enforce that? Would you send the Capitol Police down to arrest him?” Gingrich responds he would if he “had to,” and continues, “Or you instruct the Justice Department to send the US Marshal.” A judge who issues what Gingrich calls a “radical” ruling would be forced to explain his ruling before Congress, Gingrich says: “I would then encourage impeachment, but before you move to impeach him you’d like to know why he said it.” If the judge refuses to appear under his own power, federal law enforcement officials are empowered to bring them in to testify involuntarily, he says: “I mean, you’re raising the core question—are judges above the rest of the constitution or are judges one of the three co-equal branches?… You have an increasingly arrogant judiciary. The question is: Is there anything we the American people can do? The standard answer has been eventually we’ll appoint good judges. I think that’s inadequate. The Constitution promises a balance of the judicial branch, the executive branch, and the legislative branch. The Federalist Papers say specifically the weakest of the three branches is the judiciary.” Schieffer says: “You know, the old saying in legal circles is that the Supreme Court is not last because it’s right. It’s right because it’s last. There comes a point where you have to accept things as the law of the land. How does the president decide what is a good law—and I’m going to obey the Supreme Court—or what’s a bad law and I’m just going to ignore it.” Gingrich replies: “I think it depends on the severity of the case. I’m not suggesting that the Congress and the president review every decision. I’m suggesting that when there are decisions… in which they are literally risking putting civil liberty rules in battlefields. I mean it is utterly irrational for the Supreme Court to take on its shoulders the defense to the United States. It is a violation of the Constitution.” Reporter Sam Stein notes that the day before, Gingrich held a half-hour telephone call with donors and supporters in which he pledged that if elected president, he would abolish courts and eliminate “activist judges” he considers “outside the mainstream or infringing too deeply on the commander in chief’s authority.” Many judicial experts consider Gingrich’s stance to be flatly unconstitutional. Former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, who served in the recent Bush administration, has called Gingrich’s ideas about the judiciary “dangerous, ridiculous, totally irresponsible, outrageous, off-the-wall, and [likely to] reduce the entire judicial system to a spectacle.” Bert Brandenburg of the nonpartisan Justice at Stake organization says: “Overall, he’s racing towards a cliff. It may be expedient to appeal to specific voters in primaries or caucuses, but it’s a constitutional disaster. Americans want courts that can uphold their rights and not be accountable to politicians. When you get to the point where you’re talking about impeaching judges over decisions or abolishing courts or calling them before Congress, it’s getting very far away from the American political mainstream.” Two of Gingrich’s Republican presidential challengers, Mitt Romney (R-MA) and Ron Paul (R-TX), publicly disagree with Gingrich’s position, with Paul calling the idea of compelling judges to appear before Congress “a real affront to the separation of the powers.” Michael McConnell, director of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford University and a former federal appeals judge appointed by President Bush, says conservatives “should not be cheering” and “are misled” if they believe Gingrich’s ideas are in their best interests, especially considering many conservatives are relying on the Supreme Court to find President Obama’s health care legislation unconstitutional. He says: “You would think that this would be a time when they would be defending the independence of the judiciary, not attacking it. You can’t have it both ways. It can’t be that when conservative Republicans object to the courts, they have the right to replace judges, and when liberal Democrats disapprove of the courts, they don’t. And the Constitution is pretty clear that neither side can eliminate judges because they disagree with their decisions.” [Washington Post, 12/18/2011; Think Progress, 12/18/2011; Huffington Post, 12/18/2011; Washington Post, 12/19/2011]
Entity Tags: US Capitol Police, Michael McConnell, Bob Schieffer, Bert Brandenburg, Michael Mukasey, Ron Paul, US Marshals, Willard Mitt Romney, US Department of Justice, Newt Gingrich
Timeline Tags: Civil Liberties, 2012 Elections
The logo of InfoCision, the telemarketing firm that received much of the ASWF monies. [Source: InfoCision]Presidential candidate Newt Gingrich (R-GA) has apparently exploited a loophole in campaign finance law that has allowed him to build what McClatchy News calls “a political money machine that raised $54 million over five years,” according to McClatchy reports. Gingrich has used “a supposedly independent political committee that collected unlimited donations” to “finance… a coast-to-coast shadow campaign that raised his profile and provided a launch pad for his presidential run.” Critics call the ASWF issue another aftereffect of the Citizens United decision (see January 21, 2010).
$54 Million over 5 Years - The Gingrich-supporting PAC, “American Solutions for Winning the Future” (ASWF) was closed down in July 2011. Organized as a so-called “527 group” (see 2000 - 2005 and June 30, 2000), the tax-exempt, “nonprofit” organization raised $28.2 million in the two-year period ending December 31, 2010, the last period for which McClatchy has data. The Center for Responsive Politics reports that ASWF raised almost double the amount garnered by the next closest 527. The organization raised some $54 million throughout its existence, from 2006 to July 2011. McClatchy has learned some of the details behind ASWF and is now revealing them to the public. The organization provided at least $8 million to pay for the chartered luxury jets that Gingrich used to fly back and forth around the nation for public appearances and campaigning for president. The jet charters occurred during the 2008 and 2012 presidential primaries.
Largely Financed by Billionaire, Corporate Donations - ASWF has accepted enormous cash donations from billionaires such as Sheldon Adelson, a Las Vegas casino owner, who has emerged as Gingrich’s primary benefactor. Adelson has given $7.65 million to ASWF, including a million-dollar startup contribution in 2006. According to an Adelson spokesperson, “he and Speaker Gingrich go back a number of years.” Adelson is a prominent supporter and financier of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and like Gingrich holds far-right, aggressively territorial views about Israel. Gingrich has made provocative statements about Israel and the Palestinian people over the years, denying that the Palestinians are a separate people and declaring his support for Israel’s forced-settlement plans that have displaced many Palestinians. A Gingrich spokesman says Adelson and others merely gave to the organization because they agree with Gingrich’s views. Charlotte, North Carolina, real estate developer Fred Godley gave ASWF $1.1 million in 2007 and another $100,000 in 2009. Energy firms donated heavily to ASWF: Peabody Energy, the world’s largest private coal producer, and its chief lobbyist Fred Palmer gave ASWF $825,000. Arch Coal, the US’s second-largest coal company, gave $100,000. Oil and gas firm Devon Energy gave $400,000, as did American Electric Power Company and its CEO Michael Morris. Plains Exploration Company gave $200,000. The late Cincinnati billionaire Carl Lindner gave $690,000. Dallas real estate firm Crow Holdings gave $600,000. Minnesota broadcasting mogul Stanley Hubbard gave $385,000. Wisconsin businessman Terry Kohler gave $328,082. California businessman Fred Sacher gave $275,000. NASCAR president James France gave $264,000. Home Depot co-founder Bernie Marcus gave $250,000. Another Las Vegas casino owner, the late Frank Fertitta Jr., gave $250,000, along with his sons; together the three of them co-owned a casino and the Ultimate Fighting Championship sports league. Former CarMax and Circuit City chief Richard Sharp gave $150,000. Stock brokerage titan Charles Schwab gave $150,000. Cincinnati Reds owner Robert Castellini gave $146,000. Political science professor Larry Sabato says that in light of such enormous contributions, “there’s no way that any politician is going to deny you much of anything that you want.”
