To Participate on Thurstonblog

email yyyyyyyyyy58@gmail.com, provide profile information and we'll email your electronic membership


Sunday, August 31, 2014

"... some voters still prefer to whisper, supporting candidates with tens and twenties instead of hundreds and thousands."

...................................................................................................................................................................
Small donors harbor big dreams
By Meg Heckman, August 28, 2014

Big money talks in politics, but some voters still prefer to whisper, supporting candidates with tens and twenties instead of hundreds and thousands. And, as conversations with local small-money donors reveal, those contributions are about a lot more than winning at the polls this fall.

Take, for instance, the Massachusetts gubernatorial race where recent reports from all the major candidates show dozens of donations smaller than $100. The sums may be small, but the people behind those dollars have big goals: They see their contributions as protests against a system overrun with wealth and as acts of hope that, someday, things will change for the better.

“Big money is ruining politics,” said Kimberly Donlon, a Beverly attorney who’s supporting Democrat Martha Coakley. “We want people who are of modest means to be able to participate in the process. I don’t know if my $25 will ever make that point, but what the heck.”

Small-money donors selected at random from July finance reports tended to describe themselves in interviews as active in their local communities. They compared political contributions to volunteering in the local schools, serving on a board, or financially supporting local charities.

“It’s another way of involving people in civic life,” said Stephen Whitfield, a professor of American Studies at Brandeis University and supporter of Democrat Steve Grossman. “It’s one way of making sure I have some kind of emotional role that presumably enhances the process.”

Whitfield, a Democrat from Lexington, has given a few hundred dollars to Grossman this year, including a $50 contribution at the end of July. He knows Grossman socially, something he says has made him more willing to open his checkbook, but he’s also impressed with what he describes as the candidate’s “liberal, progressive, and decent values.”

Over the years, Whitfield has made modest contributions to a number of Democratic candidates, making him part of a trend political scientists are watching closely. The phenomenon of small-money donations has piqued the interest of academics and political operatives alike.

The Washington, D.C.-based Campaign Finance Institute has tracked such donations at the state level for the last few election cycles. In 2010, 6 percent of donations to the candidates running for Massachusetts governor were less than $100, and 12 percent were between $101 and $250. The largest chunk of money — about 37 percent — came from donors who gave between $501 and $999.



Political campaigns, meanwhile, are leveraging technology that allows voters to donate money as easily as they’d plant a political sign on their front lawn. It’s a tactic that’s working, at least according to Catherine Bayliss, a Democrat from Gloucester supporting Coakley because of her long political career. She gave $25 online last month and says it couldn’t have been simpler.

“In some ways, it’s a little too easy,” she said. “If I had to sit down, find my checkbook, find a stamp, find the address to send things to, I probably wouldn’t do it very often.”

Online donations make it more likely that voters will see a TV commercial or read an e-mail and decide to give to a candidate they like. That’s what happened to Robert Berger, who liked Republican Charlie Baker’s TV ads and decided to give $30 to the campaign.

“Everybody’s $30 adds up,” said Berger, who lives in Northborough and has voted for both Republicans and Democrats in the past. “It will pay for a couple of postage stamps. It will help pay a phone bill.”

Berger hopes his contribution has less tangible benefits, too. He’d like to see more “common” people run for office, something he says might make politicians more willing to work together.

“It’s a shame that we’ve lost the ability to compromise,” he said.

Paul Agostino, who is also backing Baker, thinks modest donations like the $25 he gave this summer are often motivated by frustration toward longtime politicians.

“I’m sick and tired of the thieves that have been in there for years,” said Agostino, a retired police officer living in Wilmington. “This Mr. Baker, he comes across reasonable, and he wants to clean up the system.”

Small-money donors may be hopeful that their contributions will change the relationship between money and politics, but they’re also aware that politics is competitive and the campaigns they don’t like are also pushing hard for donations both big and small.

“It’s an absolutely shameful and pointless system,” said Whitfield. “But within that context I feel that the side that I’m aligned with has to, as far as is possible, keep up.”
...................................................................................................................................................................

Aren't we happy that Jindal the flip-flopper isn't our governor? YEP!

...................................................................................................................................................................
Governor's politics costing us money
By Mike Hasten, August 31, 2014

Many of us are not surprised and really have no problem with Gov. Bobby Jindal taking a political stand on a controversial subject such as Common Core.

He loved it, and now he hates it.

Back when he loved it, it was a popular thing to do because he saw it as the next best thing for education. Louisiana students were going to climb to new heights and show the rest of the country that they are as smart as anybody's kids.

Now that he hates it, it's a conspiracy by the federal government to take over our schools.

That stand plays well with some groups, especially those who forked out $18 to $24 per ticket to hear Glenn Beck and other anti-Common Core folks go on about it for two hours at movie theaters across the country.

But now the governor's politics are costing us Louisiana taxpayers big bucks. He's taken it to federal court suing President Barack Obama charging that his education department forced states to sign up to use Common Core when they took money dangled on a string known as No Child Left Behind.

The problem with that argument is that everything was voluntary and the federal government did not develop Common Core. States did it. No state was forced to take the money. No state was forced to adopt Common Core. Governors had to apply and sign paperwork making those commitments.

Whose signature is on those papers? Bobby Jindal's.

In the governor's fight with the state Department of Education and the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education over using a test to measure the success of Common Core is an issue of a no-bid, single source contract with a contractor to supply test questions and security.

The Jindal administration argues that such a contract is bad.

Yet when choosing an attorney to represent the governor in his legal battles, the administration signed the same kind of no-bid contract with the governor's former executive counsel, Jimmy Faircloth.

A review of state agency contracts by the Associated Press in April 2013 showed the Faircloth Law Group was paid at least $1.1 million in 2012 and the first quarter of 2013 for handling about two dozen cases across state government.

All were no-bid contracts, meaning no other law firms were considered.

Faircloth was hired by Jindal to be his executive counsel when he took office in January 2008. He and his law firm donated $25,000 to Jindal's gubernatorial campaigns, according to Board of Ethics records.

The same board fined Faircloth $1,000 in 2011 for taking a job representing the Louisiana Tax Commission six months after leaving the governor's office. He was required to wait a year. He canceled the contract when questions were raised, but the board still assessed the fine and then suspended it on the condition he violated no other laws.

Faircloth's most prominent cases involved defending the statewide voucher program and altering teacher tenure and pay policies. Both went to the Louisiana Supreme Court and were ruled unconstitutional.

Jindal and the Legislature worked out ways to implement both laws that avoided the constitutional issues.

Faircloth also was hired to handle the LSU Board of Supervisors' closed-door presidential search, public records challenges, a transportation project, civil service disputes and cases involving the state self-insurance office.

He and other attorneys who have been hired by the governor's office to defend his stance on Common Core in state and federal courts stand to pocket as much as $275,000.

Faircloth's share is up to $75,000 for the state court proceedings and as much as $50,000 for the federal court case.

The Division of Administration, Office of Contractual Review and state officials who supervise those departments have hired Baton Rouge lawyer Greg Murphy and the Long Law Firm to defend them in a lawsuit filed by parents teachers and a charter school group over their decision to block purchasing a year-end test. Each firm could make as much as $75,000, but it could be cheaper if the case is settled. If it drags on all the way to the Supreme Court, that could mean even more money.
...................................................................................................................................................................

"This is going to help define the national narrative for the 2014 campaign: these tapes make 100% clear that the modern Republican party is controlled by the Kochs and their billionaire friends."

