Are political parties no longer relevant?

..................................................................................................................................
In new era, political parties fade

As money flows elsewhere, traditional Democratic and Republican groups lose influence

By Joe Hallett, June 30, 2013

Ohio’s Democrats and Republicans showed they still know how to party at their annual fund-raising dinners, pulsating with music and stem-winding speeches, in Downtown hotels over the past two Saturdays. 

But beyond the excitement of the events and exhilaration of the partisans, a longer-term question haunted the respective ballrooms: Is the party coming to an end for the parties? 

As the two major parties contend with declining memberships, poor images and competition from well-heeled independent groups, their importance nationally and in states is gradually ebbing. 

“The parties are less significant today than they have been — maybe ever,” said Kevin DeWine, former chairman of the Ohio Republican Party. “I don’t see that changing.” 

David Leland, former chairman of the Ohio Democratic Party, agreed: “As a society, we have taken steps to diminish the clout of the political parties, and I think that’s a bad thing.” 

Discontent with the two parties has grown, evident by the rise of more independent-minded groups such as the tea party and by polls showing widespread public frustration with partisans in public office. 

“Recent history nationally is that more people are independent,” said Peter Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute. “I don’t think anybody likes political parties. These days, Americans ... don’t like politicians generally.” 

A snapshot of that sentiment was found in two Gallup polls this month, one showing only 17 percent of Americans approve of the way Congress is handling its job and another showing Americans’ confidence in Congress as an institution is down to 10 percent — both all-time lows. Moreover, Americans’ job approval ratings of Democrats (34 percent) and Republicans (26 percent) in Congress are among the worst Gallup has measured for each party historically. 

Over the past two decades, the two major parties have seen outside groups gradually usurp their traditional functions — from fund-raising to organizing to voter-targeting. Committees supporting Democrat Barack Obama and Republican Mitt Romney in last year’s presidential race each raised more money than the parties’ national committees. 

“It’s harder for parties to be relevant because they don’t control the nomination, the candidates or the money,” said Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted, a Republican. 

But nothing has threatened the major parties more than the proliferation of super PACs, officially known as “independent-expenditure committees,” which can raise money from individuals, corporations, unions and other groups, without any limits. Such political action committees can’t contribute directly to candidate campaigns or parties, but they can spend unlimited amounts independently of the campaigns. 

Political spending by such PACs often occurs without complete or immediate disclosure about who is funding them. 

If a group qualifies as a “social welfare” organization under Section 501(c)(4) of the code, it doesn’t have to disclose its donors at all. 

In the 2012 campaign cycle, super PACs spent more than $609 million and social welfare groups spent more than $256 million in federal races, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. 

Beginning with the McCain-Feingold Act of 2002, which precluded the two parties from receiving “soft money” — unregulated and unlimited contributions used for party-building, get-out-the-vote efforts and “issue” ads — the Republican and Democratic parties have seen their fund-raising prowess decline. 

“Everything that has occurred has pushed donors away from parties and decreased the significance and importance of political parties,” DeWine said. “What you’re seeing is fewer and fewer people playing at significant levels with political parties.” 

Columbus attorney William Todd, who has represented outside groups involved in the political process, said donors are gravitating to super PACs and away from the parties and candidate campaign funds. 

“From a very pragmatic standpoint, it’s a lot easier to raise $5 million for a super PAC than $5 million in a candidate campaign,” he said. “In a super PAC, which is allowed to get contributions of unlimited amounts, you could have five people giving $1 million each.” 

Former Rep. Steve LaTourette, R-Bainbridge Township, said the decline of the parties began immediately after Congress passed McCain-Feingold, first creating a wave of so-called 527 organizations such as Moveon.org. Then came the super PACs, resulting in an influx of non-party money into politics. 

The groups, he said, “can dwarf, in many cases, anything a party or candidate can do.... The campaign-finance structure has taken the power out of the two parties, and I think that’s unfortunate. What’s gone up in the vacuum is worse.” 

Leland agreed, saying parties, in part, were created “to keep people with large fortunes and singular interests from dominating elections ... but now we’re just empowering those very few to control our political process.” 

Viveca Novak, spokeswoman for the Center for Responsive Politics, said money likely will continue to move away from the parties: “There’s no indication that the outside groups are going to go away. I think there will probably be more of them. Each candidate will probably have his own super PAC or 501(c) group supporting them, so that doesn’t bode well for the parties.” 

But it’s too soon to write obituaries for the political parties, said Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21, a nonpartisan organization advocating campaign finance reform. He noted that the aggregate raised and spent in the 2012 election cycle by Democratic and Republican organizations across the country exceeded $1 billion per party. 

Ohio GOP Chairman Matt Borges said the parties fill “a resource role” by recruiting candidates, organizing and training volunteers, providing voter-targeting, opposition research and other data, raising money, and branding a message that entices voters. 

“There is only one organization in the state that is looking out for Republicans at the local, state and national level, and that’s the Ohio Republican Party,” Borges said. 

Party labeling allows voters to understand Democratic candidates and “what their values reflect,” said Chris Redfern, chairman of the Ohio Democratic Party, adding, “By saying Democrat or Republican, a person in Bucyrus will know what a Democrat stands for because of our messaging.” 
..................................................................................................................................

Roberts, you would love to shut up the lawyers altogether, wouldn't you?

..................................................................................................................................
Roberts says high court asks too many questions
June 29, 2013

Chief Justice John Roberts says he and his colleagues have become too aggressive in questioning lawyers who argue before the Supreme Court.

Roberts says the justices "overdo it a bit" in posing questions to lawyers who are arguing their cases without giving the attorneys the chance to respond.

The chief justice says one reason is that the justices have not discussed the case among themselves before the argument. Roberts says they use the typically hour-long session to debate each other through the lawyers.

Justice Clarence Thomas, who hasn't asked a question in seven years, has made the same criticism.

Roberts spoke Saturday at a conference of judges and lawyers in West Virginia.

Roberts suggested lawyers not even try to respond when the justices posed rapid-fire questions. 

