...............................................................................................................................................
Political Corporate Contributions Won’t Be Aired in Daylight
The SEC avoided taking a stand on corporations having to disclose their political contributions. What it means for transparency in our democracy.
By Adam Winkler, December 5, 2013
In his muckracking classic, Other People’s Money – And How Bankers Use It, progressive reformer Louis Brandeis famously wrote, “Sunlight is the best of disinfectants.” In the modern financial system, corporate executives often control funds that don’t belong to them. To Brandeis, transparency and disclosure were effective means of minimizing the risk of executives misusing those funds, either wasting them away negligently or enriching themselves nefariously. Inspired by Brandeis, Congress created the Securities and Exchange Commission to oversee publicly traded companies and to create a more open, reliable, honest marketplace for investors.
Brandeis’s heirs in the progressive movement – along with other opponents of the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United – have sought to have the SEC direct some sunlight on corporate political spending. This week the Commission closed the shades. In announcing its 2014 “Priorities,” the SEC omitted any mention of corporate political transparency. The implication is that the SEC will not issue any new rules on this, despite announcing late last year that it was considering “a proposed rule to require that public companies provide disclosure to shareholders regarding the use of corporate resources for political activities.”
The news was an unexpected setback for the Corporate Reform Coalition, a group of institutional investors, government reform advocates, and labor unions that has been pushing for the SEC to compel disclosure of corporate political spending. The Coalition helped secure over 600,000 comments submitted to the SEC as part of the rulemaking process – a record. "We're incredibly disappointed by this, and we need an explanation for why they removed the most widely supported regulation in their docket," said Lisa Gilbert of Public Citizen's Congress Watch.
The SEC, for its part, offered no reasons for dropping disclosure. When the Supreme Court opened up the floodgates to corporate money in Citizens United, the justices assumed that such spending would be known by shareholders. “With the advent of the Internet, prompt disclosure of expenditures can provide shareholders and citizens with the information needed to hold corporations and elected officials accountable for their positions and supporters,” wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy for the Court. Yet Kennedy was wrong. There were no disclosure rules in place for this sort of spending. Because the law had banned it, Congress hadn’t required corporations to disclose it. In the 2012 election, hundreds of millions of “dark money” dollars flowed into campaign ads. With Congress hopelessly deadlocked, the SEC was disclosure advocates’ last hope.
The SEC may have been persuaded by the arguments of those, like the Chamber of Commerce’s Blair Latoff Holmes, who insisted the SEC had no business regulating political spending. “Campaign finance reform is not, has never been, and should never be a function of the SEC,” according to Holmes. Brad Smith, of the Center for Competitive Politics, a group opposed to campaign finance reform, said the SEC’s proper focus is “protecting investors and regulating capital markets” not “campaign finance law.”
There is some precedent for the SEC’s regulation of the political activity of publicly held corporations. According to Ciara Torres-Spelliscy, one of the leading experts on corporate disclosure, the SEC has previously acted in this area. She cites the SEC’s 1994 rules adopted to stem “pay-to-play” in the municipal bond market, 2010 rules restricting political fundraising by public pension fund advisors, and investigations into bribery of foreign officials after Watergate that spurred enactment of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Despite that history, it may be that today’s SEC is reluctant to take on a hot-button issue that might infuriate Republicans on Capitol Hill, who control the commission’s purse strings.
While Brandeis would have applauded the efforts of disclosure advocates, he may have been too sanguine about sunlight’s curative effects. No doubt disclosure of corporate political spending would provide useful information some shareholders, especially those hyper-attentive to politics. Media and corporate watchdog groups would be able to expose who is spending what in our elections. Yet in today’s publicly held corporations, shareholders have little real power to control management. It’s extremely rare that shareholders are able to force corporate officials’ hands through proxy voting or breach of fiduciary duty lawsuits. And while some shareholders can sell their shares, that remedy isn’t available to many. Public pension funds often operate under rules that prohibit selling in such circumstances, and individual pension fund investors are penalized for selling early. Disclosure wouldn’t really empower shareholders to stop executives from spending shareholder money on politics.