New Super PACs Supplanting ASWF - In place of ASWF, two new pro-Gingrich super PACs have formed to support Gingrich’s attempt to close the gap between himself and frontrunner Mitt Romney (R-MA) in the Republican primary.
'Diabolical Scheme' to 'Circumvent' Campaign Finance Law - Campaign expert Lawrence Jacobs calls Gingrich’s use of ASWF “clever,” and adds, “Looking back, and now seeing Gingrich as the frontrunner… it’s an ingenious, diabolical scheme to circumvent what’s left of the campaign finance regime.” Jacobs says of the organization: “The money wasn’t used literally to finance a campaign for a particular office. It was used for a general, over-time campaign to keep Gingrich alive politically—an enormously luxurious campaign operation to sustain his political viability for the right time to jump into the presidential race. It’s no accident that he’s popped in in 2012.” Jacobs says ASWF operated “right on the line” of legality. Sabato says ASWF played a key role in resuscitating Gingrich’s flagging political career. His term as speaker of the House ended in scandal and resignation, and his high-profile divorces and profligate personal and campaign spending had led many to assume that Gingrich’s political career was over. But Sabato says Gingrich used ASWF to create what he calls a new kind of informal candidacy, one that shows the inherent weakness of campaign finance laws that are supposed to ensure “nobody could give so much money that they would become too influential, too powerful.” ASWF was always nominally independent, as required by law, but in 2009 Gingrich ousted its board of directors and took the title of general chairman. Gingrich never formed a formal exploratory committee before declaring his candidacy for president. McClatchy observes, “None of his Republican presidential rivals, nor any other federal candidate for that matter, is known to have operated such a committee before formally declaring his or her candidacy.” Gingrich spokesperson R.C. Hammon says Gingrich did not begin considering a presidential campaign until April 2011, and all of his committee activities were “legitimate.” Hammond says: “The purpose of American Solutions was to advance an agenda of free enterprise and tri-partisan solutions. Those were the activities he was undertaking.” ASWF is just one of a network of political entities that Gingrich has created over the last 10 years. He has managed to enrich himself by charging lucrative fees for speeches, consulting for undisclosed health care industry firms, and selling historical documentaries and books. After the group was formed in the fall of 2006, Gingrich sent a letter to potential backers calling it a unique organization “designed to rise above traditional gridlocked partisanship” and to develop “breakthrough solutions to the most important issues facing this country.” Vin Weber, a former Minnesota congressman who served on ASWF’s board for two years, says the group “certainly helped build his path back into political prominence.” He adds, “They basically sent Newt around the country promoting American Solutions.” Weber is now supporting Romney for the presidency. He says that ASWF had “not gotten really up to speed in terms of programming” when he received a call, apparently in 2008, advising him that the board was being abolished. Gingrich then took over as the group’s general chairman.
Relatively Little Spent on Campaign Initiatives, Most Spent on Raising More Money - ASWF proposed a number of campaign and advertising initiatives that would appeal to conservative donors, including:
a “Drill Now!” movement aimed at increasing US oil exploration;
attempts to rally opposition to President Obama’s health care reform efforts;
a campaign to fight climate change legislation that would call for reduced carbon emissions by industrial concerns.
But of $37.9 million raised from 2006 through 2009, the committee spent just $7.2 million on programs, according to its filings with the Internal Revenue Service. Most of the ASWF money was spent on telemarketers and direct-mail appeals to develop a loyal pool of wealthy contributors. InfoCision, an Ohio telemarketing firm that specializes in building lists of “small” donors, was paid some $30 million over the course of the organization’s existence, exhausting much of the money contributed. $17 million of that money was used to finance Gingrich’s travel. [McClatchy News, 12/19/2011; Think Progress, 12/19/2011]
Entity Tags: Bernie Marcus, Benjamin Netanyahu, Richard Sharp, R.C. Hammon, Plains Exploration Company, Sheldon Adelson, Stanley Hubbard, Terry Kohler, Vin Weber, American Electric Power Company, Barack Obama, American Solutions for Winning the Future, Willard Mitt Romney, Arch Coal, Newt Gingrich, Robert Castellini, McClatchy News, Michael Morris, Crow Holdings, Charles Schwab, Center for Responsive Politics, Carl Lindner, Devon Energy, Frank Fertitta Jr., Peabody Energy, Fred Palmer, Internal Revenue Service, InfoCision, James France, Fred Sacher, Larry J. Sabato, Fred Godley, Lawrence Jacobs
Timeline Tags: Civil Liberties, 2012 Elections
Newt Gingrich 2012 presidential campaign logo. [Source: Logo Design Love (.com)]The political watchdog organization Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) files a complaint against presidential candidate Newt Gingrich (R-GA) alleging that he sold his mailing list to his own campaign for $42,000. CREW files the complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC), and calls the transaction an unlawful personal use of campaign funds. The complaint also alleges that Gingrich seems to be improperly commingling book sales and campaign events. The mailing list sale was never listed on FEC disclosure forms. CREW executive director Melanie Sloan says: “Newt Gingrich will do anything to make a buck, even sell his own mailing list to his campaign. He has a long history of playing fast and loose with ethics rules, so it should surprise no one to learn he is at it again.” Gingrich campaign spokesman R.C. Hammond says in response that “if the FEC considers the complaint, they will find that the rules are being followed and published regulations are being enforced.” It is not unusual for political campaigns to buy and sell mailing lists, but the Gingrich case is unusual because Gingrich’s campaign says it bought the mailing list directly from Gingrich, and not from a political committee or group. Documents show that Gingrich stated in July 2011 that he was owed $47,005 by the campaign for “direct mail list/travel.” At the time, Hammond said the campaign paid Gingrich $42,000 for the mailing list. Hammond claims that he, not Gingrich, owned the mailing list, and that the failure to disclose the payment was merely an oversight. In its complaint, CREW notes that the mailing list was not included as an asset in Gingrich’s financial disclosure records, which are filed by presidential candidates. Therefore, the group argues, the list appears to be owned by Gingrich Productions, which is the name of the holding firm now headed by Gingrich’s wife Callista. Gingrich Productions routinely sells books and other materials at the same venues as Gingrich holds campaign-related events, an improper “commingling” of sales and campaign appearances. Federal law prohibits candidates from using campaign resources to profit personally or from using corporate funds to subsidize a campaign. [Washington Post, 12/19/2011] On the same day as the complaint filing, the press reveals an “extraordinary” and potentially illegal relationship between Gingrich and an “independent” political PAC (see December 19, 2011).