...................................................................................................................................................................
The Meaning of the Koch Brothers Tapes: "I Don't Know Where We'd Be Without You"
By Mike Lux, August 30, 2014

One of the classic strategies for politicians caught saying embarrassing things is to use the old "there's nothing to see here, keep moving" ploy. Republicans tried that at first when Romney was caught on the 47% tape, but it didn't work for them because it wasn't only what Romney said that was so offensive, it was the context: speaking to a bunch of wealthy donors about all those greedy seniors and poor people.

Sounds familiar.

The spectacle of Mitch McConnell, Joni Ernst, Cory Gardner, Tom Cotton, the head of the Republican Governors Association (and other politicians who were on the agenda or in attendance) kowtowing to Charles and David Koch and other billionaires gathered at the luxury resort. All the money spent on security ($870,000 to rent the hotel exclusively not to mention their own private security detail) to keep the meeting as secretive as possible. And Mitch McConnell, the most powerful man in the Republican party as the Senate Minority Leader, giving a speech outlining how his entire career, and the party's future policy strategy, were all in service to the Koch agenda. The combination will be as definitional to this campaign as the 47% video was to 2012.

And this won't just make an impact in the four Senate races which have gotten all the publicity so far. This is going to help define the national narrative for the 2014 campaign: these tapes make 100% clear that the modern Republican party is controlled by the Kochs and their billionaire friends. The Kochs invite the most powerful party leaders, the most important candidates, to their "seminars," and they all come running. These politicians thank the Kochs and their billionaire friends profusely, talk about how they wouldn't be where they are today without them, and then tell them how they will battle on their behalf if they win.

Mitch McConnell, speaking of the Republican party, said, "I want to start by thanking you, Charles and David, for the important work you're doing. I don't know where we'd be without you." Joni Ernst made absolutely clear, multiple times, that she would never had a chance to win her primary without the donors in the room. Tom Cotton thanked the billionaire financiers for reviving the Republican party in his state, and Cory Gardner begged them to invest heavily not only in Colorado but in the entire Rocky Mountain region, which was "ripe" for them to come in and exploit.

Notice that these candidates come from all over the country - the South, the West, the Midwest. The Koch donor network has a broad and deep reach. They control the Republican party from sea to shining sea.

The Koch brothers have made clear their agenda. They don't believe in climate change, and want no regulations on their oil companies. They want their taxes reduced to almost nothing since they, after all, are the "job creators." They oppose reform and regulation of Wall Street. They don't believe in a minimum wage, or unemployment compensation, or student loans, or Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. They think public education should be privatized and turned over to the corporate sector.

And what the 47% recording, and the Koch conference recordings, confirm with 100% certainty, is that this is the same agenda, with the same values, shared by Republican politicians.

The Kochs and their millionaire/billionaire friends in that luxury hotel in Orange County, California are now in control of the Republican party- lock, stock, and barrel. And that is the narrative, confirmed on tape, of the 2014 election. Mitch McConnell is right: the GOP would be nowhere without the Koch brothers. The Republicans know where their bread is buttered, and will dance with the ones who brung 'em.
...................................................................................................................................................................

"The candidates make the case for overturning Citizens United and getting big money out of politics better than we ever could."

...................................................................................................................................................................
Seven Disturbing Quotes From the Koch Summit Speeches
By Jay Riestenberg, August 29, 2014

Today, The Nation and The Huffington Post published speeches from Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and three other GOP Senate candidates, Rep. Tom Cotton (AR), state Sen. Joni Ernst (IA), and Rep. Cory Gardner (CO), at a secretive donor summit hosted in June by billionaire industrialists Charles and David Koch.

The candidates make the case for overturning Citizens United and getting big money out of politics better than we ever could.

Check out these samples, with our analysis:
"All Citizens United did was to level the playing field for corporate speech.... We now have, I think, the most free and open system we've had in modern times." – Mitch McConnell
The "playing field" surely is not level for American voters -- Citizens United invited corporations and special interests to spend freely to amplify their speech and drown out the rest of us. That's the opposite of "free and open".
"The worst day of my political life was when President George W. Bush signed McCain-Feingold into law in the early part of his first Administration." – Mitch McConnell
McConnell has long been the chief opponent of the historic McCain-Feingold campaign finance law in 2002, which Common Cause helped pass. We never knew he took it so personally.
"The exposure to this group and to this network and the opportunity to meet so many of you -- that really started my trajectory." – Joni Ernst
Senate candidate Ernst, running for an open seat in Iowa, credits the Kochs' political network for her rise; it makes you wonder how she'll pay them back if elected.
"We understand that a number of you are in the retail business... You really would prefer to keep you confidentially. We are not pressing you to do anything that's beyond – for your survival." – Koch Industries executive Kevin Gentry
Here, one of the Kochs' top fundraisers assures the roomful of millionaires and billionaires that their political contributions can remain secret. By way of background, you should know that Gentry formerly served as an adviser to former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell, now on trial on charges that he failed to disclose gifts from a well-heeled supporter.
"And we looked at the House of Representatives – you all pooled your resources - $100 million dollars in 2010. Very prioritized, and it was very strategic, very systematic. And with your help, we were successful." – Americans for Prosperity President Tim Phillips
Phillips takes credit for flipping control the U.S. House in 2010 without mentioning any voter who cast a ballot in that election; behind closed doors, everyone knows that special interest money speaks louder than people.
"I want to start by thanking you, Charles and David, for the important work you're doing. I don't know where we'd be without you." – Mitch McConnell
It's no secret that McConnell has relied on the Koch brothers (Charles and David) in the past. The "important work" McConnell refers to is their use of dark money groups to further their political and economic interests.
"I'm really proud of this Supreme Court and the way they've been dealing with the issue of First Amendment political speech." – Mitch McConnell
After Citizens United and McCutcheon, which opened the floodgates to unlimited political spending, there's little to be "proud" of when it comes to this Supreme Court and political speech.

In this comments [sic], Sen. McConnell also criticized Common Cause for supporting public financing legislation that would truly level the playing field between voters and big-money special interests, like the Kochs.

After these revelations, it's all the more important that we pass the Democracy for All amendment, which would let Congress place sensible regulations on campaign spending. The Senate votes on September 8. Contact your senator today.
...................................................................................................................................................................

Saturday, August 30, 2014

Russell and others in Ferguson, Missouri have "joined forces with established activist groups ... from across the state and country, crafting a list of demands and studying policy, political science and past social movements."

...................................................................................................................................................................
Ferguson turns protest into political power
By Trymaine Lee, August 30, 2014

Before Michael Brown’s death, all Taurean Russell wanted was to finish college, teach history and coach high school football. But that changed August 9, when photos of Brown’s lifeless body, shot by a cop and left sprawled in the street, kept appearing on social media.

“I saw a dead body on my timeline. It kept appearing hour after hour and somebody said ‘I hope somebody gets up and does something about it,” said Russell, 30. “Then I heard his mother on TV say, ‘Why did they kill my son.’”

Those words triggered something in Russell. He rallied friends and they headed down to the Ferguson Police Department looking for answers. They didn’t get any so they went back the next day and the day after.

Russell and others incensed by Brown’s killing and the lack of charges against Darren Wilson, the officer who shot Brown, have grown both more impatient and more organized. They’ve joined forces with established activist groups and other youth leaders from across the state and country, crafting a list of demands and studying policy, political science and past social movements.