Disclosure can also have perverse effects. In the 1990s, a similar group of corporate reformers pushed for increased disclosure of executive compensation. The idea was to shame corporate boards from paying executives excessive salaries. The opposite happened. Boards saw what everyone else was paying and, certain that their executives were better than average, paid them accordingly. Executive compensation skyrocketed. The same thing could happen with disclosure of corporate political spending. Although shareholders can’t really do much with the information, the same can’t be said for executives seeking to influence elected officials. They’ll see what others are giving and commit their own firms to give more. Instead of shaming executives, we might see a political spending arms race.
Or maybe not. Due to the SEC’s refusal to require transparency, all we can do is guess about disclosure’s ultimate effect. In the meantime, corporate executives will continue to funnel other people’s money into the electoral process – without those other people ever knowing about it.
...............................................................................................................................................
Thursday, December 5, 2013
GOP candidates have come off as tone-deaf to female voters and are being schooled in being more sensitive when running against women. Hmmm, kind of tough to do that, isn't it?
...................................................................................................................................................................
GOP men tutored in running against women
By By John Bresnahan and Anna Palmer, December 5, 2013
The National Republican Congressional Committee wants to make sure there are no Todd Akin-style gaffes next year, so it’s meeting with top aides of sitting Republicans to teach them what to say — or not to say — on the trail, especially when their boss is running against a woman.
Speaker John Boehner is serious, too. His own top aides met recently with Republican staff to discuss how lawmakers should talk to female constituents.
“Let me put it this way, some of these guys have a lot to learn,” said a Republican staffer who attended the session in Boehner’s office.
There have been “multiple sessions” with the NRCC where aides to incumbents were schooled in “messaging against women opponents,” one GOP aide said.
While GOP party leaders have talked repeatedly of trying to “rebrand” the party after the 2012 election losses, the latest effort shows they’re not entirely confident the job is done.
So they’re getting out in front of the next campaign season, heading off gaffes before they’re ever uttered and risk repeating the 2012 season, when a handful of comments let Democrats paint the entire Republican Party as anti-woman.
Boehner urged his colleagues Thursday in response to this POLITICO story to “be a little more sensitive” when running against women.
“Some of our members just aren’t as sensitive as they ought to be,” Boehner said.
Boehner (R-Ohio) said bluntly that “when you look around the Congress, there are a lot more females in the Democrat caucus than there are in the Republican caucus.”
Republicans are trying to avoid a 2012 repeat. Akin dropped the phrase “legitimate rape” during the 2012 Missouri Senate race, costing himself a good shot at winning his own race and touching off Democratic charges of a GOP “War on Women” that dogged Republicans in campaigns across the country.
In the 2014 cycle, there will be at least 10 races where House GOP male incumbents face Democratic women challengers. More races could crop up as the cycle unfolds.
Some of the highest profile fights will take place in states like New York, Illinois, Florida and Virginia — the last where GOP gubernatorial candidate Ken Cuccinelli was defeated recently due in part to being perceived as anti-woman.
Individual Republicans have continued to give Democrats plenty of ammunition about being insensitive to women’s issues. From Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) talking about rape and pregnancy at a Judiciary Committee hearing earlier this year, to House Republicans passing a 20-week abortion ban in June, to Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) blaming military sexual assault on “hormones,” there have been repeated instances where GOP lawmakers have come off as tone-deaf to female voters.
Yet Republican incumbents appear eager to avoid the mistakes of some of their predecessors.
Rep. Scott Rigell, who is running against a Democratic woman next year, said he wants to focus on economic issues, not social issues.
“I look at it this way — I wake up every day not thinking about the social issues,” Rigell said. “I sought office because I know we can do better on job creation and I’m also concerned about our fiscal trajectory.”
Rigell, who said he gets his best counsel from his wife, also said he wants to focus on issues that benefit the “full fabric of our communities.”