Ron Paul (r) removes his mic as CNN reporter Gloria Borger looks on. [Source: CNN / The Blaze]Republican presidential contender Ron Paul (R-TX) again denies any involvement in the racist, anti-Semitic, and homophobic content printed in his newsletters for 16 years (see 1978-1996). CNN anchor Sanjay Gupta describes Paul as “kind of prickly” over the accusations of racism in the newsletters, and notes that “his story appears to have changed over the years.” In 1996, Paul admitted writing much of the newsletters’ content, admitted to the positions taken in the newsletters, and called questions about his newsletters “gutter politics” (see May 22 - October 11, 1996). He began denying their content, and his involvement in his newsletters, in 2001 (see October 1, 2001). In 2007 and 2008, he freely admitted supporting the implicitly racist John Birch Society (JBS—see July 22, 2007, August 4, 2008 and December 2011). He denied knowing anything about the newsletters’ objectionable content in 2008 (see January 8-15, 2008 and January 16, 2008) when the questions arose during that year’s presidential contests; Paul supporters accused rival libertarians of smearing Paul’s character (see January 12-15, 2008). In May 2011, Paul was one of five Republican presidential candidates to take part in a debate sponsored in part by the JBS and a racist militia group (see May 5, 2011). Today, Paul walks out of an interview with CNN reporter Gloria Borger rather than continue to answer her questions about his newsletters. He tells Borger that he read the newsletters published under his name “on occasion,” and implies that he was too busy with his medical practice to pay close attention to the newsletters. “You know, I didn’t write them and I don’t endorse those views and I’ve explained it many times,” he tells Borger. “I never read that stuff. I never—I would never—I came—I was probably aware of it 10 years after it was written, and it’s been going on 20 years that people have pestered me about this, and CNN does every single time. So when are you going to wear yourself out?” Paul says even asking about the newsletters is not legitimate, and instead the media should just accept his denials and move on. Borger says such questioning is legitimate because “[t]hese things are pretty incendiary, you know.” Paul retorts, “Because of people like you.” When Borger presses the issue, Paul walks away and refuses to answer further questions. Conservative blogger Erick Erickson of RedState (.com), who is not a Paul supporter, asks Gupta why in 2008 Paul “allowed neo-Nazi Web sites to fundraise for him. We can ask him why three years ago he went on Iranian TV to say that Israelis had set up concentration camps to indiscriminately kill Palestinians.… But I think a more relevant question is, if we can’t go back and ask him these questions from the late ‘80s and early ‘90s, why then he—can he go back to the ‘90s and attack [fellow Republican presidential candidates] Newt Gingrich or Mitt Romney or Rick Perry for things? They wrote it. Does he believe this is a legitimate double standard?… Ron Paul supporters frequently attacked Barack Obama for sitting in Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s church (see January 6-11, 2008) and Barack Obama has denied ever hearing Jeremiah Wright’s sermons. How is Ron Paul’s denial of knowing these things any different from going after Barack Obama for the Reverend Wright matter? There is none. They can’t defend that.” [CNN, 12/21/2011] Note: Erickson is referring to a specific sermon of Wright’s, where he denounced what he called America’s “white arrogance.” Obama did not hear the sermon because he was not in Illinois at the time (see August 1, 2008 and After).
Entity Tags: Willard Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, Sanjay Gupta, James Richard (“Rick”) Perry, Erick Erickson, CNN, Barack Obama, Gloria Borger, John Birch Society, Jeremiah A. Wright Jr, Newt Gingrich
Timeline Tags: Domestic Propaganda, 2012 Elections
Republican presidential frontrunner Mitt Romney (R-MA) tells MSNBC reporter Chuck Todd that wealthy donors should be able to give unlimited amounts directly to candidates in lieu of donating to “independent” organizations such as super PACs (see March 26, 2010, June 23, 2011, and November 23, 2011). The US history of campaign finance law (see 1883, 1896, December 5, 1905, 1907, June 25, 1910, 1925, 1935, 1940, February 7, 1972, 1974, May 11, 1976, January 30, 1976, January 8, 1980, March 27, 1990, March 27, 2002, and December 10, 2003), including the 2010 Citizens United decision (see January 21, 2010), has always put stringent limitations on what donors can contribute directly to candidates. Asked if he thinks the Citizens United decision was a poor one, Romney responds: “Well, I think the Supreme Court decision was following their interpretation of the campaign finance laws that were written by Congress. My own view is now we tried a lot of efforts to try and restrict what can be given to campaigns, we’d be a lot wiser to say you can give what you’d like to a campaign. They must report it immediately and the creation of these independent expenditure committees that have to be separate from the candidate, that’s just a bad idea.” Ian Millhiser, a senior legal analyst for the liberal news Web site Think Progress, responds: “It’s not entirely clear from this interview that Romney understands what happened in Citizens United. That decision emphatically did not follow any ‘interpretation of campaign finance laws that were written by Congress.’ Rather, Citizens United threw out a 63-year-old federal ban on corporate money in politics.… [I]t was not a case of judges following the law. More importantly, however, Romney’s proposal to allow wealthy donors to give candidates whatever they’d ‘like to a campaign’ is simply an invitation to corruption (see October 17, 2011). Under Romney’s proposed rule, there is nothing preventing a single billionaire from bankrolling a candidate’s entire campaign—and then expecting that candidate to do whatever the wealthy donor wants once the candidate is elected to office. Romney’s unlimited donations proposal would be a bonanza for Romney himself and the army of Wall Street bankers and billionaire donors who support him, but it is very difficult to distinguish it from legalized bribery.” Millhiser notes that Romney had a different view on the subject in 1994, saying then that when you allow special interest groups to buy and sell candidates, “that kind of relationship has an influence on the way that [those candidates are] going to vote.” [Think Progress, 12/21/2011]
An illuminated letter from the Magna Carta. [Source: University of Maine at Farmington]Three freshman New Hampshire Republican House members submit a bill that would require all new legislation proposed in the New Hampshire Congress to source itself in the Magna Carta, the English declaration of rights written in 1215. Bob Kingsbury (R-Laconia), Tim Twombly (R-Nashua), and Lucien Vita (R-Middleton) write a bill that consists of the following single line: “All members of the general court [the New Hampshire legislature] proposing bills and resolutions addressing individual rights or liberties shall include a direct quote from the Magna Carta which sets forth the article from which the individual right or liberty is derived.” Most legal authorities recognize that the Magna Carta, compiled of 63 demands laid down by feudal barons to England’s King John, is one of the sources of inspiration for the US Constitution, but consider it quite outdated for modern use. Some of the Magna Carta’s demands are: “No widow shall be compelled to marry, so long as she wishes to remain without a husband”; “We shall straightway return the son of Llewelin and all the Welsh hostages.