..................................................................................................................................

"White man's party" -- pah!

..................................................................................................................................
Doubling Down on the White Man’s Party
By Ed Kilgore, June 26, 2013

Many political observers from both sides of the partisan barricades are genuinely puzzled that so many congressional Republicans seem willing, even eager, to court “demographic disaster” by opposing comprehensive immigration reform and thus reinforcing their party’s unsavory image among Latinos and Asian-Americans, who have been trending Democratic heavily even as they make up a steadily increasing percentage of the electorate. It’s common to argue they are being willfully irrational, under pressure from their “base,” or are privately scheming to find some way to let immigration reform be enacted even if they don’t vote for it themselves.

But it’s important to recognize that a lot of Republicans in and out of Congress don’t buy the basic premise that improved performance among minority voters is the best and only path to majority status. And a lot of them are reading, or are being influenced indirectly by, Sean Trende’s series of analytical columns at RealClearPolitics suggesting that the more obvious route to a Republican majority, at least over the next couple of decades, is to intensify the GOP’s appeal to white voters (see this Phyllis Schlafly comment last month for an example of the meme).

Immediately after the 2012 elections, Trende began arguing that the big story in the Obama/Romney contest was a major drop-off in white voting:

If we build in an estimate for the growth of the various voting-age populations over the past four years and assume 55 percent voter turnout, we find ourselves with about 8 million fewer white voters than we would expect given turnout in the 2008 elections and population growth.

Had the same number of white voters cast ballots in 2012 as did in 2008, the 2012 electorate would have been about 74 percent white, 12 percent black, and 9 percent Latino (the same result occurs if you build in expectations for population growth among all these groups). In other words, the reason this electorate looked so different from the 2008 electorate is almost entirely attributable to white voters staying home. The other groups increased their vote, but by less than we would have expected simply from population growth.

Trende quickly threw water on the idea—to which a lot of conservative readers might have immediately gone—that these “missing white voters” were southern evangelicals “discouraged” by Romney’s alleged moderation or his obvious Mormonism. In a subsequent article, published late last week, he was much more specific:

The drop in turnout occurs in a rough diagonal, stretching from northern Maine, across upstate New York (perhaps surprisingly, turnout in post-Sandy New York City dropped off relatively little), and down into New Mexico. Michigan and the non-swing state, non-Mormon Mountain West also stand out. Note also that turnout is surprisingly stable in the Deep South; Romney’s problem was not with the Republican base or evangelicals (who constituted a larger share of the electorate than they did in 2004).

For those with long memories, this stands out as the heart of the “Perot coalition.” That coalition was strongest with secular, blue-collar, often rural voters who were turned off by Bill Clinton’s perceived liberalism and George H.W. Bush’s elitism. They were largely concentrated in the North and Mountain West: Perot’s worst 10 national showings occurred in Southern and border states. His best showings? Maine, Alaska, Utah, Idaho, Kansas, Nevada, Montana, Wyoming, Oregon and Minnesota.

This profile of the “missing white voters” of 2012—which is suggestive rather than definitive, since the Perot “coalition” Trende’s talking about arose a full two decades ago—will smell like catnip to those proposing some sort of conservative “populist” makeover for the GOP. And it would also reinforce the idea that being opposed to immigration reform might (a) not really cost the GOP votes they had no realistic chance of winning anyway, and (b) appeal in a positive way to the “missing white voters” who are reflexively nativist.

In his latest piece in the series, Trende tries to put his numbers together into a future scenario, as part of an argument that winning a higher percentage of Latino voters isn’t the exclusive GOP survival strategy it’s cracked up to be.

I’m not in a position at this point to challenge Trende’s projections for the different elements of the electorate, and do think he makes some dubious assumptions (e.g., that African-American turnout drops in 2009 and 2010 mean lower black turnout numbers in future presidential elections when Barack Obama isn’t on the ballot). But since I’m less interested in Trende’s data than in the meme that may emerge from over-simplistic repetition of his bottom line by conservative gabbers with a big ax to grind, the important thing is that he projects Republicans could win presidential elections from 2016 through 2040 by gradually increasing its percentage of the white vote (which of course will have to turn out to an extent that it did not in 2012) even if minority voters tilt even more heavily to the Democrats than they do today.

This really just illustrates an overlooked point. Democrats liked to mock the GOP as the “Party of White People” after the 2012 elections. But from a purely electoral perspective, that’s not a terrible thing to be. Even with present population projections, there are likely to be a lot of non-Hispanic whites in this country for a very long time. Relatively slight changes among their voting habits can forestall massive changes among the non-white population for a very long while.

You can imagine the interpretation many on the Right will impose on Trende’s numbers: If we racially polarize the country, we win! And from that point of view, killing off an immigration bill they hate anyway, and which they believe will just create more Democratic voters, is really a no-brainer, and just the first step towards the winning white party of the future. Be forewarned.

UPDATE: As commenter pyrocantha51 suggests, one weakness of Trende’s analysis is the assumption that it will be possible to increase the GOP percentage of the white vote over time even as younger white people who are currently tilting Democratic become a larger segment of the electorate. Certainly a “polarization” strategy that leans right on cultural issues would be perilous among young white voters.
..................................................................................................................................

This genie can't be stuffed back in the bottle

..................................................................................................................................
This is a portion of a much larger article, and it includes more information about the legalization and use of marijuana in Washington State and Colorado.
..................................................................................................................................
Marijuana's march toward mainstream confounds feds
By Nancy Benac and Alicia A. Caldwell, June 29, 2013

It took 50 years for American attitudes about marijuana to zigzag from the paranoia of "Reefer Madness" to the excesses of Woodstock back to the hard line of "Just Say No."

The next 25 years took the nation from Bill Clinton, who famously "didn't inhale," to Barack Obama, who most emphatically did.

And now, in just a few short years, public opinion has moved so dramatically toward general acceptance that even those who champion legalization are surprised at how quickly attitudes are changing and states are moving to approve the drug - for medical use and just for fun.