“You can’t have patience,” Russell said on a recent afternoon. “We been stuck on the same page in history for the last 60 years, patience is gone. Local police came and said y’all need to leave, we stayed. They shot tear gas, we stayed. They shot rubber bullets we stayed and got stronger. They gave us a curfew, we stayed all night.”

As weeks of unrest in Ferguson have cooled and as a huge national media presence recedes, local policy makers, residents and a new crop of social activists will likely be left to pick up the pieces and move the city forward.

[major snippage]

Since being thrust into action by Brown’s death, Taurean Russell said he’s found his true calling.

“I haven’t had a day off yet,” said Russell.

Russell has become a core member of a group called Hands Up United, which has joined other groups including the Organization for Black Struggle and the Missourians Organizing for Reform and Empowerment to issue a list of demands including Wilson’s immediate arrest and more accountability for police practices.

For Russell, the mission is deeply personal. He and other residents have detailed a long, strained history between the many local black communities that make up an inner-ring of suburbs outside of St. Louis city and the mostly white police departments that patrol them.

State data on police stops show deep disparities in how often blacks are targeted for traffic stops compared to non-whites. The stops often result in traffic tickets, that when left unpaid lead to additional fines, warrants and sometimes jail time.

Russell said a number of traffic tickets led to warrants for his arrest which went on his record and prevented him from finding employment in any of the local high schools, which he’d hope to become a teacher and coach.

“My traffic tickets and bench warrants wouldn’t let me work in the public schools,” he said. “My dreams were crushed over something that could have been avoided or if the system wasn’t as racialized as it is.”

Russell said the old guard and traditional civil rights organizations don’t resonate with a younger, brasher generation of activists.

“A lot of these organizations aren’t on the forefront. They came in for the photo op and pulled out. The people who are actually grassroots and anchored here, people know we are here helping and are going to be here for the long run,” he said.
...................................................................................................................................................................

An ingenious method of protesting corporate money in politics

...................................................................................................................................................................
The Lockn' Festival:  http://www.locknfestival.com/
...................................................................................................................................................................
Political-message movement to have presence at Lockn'
By Rachael Smith, August 29, 2014

Messages stamped on the dollars read: “Not to Be Used for Bribing Politicians,” “The System Isn’t Broken, It’s Fixed,” “Corporations are Not People” and “Not To Be Used for Buying Elections.”

Ben and Jerry’s co-founder Ben Cohen has little to do with the multimillion-dollar ice cream franchise now but is still on the radar with a new movement that will be showcased at this year’s Lockn’ Festival, coming up next week, Sept. 4 through 7, at Oak Ridge Estate in Arrington.

In 2012, Cohen launched the Stamp Stampede campaign, and its key component is the Amend-O-Matic Stamp Mobile. The colorful Rube Goldberg-like machine stamps a message onto dollar bills as part of a political campaign.

Cohen said the campaign is part of a large movement working to get money out of politics in the United States.

“It’s based on a growing understanding in people’s minds that the root cause of most of the problems in terms of how our country is run is because of some recent Supreme Court decisions,” he said. “The Supreme Court has said that corporations are people and they are entitled to all the Bill of Rights.”

But is it legal? Cohen says yes, this is just “decorating your dollars.”

“The way the law reads, you cannot cut or punch holes, glue, staple, mutilate, cannot change the denomination or advertise business, other than that its free speech,” he said.

In 1974, Congress passed amendments to the Federal Election Act that allowed the federal government to regulate campaign contributions and spending. However, in the 1976 case Buckley v. Valeo, the Supreme Court struck down many of those provisions, ruling that spending money to influence elections is a form of free speech and is constitutionally protected. In Buckley, justices also ruled there would be no limitations on candidate spending by campaigns or individuals.

Cohen believes these rulings have led to money drowning out the voices of the people and claims that money is not speech and corporations are not people.

In the 2010 case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court upheld the First Amendment, stating that political spending is a form of free speech and the government has no right to stop corporations from spending money to support or oppose candidates during elections. However, those corporations cannot give money directly to campaigns but can support them through advertising.

“Federal law prohibits corporations and unions from using their general treasury funds to make independent expenditures ... for speech expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate,” Justice Anthony Kennedy stated in his 2010 opinion.

Cohen believes the movement is important because unlike traditional protests that happen once and then are over, the Stamp Mobile is capable of producing a long-lasting movement that potentially could be seen by millions of people as the stamped bills return to circulation.

“The Stampede is one small part of that movement,” he said. “We’re building the movement by stamping messages on paper currencies, and essentially it’s one way that people can make their voice heard. Usually in our democracy, people sign onto a petition, hoping the target of the petition will see it. This, on the other hand, is a very public petition stating what you want and stating it very loudly.”

While at Burning Man Festival in Nevada, Cohen heard of Lockn’ and someone mentioned to him that the Stamp Mobile should be at the festival.

Lockn’ attendees can try the free Amend-O-Matic and watch their dollar go through a roller-coaster-like machine until a message is stamped onto their bill.
...................................................................................................................................................................

"... their limited thinking, underhandedness, condescension, arrogance and inflated sense of superiority simply ran in the family and was clearly drilled into them in their formative years."

...................................................................................................................................................................
RABBLE ROUSER: Koch brothers deserve to be vilified
By Harry S. Nydick, August 27, 2014

Re: “Koch brothers are better than Soros” (Letters, Aug. 17)

In response to the character assassination in the Sunday paper, I am rather surprised that the Courier-Post — though an obvious right-leaning media source — would publish such unsubstantiated information and simultaneously permit her to suggest to the world that the Koch brothers are two very nice people.

Via a variety of searches online, I have been unable to verify virtually anything she said in her character assassination of George Soros. However, I am opposed to all billionaires trying to control elections with their money. In fact, I would prefer to see federally funded federal elections, with no private funding (not even self-funding) permitted.

Conversely, David Koch, as far back as 1980, was quoted as follows, in New York Magazine: “We’d like to abolish the Federal Elections Commission and all the limits on campaign spending anyway.”

With a combined worth of over $80 billion, from a business left them by their father, Fred, the brothers fund a number of hate-spreading organizations such as Heritage Foundation, Americans for Prosperity, Heartland Institute and others.

Likely, these are the main charitable organizations to which the letter writer alludes when she cites their philanthropic giving.

They do have in common with the Koch brothers a desire to end Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid; cut educational expenditures; and greatly reduce the already relatively low tax rates on the super-wealthy. In fact, their actual stated preference would be to completely do away with the federal income tax and to replace it with a variety of taxes that would predominantly hit the lower and middle classes and leave the wealthy unscathed.

Last year, their support of the fringe organizations above, combined with donations to campaigns of far-right politicians, totaled $300 million. This year that number has already exceeded $400 million, and we haven’t yet hit the heavy pre-election advertising period.

So, basically, what we have in the Koch brothers is a family that wants to destroy the very investment programs (Social Security and Medicare) that virtually all of us have paid into and anticipate needing eventually. They want to eliminate aid to our most needy citizens and to cut education because, after all, many uneducated people would actually believe the drivel their hate organizations spread. And, of course, their primary motivation is to earn billions every year but not have to pay any taxes to help fuel the very society that has enabled them to profit so greatly from the business handed down to them by their father.