… We shall act towards Alexander King of the Scots regarding the restoration of his sisters”; and, “If anyone who has borrowed a sum of money from Jews dies before the debt has been repaid, his heir shall pay no interest on the debt for so long as he remains under age.” Kingsbury says he is primarily thinking of bills concerning the judicial system, and cites the Magna Carta’s clause that states that “no freeman” shall be imprisoned or harmed “save by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.” New Hampshire Democratic Party spokesman Ray Buckley says he is “mostly speechless,” and adds: “I appreciate all the hard work the Republican legislators are putting into the effort to make them look like extremists. Saves us the trouble.” Kingsbury tries to downplay the importance of the legislation, saying its primary intent is to honor the Magna Carta’s upcoming 800-year anniversary in 2015. Vita admits that he needs to “bone up” on the content of the charter, but adds, “it’s a document that still functions.” He says the Magna Carta bill is similar to bills in the US Congress requiring all legislation to cite constitutional authority. “This is a little bit older than the Constitution, but the same thought is there,” Vita says. Kingsbury says that concerns of legal problems deriving from any such requirement are “interesting,” adding, “Everything has an analog, everything has an origin, and this is part of the origin of what we have in our country.” Twombly says “no way in heck” was his intention in backing the bill to prevent progressive civil rights legislation from being introduced. “That’s not my thought whatsoever,” he says, acknowledging that the Magna Carta does not address issues like gay rights and abortion. “Our society has changed a lot since then. There are issues that need to be resolved that weren’t a problem years ago.” Kingsbury says even if the law passes, no punitive measures would entail if legislation did not actually cite the Magna Carta. “It’s a recommendation that would be nice to be followed,” he says. [Concord Monitor, 12/24/2011] Think Progress reporter Marie Diamond writes of the bill: “Conservatives have long prided themselves on being constitutional ‘purists’ who want to strip government down to the basic form they say was laid out in the country’s founding document. But requiring textual justification from another country’s founding document, which has no legal history or authority in the US, is a curious extension of that principle.” [Think Progress, 1/4/2012]
The Virginia Republican Party will require voters to sign a loyalty oath in order to participate in the March 6 presidential primary. In order to vote in the primary, Virginians will have to sign a form at the polling place pledging to support the eventual Republican nominee for president. Any voter who refuses to sign the oath would not be allowed to vote. The State Board of Elections voted 3-0 to approve the forms as requested by the Virginia GOP. The oath is legal under Section 24.2-545 of the Code of Virginia. The oath reads, “I, the undersigned, pledge that I intend to support the nominee of the Republican Party for president.” The voter must then sign the form and print his or her name. Only two candidates, Mitt Romney (R-MA) and Ron Paul (R-TX), will be on the ballot; other Republican candidates either did not garner enough signatures to qualify or did not seek to be placed on the ballot. Virginia has “open” primaries, which means that voters from any party, or unaffiliated voters, may vote in any party’s primary, although voters must only vote in one primary of their choosing. In the 2000 GOP presidential primary, voters were required to sign a pledge reading, “I, the undersigned, state that I do not intend to participate in the nomination process of any other party than the Republican Party.” Virginia did not hold a GOP primary election in 2004 because President Bush was running uncontested for re-election. For the 2008 elections, the Virginia GOP chose not to require a loyalty oath, partially because Democrats were voting in their own primary election. In 2012, there will be no Virginia Democratic primary because President Obama will be the only Democrat on the ballot. GOP State Delegate Robert Marshall says he disagrees with the idea of a loyalty oath, and that such a thing does not fit in with the philosophy espoused by the Republican Party. “Ironically, requiring a loyalty oath will bar even former US House Speaker Newt Gingrich [another presidential candidate who is not on the ballot] from voting in the primary because he already has said unequivocally that he will not vote for Ron Paul for president if he’s the Republican nominee,” Marshall says. “Virginia’s Republican leadership wants to mandate a loyalty oath when Virginia’s Republican officials are in court fighting the Obamacare mandate? This sends the wrong message.” [Inside NoVA, 12/29/2011; Inside NoVA, 12/29/2011]
The Montana Supreme Court rules 5-2 in the case of Western Tradition Partnership v. Bullock that a century-old law prohibits corporate spending in state and federal elections conducted within the state. The ruling seems to challenge the US Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling (see January 21, 2010). The case stems from a challenge by a “social welfare organization,” Western Tradition Partnership (WTP, which changed its name to American Tradition Partnership after the original lawsuit was filed), joined by two other corporate entities, to Montana’s 1912 Corrupt Practices Act (CPA). The law banned corporate spending in elections, after two out-of-state copper industry magnates attempted to “buy” the Montana legislature by pouring money into the 1894 state elections. The law declares that “corporations may not make… an expenditure in connection with a candidate or a political committee that supports or opposes a candidate or a political party.” The Montana Supreme Court finds that the CPA is needed to ensure the integrity of Montana’s elections, and to make sure that citizens and not corporations are running the state. However, the Court acknowledges that its ruling conflicts with the Citizens United decision, though it says that the Citizens United decision allows for restrictions on corporate political speech if the government can demonstrate that the restrictions are as minimal as possible to achieve a compelling governmental interest. The Montana Court rules that because of Montana’s history of corporate vote-buying and the narrow restrictions of the CPA, the law should stand. It also notes that Western Tradition Partnership argued in its original suit that disclosure laws, as opposed to outright bans, would serve the public interest and guard against corruption; however, the organization is currently involved in another lawsuit in which it argues that those same disclosure laws are unconstitutional restrictions of the freedom of speech. [Western Tradition Partnership v. Bullock et al, 12/30/2011 ; Los Angeles Times, 1/4/2012; Reuters, 6/25/2012; OMB Watch, 6/25/2012; Washington Post, 6/25/2012; OMB Watch, 7/10/2012] Even one of the dissenters, Justice James C. Nelson, disagrees with the Citizens United characterizations that corporations are legally people, writing: “Corporations are not persons. Human beings are persons, and it is an affront to the inviolable dignity of our species that courts have created a legal fiction which forces people—human beings—to share fundamental, natural rights with soulless creatures of government. Worse still, while corporations and human beings share many of the same rights under the law, they clearly are not bound equally to the same codes of good conduct, decency, and morality, and they are not held equally accountable for their sins. Indeed, it is truly ironic that the death penalty and hell are reserved only to natural persons.” WTP’s director Donald Ferguson says after the decision that the case hinges on freedom of speech (see January 21, 2010): “The current state law says that if you own a business and you would like to use the resources of the business to speak out about how you see the law, you essentially have to ask prior permission from the state. Under the current regime, the state regulatory agencies and the newspapers basically have a monopoly on information. We’re simply trying to put more free speech in motion.” [Los Angeles Times, 1/4/2012; Huffington Post, 1/4/2012]