It is a moment in America that is rife with contradictions:

_People are looking more kindly on marijuana even as science reveals more about the drug's potential dangers, particularly for young people.

_States are giving the green light to the drug in direct defiance of a federal prohibition on its use.

_Exploration of the potential medical benefit is limited by high federal hurdles to research.

Washington policymakers seem reluctant to deal with any of it.

Richard Bonnie, a University of Virginia law professor who worked for a national commission that recommended decriminalizing marijuana in 1972, sees the public taking a big leap from prohibition to a more laissez-faire approach without full deliberation.

"It's a remarkable story historically," he says. "But as a matter of public policy, it's a little worrisome. It's intriguing, it's interesting, it's good that liberalization is occurring, but it is a little worrisome."

More than a little worrisome to those in the anti-drug movement.

"We're on this hundred-mile-an-hour freight train to legalizing a third addictive substance," says Kevin Sabet, a former drug policy adviser in the Obama administration, lumping marijuana with tobacco and alcohol.

Legalization strategist Ethan Nadelmann, executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance, likes the direction the marijuana smoke is wafting. But he knows his side has considerable work yet to do.

"I'm constantly reminding my allies that marijuana is not going to legalize itself," he says.

[SNIPPED]

Where California led the charge on medical marijuana, the next chapter in this story is being written in Colorado and Washington state.

Policymakers there are struggling with all sorts of sticky issues revolving around one central question: How do you legally regulate the production, distribution, sale and use of marijuana for recreational purposes when federal law bans all of the above?

How do you tax it? What quality control standards do you set? How do you protect children while giving grown-ups the go-ahead to light up? What about driving under the influence? Can growers take business tax deductions? Who can grow pot, and how much? Where can you use it? Can cities opt out? Can workers be fired for smoking marijuana when they're off duty? What about taking pot out of state? The list goes on.

The overarching question has big national implications. How do you do all of this without inviting the wrath of the federal government, which has been largely silent so far on how it will respond to a gaping conflict between U.S. and state law?

The Justice Department began reviewing the matter after last November's election and repeatedly has promised to respond soon. But seven months later, states still are on their own, left to parse every passing comment from the department and President Obama.

In December, Obama said in an interview that "it does not make sense, from a prioritization point of view, for us to focus on recreational drug users in a state that has already said that under state law that's legal."

In April, Attorney General Eric Holder said to Congress, "We are certainly going to enforce federal law. ... When it comes to these marijuana initiatives, I think among the kinds of things we will have to consider is the impact on children." He also mentioned violence related to drug trafficking and organized crime.

In May, Obama told reporters: "I honestly do not believe that legalizing drugs is the answer. But I do believe that a comprehensive approach - not just law enforcement, but prevention and education and treatment - that's what we have to do."

Rep. Jared Polis, a Colorado Democrat who favors legalization, predicts Washington will take a hands-off approach, based on Obama's comments about setting law enforcement priorities.

"We would like to see that in writing," Polis says. "But we believe, given the verbal assurances of the president, that we are moving forward in Colorado and Washington in implementing the will of the voters."

The federal government has taken a similar approach toward users in states that have approved marijuana for medical use. It doesn't go after pot-smoking cancer patients or grandmas with glaucoma. But it also has warned that people who are in the business of growing, selling and distributing marijuana on a large scale are subject to potential prosecution for violations of the Controlled Substances Act - even in states that have legalized medical use.

Federal agents in recent years have raided storefront dispensaries in California and Washington, seizing cash and pot. In April, the Justice Department targeted 63 dispensaries in Santa Ana, Calif., and filed three asset forfeiture lawsuits against properties housing seven pot shops. Prosecutors also sent letters to property owners and operators of 56 other marijuana dispensaries warning that they could face similar lawsuits.

University of Denver law professor Sam Kamin says if the administration doesn't act soon to sort out the federal-state conflict, it may be too late to do much.

"At some point, it becomes so prevalent and so many citizens will be engaged in it that it's hard to recriminalize something that's become commonplace," he says.

[SNIPPED]
..................................................................................................................................

Wendy Davis = the rock star. Rick Perry = the blockhead.

..................................................................................................................................
Wendy Davis: Perry has ‘demeaned’ the office he holds

Posted by Ashley Killough and Kevin Liptak, June 28, 2013

Texas state Sen. Wendy Davis, who rose to national fame this week after her 13-hour filibuster in the state legislature, said she was not angry with the deeply personal criticism leveled against her by Republican Gov. Rick Perry, but said his comments were “symptomatic” of his perspective on women’s issues.

“I didn’t have an angry response to it on behalf of myself,” she said Friday on CNN’s “The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer.” “I think it just demonstrated the typical attitude that Governor Perry has expressed toward the issue. He’s demeaned the high office that he holds by saying things like that.”

Speaking at a national "Right to Life" conference in Dallas, Perry took aim at Davis' own background, claiming she had learned the wrong lessons from being born to a single mother and having her first daughter as a teenager.

"The fact is, who are we to say that children born into the worst of circumstances can't grow to live successful lives?" Perry said, noting Davis had gone on to graduate from college and Harvard Law.

"It's just unfortunate that she hasn't learned from her own example, that every life must be given a chance to realize its full potential and that every life matters," the governor said.

The state lawmaker, who represents a district in the Fort Worth area, became a hero to abortion rights supporters this week after staging a filibuster of proposed legislation that would place new restrictions on abortions in Texas. The law would ban most abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy and place new regulations on abortion providers that would limit the number clinics available.

The measure, declared dead after Davis' marathon filibuster, will be reconsidered during a special session of the state legislature convened by Perry next week.

Davis, a Democrat, acknowledged the sharp public split over the idea of banning abortions after 20 weeks.

“Let's face it. No one likes the idea of an abortion that's that late. But sometimes, women find out unfortunately later in their pregnancies that they're facing some very serious issues, either for their own health or because there are health issues for her pregnancy.”

She added the larger issue was the “sanctity of personal decision making” and “keeping big government out of” that process.