“I think as part of that we’re strengthening things that are important to women and, of course, to men as well. Early childhood education, making sure that our children are safe and they have great opportunities once they get out of high school or college,” he said.
Yet the longtime “gender gap” between the parties continues to be pretty stark for the GOP. Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney lost women to Barack Obama by 11 percentage points in the 2012 election, and the 2013 campaigns saw a similar trend. A series of recent polls show a continued double-digit lead for Democratic candidates among women, with the margin soaring to much higher levels among single female voters. The GOP — which lost female voters by large margins in every competitive Senate race in the 2012 election — also saw a 10-point increase in its unfavorability rating to among women to 63 percent, according to an October ABC/Washington Post poll.
Of course, female Democratic challengers will have to surmount all the hurdles that anyone seeking to knock of an incumbent always faces: lack of name recognition; difficulty getting media coverage; and most of all — the single biggest issue — a huge fundraising gap.
Yet Democrats have hopes that these candidates will help lead them to the majority in November 2014.
“Our essential strategy is to recruit problem-solvers. And with this Republican Congress having been so destructive to the concerns women have, we are putting a special emphasis on recruiting women who will end those problems,” said Rep. Steve Israel of New York, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.
Israel added: “I can’t promise you they will go dollar-for-dollar with the Republican incumbent. But I can promise that their message, their mechanics, their mobilization will exceed whatever Republican incumbents are able to do.”
...................................................................................................................................................................
GOP men tutored in running against women
By By John Bresnahan and Anna Palmer, December 5, 2013
The National Republican Congressional Committee wants to make sure there are no Todd Akin-style gaffes next year, so it’s meeting with top aides of sitting Republicans to teach them what to say — or not to say — on the trail, especially when their boss is running against a woman.
Speaker John Boehner is serious, too. His own top aides met recently with Republican staff to discuss how lawmakers should talk to female constituents.
“Let me put it this way, some of these guys have a lot to learn,” said a Republican staffer who attended the session in Boehner’s office.
There have been “multiple sessions” with the NRCC where aides to incumbents were schooled in “messaging against women opponents,” one GOP aide said.
While GOP party leaders have talked repeatedly of trying to “rebrand” the party after the 2012 election losses, the latest effort shows they’re not entirely confident the job is done.
So they’re getting out in front of the next campaign season, heading off gaffes before they’re ever uttered and risk repeating the 2012 season, when a handful of comments let Democrats paint the entire Republican Party as anti-woman.
Boehner urged his colleagues Thursday in response to this POLITICO story to “be a little more sensitive” when running against women.
“Some of our members just aren’t as sensitive as they ought to be,” Boehner said.
Boehner (R-Ohio) said bluntly that “when you look around the Congress, there are a lot more females in the Democrat caucus than there are in the Republican caucus.”
Republicans are trying to avoid a 2012 repeat. Akin dropped the phrase “legitimate rape” during the 2012 Missouri Senate race, costing himself a good shot at winning his own race and touching off Democratic charges of a GOP “War on Women” that dogged Republicans in campaigns across the country.
In the 2014 cycle, there will be at least 10 races where House GOP male incumbents face Democratic women challengers. More races could crop up as the cycle unfolds.
Some of the highest profile fights will take place in states like New York, Illinois, Florida and Virginia — the last where GOP gubernatorial candidate Ken Cuccinelli was defeated recently due in part to being perceived as anti-woman.
Individual Republicans have continued to give Democrats plenty of ammunition about being insensitive to women’s issues. From Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) talking about rape and pregnancy at a Judiciary Committee hearing earlier this year, to House Republicans passing a 20-week abortion ban in June, to Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) blaming military sexual assault on “hormones,” there have been repeated instances where GOP lawmakers have come off as tone-deaf to female voters.
Yet Republican incumbents appear eager to avoid the mistakes of some of their predecessors.
Rep. Scott Rigell, who is running against a Democratic woman next year, said he wants to focus on economic issues, not social issues.
“I look at it this way — I wake up every day not thinking about the social issues,” Rigell said. “I sought office because I know we can do better on job creation and I’m also concerned about our fiscal trajectory.”