Legal Scholars Anticipate Montana Ruling to be Overturned - Paul Ryan of the Campaign Legal Center calls the Montana high court’s ruling “an antidote to the crabbed view of corruption” displayed in Citizens United. Ryan, like many others, anticipates the US Supreme Court will overturn today’s ruling. [Huffington Post, 1/4/2012] One of those others is law professor Richard Hasen, who writes: “[I]f the Court were being honest in Citizens United, it would have said something like: ‘We don’t care whether or not independent spending can or cannot corrupt; the First Amendment trumps this risk of corruption.’ But the Court didn’t say that, because it would have faced even greater criticism than it already has. So it dressed up its value judgment (no corruption ‘implied in law’) as a factual statement. The Montana Supreme Court called SCOTUS [the US Supreme Court] on this. And when SCOTUS reverses, the disingenuousness of this aspect of CU will be on full display for all.” Hasen is referring to the Court’s finding in Citizens United that independent spending in elections does not legally imply corruption. [Rick Hasen, 1/1/2012]
Appeal to Supreme Court - Attorneys for WTP and the other corporate plaintiffs will appeal to the US Supreme Court on the grounds that Montana is bound by the Citizens United decision and that the decision applies to state as well as federal elections. Attorney James Bopp, in filing the appeal, will say: “If Montana can ban core political speech because of Montana’s unique characteristics, free speech will be seriously harmed. Speakers will be silenced because of corruption by others over a century ago.” The US Supreme Court will quickly issue a stay of that decision. [Reuters, 6/25/2012; OMB Watch, 6/25/2012] When the case reaches the US Supreme Court, the name of the plaintiff will change into “American Tradition Partnership,” and the Court’s documentation will reflect that change. The Court will overrule the Montana decision (see June 25, 2012). After the decision, American Tradition Partnership’s Web site will disappear, but the liberal accountability organization SourceWatch will describe the organization’s parent, the American Tradition Institute, as described in the group’s mission statement: “a public policy research and educational foundation… founded in 2009 to help lead the national discussion about environmental issues, including air and water quality and regulation, responsible land use, natural resource management, energy development, property rights, and free-market principles of stewardship.” ATI and its affiliates are pro-development and against expanded environmental regulation, according to SourceWatch’s documentation, made up of “a broader network of groups with close ties to energy interests that have long fought greenhouse gas regulation.” [SourceWatch, 2012]
Entity Tags: American Tradition Institute, American Tradition Partnership, Donald Ferguson, James C. Nelson, 1912 Corrupt Practices Act (Montana), SourceWatch, US Supreme Court, Paul S. Ryan, Montana Supreme Court, James Bopp, Jr, Richard L. Hasen
Timeline Tags: Civil Liberties
Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum (R-PA), enjoying a surge of popularity among Iowa caucus voters, calls President Obama “the most divisive president” in US history. On NBC’s Meet the Press, he says: “Well, you, you have to have someone you can work with, and this president has done more to divide than any other president that I’ve ever witnessed in my lifetime. This president goes out and gives speech after speech after speech trying to divide America between class, between income group, between racial and ethnic groups.… This is, this is the great divider in chief. And it’s very difficult when you’re being lampooned by the president on a regular basis, not just as a party but individually, to then—and the president, who I don’t believe has met with [House Speaker John] Boehner [R-OH] or any of the Republican leadership in now six months, hard to compromise and work with someone who won’t meet with you, who won’t sit down and try to, try to negotiate things and try to talk. And so I’m not, I’m not surprised at all the Republicans are having a difficult time with someone who has no interest.” Obama is trying to instigate class warfare among Americans to win re-election in 2012, he says: “Rich versus poor. It is classic class warfare. It’s dividing. It’s a very divisive message.” NewsOne’s report on Santorum’s statement says that Santorum provides no evidence to back up his claims, and says he ignores “the countless examples of White House outreach to Republicans in Congress over the past… three years.” [NewsOne, 1/2/2012]
Rick Santorum, campaigning in January 2012. [Source: New Orleans Times-Picayune]Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum (R-PA), enjoying a surge of popularity among Iowa caucus voters, makes what many perceive as a racially biased attack on poor black Americans. At a campaign stop in Sioux City, Iowa, Santorum points to African-Americans as being the major recipients of federal economic assistance, and tells a largely white audience that he does not want to “make black people’s lives better by giving them somebody else’s money.” The federal social welfare system is being used to exploit its beneficiaries, Santorum says, according to a CBS News transcript, and adds: “It just keeps expanding—I was in Indianola a few months ago and I was talking to someone who works in the Department of Public Welfare here, and she told me that the state of Iowa is going to get fined if they don’t sign up more people under the Medicaid program. They’re just pushing harder and harder to get more and more of you dependent upon them so they can get your vote. That’s what the bottom line is.… I don’t want to make black people’s lives better by giving them somebody else’s money; I want to give them the opportunity to go out and earn the money.” Santorum’s original question was about reducing foreign influence on American culture. Asked about his statement by CBS reporter Scott Pelley, Santorum says he is not aware of the context of his remark, but says he recently watched the documentary Waiting for Superman, which examines American public schools. Apparently referring to his own statement, he says: “I’ve seen that quote, I haven’t seen the context in which that was made. Yesterday I talked for example about a movie called, um, what was it? ‘Waiting for Superman,’ which was about black children and so I don’t know whether it was in response and I was talking about that.” (The film depicts students from a variety of races, and does not focus on a particular racial group.) He adds: “Let me just say that no matter what, I want to make every lives [sic] better—I don’t want anybody—and if you look at what I’ve been saying, I’ve been pretty clear about my concern for dependency in this country and concern for people not being more dependent on our government, whatever their race or ethnicity is.” (Think Progress reporter Marie Diamond calls Santorum’s response “bizarre.”) CBS finds that 84 percent of Iowa’s welfare recipients are white; only 9 percent of Iowans on welfare are black. Nationally, 39 percent of welfare recipients are white, 37 percent black, and 17 percent Hispanic. The poverty statistics between the three races are heavily skewed, with 27.4 percent of blacks living in poverty, 26.6 percent of Hispanics, and 9.9 percent of whites. Diamond writes, “Santorum’s decision to single out black welfare recipients plays right into insulting—and inaccurate—stereotypes of the kind of people some voters might expect to want a ‘handout.’” [CBS News, 1/2/2012; Raw Story, 1/2/2012; Think Progress, 1/3/2012]
Appeal to Conservative Iowa Voters? - Raw Story’s Stephen C. Webster writes that Santorum may be trying to appeal to conservative Iowan voters with his thinly veiled racial attack. Ninety-one percent of Iowans are white. [Raw Story, 1/2/2012]