Further explaining Perry's comments, his office said the governor was "praising Sen. Davis for her success despite coming from difficult circumstances, and that should be an inspiration to others."

As Davis' 13-hour filibuster – and the response from Perry - continues to galvanize abortion rights supporters, left-leaning groups are rallying to provide the Democratic state senator support for her future political endeavors.

MoveOn.org, the liberal advocacy organization, said it had garnered pledges of more than $240,000 from 6,500 different members for Davis' next campaign. At this point, the money has only been pledged, not donated, but the group said the outpouring of support was reflective of its members standing in solidarity with Davis' right for reproductive rights.

Another group, EMILY's List, said Davis has long been on their radar as a potential candidate for higher office. They supported her in 2008, and have seen a surge in enthusiasm from their members following Davis' filibuster this week.

"We've been talking to her for years about running for higher office," EMILY's List communications director Jess McIntosh said. "We've known she was a rock star for a long time – thrilled the country does now too!"

EMILY's List is a national organization dedicated to electing women who support abortion rights to office.

..................................................................................................................................

Your boycott can damage a neighbor's livelihood and/or your local community's economy.... is that what you want to accomplish?

..................................................................................................................................
The Starbucks Chick-fil-A Fiasco: Free Enterprise Amid Political and Cultural Chaos
By Austin Hill, June 30, 2013

What do Chick-fil –A and Starbucks have in common besides food and beverages? Controversy – and lots of it – as the executive leaders of both companies have taken public stands on one of America’s most contentious cultural and public policy issues.

You probably heard about the Chick-fil-A fiasco of last year. Founded by S. Truett Cathy, today the company is headed by Truett’s son Dan Cathy, and in June and July of 2012 the company and its franchisees was subject to maligning in the media and attempted boycotts by liberal activist groups because of public statements that Dan made about his support for traditional heterosexual marriage.

The fact that Chick-fil-A is one of the most successful restaurant enterprises in the world and that it employs lots of Americans simply did not matter to the liberal activists. It also didn’t matter that in 2010 Chick-fil-A became the global chain restaurant leader based on an “average annual sales per restaurant” calculation, nor did it matter that the company has one of the lowest franchise entry costs in the world, or that it receives an average of 20,000 applications to fill its annual 60-70 franchise openings each year. And it probably didn’t matter to the boycotters that they were reacting to one man’s opinion, an opinion that isn’t necessarily shared by all Chick-fil-A franchisees and employees.

All that mattered, apparently, was that Dan Cathy expressed the “wrong opinion,” so far as the liberal activists were concerned, and it was therefore time to bring harm to his company. After an initial backlash was attempted against the company and its franchisees, a “backlash against the backlash” eventually ensued and Chick-fil-A saw an uptick in their revenues. But the lesson of this episode was clear: some of our fellow Americans are quite willing to damage a local employer in their area if it seems politically beneficial to do so.

While opposing same-sex marriage was good for Chick-fil-A (even if only in the short-run), supporting it proved bad for Starbucks. In January of 2012 an executive with the publicly traded company drew fire for his public statement in support of same-sex marriage, which soon engendered a public boycott of Starbucks by conservative “pro-traditional marriage” groups. After a few months of declining sales, Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz was asked at a shareholder’s meeting about the wisdom of personal political statements being made by the company’s executives, to which Shultz replied, “"if you feel, respectfully, that you can get a higher return than the 38 percent you got last year, it’s a free country. You can sell your shares of Starbucks and buy shares in another company.” Starbucks sales continued to slide for a while, and then the controversy eventually evaporated – but the damage, if only in the short run, had been done.

The fact that Starbucks is by nearly any measurement one of the most socially responsible and generous companies in the world, apparently didn’t matter to the socially conservative activists. It apparently didn’t matter that Starbucks provides medical, dental and vision health coverage to nearly all of its employees including part-timers, nor did it matter that they lead the world in corporate recycling efforts and at times pay higher prices for coffee beans so as to ensure that they are patronizing coffee growers who pay “fair wages” to their workers. And the social conservatives who protested Starbucks over the marriage issue may very well have been unaware that the company has drawn other boycotts from gun control groups – along with support from gun enthusiasts -because Starbucks has resisted social pressure to ban concealed-carry weapons in their stores. Once again activists were reacting to the opinions of one or two executives – opinions that are not necessarily shared by all of Starbucks employees and shareholders – and there was not only willingness but a clear intent to damage the company.

Obviously, boycotts are in most cases perfectly legal, and often provide an appropriate way to express one’s opinions and preferences based upon expenditures that one doesn’t make. But given the current economic, cultural and political climate, individuals and activist groups would do well to become more thoughtful and careful about who gets targeted. In an effort to make a cultural or political statement, one can end up diminishing somebody else’s livelihood or even damaging one’s local community.

Targeting, protesting, boycotting – the plight of Starbucks and Chick-fil-A will likely become more common in the coming weeks and months, and probably will be felt by more and more businesses, including many local small business operators. In the aftermath of the Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriage, employers will be faced with public pressure and lawsuits demanding employee benefits for same-sex domestic partners. And with the next implementation phase of Obamacare in January of 2014, businesses will be faced with public scorn and legal threats when they lay-off workers or cut employee hours while figuring out how to pay for Obamacare compliance.

There is a rough road that lies ahead for American enterprise. Activists and consumers alike would do well to become more thoughtful about the plight of the business owner, and less inclined to lash-out.
..................................................................................................................................

Those donors should be wary-- their money didn't buy them anything. Too bad, so sad. [snicker]

..................................................................................................................................
Conservative donors wary after loss in 2012
By Matea Gold,June 30, 2013

Charlie Spies knows how to raise money. The Republican lawyer helped rake in $153 million for Restore Our Future, the pro-Mitt Romney super PAC.

But he has had a harder slog with one of his latest projects, Republicans for Immigration Reform, a super PAC that aims to be a dominant force in the fight over revamping the country’s immigration laws. So far, the organization has made just a tiny ad buy in South Carolina and financed a poll with two other advocacy groups.