Rigell, who said he gets his best counsel from his wife, also said he wants to focus on issues that benefit the “full fabric of our communities.”
“I think as part of that we’re strengthening things that are important to women and, of course, to men as well. Early childhood education, making sure that our children are safe and they have great opportunities once they get out of high school or college,” he said.
Yet the longtime “gender gap” between the parties continues to be pretty stark for the GOP. Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney lost women to Barack Obama by 11 percentage points in the 2012 election, and the 2013 campaigns saw a similar trend. A series of recent polls show a continued double-digit lead for Democratic candidates among women, with the margin soaring to much higher levels among single female voters. The GOP — which lost female voters by large margins in every competitive Senate race in the 2012 election — also saw a 10-point increase in its unfavorability rating to among women to 63 percent, according to an October ABC/Washington Post poll.
Of course, female Democratic challengers will have to surmount all the hurdles that anyone seeking to knock of an incumbent always faces: lack of name recognition; difficulty getting media coverage; and most of all — the single biggest issue — a huge fundraising gap.
Yet Democrats have hopes that these candidates will help lead them to the majority in November 2014.
“Our essential strategy is to recruit problem-solvers. And with this Republican Congress having been so destructive to the concerns women have, we are putting a special emphasis on recruiting women who will end those problems,” said Rep. Steve Israel of New York, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.
Israel added: “I can’t promise you they will go dollar-for-dollar with the Republican incumbent. But I can promise that their message, their mechanics, their mobilization will exceed whatever Republican incumbents are able to do.”
...................................................................................................................................................................
It seems inevitable that some combination of the big fiduciary shareholders, interested regulatory agencies and Congress will begin to demand comprehensive reform of political spending by companies
...................................................................................................................................................................
Further Unmasking Corporate Political Spending
By Leo Hindery, Jr., December 4, 2013
Every day, more and more of the nation's leading companies are voluntarily adopting or strengthening their policies to provide for detailed disclosure of their political contributions and the extent of their lobbying activities.
Yet they're having to do so against very strong opposition from their own leading trade associations -- the Business Roundtable, the National Association of Manufacturers and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce -- which in late October together falsely wrote to their combined memberships that: "Corporations Do NOT Support Increased Political and Lobbying 'Disclosure'."
Our democracy is strengthened when political spending by any source is transparent by donor and down to the ultimate recipient. And we are long past the day when monies routed through associations, organizations, unions and lobbyists should remain masked.
Corporate political spending in the 2012 elections, as reported by the Center for Responsive Politics, was more than $2 billion, with another $2 billion spent that year on lobbying. Each is a staggering figure, and together they are downright daunting. And of grave concern is the fact that most of the political spending is being routed through trade associations and other so-called "blockers" in efforts to mask the transactional nature of the contributions.
While a growing number of companies are now very responsibly disclosing their political spending, most companies still don't and the three major trade associations are still working overtime to keep the public in the dark. Absent voluntary detailed disclosure becoming pervasive soon, it seems inevitable that some combination of the big fiduciary shareholders, interested regulatory agencies and Congress will begin to demand comprehensive reform.
The transparency associated with political contributions by individuals isn't perfect, but generally it's as good as anywhere else in the world. While we await the time when public disclosure by corporations, labor unions and 501(c)4 and 501(c)6 organizations of both their direct and indirect political spending is also common practice, it's important, given the enormity of corporate political spending and its pernicious effects, that responsible CEOs at least demand that their trade associations get on board with supporting complete transparency.
Trade associations, as a rule, march to the drums of their largest dues payers, and right now too many of the country's largest companies remain opposed to anything more than modest disclosure. Evidence of these associations' obstructionism can be found in their interactions with Congress, their public speeches and articles, and op-eds placed on their behalf in big business-friendly publications.
An upward trend in corporate political responsibility is undeniable, and in being more responsible these particular companies are answering to their shareholders who, in an overwhelming majority, believe that corporate political spending diminishes shareholder value and can put companies in which they're invested at legal risks. These companies are also enhancing their reputations and eliminating the kind of quasi political shakedowns that so diminish our democracy.