Santorum Claims He Said 'Blah,' Not 'Black' - Two days after making the remark, and one day after acknowledging to Pelley that he had intended to single out blacks in his statement, Santorum denies using the word “black” in his statement, and denies making any racial allusion. He tells CNN’s John King: “I’ve looked at that quote, in fact I looked at the video. In fact, I’m pretty confident I didn’t say black. I started to say is a word and then sort of changed and it sort of—blah—mumbled it and sort of changed my thought.” On Fox News, Santorum says: “I don’t single out on any group of people, that’s one thing I don’t do. I don’t divide people by group and race and class. I believe that in no people in this country. And I condemn all forms of racism. There’s no one that’s been out here working, as you know, in the inner city, and with people of all different races.” He says that the criticism over the remark is from “someone trying to cause trouble.” [Raw Story, 1/3/2012; Think Progress, 1/5/2012] Conservative blogger Ed Morrissey pins the blame on CBS for using the word “black” in its transcript of Santorum’s remarks. According to Morrissey’s interpretation of the video, Santorum said, stumbling over the key word, “I don’t want to make [pause] lives, people’s lives better by giving them somebody else’s money.” CBS “put words in [Santorum’s] mouth,” Morrissey accuses. [Ed Morrissey, 1/3/2012] Mediaite’s Tommy Christopher says there is room for doubt that Santorum used the word, and writes that Santorum said, “I don’t want to make… mmbligh… people’s lives better.” Christopher believes that Santorum may have intended to say the word “black,” but choked it off in mid-word. Christopher embeds a video clip from CBS in his article, and concludes, “The viewer can judge, but even as an LGBT-friendly liberal, I’m inclined to give Santorum the benefit of the doubt here.” [Mediaite, 1/3/2012] NPR also reported Santorum as using the word “black” in his comment. [National Public Radio, 1/3/2012] The National Urban League takes the stance that Santorum indeed singled out blacks for his criticism. NUL president Marc Morial accuses Santorum of pandering to racists in the GOP, and says: “Senator Santorum is perpetuating a thoroughly false and destructive racial stereotype in a desperate attempt to score political points. He is appealing to the lowest common denominator within the electorate and quite frankly should be ashamed of himself.… Social safety net programs serve families in dire circumstances from all walks of life. Many of those who now find themselves in need, whatever their ethnic background, are the very people who have contributed into these programs throughout their entire working lives. By falsely suggesting that people of color are a disproportionate drain on resources provided mainly by whites, Santorum deliberately fans the flames of racial divisiveness.” Morial notes that in 2005, Santorum admitted that he earned over $162,000 a year as a US senator and lived in a $643,361 home, but depended on his parents, retired federal employees, for financial assistance. Morial notes, “Most people receiving assistance are not earning six-figure salaries and living in a lavish suburban mansion.” [National Urban League, 1/3/2012] The NAACP’s Benjamin Jealous, appearing on a show hosted by MSNBC’s Ed Schultz, later says that it is obvious Santorum did say “black people” and Santorum’s denials “defy logic.” Jealous says Santorum’s comments were “divisive, wrong, and based on stereotypes.” The vast majority of SNAP recipients are non-blacks, Jealous says, “and yet, when [Santorum] thinks public assistance, he thinks black, and that’s just unfortunate.” [MSNBC, 1/5/2012] Think Progress’s Alex Seitz-Wald will later write, “There’s ample video evidence suggesting that Santorum did, in fact, say ‘black,’ but Santorum’s denial is especially surprising considering that he seemed to acknowledge making the comments earlier yesterday.” [Think Progress, 1/5/2012] NewsOne’s Terrell Jermaine Starr later writes that it is obvious Santorum said “black,” and observes: “Rick Santorum must think we’re stuck on stupid.… [E]ven if he was referring to ‘blah people,’ from which demographic do they come? Is this racial category (if ‘blah people’ are a race at all) on the US Census?” [NewsOne, 1/5/2012] Santorum will later claim that he actually said the word “plives,” and not “black.” He will explain that he was briefly tongue-tied while trying to say “people’s lives,” and had no intention of saying “black people’s lives.” He will also claim that he has done more in black communities “than any Republican in recent memory.” [Think Progress, 1/10/2012]
Entity Tags: Marc H. Morial, CBS News, Ed Morrissey, Edward Andrew (“Ed”) Schultz, John King, Alex Seitz-Wald, Marie Diamond, Benjamin Jealous, Terrell Jermaine Starr, Tommy Christopher, National Public Radio, National Urban League, Stephen C. Webster, Scott Pelley, Rick Santorum
Timeline Tags: Domestic Propaganda, 2012 Elections
Presidential candidate Rick Santorum (R-PA) reiterates his long-held belief that individual states should have the right to outlaw the use and availability of contraception if they so choose. “The state has a right to do that, I have never questioned that the state has a right to do that,” he tells an ABC News reporter. “It is not a constitutional right, the state has the right to pass whatever statues they have.” Think Progress’s Igor Volsky notes that Santorum has long stated his opposition to the 1965 Supreme Court ruling that invalidated a Connecticut law banning contraception, and has promised that he would entirely take away federal funding for contraception if elected president. Volsky cites data noting that 99 percent of American women between the ages of 15 and 44 have used contraception, and contraceptive devices are mainstays in the effort to prevent unwanted pregnancies and reduce the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. According to the Guttmacher Institute, without federal funding through Medicaid and Title X, “abortions occurring in the United States would be nearly two-thirds higher among women overall and among teens; the number of unintended pregnancies among poor women would nearly double.” [ABC News, 1/2/2012; Think Progress, 1/3/2012]
Presidential candidate Newt Gingrich (R-GA) says that his primary opponent, frontrunner Mitt Romney (R-MA), is lying about having no control or influence over his “independent” super PAC, Restore Our Future (see June 23, 2011). Gingrich, asked if he is accusing Romney of lying about his involvement with the organization, affirms the suggestion, saying: “This is a man whose staff created the PAC (Restore Our Future), his friends fund the PAC, he pretends he has nothing to do with the PAC. It’s baloney. He’s not telling the American people the truth.” [NBC News, 1/3/2012] Gingrich is facing allegations that he has misused a super PAC that advocated on his behalf (see December 19, 2011).
2012 Iowa caucuses logo. [Source: MediaBistro (.com)]As Republican voters in Iowa go to cast their votes for the party’s presidential nominee in statewide caucuses, spending by the various candidates in the state is at an all-time high, topping $16 million. Broken down by candidate, the spending on candidate advertising, voter drives, and other political activities is as follows:
Governor Rick Perry (R-TX): $4.3 million from his campaign. Perry’s super PAC, Make Us Great Again, has spent $1.6 million.
Representative Ron Paul (R-TX): $2.8 million from his campaign.
Former Governor Mitt Romney (R-MA): $1.5 million from his campaign. His super PAC, Restore Our Future (see June 23, 2011 and January 3, 2012), has spent $2.8 million.
Former Representative Newt Gingrich (R-GA): $980,000 from his campaign. His super PAC, Winning Our Future (see December 19, 2011), has spent $264,000.
Former Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA): $30,000 from his campaign. His super PAC, the Red White and Blue Fund, has spent $530,000.
Representative Michele Bachmann (R-MN): $180,000 from her campaign.