"It has been a challenge to get donors on the Republican side to reengage," Spies said.

Seven months after the 2012 election, a lingering hangover among conservative donors has stalled efforts by right-leaning independent groups to fill their coffers. Wealthy contributors who dashed off six- and seven-figure checks last year are eying super PACs and other politically active groups more skeptically, frustrated that the hundreds of millions of dollars spent to elect Romney was for naught.

"There’s donor fatigue," said Fred Malek, a GOP operative wired into high-net-worth circles. "Everyone was in a frenzy of giving up until the November elections, and then everyone was sort of worn out on the whole process. It’s very hard to raise money after an election, especially after you lose."

Several Republican fund-raisers said they remain optimistic that the money spigot will reopen as the 2014 congressional elections approach. But this time around, donors are seeking to be more judicious about where they put their money, asking groups for detailed strategy and spending plans.

"At the moment, I’m kind of in a waiting and watching mode," said Howard Leach, an ambassador to France under President George W. Bush. In 2012, Leach gave $100,000 each to Restore Our Future and American Crossroads, the conservative super PAC cofounded by former Bush political strategist Karl Rove.

Post-election donor apathy is not limited to the political right. Organizing for Action, a nonprofit group launched by former advisers to President Obama to back his agenda, has halved a $50 million fund-raising goal for its first year after slower-than-expected fund-raising, according to people familiar with the group’s plans.

The decision came after the group reversed course and said it would not accept corporate funds.

But the pressure to bring in big checks is greater for pro-Republican groups, which have not been able to match the extensive small-donor network that was built by Obama’s campaign and that OFA is now drawing on. There are signs that donor reticence stems in part from dissatisfaction with the uneven track record of super PACs and opaque nonprofit groups, which can raise unlimited funds.

Many top contributors are now questioning the value of financing such organizations, which operate independently of candidates and party leaders.

Frank VanderSloot, chief executive of an Idaho company who gave abundantly to Romney and groups backing him, said he has concluded that it is not effective to finance tax-exempt advocacy groups that can spend only a limited amount on politics.
..................................................................................................................................

"Who cares?" -- the new Internet meme

..................................................................................................................................
#StandWithNancy
By Tina Dupuy, June 28, 2013

On Wednesday, the highest court in the nation decided the Clinton-era Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was unconstitutional. The same day, they sent California’s Proposition 8 back to the lower court. The result? A minority of Americans will now enjoy basic rights with a partner of their choosing without being unjustly double-taxed.

Most Americans’ lives will not change at all. It’s just your proverbial “bachelor” uncle is going to be making some arrangements with his long-term “roommate” involving more flowers than usual and possibly a large cake. That is, if he lives in one of the 13 states where it’s legal and he never chooses to move.

Edie Windsor, the 84-year-old widow at the center of the DOMA case said when she heard the ruling, “I cried, I cried!” Mike Huckabee, former Arkansas governor, current rightwing widget peddler, tweeted: “Jesus wept.”

Tears of happiness. Tears of Mike Huckabee’s imagination. It was an emotional day!

Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (whose obviously straight husband accepts taxpayer dollars to cure gays of homosexuality) said, “The Supreme Court, though they may think so, have not yet arisen to the level of God.”

Then as always a reporter had to ask the other side of the aisle what they think about what someone who’s financially invested in the stigmatism of homosexuality said.

Minority leader Nancy Pelosi, instantly and away from the mike shot back, “Who cares?”

Possibly the best answer the Beltway has seen since Thomas Jefferson called John Adams a hermaphrodite.

Yes, who cares? This should be the answer to all questions about Bachmann comments. Why does anyone have to come up with an articulate counterpoint to someone who calls on the media to “probe” Congress for those who are anti-America? What do you think, non-Republican?

Who cares?

The same goes for other formulaic right-wing agitators: Sarah Palin, Herman Cain, Rick Santorum, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin and Erik Erikson (hat tip to my Twitter pals for the suggestions). If their livelihood is saying offensive things so lazy journalists can write about that instead of—I don’t know—learning how to use Excel or cultivating sources—then we should stop caring. We really should. It’s junk food. It gets us going and then we crash. Empty, fat and sad.

This is the basic premise of our political discourse. He flame, she flame. It’s not balance. It’s baloney. It’s TMZ of aging flag pin pushers.

Crazy is captivating. Shameless is fascinating. And our politics is a tween Twitter war.

FWIW.

On the Daily Show, John Oliver, pinch-hitting for Jon Stewart over the summer, covered Sarah Palin’s triumphant return to Fox News after a five-month recess. “I think I’ve just realized something,” said the fill-in host. “This is exactly what she wants. Just because I walked into a turd supermarket doesn’t mean I have to buy anything.”

We can just ignore her, assured Oliver.

Yes we can. What do you think of what Sarah Palin thinks of what the President is thinking?

Who cares?

To paraphrase Eleanor Roosevelt: Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss what people who make money from saying crazy things say.

I stand with John. And I stand with Nancy.

Now, I’m aware “Pelosi” is a four-letter word in some parts of the country. Appalachian trail-nee South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford debated a life-size cutout of her when he was running for his old seat in Congress this past April. Instead of sparring with his opponent he enlarged a photo of the first female Speaker of the House and made a speech. He won the seat.

But Pelosi is right on this one.

What do people who marginalize gays think of these Supreme Court rulings?

Who cares?
..................................................................................................................................

Limbaugh as victim? BS!

..................................................................................................................................

Christian Pundits Say They're the Real Victims in the Gay Marriage Fight Now

By Elspeth Reeve, June 27, 2013

The Supreme Court struck down the Defense of Marriage Act as unconstitutional because, in part, the court found the law was created to express disapproval of a class of citizens: gay couples. But in doing so, the court created a new class of citizens to demonize: conservative Christians. At least, that's according to some conservative commentators and the religious right. 