It is understandable that the brothers feel as they do. After all, their father, Fred, was one of 12 founding fathers of the right-wing hate group known as the John Birch Society. So their limited thinking, underhandedness, condescension, arrogance and inflated sense of superiority simply ran in the family and was clearly drilled into them in their formative years.

So, when the letter writer wonders why the Koch brothers are considered “un-American, immoral and dishonest,” it is likely because they act like — and truly believe — their money makes them better than everyone else and gives them an unsupported sense of superiority and license.

Because they would use my money against me, I, for one, will never again purchase a single product produced by any of the companies they own, nor consumer products they market (such as Marcal; Vanity Fair; Sparkle towels; Angel Soft toilet paper; Brawny towels; Dixie paper plates, bowls, cups and napkins, and anything else with the Georgia Pacific name on it.

Then there are a vast number of companies whose names would be unrecognizable to the public. However, one of their main sources of income is from the oil and gas industry. They are not only owners of major fracking companies but of gasoline pipelines as well — and are one of the major investors in the disputed Keystone XL pipeline.

Oh, and for the uninformed, since 1986, there has not been a single U.S. oil pipeline that has not had at least one substantial leak. The combined effect of those leaks amounts to more than 500 deaths, over 2,300 severe injuries and roughly $7 billion in property damage.

That is just one aspect of Koch Industries’ financial kingdom. So perhaps the letter writer can understand now why people vilify the Koch brothers — because they are destroying our climate, our lives and our country. And even if everything she says about Soros is true, it pales in comparison to the actions of these would-be kings, the Koch brothers.
...................................................................................................................................................................

"It is hard to take the politics out of it ..." Since this is Texas, that will never happen.

...................................................................................................................................................................
Analysis: The Hunt for a New Home for Political Watchdog
By Ross Ramsey, August 29, 2014

Suppose we all agree that investigations and prosecutions of corruption by state officials ought to be taken away from the local prosecutors in Travis County.

Skip to the next question: Is there a place where political cases could be handled without any smell of politics?

Gov. Rick Perry’s indictment on charges that he abused his official powers has reignited the perennial argument over who monitors the periodic criminal behavior of politicians and bureaucrats in Texas. The state has put that power in the Travis County district attorney’s office, which has a public integrity unit partly financed by the state to handle tax and insurance cases, as well as those involving accusations of misbehavior by state officials.

Lately, conservatives have complained that prosecutors and grand juries in Travis County — the seat of state government and a Democratic stronghold in the middle of a reliably Republican state — are out to get Republicans, trying to wrest power they cannot win in state elections.

That has been part of the governor’s response to his indictment, along with his argument that he was trying to unseat an unfit district attorney — Rosemary Lehmberg — after her drunken driving arrest in 2013.

Legislators have considered this before, most recently on the heels of her arrest and the viral videos of her terrible, horrible, very bad day at the jail in the wake of her traffic stop.

They did not get anywhere, largely because of the questions about where to shift these duties. A 2013 proposal would have moved the operation to the attorney general’s office, an obvious idea that quickly runs into objections.

In Texas, the attorney general is a statewide elected official, independent of the governor and other officials even if they run as members of the same party. It is a reliable steppingstone to higher office, enough so to inspire an adage that AG stands for “Almost Governor.”

The current attorney general, Greg Abbott, is the Republican nominee for governor. His predecessor, John Cornyn, is the state’s senior U.S. senator.

Two of the last four state attorneys general were indicted on charges related to their actions in office, one by prosecutors in Travis County and the other by federal prosecutors.

The first, Jim Mattox, a Democrat, was accused of commercial bribery and won acquittal in a trial. He served two terms as attorney general, earning an image as the junkyard dog of Texas politics, before falling short in races for governor and the Senate.

The second, Dan Morales — also a Democrat — went to prison after he was convicted of falsifying tax returns and loan documents. The case grew out of a federal investigation of his dealings, as attorney general, with the lawyers who were representing the state in litigation against the tobacco industry. Morales also ran for governor, unsuccessfully, before the legal troubles caught up with him.

The first issue is whether the state’s politicians want to place oversight of their behavior in the hands of ambitious colleagues, and whether an investigation of politicians by politicians would somehow look less political than the current setup. Then there is the evident need to keep a watchdog’s eyes on whoever might be the attorney general.

“It’s a very good question,” said state Rep. Phil King, R-Weatherford, the author of the last attempt to relocate the operation to the attorney general. “That’s probably why we have never been able to move it.”

The Texas Ethics Commission, a bipartisan panel that handles campaign finance and filings and has the ability to refer items of interest to prosecutors, is a possibility. King suggested the Department of Public Safety, calling public integrity a law enforcement issue, or letting local prosecutors across the state handle the cases, drawing on a state fund for financial help when they need it.

It is hard to take the politics out of it, but the governor’s indictment has reignited the debate.

“We’re just trying to design something as apolitical as possible,” King said. “It’s hard. But you’ve got a single person in a single county in charge of this, and there is more will now to diffuse that power.”
...................................................................................................................................................................

Seattle’s Central Co-op said "... It is clear that your company has lost support from our community and that people are showing preference to other product lines." Same for other co-ops, and good for all of them.

...................................................................................................................................................................
Two Months On From Hobby Lobby Ruling, Grocery Co-ops Dump Eden Foods Products From Shelves
By Clare O'Connor, August 29, 2014

Two months ago, the national news cycle seemed dominated by the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby ruling and its ensuing backlash.

Like Hobby Lobby, organic food company Eden Foods sued the U.S. Government over Obamacare’s employee birth control mandate, but got off comparatively lightly.

The Michigan-based natural products outfit avoided the same months-long media glare, rallies and protests that plagued Hobby Lobby after SCOTUS ruled the DIY company could cite religious reasons for not covering all forms of birth control on worker insurance plans.

Eden Foods did not, however, escape without a boycott effort by some of the country’s best-known regional grocery co-ops.

Madison, Wisconsin’s two-store Willy Street co-op this week announced it’d be removing nine of Eden Foods’ popular products from its shelves after a comment period. 57 per cent of shoppers — all of whom own a stake in the grocery business — wanted all Eden Foods items dropped from Willy Street.

The co-op’s director Kirstin Moore wrote a letter to Eden Foods founder and sole owner Michael Potter, a devout Catholic and the arbiter of the company’s corporate values.

“Please stop allowing personal values to get in the way of the common ground you share with your diverse array of customers and help us return our focus to the high quality of your food,” she wrote.

Moore added that Eden Foods, which itself started life as a co-op in 1969, “ought to understand how some of our consumers may draw the conclusion that today’s Eden Foods — the Eden Foods that filed suit to retain control over how certain employees may use the healthcare compensation Eden Foods provides — has fallen short of our cooperative values.”

San Francisco’s 40-year-old Other Avenues co-op has opted to remove all traces of Eden Foods from its store, writing in an open letter to customers:
“While we appreciate Eden Foods commitment to other political causes such as the non-GMO movement, we are saddened by their decision to fight against providing basic reproductive health services to their own employees, and cannot in good conscience continue to carry their products so long as they continue to oppose this fundamental right.”
Seattle’s Central Co-op has removed about 80% of its Eden Foods stock from shelves, but not until shoppers had already started voting against Eden Foods by buying products by competitors:
“We…always encourage our owners and customers to vote with their dollars by supporting companies that they respect. This is what we suggested our community do when outcry arose over your action last year; and recent renewed interest in your case was cause for us to review sales of Eden products and explore what options we might have that equally (or better) reflect our product guidelines. During this review we found that our community has indeed been voting with their dollars and that 80 percent of the Eden products on our shelves have failed to keep up with the sales of competing products. It is clear that your company has lost support from our community and that people are showing preference to other product lines.”
Other regional grocery co-ops which have dropped some or all of Eden Foods’ product line include Glut Food in Mount Rainier, Maryland and North Carolina’s Weaver Street Market in the town of Carrboro.