According to results of the recent third annual CPA-Zicklin Index, almost 70 percent of America's top companies now disclose at least some information about their political spending, and 57 percent of them are also opening up about their payments to trade associations. And sixteen of these companies are now fully leading the charge for complete political disclosure and accountability, up from just six last year. Included among them, with particular distinction, are AFLAC, CSX, Merck, Microsoft, Qualcomm and United Parcel Service.
This important Index, produced jointly by the Center for Political Accountability and the Zicklin Center for Business Ethics Research of the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School, also reported that 78 percent of the companies received improved scores for disclosure and board oversight of political spending.
But lest the leading business trade associations continue to ignore the obvious, chief executive officers must speak out and demand that those organizations which purport to represent them recognize that transparency and accountability are actually very good for business.
Sunshine is always better than darkness, and in business accountability is always better than masking political spending and activity.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Further Unmasking Corporate Political Spending
By Leo Hindery, Jr., December 4, 2013
Every day, more and more of the nation's leading companies are voluntarily adopting or strengthening their policies to provide for detailed disclosure of their political contributions and the extent of their lobbying activities.
Yet they're having to do so against very strong opposition from their own leading trade associations -- the Business Roundtable, the National Association of Manufacturers and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce -- which in late October together falsely wrote to their combined memberships that: "Corporations Do NOT Support Increased Political and Lobbying 'Disclosure'."
Our democracy is strengthened when political spending by any source is transparent by donor and down to the ultimate recipient. And we are long past the day when monies routed through associations, organizations, unions and lobbyists should remain masked.
Corporate political spending in the 2012 elections, as reported by the Center for Responsive Politics, was more than $2 billion, with another $2 billion spent that year on lobbying. Each is a staggering figure, and together they are downright daunting. And of grave concern is the fact that most of the political spending is being routed through trade associations and other so-called "blockers" in efforts to mask the transactional nature of the contributions.
While a growing number of companies are now very responsibly disclosing their political spending, most companies still don't and the three major trade associations are still working overtime to keep the public in the dark. Absent voluntary detailed disclosure becoming pervasive soon, it seems inevitable that some combination of the big fiduciary shareholders, interested regulatory agencies and Congress will begin to demand comprehensive reform.
The transparency associated with political contributions by individuals isn't perfect, but generally it's as good as anywhere else in the world. While we await the time when public disclosure by corporations, labor unions and 501(c)4 and 501(c)6 organizations of both their direct and indirect political spending is also common practice, it's important, given the enormity of corporate political spending and its pernicious effects, that responsible CEOs at least demand that their trade associations get on board with supporting complete transparency.
Trade associations, as a rule, march to the drums of their largest dues payers, and right now too many of the country's largest companies remain opposed to anything more than modest disclosure. Evidence of these associations' obstructionism can be found in their interactions with Congress, their public speeches and articles, and op-eds placed on their behalf in big business-friendly publications.
An upward trend in corporate political responsibility is undeniable, and in being more responsible these particular companies are answering to their shareholders who, in an overwhelming majority, believe that corporate political spending diminishes shareholder value and can put companies in which they're invested at legal risks. These companies are also enhancing their reputations and eliminating the kind of quasi political shakedowns that so diminish our democracy.
According to results of the recent third annual CPA-Zicklin Index, almost 70 percent of America's top companies now disclose at least some information about their political spending, and 57 percent of them are also opening up about their payments to trade associations. And sixteen of these companies are now fully leading the charge for complete political disclosure and accountability, up from just six last year. Included among them, with particular distinction, are AFLAC, CSX, Merck, Microsoft, Qualcomm and United Parcel Service.
This important Index, produced jointly by the Center for Political Accountability and the Zicklin Center for Business Ethics Research of the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School, also reported that 78 percent of the companies received improved scores for disclosure and board oversight of political spending.