"You will be made to care about gay marriage," RedState editor Erick Erickson writes, despite tweeting yesterday that he really didn't care all that much about the Supreme Court's decision on DOMA. "You must either fully embrace it or be shunned… you will not be allowed to accept that others can disagree on the issue due to their orthodox faith," he says. As Justice Antonin Scalia predicted in his dissent, Erickson thinks gay marriage will come to the states soon. He says, "Once that happens, there will be an even messier culture war designed to treat traditionalism as a noxious notion of a bygone era — the equivalent of Jim Crow." Fox News' Todd Starnes tweeted on Wednesday, "Won't be long before they outlaw the Bible as hate speech." And: "they're going after the preachers next." 

Like Erickson, The New York Times' Ross Douthat worries religious objections to gay marriage will come to look like 1960s-style Southern bigotry, unless gay-rights advocates have it in their heart to show some mercy: 

Unless something dramatic changes in the drift of public opinion, the future of religious liberty on these issues is going to depend in part on the magnanimity of gay marriage supporters — the extent to which they are content with political, legal and cultural victories that leave the traditional view of marriage as a minority perspective with some modest purchase in civil society, versus the extent to which they decide to use every possible lever to make traditionalism as radioactive in the America of 2025 as white supremacism or anti-Semitism are today.

(It might be worth noting that religious groups still have the right to exclude all kinds of people. Many churches won't marry couples if one partner hasn't converted. Some don't allow divorcees to remain in the church. Some churches don't allow nonbelievers inside their temples.) 

Naturally, it was Rush Limbaugh who really clarified the stakes. "The Supreme Court majority, in its ruling, actually uses language that insults and demonizes the people who support marriage as it's been since the beginning of time," Limbaugh said on his radio show. There's an angry mob out there, and they're going to start hunting people down. The hunted are not the usual victims of hate crimes. They're people like Rush and his listeners: 

I have often said that what animates people on the left -- what motivates them, what informs them -- is defeating us. No matter how, no matter what, no matter what it means. Their hatred for us overwhelms anything else. No matter the result, victory that includes impugning and demeaning and insulting us is what they seek. It's what makes them happy.

While wallowing in his victimhood, Limbaugh is still shocked at the reversal: 

Okay, so here's basically what happens. Everything's going along just fine, everything's cool, and then all of a sudden homosexuals say, "You know what? We want to be married," and the people who don't think that marriage is anything other than a man and a woman said, "No, no, no, no. Marriage is strictly between a man and a woman. That's what it means; it's what it's always meant."

 So the people who want the change then attack the defenders of the status quo as being hateful bigots, and the Supreme Court took up that argument and made their decision on that basis.

Everything's cool, and then all of a sudden, gay people want to be treated like everyone else. Those gays are such bigots.

..................................................................................................................................

You do it your way, we'll do it our way

..................................................................................................................................
Keep 'em separate-- good idea. 
..................................................................................................................................
Let's Get Religion Out of the Civil Marriage Business
By Gerald Watt, June 26, 2013

COMMENTARY | As a Catholic priest who has performed hundreds of marriages, I am disappointed by the Supreme Court's decision to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act and to leave the Proposition 8 law unresolved. The DOMA decision, in particular, drives a wedge between Christian and secular rights unnecessarily.

If I now decline to perform a same-sex marriage because my church, the Catholic Church, only allows marriage between a man and a woman, how long will it be before my civil privilege of witnessing marriages will be challenged?

I lived in Mexico for four years, where religious and civil marriage ceremonies are entirely separate. When I performed marriages there, I was usually presented with a certificate proving that the couple had first gone to the civil authorities to register their union. My church ceremony was not recognized by the state and the civil marriage was not sacramental and therefore not binding in the eyes of my church.

I am beginning to think Mexico has it right. Let's get religion out of the civil marriage business so that I and other ministers of religion can perform marriages that uphold the standard of one man, one woman, and one sacramental union. This is not to say that my church refuses membership to gays.

The Catholic Church teaches that same-sex attraction is not evil and that in regard to homosexuals, "every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided." (CCC --The Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 2358).

Notice the strange word "unjust." As religious people, we are convinced that marriage is a huge part of God's plan to share love and bring children into the world. We believe the core of family life is wife, husband and their children. We believe it is our right under the First Amendment to discriminate and limit marriage to members who are heterosexual.

Will the government invade our religion insisting that our schools teach that same-sex unions are marriages? Will our textbooks have to support this new definition of marriage? I hope not.

One thing is sure: Catholic Americans will have to show a new determination to embrace their brothers and sisters whose orientation is same-sex. We Catholics must be inclusive and sensitive in all of our dealings with our church members regardless of sexual orientation.

Maybe the Supreme Court's decisions today will force us Catholics (and other religious groups) to be clearer about our beliefs, especially those that are counter to the culture in which we live.

I would hope that the First Amendment will protect my right to practice my religion and live my faith.
..................................................................................................................................

Depends on whose ox is being gored, doesn't it?

............................................................

Yeah, who cares?

..................................................................................................................................
Nancy Pelosi wearily dismisses Michele Bachmann's DOMA statement
By Chris Gayomali, June 26, 2013



In the aftermath of today's historic Supreme Court decision to strike down the controversial Defense of Marriage Act, Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-Minn.) issued a statement on the matter:

"No man, not even a Supreme Court, can undo what a holy God has instituted," Ms. Bachmann said in a statement. "For thousands of years of recorded human history, no society has defended the legal standard of marriage as anything other than between man and woman." She said the court action "will undermine the best interest of children and the best interests of the United States." [MediaIte]

During a press conference on the high court's decision later in the day, a member of the audience asked House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) for her thoughts on Bachmann's statement. As you can see above, Pelosi responded with a weary, "Who cares?" Then she laughed.
..................................................................................................................................

No question, our political opponents ARE wrong!

..................................................................................................................................
On Turning Political Opponents into Moral Monsters
By Peter Wehner, June 26, 2013

I want to second what Jonathan has written about the Supreme Court’s two decisions related to same-sex marriage.