The issue remains up for discussion at Brooklyn’s famous Park Slope Food Co-op. At their most recent meeting this week, shareholders decided to send a letter of protest and concern to Eden Foods before making a decision. At Montana’s Bozeman Food Co-op, owner-member votes on the subject are still being tallied.

Eden Foods has been proactive in its attempts to ensure its organic and natural products stay on shelves at as many independent grocers as possible.

In July, the company sent a letter to members of the Independent Natural Food Retailers Association, a consortium of 160 grocery stores and small chains nationwide.

In the mailing, Eden Foods explained its healthcare stance without mentioning contraceptives or birth control specifically. The letter urged grocers to consider the company’s healthy, organic, GMO-free wares above all else.

So far, larger nationwide grocery chains remain on board with Eden Foods.

In July, a spokesperson for Whole Foods, Eden’s biggest supplier, told Forbes that it’ll keep selling the Michigan company’s organic goods, but that shoppers have every right to “vote with their dollars.”
...................................................................................................................................................................

Friday, August 29, 2014

The good citizens of Tempe, AZ, "... voted for equality and fairness, something the politicians we elect are supposed to protect and ensure but often do not."

...................................................................................................................................................................
Where they voted for something better than politicians
By EJ Montini, August 29, 2014

Most of the more than 700,000 Arizonans who participated in Tuesday's primary elections cast ballots for Republicans and Democrats.

In the city of Tempe, more than 11,000 residents (according to the city's latest count) did something much better. They voted for equality and fairness, something the politicians we elect are supposed to protect and ensure but often do not.

Every once in a while good citizens set them straight.

This was one of those times.

Roughly 70 percent of voters in Tempe decided on Tuesday that their community would become the first Arizona city to ban discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender city workers, as well as military veterans.

The measure was called Proposition 475.

It amended the city charter to read: "No person shall be appointed to, removed from, favored in any way, discriminated against with respect to any city position because of race, color, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion, national origin, familial status, age, political affiliation, disability, or United States military veteran status, except as such favor may be authorized by law."

The measure was not without opposition.

The Center for Arizona Policy, which wields considerable influence at the State Legislature was very much against the change.

Some months back Tempe's city council approved an ordinance that prohibited discrimination against the LGBT community when it comes to housing, employment and public accommodations, such as restaurants and hotels. With exceptions for churches and social organizations.

Phoenix's city council passed a similar ordinance, with similar opposition from the Center for Arizona Policy, which opposed it by using scare tactics and calling it the "bathroom bill."

The center tried that same tactic with Tempe, sending out an "action alert" to its followers that read in part:

"If you missed it, hidden in that list of protected classes are two notable additions – gender identity, and sexual orientation – that, if put into the Tempe Charter, continue the dangerous approach of elevating new supposed 'rights' for some, while at the same time trampling on the constitutionally-protected religious freedom rights for all… As a practical matter, the main reason to vote no on this bad proposition is that it will make it much more difficult to undo the 'bathroom bill' ordinance passed by the Tempe City Council earlier this year."

The fear-mongering and prejudices touted by groups like the Center for Arizona Policy will disappear within a generation. Those who spew anti-equality ideas will become public policy dinosaurs. Just like those who are trying so hard to prevent same-sex marriage.

They're on the wrong side of history and morality, as it was with those who tried to keep women and African Americans from voting. As it was with the many struggles in America when we've tried to live up to our core values.

Sometimes, good citizens (and some good politicians) must set us straight.

The city council from tiny Bisbee set the standard for Arizona communities dealing with same-sex marriage.

Years ago, Arizona became the first (and only) state to approve a Martin Luther King Jr. holiday by way of statewide vote.

Emotions and prejudices cloud perceptions about some issues, so much so that there are times when the opponents of change unwittingly make the argument for that change. That happened in Tempe with the Center for Arizona Policy.

The center's "action alert" urging voters to cast ballots against Tempe's charter change ended: "Freedom is for all Americans, and Tempe's laws shouldn't pick and choose who gets freedom and who doesn't."

Yes. Exactly.
...................................................................................................................................................................

"... the difference is simple. The political world relies on coercion. Most of the nation prefers cooperation."

...................................................................................................................................................................
Vox Explanation Highlights Gap Between Political World and Everybody Else
By Scott Rasmussen, August 29, 2014

A recent column on Vox.com may have inadvertently highlighted the gap between the nation’s political elites and the rest of the nation. Vox is an “explanatory journalism” site founded by former Washington Post columnist and blogger Ezra Klein.

When Fox News’ parent company briefly flirted with buying Time Warner and CNN, Vox appropriately deemed it worthy of comment. They produced a nine-question Q&A feature by Matthew Yglesias.

At the time this feature was put together, Time Warner had already rejected the offer from Rupert Murdoch’s firm. One of the reasons they gave was that it would be a mistake for their shareholders to accept non-voting stock in the new company.

So, Vox included a question-and-answer attempting to explain why anyone would buy non-voting stock in a public company. “It’s a little mysterious,” according to Yglesias. The Vox blogger wrote that, “the value of a share of stock stems from the fact that owning it entitles you to a small slice of control over the enterprise.”

It’s understandable that a political junkie would think of stock ownership in terms of control. That’s especially true of a left-leaning blogger writing about a merger story involving Fox and CNN.

However, most people who invest don’t buy stocks with hopes of controlling the company. They do so because they want to make money. For some, it might be part of their retirement planning. Others are trading for shorter-term goals. But, with only rare exceptions, investors buy stocks in hopes of making financial gains.

Seen from this perspective, the value of a share of stock has nothing to do with voting rights.

The real value of a share of stock depends upon how much cash it will generate for the owner. The theoretical value of a share of stock is easy to define. It’s worth the present value of future dividends and the eventual sale price of the company. When a company announces some exciting new product, expectations go up, and so does the share price.

While that definition is fine in theory, nobody can predict the future. As a result, the price of stock moves up and down. When people think a stock is undervalued, they buy it. If something happens to change their perception, they sell it.

More important than the value of a share of stock are the attitudes revealed by these different views.

The political world thinks of using their influence to control others. Whether it’s prohibiting pot or mandating specific health insurance requirements, the political process is about telling others what to do. Nothing else matters. Yglesias even writes that if you own stock without the ability to exercise, “You don’t really own anything of real value.”

While political types think of controlling others, that’s not something most Americans value.

Most think of what they can do every day to make life just a little bit better for themselves and their families. If they invest wisely, they prepare for the future. If they work together with others in their community, they make their community stronger.

At the end of the day, the difference is simple. The political world relies on coercion. Most of the nation prefers cooperation. 
...................................................................................................................................................................

"... this deal is another indication that the anti-government billionaire activists are leading the party." How much more proof do we need?

...................................................................................................................................................................
The Koch Brothers And Republican Party Have Just Joined Forces To Track Voters
By Josh Israel, August 28, 2014

A secretive data and technology company linked to conservative oil billionaires Charles and David Koch has reached an agreement to share its information with the “voter file and data management company” that holds an exclusive agreement with the Republican National Committee. This will allow the Republican Party full access to voter data collected by the Koch’s Freedom Partners entities and clients — and entrenches the Kochs’ network even deeper into the GOP.