But lest the leading business trade associations continue to ignore the obvious, chief executive officers must speak out and demand that those organizations which purport to represent them recognize that transparency and accountability are actually very good for business.
Sunshine is always better than darkness, and in business accountability is always better than masking political spending and activity.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Tuesday, December 3, 2013
Yay, Sea-Tac is ahead of the curve!
...................................................................................................................................................................
Minimum wage a potent political issue
By Steve Benen, December 3, 2013
When we think of the dominant political issues of the day, issues like health care, immigration, and foreign policy in the Middle East quickly come to mind, but it’s a mistake to leave the minimum wage off the list. In the face of Republican opposition, congressional action is unlikely before 2015 at the earliest, but there’s quite a bit of activism underway away from Capitol Hill.
It’s one of the reasons efforts are underway from coast to coast. Just a month ago, voters in New Jersey approved an increase despite Gov. Chris Christie’s (R) objections, and on the same day, voters narrowly approved a $15 hourly minimum in the area surrounding the Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. State lawmakers in Massachusetts are eyeing a new increase, which comes on the heels of California adopting a $10 minimum wage of its own.
We can expect to see a lot more along these lines. The Washington Post report added, “Democrats are deep in the minority in legislatures in South Dakota and Arkansas, for instance. But both states allow for statewide referendums, and Democrats there are gathering signatures to put minimum wage increases on the ballot in 2014. Just as Republicans used initiatives banning same-sex marriage as a way to boost turnout in 2004, Democratic candidates may find that sharing a ballot with a minimum wage measure helps draw the contrast between the two parties.”
Republican opposition remains quite fierce, with the right arguing that minimum-wage hikes undermine job creation, but as Paul Krugman explained this morning, the evidence shows otherwise.
But while congressional Republicans block action at the federal level, plenty of states and municipalities have decided not to wait any longer.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Minimum wage a potent political issue
By Steve Benen, December 3, 2013
When we think of the dominant political issues of the day, issues like health care, immigration, and foreign policy in the Middle East quickly come to mind, but it’s a mistake to leave the minimum wage off the list. In the face of Republican opposition, congressional action is unlikely before 2015 at the earliest, but there’s quite a bit of activism underway away from Capitol Hill.
States and municipalities across the country are leading a localized push to raise the minimum wage, driven largely by Democrats, who see an opening to appeal to working-class Americans at a time of growing inequity.
Efforts in Congress to raise the national minimum wage above $7.25 an hour have stalled. But numerous local governments … are forging ahead, in some cases voting to dramatically increase the pay of low-wage workers.For Democrats, the issue checks a lot of boxes. Not only has the buying power of the minimum wage shrunk to indefensible levels, but this is a wildly popular economic policy that helps drive a wedge between Republicans and working-class voters, even in “red” states.
It’s one of the reasons efforts are underway from coast to coast. Just a month ago, voters in New Jersey approved an increase despite Gov. Chris Christie’s (R) objections, and on the same day, voters narrowly approved a $15 hourly minimum in the area surrounding the Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. State lawmakers in Massachusetts are eyeing a new increase, which comes on the heels of California adopting a $10 minimum wage of its own.
We can expect to see a lot more along these lines. The Washington Post report added, “Democrats are deep in the minority in legislatures in South Dakota and Arkansas, for instance. But both states allow for statewide referendums, and Democrats there are gathering signatures to put minimum wage increases on the ballot in 2014. Just as Republicans used initiatives banning same-sex marriage as a way to boost turnout in 2004, Democratic candidates may find that sharing a ballot with a minimum wage measure helps draw the contrast between the two parties.”
Republican opposition remains quite fierce, with the right arguing that minimum-wage hikes undermine job creation, but as Paul Krugman explained this morning, the evidence shows otherwise.
[W]e have a lot of evidence on what happens when you raise the minimum wage. And the evidence is overwhelmingly positive: hiking the minimum wage has little or no adverse effect on employment, while significantly increasing workers’ earnings.