The worst possible outcome was that the high court would, in an exercise of raw judicial power, invent a constitutional right to gay marriage, forcing all 50 states to abide by it. We averted that outcome, which would have split the nation in a manner similar to what Roe v. Wade has done for two generations. It is in the nature of conservatism to be grateful when things that can go wrong don’t go wrong; and in this instance, we avoided a decision that would have had ruinous effects.

I also want to focus on one section of Justice Scalia’s dissent, in which he wrote this:

In the majority’s telling, this story is black-and-white: Hate your neighbor or come along with us. The truth is more complicated. It is hard to admit that one’s political opponents are not monsters, especially in a struggle like this one, and the challenge in the end proves more than today’s Court can handle. Too bad. A reminder that disagreement over something so fundamental as marriage can still be politically legitimate would have been a fit task for what in earlier times was called the judicial temperament. We might have covered ourselves with honor today, by promising all sides of this debate that it was theirs to settle and that we would respect their resolution. We might have let the People decide. But that the majority will not do.

It’s worth pausing over what Justice Scalia is saying here, which is that we’re all susceptible to weaving narratives that are black and white, that truth is often more complicated than that, and that it’s hard to admit that one’s political opponents are not monsters, especially in a struggle like this one.

I’ve written in the past about this phenomenon. We often deny to those with whom we disagree any benefit of the doubt, since we assume they see facts, events and justice just as we do. This makes their differing conclusions from us very nearly impossible to comprehend–and in turn makes it easy to characterize one’s opponents as pernicious. It would help our political culture if we understood that every one of us has an imperfect angle on reality; that our perception of justice is always at least a bit distorted; and that all of us see through a glass darkly and know things only in part. 

To be sure, this is not an argument against spirited and intense disagreements (I’ve been involved in a few of those myself over the years). Nor do I mean to imply that some people aren’t closer to perceiving truth and wisdom than others. It’s simply to say that Justice Scalia is correct; in politics, in judicial and theological disputes, and in life generally, it’s sometimes hard to admit that our political opponents, while they may be wrong, are not monsters. They are, in fact, fellow citizens. Which is probably worth remembering on days like this and in the aftermath of decisions like this. 
..................................................................................................................................

The battle for power, aided and abetted by the Supreme Court

..................................................................................................................................
The Third Political Branch
By E.J. Dionne, Jr., June 26, 2013

We prefer to think of the Supreme Court as an institution apart from politics and above its struggles. In the wake of this week’s decision gutting the heart of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, its actions must now be viewed through the prism of the conservative movement’s five-decade-long quest for power.

Liberals will still win occasional and sometimes partial victories, as they did Wednesday on same-sex marriage. But on issues directly related to political and economic influence, the court’s conservative majority is operating as a political faction, determined to shape a future in which progressives will find themselves at a disadvantage.

It’s true that the rulings voiding the Defense of Marriage Act and California’s Proposition 8 show how the liberalizing trend on some social issues is hard for even a conservative court to resist.

The Defense of Marriage Act was invalidated because one of the conservatives, Justice Anthony Kennedy, has joined much of the American public in an admirable move toward greater sympathy for gay and lesbian rights.

And the decision on California’s anti-gay marriage law was reached by an ideologically eclectic majority on procedural grounds. Five justices held that the case had been improperly presented because the state of California declined to appeal a lower court’s ruling voiding the law.

This led to a middle-of-the-road outcome. The court declined to declare a national, constitutional right to same-sex marriage, but did give gay-rights advocates a victory in California. By leaving the issue in the electoral sphere in most states, the court opened the way for further advances toward marriage equality,  since public opinion is shifting steadily in its favor, fueled by strong support among younger Americans.
The marriage rulings, however, should not distract from the arrogance of power displayed in the voting rights decision written by Chief Justice John Roberts. His opinion involved little constitutional analysis. He simply substituted the court’s judgment for Congress’ in deciding which states should be covered under the Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, which required voting rules in states with a history of discrimination to be precleared by the Justice Department.

The court instructed Congress to rewrite the law, even though these sophisticated conservatives certainly know how difficult this will be in the current political climate.

Whenever conservatives on the court have had the opportunity to tilt the playing field toward their own side, they have done so. And in other recent cases, the court has weakened the capacity of Americans to take on corporate power. The conservative majority seems determined to bring us back to the Gilded Age of the 1890s.

The voting rights decision should be seen as following a pattern set by the rulings in Bush v. Gore in 2000 and Citizens United in 2010.

Bush v. Gore had the effect of installing the conservatives’ choice in the White House and allowed him to influence the court’s subsequent direction with his appointments of Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito.

Citizens United swept aside a tradition going back to the Progressive Era—and to the Founders’ deep concern over political corruption—by vastly increasing the power of corporate and monied interests in the electoral sphere.

Tuesday’s Shelby County v. Holder ruling will make it far more difficult for African-Americans to challenge unfair electoral and districting practices. For many states, it will be a Magna Carta to make voting more difficult if they wish to.

The Constitution, through the 14th and 15th Amendments, gives Congress a strong mandate to offer federal redress against discriminatory and regressive actions by state and local governments. As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg noted in her scalding but very precise dissent, “a governing political coalition has an incentive to prevent changes in the existing balance of voting power.”

In less diplomatic language, existing majorities may try to fix election laws to make it far more difficult for their opponents to toss them from power in later elections. Republican legislatures around the country passed a spate of voter suppression laws disguised as efforts to guarantee electoral “integrity” for just this purpose.

Recall that when conservatives did not have a clear court majority, they railed against “judicial activism.” Now that they have the capacity to impose their will, many of the same conservatives defend extreme acts of judicial activism by claiming they involve legitimate interpretations of the true meaning of the Constitution.

It is an inconsistency that tells us all we need to know. This is not an argument about what the Constitution says. It is a battle for power. And, despite scattered liberal triumphs, it is a battle that conservatives are winning.
..................................................................................................................................