The super PAC expenditures in Iowa primary activities—at least $6 million—far outstrip the $1.5 million spent by outside groups in Iowa in 2004 and the $3.4 million spent in 2008. Spending in upcoming primaries in other states is predicted to be even higher. [NBC News, 1/3/2012; Think Progress, 1/3/2012] The day before the primaries, the New York Times writes a blistering op-ed, “The Slush Funds of Iowa,” decrying the “unrelenting arctic blast of campaign ads” featuring “constant negativity” from the various campaigns. The Times calls the super PACs behind most of the ads “essentially septic tanks into which wealthy individuals and corporations can drop unlimited amounts of money, which is then processed into ads that are theoretically made independently of the candidates.” The Times says that regardless of the pretense of independence both the super PACs and the candidates maintain, “the PACs are, in fact, a vital part of the campaigns’ strategy.” The editorial cites an earlier Times report that cited Romney as an example, comparing the upbeat, family-oriented ads aired in Iowa by the Romney campaign with the relentless negative ads aired by his PAC, and saying that Romney “has effectively outsourced his negative advertising to a group that has raised millions of dollars from his donors to inundate his opponents with attacks.” The editorial notes, “Mr. Romney’s name is never mentioned [in the negative ads], and few [Iowa] viewers will realize that the ad’s producers are all close associates of his who worked on his campaign four years ago.” [New York Times, 1/2/2012]
Entity Tags: Make Us Great Again, Michele Bachmann, Newt Gingrich, James Richard (“Rick”) Perry, New York Times, Red, White and Blue Fund, Winning Our Future, Restore Our Future, Rick Santorum, Willard Mitt Romney, Ron Paul
Timeline Tags: Civil Liberties, 2012 Elections
Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus sharply criticizes the actions of so-called “super PACs.” Super PACs are political organizations that exist to influence elections, which take unlimited amounts of outside money from donors, including individuals, unions, and corporations, and pool that money to advocate for or against a candidate (see March 26, 2010). By law, super PACs are supposed to operate independently of a candidate’s official campaign organization. A mere 12 donors, including several corporations, one union, and a number of billionaires, made up over half of the donations given to super PACs in the first half of 2011, and Republican super PACs have outraised Democratic super PACs by more than a 2-1 margin (see August 4, 2011). Marcus writes that the presidential election is already devolving into an affair “without meaningful contribution limits or timely disclosure, outsourced to political action committees whose spending often dwarfs that of the candidates they support.” The PACs and super PACs rarely obey the law and operate independently of the candidates they support. The Republican primary season demonstrates just how powerful they are: the super PAC supporting presidential candidate Mitt Romney (R-MA), “Restore Our Future,” has spent $4 million attacking Republican candidate Newt Gingrich (R-GA). The veneer of independence for Restore Our Future is thin: it is run by former Romney political director Carl Forti, its treasurer Charles Spies was Romney’s general counsel, its head fundraiser Steve Roche used to head the Romney 2012 finance team, and Romney has spoken at Restore Our Future events (see June 23, 2011). However, Marcus notes, “up-to-date information about who is bankrolling this effort will not be available until the end of January, by which point four states will have voted and Romney may have the nomination wrapped up.” Restore Our Future was last required to report its donors to the Federal Election Commission (FEC) in July 2011, when it reported raising $12 million. Gingrich’s own super PAC, “Winning Our Future,” is primarily funded by billionaire casino owner Sheldon Adelson, and their fellow Republican candidate Governor Rick Perry (R-TX) has the super PAC “Make Us Great Again.” Long-shot Republican candidate Jon Huntsman’s super PAC, “Our Destiny,” is reportedly funded primarily by Huntsman’s wealthy father. And President Obama’s super PAC, “Priorities USA Action,” has launched anti-Romney ads. Marcus writes, “The rise of these groups erodes the twin pillars of a functional campaign finance system: limits on the size of contributions and timely information about who is writing the checks.” Her concerns are echoed by veteran campaign finance reformer Fred Wertheimer, who recently said: “The establishment of the candidate-specific super PAC is a vehicle to completely destroy candidate contribution limits. It is a vehicle that will spread to Congress and it will lead us back to a system of pure legalized bribery, because you will be back, pre-Watergate, to unlimited contributions that are going for all practical purposes directly to candidates.” For now, super PACs, with their supposed independence, are free to air advertisements attacking opposing candidates while the candidate they support, Marcus writes, “gets to remain above the fray, not required to appear on camera to say that he or she approved this message.” FEC official Ellen Weintraub tells Marcus, “I view the super PAC as the evil twin of the candidate’s campaign committee.” Referring to the legal limit of $2,500 for donations to candidates from individual or corporate donors, Weintraub says, “How can it possibly be true that to give more than $2,500 to a candidate is potentially corrupting but to give millions to an outside group that is acting on the candidate’s behalf is not?” Marcus concludes by saying that “dangerous” super PACs will only increase their influence as the presidential campaign season continues. [Washington Post, 1/3/2012]
Entity Tags: Fred Wertheimer, Willard Mitt Romney, Winning Our Future, Charles R. Spies, Carl Forti, Barack Obama, Washington Post, Federal Election Commission, Steve Roche, Ruth Marcus, Make Us Great Again, Jon Huntsman, James Richard (“Rick”) Perry, Newt Gingrich, Priorities USA Action, Ellen L. Weintraub, Our Destiny, Sheldon Adelson, Restore Our Future
Timeline Tags: Civil Liberties, 2012 Elections
Former Governor Mike Huckabee (R-AR), a 2008 presidential contender, speaks on Fox News about his dislike for “super PACs” (see March 26, 2010, June 23, 2011, and November 23, 2011) and what he calls their corrosive effect on US politics. Huckabee says that the pretense of super PACs’ independence from the candidates they support is untrue and debilitating. He objects to the way that such groups allow candidates to pretend to stay above the fray while unidentifiable “snipers from the trees,” meaning the super PACs, run negative attack ads against opponents, calls super PACs “one of the worst things that ever happened in American politics,” and says they have “killed civility.” Huckabee advocates for greater transparency, saying anyone who gives money to fund attack ads should have to put their name on them. He says in part: “I think one of the worst things that ever happened in American politics is the rise of the independent expenditure groups that really don’t have accountability. You don’t know where this money is coming from. You don’t know where the accountability is coming from, and the candidates have no coordination.… I wish that every person who gives any money [to fund an ad] that mentions any candidate by name would have to put their name on it and be held responsible and accountable for it. And it’s killing any sense of civility in politics because the cheap shots that can be made from the trees by snipers that you never can identify. It’s just the worst part of this process.” [Think Progress, 1/3/2012] Liberal Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus writes a column the same day that agrees with much of what Huckabee says (see January 3, 2012).
Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA), who in 2003 equated gay sex with bestiality and child rape (see April 7, 2003 and April 23, 2003 and After), now denies ever making the equivalence. During an interview with an Associated Press reporter, Santorum said: “In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That’s not to pick on homosexuality. It’s not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing.” Now, CNN’s John King asks how Santorum connected homosexuality to bestiality, child rape, and, as he said later in the AP interview, bigamy. “How do you connect those dots?” King asks. Santorum replies: “Hold on one sec—hold on a second, John. Read the quote. I said it’s not—it is not—I didn’t say it is—I says [sic] it’s not. I—I—I’m trying to understand what—what—what you—what you’re trying to make the point. I said it’s not those things. I didn’t connect them. I specifically excluded them.” New York Magazine’s Dan Amira writes: “It’s pretty clear what Santorum said: Marriage does not include homosexuality. It also does not include ‘man on child, man on dog.’ Because marriage is ‘one thing’—a heterosexual couple. Santorum’s revisionist interpretation—that he went out of his way to differentiate between homosexuality and pedophilia/bestiality—is absurd. He did the opposite. He had a basket labeled ‘ungodly things that can’t count as marriage,’ and tossed in homosexuality, ‘man on child,’ and ‘man on dog.’” Amira speculates that Santorum is trying to back off of his statements because in the almost nine years since he made them, “acceptance of gay rights and gay marriage has soared. Santorum hopes to become a viable, mainstream candidate, but his past remarks on homosexuality—not just opposition to gay marriage, but disparagement of gays in general—are no longer part of the mainstream. Best to just pretend they never happened.” Fox News host Shepard Smith is another who does not believe Santorum’s disclaimer. Interviewing Republican commentator Terry Holt, Smith asks if even social conservatives would accept Santorum’s claim that, as Smith says, “gay love [is] similar to bestiality.” Holt, in the midst of praising Santorum’s resurgent presidential campaign, listens as Smith adds, “It’s going to be talked about eventually that Rick Santorum is, among other things, a man that equated homosexual sex to bestiality… his list of things that are not going to appeal to any moderate is long.” Holt attempts to dismiss the issue by saying that all of the Republican candidates have had “their share of gaffes.” [Mediaite, 1/4/2012; New York Magazine, 1/5/2012]