Because political parties are not allowed to accept corporate contributions, it would be illegal for the Kochs to simply give their massive databases to the Republican National Committee directly. But the Republican National Committee has outsourced its database management to a company called GOP Data Trust. And that company joined forces Thursday with i360 (aka Themis), a firm reportedly backed by the Koch Brothers’ Freedom Partners and serving as repository for the data amassed by the Kochs’ political empire.

In a press release, the two companies claimed that the “historic data sharing partnership” will “allow Republican and Conservative campaign resources to be spent more efficiently than ever before.” They noted that “voter contact information gathered by clients of either The Data Trust or i360" will be now used by both to “improve the data shared with all clients,” meaning “conservative groups and campaigns will have more information about voters at their disposal for their own activities than ever before.”

Paul S. Ryan, senior counsel at the Campaign Legal Center, told ThinkProgress that as long as the Republican National Committee pays fair-market value to its data vendor, it does not matter who that vendor coordinates with. “Campaign finance laws only regulate the committees themselves, not other freestanding entities,” he explained.

Ryan noted that this sort of coordination is not necessarily exclusive to GOP entities — and that it can be a real challenge in determining what is a “fair” value for voter data. He pointed out that the super PAC ‘Ready for Hillary’ is collecting a great deal of information on pro-Clinton donors. That information “would be immensely valuable to Hillary Clinton, if she decides to run for president,” he explained, but probably “less valuable to another candidate.” And, in the end, it would up to the Federal Election Commission to determine whether the RNC or a theoretical Hillary Clinton campaign is paying a fair amount for that information.

But in a time when the lines between the Republican Party and the Kochs were already blurred, this deal is another indication that the anti-government billionaire activists are leading the party.
...................................................................................................................................................................

"... even in this country, where press freedom is protected under the First Amendment, journalists have been turned into targets for doing their jobs."

...................................................................................................................................................................
Going after journalists
August 25, 2014

These are tough times for journalists — and for Americans who depend on the information they provide. Last week, Islamist terrorists released a propaganda video capturing the savage beheading of photojournalist James Foley. But even in this country, where press freedom is protected under the First Amendment, journalists have been turned into targets for doing their jobs.

Case in point: Two-time Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times reporter James Risen is facing jail time for the “crime” of committing an act of journalism. This month, outraged over his continued prosecution, he labeled President Obama “the greatest enemy to press freedom in a generation.”

The case dates to 2006, when Risen wrote a book, “State of War,” which describes various aspects of the U.S. government’s espionage activities. In reporting the book, it is alleged that Mr. Risen used Jeffrey Sterling, a former Central Intelligence Agency agent, as a source. Mr. Sterling stands accused of leaking confidential information regarding U.S. efforts to curtail Iran’s nuclear weapons program.

The government has for six years attempted to compel Mr. Risen to testify against Mr. Sterling, a process that began under President Bush and has continued under Obama’s Department of Justice. (The Obama administration has also engaged in spying on reporters.) But Mr. Risen refuses to compromise the identity of his source. He would “rather go to jail than give up everything he believes in,” Mr. Risen has said in explaining his steadfastness.

Mr. Risen is defending an important principle. The free press depends on journalists being able to protect the identity of their sources. Otherwise, who knows what kinds of terrible secrets would remain sheltered from the public view? Indeed, whistleblowers have historically played a very important role in revealing governmental and corporate malfeasance, from the Pentagon Papers to Enron’s egregious cooking of the books.

This is a position endorsed by 14 Pulitzer Prize-winning journalists, who this month issued a statement supporting Mr. Risen. As the reporter Dana Priest eloquently put it, “As Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama classified more and more of the government’s actions over the last 14 years, denying the public critical information to judge how its democracy is faring, it has fallen to reporters like Risen to keep Americans informed and to question whether a gigantic government in the shadows is really even a good idea. We will all be worse off if this case proceeds.”

Meanwhile, more than 100,000 Americans have signed a petition demanding that the government halt all legal actions against Mr. Risen. Readers of The Providence Journal could do worse than to add their names to this important document. They can find the petition here: http://act.rootsaction.org/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=9775
...................................................................................................................................................................

We could have told the GOP that women are not impressed with Republicans-- it shouldn't have taken a poll to find that out.

...................................................................................................................................................................
It's sad that the GOP had to commission a poll to find out that women think the party stinks and that they won't vote for most Republicans.
...................................................................................................................................................................
GOP’s Secret Study Finds That Women Think Republicans Are out of Touch
By Jessica Dollin, August 28, 2014

"... A majority of female voters concerned about the economy, health care, education, and jobs vote for liberals, according to the report. ... The gender gap also comes into play for women voters ... The women included in the study agreed that Republicans should deal with disagreements about abortion but move on to other issues. ..."
...................................................................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................................................................
Reince Priebus: Report on GOP's Women Voter Problems Is Actually Bad for Democrats
By Arit John, August 28, 2014

"... the real gist of the poll. Women know what GOP policies are. And that's the problem."
...................................................................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................................................................
Republicans Court Female Voters By Carefully Explaining That Women Are Wrong
By Amanda Hess, August 28, 2014

"... if only the Republicans could explain to these women that they are wrong, their votes would come flooding in. The report says that it is a 'lack of understanding' between women and Republicans that 'closes many minds to Republican policy solutions.' ..."
...................................................................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................................................................
Women Don't Think The GOP Cares About Them, Internal Report Confirms
By Marina Fang, August 27, 2014

"... In top issue areas, such as health care, the economy and education, the poll found that Democrats held a huge advantage. ..."
...................................................................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................................................................
Exclusive: GOP poll of women: Party 'stuck in past'
By Jake Sherman and Anna Palmer, August 27, 2014

"... the GOP appears to have a long way to go when it comes to capturing a significant slice of the female electorate. ..."
...................................................................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................................................................
Why Republicans Can't Solve Their Problem With Women Voters
By Paul Waldman, August 28, 2014

"They're trying to figure it out, but the problem lies in both their policies and their attitude. ..."
...................................................................................................................................................................

Thursday, August 28, 2014

"A chunk of [Mary Burke's] platform consists of overturning the most right-wing of Walker’s policies." Go, Mary, go!

...................................................................................................................................................................
Mary Burke: The Wisconsinite Who Could Change US Politics Forever
WHY YOU SHOULD CARE:  Mary Burke might heal Wisconsin’s political divides and derail Republican Scott Walker’s bid for the presidency — that is, if she’s not too centrist to get elected.
By Pooja Bhatia, August 28, 2014

Mary Burke has squeezed me in on a Sunday morning — 9 a.m. Central — and even over the phone she reminds me of the girls I grew up with in Iowa. In a good way. It might be the trace Midwestern accent that can turn Wisconsin into ’Skahnsin and Washington into Worshington.

Photos show a blonde woman smiling wide and forthright, eyes squinted as if she were facing the sun. Burke looks about 15 years younger than her 55, possibly because of her bangs, possibly because of the bob that’s long enough to tie back when she does something sporty, which is often. Those Iowa girls, too: They were athletic and pretty, but sensible and ambitious.

Somewhere I read that Burke scored 40 points in a high school basketball game. Burke delights at the trivia but hastens to correct me. It might have been 34 points or 36 points, and it’s best to get it right — or else, she says, “I’ll get Politifact-ed!”