Davis: a Democratic heroine

..................................................................................................................................
Wendy Davis and the political power of the filibuster
By Chris Cillizza, June 26, 2013

Texas state Sen. Wendy Davis’ 11-hour long filibuster of an abortion bill on Tuesday riveted the country — at one point there were nearly 200,000 people following the livestream of her remarks — and proved, yet again, a very simple political fact: We are suckers for a good, old fashioned filibuster.

Davis’ talk-a-thon had it all. A female state Senator opposing legislation that would close the vast majority of abortion clinics in the Lone Star state. A cavalcade of women packing the chamber to support her. The remarkably strict rules governing filibusters in Texas which led to a dispute at one point over whether in putting on a back brace Davis had ceded the floor.

The confluence of those factors catapulted Davis from a member of the minority party in the Texas legislature into a national Democratic heroine in the space of just a few hours. And, it’s not the first time this year that we’ve seen a filibuster have that effect.

Back in early March, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul held the floor for more than 12 hours as he spoke out against the Obama Administration’s drone policies.  In the course of those 12 hours, the leading lights of the Republican party — including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) and 2016 frontrunner Marco Rubio (Fla.) — made their way to the floor to offer support for Paul.  By the time it was over, Paul, already a much-discussed 2016 presidential candidate, had become the talk of the GOP.

So, what makes filibusters so appealing and winning to the American public? Three big reasons.

First, Americans crave authenticity from politicians — and rarely get it.  The general sense among the public is that all politicians poll-test every position they take and rarely act out of genuine principle. That belief leads to massive cynicism about politicians’ motives and an increasing disconnect between politicians and the people they represent.

A filibuster is a living, breathing rejection of that cynicism.  It is, in the eyes of the public, a testimony to the politics of principle — that someone believes so strongly in an issue that they are willing to push themselves physically to stand up, literally, for it.

Second, Americans love an underdog.  We tend to think of ourselves as the little guy and so we are drawn to the David who is willing to pick up the stone and sling it at a political Goliath. Davis, a Democrat in strongly Republican Texas, typified that underdog status as, in an odd way, did Paul who chose an issue — drones — on which he stands on the opposite side of most Americans.

Third, a filibuster is political theater of the highest sort. And, no matter what people tell you, we LOVE political theater.  The idea of a single person standing for that long, without eating, without going to the bathroom etc. appeals to our desire for the dramatic.

Our bet: Judging by the response Davis and Paul drew for their filibusters, you might be seeing more of them coming to state legislatures and Congress in the near future. And, rest assured, you’ll be watching.
..................................................................................................................................

A victory for advocates of private property rights

..................................................................................................................................
Wow, are we going to see a spate of LTEs and comments from the south Thurston County property owners about this?
..................................................................................................................................
U.S. top court backs Florida property owner in land-use case
By Jonathan Stempel and Lawrence Hurley, June 25, 2013

In a victory for advocates of private property rights, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that governments may owe compensation to property owners who are denied permits to develop their land.

Critics said the 5-4 decision, with the conservative justices comprising the majority, will make it more difficult and costly for governments to promote development or enact environmental changes designed to help the public generally.

The court sided with Coy Koontz, a Florida man who said limits imposed by the St. Johns River Water Management District on how he used his land were a "taking" subject to compensation under the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

He was supported by conservative legal groups and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce business group, while the U.S. government, 19 states and wetlands conservation activists backed St. Johns.

"The decision is a very serious loss for local governments," said John Echeverria, a Vermont Law School professor specializing in land use and property rights who filed a brief for state and local government associations on St. Johns' behalf.

"It means requirements to pay fees or other payments as a condition of permit approvals will be subject to heightened scrutiny. That is a revolutionary change in the law," he added.

Koontz prevailed after a battle lasting more than 18 years that he and his late father waged over the development of their nearly 15-acre (six-hectare) parcel of land east of Orlando.

After Florida declared much of the parcel as protected wetlands, Koontz proposed to develop about a quarter of it and dedicate the rest for conservation, only to have local officials insist that he pay money to protect wetlands elsewhere.

Koontz said no, and a trial court awarded him $327,500 for being unable to use his property. Florida's highest court then threw this award out, saying that because St. Johns never issued a permit and Koontz never spent money, "nothing was ever taken."

Writing for the Supreme Court majority, Justice Samuel Alito said governments may not condition land-use permits on owners giving up the use of some property absent a "nexus" and "rough proportionality" between the demand and the effect of the proposed land use.

Alito said this rule applied even if the permit were denied, and the demand was for money.

"So long as the building permit is more valuable than any just compensation the owner could hope to receive for the right-of-way, the owner is likely to accede to the government's demand, no matter how unreasonable," Alito wrote.

"Extortionate demands of this sort frustrate the Fifth Amendment right to just compensation, and the unconstitutional conditions doctrine prohibits them," he added.

Joining Alito's opinion were Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas.

NO CARTE BLANCHE

Paul Beard, principal attorney at the Pacific Legal Foundation, who argued Koontz's appeal, said the decision raises the bar for governments to extract money from owners of land, homes or businesses, even if it may be to serve the public good.

"This case reaffirms the principle that government must show a connection between what it asks for and what the property owner wants to do," Beard said in an interview. "Governments don't have carte blanche any more to say, 'Give us $100,000 and we'll give you a permit.'"

The decision came two weeks after the Supreme Court cleared the way for California raisin growers to challenge, as an improper taking, a 1930s-era law requiring them to keep part of their crop off the market.

Justice Elena Kagan dissented from Tuesday's decision, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor.

Kagan elaborated on the idea that nothing had been taken from Koontz - a point that Scalia also made during January's oral argument.

"In what legal universe could a law authorizing damages only for a 'taking' also provide damages when (as all agree) no taking has occurred?" Kagan wrote. "I doubt that inside-out, upside-down universe is the state of Florida."

Kagan also said the decision "threatens to subject a vast array of land-use regulations, applied daily in states and localities throughout the country, to heightened constitutional scrutiny. I would not embark on so unwise an adventure."

The case is Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 1447.
..................................................................................................................................