The progressive campaign watchdog organization Democracy 21 releases a report that questions the legality of the “super PACs” (see March 26, 2010, June 23, 2011, November 23, 2011, and January 4, 2012) currently dominating the US elections process. The report predicts “that unless candidate-specific super PACs are stopped, the country is headed back to the system of legalized bribery that existed in the pre-Watergate era.” Democracy 21 president Fred Wertheimer says of the report: “The leading presidential candidate-specific super PACs are serving as vehicles for candidates and donors to massively evade and circumvent candidate contribution restrictions. These restrictions have been enacted over a period covering more than a century to prevent the corruption of federal officeholders and government decisions—in other words to prevent the corruption of our democracy. Each presidential candidate-specific super PAC is raising unlimited contributions from individuals and/or from corporations and unions for the explicit purpose of being spent by the super PAC to directly support its favored presidential candidate. Such contributions would be illegal if given directly to the presidential candidate, so they are instead being given to super PACs controlled by close political and personal associates of the presidential candidate and which are directly serving the campaign interests of the presidential candidate. In essence, the unlimited contributions are being given by the wealthy supporters of each presidential candidate to a super PAC dedicated to supporting that candidate. The donors know that their contributions will be spent to directly support that presidential candidate. The super PAC is spending the contributions only to directly support the associated presidential candidate. The presidential candidate knows (or will know) the identity of the donors who are providing huge contributions to the super PAC supporting the candidate’s campaign. For all practical purposes, these unlimited, corrupting contributions are being given to the presidential candidates. As such, candidate-specific super PACS are eviscerating candidate contribution limits and restoring the system of legalized bribery that existed in our country in the pre-Watergate era.” Democracy 21 finds: “Candidate-specific super PACs are the most dangerous vehicles for corruption in American politics today. They are a monstrosity and the logical extension of the Citizens United decision given to the nation by five Supreme Court justices who have done enormous damage to our democracy. Unless stopped, candidate-specific super PACs will continue to eviscerate the contribution restrictions enacted by Congress, signed into law by presidents, and repeatedly upheld by the Supreme Court as constitutional because they are necessary to prevent corruption. And these super PACs will engulf not just our presidential elections but also our elections for Congress to which they will spread like wildfire.” [Democracy 21, 1/4/2012]
The New York City Council votes to adopt a resolution condemning the concept of “corporate personhood” as established by the 2010 Citizens United decision (see January 21, 2010) and other rulings and laws. Jonah Minkoff-Zern of Public Citizen applauds the ruling, saying that his organization expects “elected officials to heed the call for constitutional reform that makes clear that democracy is for people, not for corporations.… People across the country are standing up to reclaim our democracy.” [Truthout (.org), 1/4/2012] A month ago, the Los Angeles City Council adopted a similar resolution (see December 6, 2011).
Author and columnist Steven Rosenfeld writes that the big winner of the 2012 Iowa caucuses is likely not any of the Republican presidential candidates, but the “independent” super PACs (see March 26, 2010, June 23, 2011, and November 23, 2011) that dominated spending in that state during the primary campaign (see January 3, 2012). Rosenfeld calls super PACs “satellite political campaigns that supposedly act independently of the candidates,” but patently do not. The process has become predictable, Rosenfeld writes: the candidate’s campaign, stating the candidate’s name as “approv[ing] this message,” airs positive, uplifting ads, while the super PAC working with that candidate airs a barrage of negative ads that slam other candidates while never stating the candidate being supported. “And then the candidates hypocritically decry their mudslinging allies,” Rosenfeld writes. Some of the Republican campaign ads were critical of the super PAC attacks on their candidates. Iowa citizen Jill Jepsen told a reporter: “Oh goodness. I just don’t listen to it. I can’t listen to it. It makes me sick.” Super PACs are required by law to report their donors, but their lawyers have been successful in filing papers to push back filing deadlines until after early primaries. Rosenfeld writes, “Such intentional secrecy means the handful of big money donors behind these groups—there were 264 registered PACs as of last week, with assets of $32 million—will not be accountable to anyone other than their candidate of choice.” The super PACs have plenty of money for later primaries, according to information from the Center for Responsive Politics. Rosenfeld cites recent remarks by law school professor Kendall Thomas, who told an audience that in his opinion, super PACs are a perfect representation of “the face of American capitalism.” The Citizens United decision (see January 21, 2010) would, in Rosenfeld’s description of Thomas’s words, “unleash outsized and unaccountable players into the American political arena… just as globalization has ushered large corporate players into the international economic order.” Thomas said, “We need to contest the vision of politics, and the vision of politics embraced in Citizens United, which views citizenship and constitutional democracy as part of the world of commodities.” Rosenfeld concludes: “[T]he losers in the Iowa caucuses are not just the Republicans with the fewest supporters. They are that state’s voters—and voters in the primary and caucus states to follow—who will experience a political process increasingly distant from their lives.” [AlterNet, 1/4/2012]
Dahlia Lithwick, the senior legal correspondent for Slate, muses on the likelihood that the US Supreme Court will overturn a recent decision by the Montana Supreme Court that upheld the state’s limits on corporate election spending (see December 30, 2011 and After). The Montana high court’s opinion directly contradicts the 2010 Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision (see January 21, 2010). Lithwick notes that some Republican primary candidates are learning to their sorrow just how effective corporate spending can be when it is turned against them, citing Newt Gingrich (R-GA), who was targeted by almost $5 million of super PAC spending on negative ads against him in the recent Iowa caucuses (see January 3, 2012). Much of that came from a super PAC supporting Gingrich’s rival Mitt Romney (R-MA). Lithwick also cites a recent column by liberal columnist Ruth Marcus “explaining all the ways in which the super PACs are both coordinating with campaigns and evading federal disclosure requirements” (see January 3, 2012). Marcus wrote that the Citizens United decision set the stage for just the kind of negative, coordinated attacks seen in Iowa, and allowed the political system to be overwhelmed by corporate-funded entities that are not publicly accountable (see January 4, 2012). The probability for historic levels of corruption was overwhelming, Lithwick writes, and entirely foreseeable (see October 17, 2011). Lithwick notes conservative legal scholar Eugene Volokh as saying the Montana high court’s decision “practically begs to be overturned at the Supreme Court.” But the Montana high court, citing specific evidence showing the potential for corruption in the plaintiff’s actions (including a fundraising brochure that promised donors “no politician, no bureaucrat, and no radical environmentalist will ever know you made” any donations), found that the limits on corporate electoral spending are necessary to keep corruption at bay. Lithwick concludes, “I think what we just saw in Iowa and Montana proves again that corporations aren’t really people, money isn’t really speech, and that saying so isn’t just a way of speaking truth to power.” [Slate, 1/4/2012]
Page 54 of 56 (5585 events (use filters to narrow search))previous
Receive weekly email updates summarizing what contributors have added to the History Commons database
Developing and maintaining this site is very labor intensive. If you find it useful, please give us a hand and donate what you can.
If you would like to help us with this effort, please contact us. We need help with programming (Java, JDO, mysql, and xml), design, networking, and publicity. If you want to contribute information to this site, click the register link at the top of the page, and start contributing.