Yes, the stakes are high in Wisconsin’s gubernatorial race, where Burke is challenging incumbent Scott Walker. She is a seasoned businessperson, with a Harvard MBA, a penchant for 100-hour workweeks and years of executive experience at her father’s company, Trek Bicycle. But she has little electoral experience and was, until recently, little known even inside Wisconsin.

Walker, on the other hand, is known and polarizing, beloved or despised. He’s a college dropout who treats politics like the preacher’s kid he is: as a vocation. In 2011, not long after taking office, Walker became a conservative poster boy for facing down the unions — or eviscerating them, depending where you stand. After surviving a recall vote, he’s now an early Republican favorite for the 2016 presidential nomination.

So long as he beats Burke. And there’s a good chance he won’t.

Yesterday’s Marquette University poll gives Burke a slight edge in likely voters, and Walker a slight edge in registered voters. This is why journalists who’ve never set foot in Wisconsin, and Super PACs, and Politifact, and national party apparati and, of course, unions are all obsessed with the Burke-Walker race. It “could shape U.S. politics for years to come,” the New Republic opined this week.

Certainly it will shape Wisconsin, a purple state that’s long cleaved between cities like Milwaukee and Madison (the latter so crunchy it started a composting program way back in 1989) and Walker’s largely white suburban base. This is, after all, the state that’s gave us both populist “Fighting Bob” LaFollette and anticommunist witch-hunter Sen. Joe McCarthy.

And, of course, Walker, whose fight with the unions deepened the state’s divisions. The recall vote nearly tore Wisconsin apart. Dinner-table conversations got angry, then silent, and email chains got tense.

Burke might skirt those rifts. She hews moderate, maybe to court the tiny swath of voters — supposedly about 5 percent — that are persuadable. She emphasizes job creation and hard work, especially hard work. Over and over, she returns to some combination of those words: hard work, work harder, hard worker. Everyone should have the opportunity to work hard.

Did Burke ever think she’d end up so close to the threshold of the Wisconsin governor’s mansion?

“There aren’t too many people who go to HBS [Harvard Business School] with that in mind, if they’re Democrats,” she says. “I grew up wanting to be a businessperson like my dad. I was always very focused on that.” She was class treasurer in high school, not president, and it wasn’t until the spring of 2013, she says, that “running for governor … entered my mind.”

That she never married may also attest to the recency of her political ambition. Unmarried female leaders are rare, but until recently they were almost nonexistent. “It’s hard for me to think that it’s an issue,” says Burke of her marital status. “I talk every day about how … I’m completely, 100 percent committed to the people of Wisconsin.”

Burke comes with some statewide political experience, though. She left Trek from 2005 to 2007 to be Wisconsin’s commerce secretary under Walker’s predecessor, Jim Doyle, and has since worked in education. She founded a public-private partnership that focuses on educational mentorship and has been on the Madison school board since 2012.

A chunk of her platform consists of overturning the most right-wing of Walker’s policies. She supports collective bargaining, for instance — she frets about the state’s young teachers heading to neighboring Minnesota — and would reverse Walker’s refusal to accept federal Medicaid funding in exchange for participating in Obamacare. She’s also promised fiscal responsibility. Safe stances, and they might not stir folks in Milwaukee to come out and vote for a wealthy white businesslady, especially in a non-presidential election year. Hatred of Walker alone might not rally the radical-left base, either. 

But Republicans are scared. They’ve plowed $18.7 million into Walker’s campaign since 2012 — three times Burke’s haul — and taken swings at the family business, Trek, for “outsourcing” jobs. (Burke’s brother John, who is company president, took out a full-page ad in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel asserting that Trek makes more bikes in the U.S. than any other American company.)

The Republicans have called her “Millionaire Mary,” too.

“I knew they would throw every lying dirty trick in the book at me,” says Burke, fiery and faster now. “I was brought up on the values that you — you judge people by their contributions and their consideration of other people and the values that they hold, and that’s the type of way I’ve run my life, and that’s how I view things. To me it’s not about how much money people have.

“I think I grew up like many other kids did,” she continues, with “Midwestern values of hard work, and fairness, and you give back to your community, and the more you have the more you have to give back.” Burke remembers school trips to farms and cheese factories, cows sneaking onto the school playground, lemonade stands, and I’m again transported back to a world I’m certain no longer exists.
...................................................................................................................................................................

A sad story about the possible consequences of working with a political party

...................................................................................................................................................................
Political Affiliation and Future Employers
By Hallie Gardner, August 28, 2014

Politics in the workplace? Yikes. That subject’s pretty much like walking on eggshells…or broken glass in some cases.

Upon choosing my blog topic for the week, I started thinking about a job I was offered recently. My thoughts immediately turned to the consequences of taking this position, rather than the benefits.

Last week, a friend of mine talked to me about getting involved with the Larimer County Democrats. As a registered voter for the Democratic Party, the immediate words out of my mouth were, “Sure, why not?” As a college student with an interest in politics, I figured making a few phone calls, canvassing, and helping with event planning sounded like fun. Plus, it would be something I could put on my resume.

There it was. Resume. Did I want something like this on my resume? I know it sounds ridiculous, but my first thought was: would I be discriminated against for having this listed? Would my future potential employer look down upon this if they affiliated with a different political party, or had a different political view in general?

I mean, sure, I know there are all sorts of federal laws that prohibit job discrimination like the Equal Employment Opportunity act, but what does that mean for me? Would that possible future employer toss my application aside just because we may not see eye-to-eye?

Upon further investigation into the matter via the internet, I discovered “currently only in California, New York, and Washington, D.C. have laws specifically making it illegal to discriminate on the basis of an employee’s political activity or affiliation, while two or more states Colorado and North Dakota prohibit discrimination on the basis of “lawful conduct outside of work” (www.workplacefairness.org). To further this, www.workplacefairness.org also states that “participating in a fund-raising activity for the benefit of a candidate, political party, or political advocacy group” is considered a political activity or affiliation.

Being the over-thinker that I am, I went back and forth on the matter, but finally came to the conclusion that if I take the position, it’s going to be added to my resume. I’ll stick it right between my volunteer activities and work experience section.

I’m in college; I should be building my resume, not concealing activities because I am afraid of my future employer’s opinions.
...................................................................................................................................................................

"... there is 'no reason people have to remain ignorant' about who is pouring money into political contests. 'The tools are out there to unmask these groups.'" We can use the Political Ad Sleuth.

...................................................................................................................................................................
Will TV Political Ads Get More Scrutiny?
New FCC rule may make it easer to track the many thousands of ads that will run this fall.
By Bill Lueders, August 27, 2014

Quick: How much was spent by all parties in the historic 2012 recall election between Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and challenger Tom Barrett?

A recent Associated Press article gave the generally accepted answer: $81 million. But this number cannot be gleaned from official filings, which do not include spending by outside groups on “issue ads” — those that stop short of telling people how to vote.

In Wisconsin, these expenditures are unregulated and undisclosed. Yet they are commonly included in tallies of overall spending, like the one cited by AP.

The $81 million figure comes from Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, a nonpartisan watchdog. It includes tens of millions of dollars in outside spending uncovered through an onerous process: Going to individual state television stations to obtain the public records they must keep on political ad buys.

Now that process is about to get either a little or a whole lot easier, depending in part on people like you.

A Federal Communications Commission rule that took effect July 1 requires U.S. broadcast television stations to “immediately” post political ad buy data online. It expands an earlier pilot program, launched in 2012, for just the nation’s top 50 television markets. (Cable and radio stations are still exempt.)

“We love it,” says Mike Buelow, a former AP reporter who now serves as research director for the Democracy Campaign. “We won’t have to go begging for volunteers to go to TV stations in northern Wisconsin.”

In the past, given the amount of work involved, Buelow’s group waited until after the election to generate spending totals that included these buys. “It was just too labor-intensive to do it weekly or even monthly,” he says.

But now it’s possible to compile comprehensive, up-to-date information. The Sunlight Foundation, a nonprofit group based in Washington, D.C., is collecting the ad buy filings and posting them online, in a tool it calls Political Ad Sleuth.

Kathy Kiely, managing editor of the group’s reporting team, notes that the filings are far from user friendly: “What the stations are uploading is PDF files.” Someone must open each file, review the document and record the information.

That’s a lot of work. In Wisconsin, the three dozen stations subject to the rule reported more than 1,000 political ad buys from candidates and outside groups in July alone. But Political Ad Sleuth has found a way to share the pain.

Anyone can register online to do data entry, logging the cost, run dates and total number of ads for each filing, and such optional information as the media buyer. Explains Kiely, “I want to know if some of these (outside) groups are using the same media buyer as the candidates they’re not supposed to be coordinating with.”

Kiely urges people to pick a given station, to get good at reading its forms, which differ widely. They may also want to focus first on third-party buys which are not otherwise reported. The group has a YouTube tutorial to help people get started.

“I think this is an important effort,” Kiely says, suggesting it as an exercise for journalism and political science students, retirees and anyone else seeking to shine a light on those trying to influence the political process.

“People say ‘There’s too much money in politics, there’s nothing I can do,’ ”  Kiely says. “Well, here’s something you can do.”

Once the data are entered, the file’s status will change and the information will be available for further crunching. The original document remains available so users can make sure the entries are right. And the pre-registration lets the Sunlight Foundation boot anyone who deliberately enters incorrect information.

Kiely says there is “no reason people have to remain ignorant” about who is pouring money into political contests. “The tools are out there to unmask these groups.”

But like other tools, they require some exertion on the user’s part.
...................................................................................................................................................................

"... the wealthy have fundamentally different political priorities than those of everyday Americans ... it's the rich whose preferences carry the day."

...................................................................................................................................................................
Secret McConnell Recording Shows Need for Money in Politics Reform
By Marge Baker, August 27, 2014

Early this morning, The Nation published a leaked recording of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's remarks at a secret meeting of major conservative donors put together by the Koch brothers.

While the first reactions to the recording may highlight what this means for McConnell's Senate race against Alison Lundergan Grimes, the story carries deeper implications as well. At its core, this is a story about why we need to reform the way we finance elections.

In the audio recording, Sen. McConnell says everything that the Koch brothers want to hear. At the beginning of his remarks, he gushes to the brothers: "I don't know where we'd be without you." He rails against Senate votes on raising the minimum wage, extending unemployment benefits, and tackling student debt. It's no coincidence that he has received heaps of cash from wealthy special interests that oppose action on those issues. (Reporting today from The Huffington Post shows that at the same Koch retreat, Rep. Tom Cotton of Arkansas and state Sen. Joni Ernst of Iowa -- both Republican nominees for U.S. Senate -- "directly credited donors present...for propelling them forward.")

This is increasingly what our political system looks like. Those who can bankroll candidates can help set the political agenda -- even if that agenda looks nothing like what the majority of Americans want it to look like. Research has shown that the wealthy have fundamentally different political priorities than those of everyday Americans, but when the preferences of ordinary Americans conflict with those of billionaire donors like the Koch brothers, it's the rich whose preferences carry the day.

And no one is a more vocal supporter of our broken campaign finance system than Mitch McConnell himself. In the secret tapes, Sen. McConnell says that the Citizens United decision (which paved the way for unlimited corporate political spending) simply "level[ed] the playing field for corporate speech," even calling the proposed constitutional amendment to overturn decisions like Citizens United "an act of true radicalism" from people who want to "use the power of the government to quiet the voices of their critics."

But Americans know that it's not billionaires or corporations who need the playing field to be leveled. Their priorities are coming through loud and clear in our democracy, thanks to politicians like Sen. McConnell who are fighting to ensure that those with the most to spend can continue to buy our elections. It's ordinary Americans, who increasingly cannot be heard over the roar of big money, whose voices need to be protected. And that "radical" push for a constitutional amendment, which will be voted on in the Senate on September 8, is actually supported by nearly three in four voters.

Maybe if Mitch McConnell weren't so busy pandering to billionaire donors, he'd be able to see the tremendous grassroots call to reform our money in politics system, with 16 states and more than 550 cities and towns already on record in support of an amendment. Then again, with true money in politics reform, maybe our senators wouldn't need to pander to billionaires at all.
...................................................................................................................................................................

Wednesday, August 27, 2014

"Without the Koch infested Supreme Court, the Republican billionaire funding pipeline wouldn’t exist. ... The GOP is a Koch organized and funded operation."

...................................................................................................................................................................
In Leaked Tape Mitch McConnell Admits The Koch Brothers Are Running The Republican Party
By Jason Easley, August 27, 2014

In a leaked audio tape of the Koch brothers top secret June 2014 retreat, Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) not only admitted that the Republicans would be lost without the Kochs, and revealed who the real power is in the GOP.

Audio:


McConnell opened his remarks by saying, “Is this working? I know it’s been a long, but very inspiring day. And I want to start by thanking you, Charles and David for the important work you’re doing. I don’t know where we’d be without you, and um, and I want (inaudible) for rallying, uh, to the cause.”

Mitch McConnell has voted against raising the minimum wage 17 times in his career. He has filibustered every recent attempt to raise the minimum wage in the current Congress, so anyone with half a brain should not be surprised that he promised that he wouldn’t raise the mininum wage if he becomes Majority Leader.

The main topic of his speech was Citizens United, and how the wealthy and corporations should control our elections. In the process of praising Citizens United, McConnell described how the Koch infested Supreme Court has opened the door to conservative billionaires buying the government, “And we’ve had a series of cases since then that I’ve filed amicus briefs in and had lawyers arguing in. We now have, I think, the most free and open system we’ve had in modern times. The Supreme Court allowed all of you to participate in the process in a variety of different ways. You can give to the candidate of your choice. You can give to Americans for Prosperity, or something else, a variety of different ways to push back against the party of government. It has nothing to do with overly political speech.”

The little part at the end where McConnell states that the billionaire dollars have nothing to do with overt political speech was a total lie. The Koch money is about buying and electing the candidates who will carry out the conservative billionaire agenda.

Everything links together. Without the Koch infested Supreme Court, the Republican billionaire funding pipeline wouldn’t exist. The Koch billionaire group is trying to cut the people out of the democratic process in order to create a government that revolves around their own interests.

The leaked tapes prove that the Republican Party revolves around the interests of billionaires and big corporations. This is obvious to anyone who watches their behavior on a daily basis, but McConnell’s remarks are the first leaked to the public admission of the importance of the Koch brothers to the success of the Republican Party.

The GOP is a Koch organized and funded operation. The Kochs set the agenda, and if Republicans take back the Senate, the American people will have given control of the Congress to the Koch brothers.
...................................................................................................................................................................