It’s important to understand how good this evidence is. Normally, economic analysis is handicapped by the absence of controlled experiments…. When it comes to the minimum wage, however, we have a number of cases in which a state raised its own minimum wage while a neighboring state did not. If there were anything to the notion that minimum wage increases have big negative effects on employment, that result should show up in state-to-state comparisons. It doesn’t.Looking back, federal policymakers have packaged minimum-wage hikes with other economic measures Republicans can tolerate to get an increase through. Jonathan Bernstein made the case the other day that this seems unlikely in this Congress – the post-policy GOP just doesn’t have much of an agenda right now, so there’s nothing to bundle together.
But while congressional Republicans block action at the federal level, plenty of states and municipalities have decided not to wait any longer.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Let's make Boehner bawl!
...................................................................................................................................................................
Boehner in Tears Can Koozie
By Nicki Rossoll, December 3, 2013
Brought to you by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, the My Democratic Store has everything you need for the proud donkey in your life. From "trust women protect choice" tote bags to "Old School Progrssive" FDR t-shirts, the DCCC offers shoppers the perfect gift for any proud Democrat.
This union-made product featuring a picture of Speaker Boehner in tears, promises to help make the Republican leader weep. The Democrat Blue can koozie, made by union workers of course, promises to make Boehner cry through your donation to help elect more Democrats to the House, and remove the Speaker's gavel from the Ohio Republican's hand.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Boehner in Tears Can Koozie
By Nicki Rossoll, December 3, 2013
Brought to you by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, the My Democratic Store has everything you need for the proud donkey in your life. From "trust women protect choice" tote bags to "Old School Progrssive" FDR t-shirts, the DCCC offers shoppers the perfect gift for any proud Democrat.
This union-made product featuring a picture of Speaker Boehner in tears, promises to help make the Republican leader weep. The Democrat Blue can koozie, made by union workers of course, promises to make Boehner cry through your donation to help elect more Democrats to the House, and remove the Speaker's gavel from the Ohio Republican's hand.
...................................................................................................................................................................
"Gag" gift! LOL
...................................................................................................................................................................
I Kissed a Republican (or Democrat) Gum
By Nicki Rossoll, December 3, 2013
If you get caught under the mistletoe with a member of the opposite party this holiday season, not to worry, the Onion store has an inexpensive gift that can solve this problem.
A pack of "I Kissed a Republican Gum" is on sale for just $2. The pack includes eight pieces of peppermint gum that promise to freshen up your mouth after kissing a Republican who has been "schmoozing with big business, encouraging the destruction of the environment, or even yelling at some old person for being a drain on taxpayer funds."
"I Kissed a Democrat Gum" is also available for $2 in case you run into the opposite problem this holiday season. The gum will freshen up your mouth after kissing someone who may have been "encouraging the implementation of stricter gun laws, explaining the need for higher taxes on wealthy Americans, or even kissing a tree."
Stupid.com also sold this politically charged gum, for both political parties, but the stocking stuffer and gag gift is sold out on the website.
...................................................................................................................................................................
I Kissed a Republican (or Democrat) Gum
By Nicki Rossoll, December 3, 2013
If you get caught under the mistletoe with a member of the opposite party this holiday season, not to worry, the Onion store has an inexpensive gift that can solve this problem.
A pack of "I Kissed a Republican Gum" is on sale for just $2. The pack includes eight pieces of peppermint gum that promise to freshen up your mouth after kissing a Republican who has been "schmoozing with big business, encouraging the destruction of the environment, or even yelling at some old person for being a drain on taxpayer funds."
"I Kissed a Democrat Gum" is also available for $2 in case you run into the opposite problem this holiday season. The gum will freshen up your mouth after kissing someone who may have been "encouraging the implementation of stricter gun laws, explaining the need for higher taxes on wealthy Americans, or even kissing a tree."
Stupid.com also sold this politically charged gum, for both political parties, but the stocking stuffer and gag gift is sold out on the website.
...................................................................................................................................................................
One man's opinion
...................................................................................................................................................................
Don’t Tax Political Speech
The IRS’s proposed new 501(c)(4) rules are fundamentally unfair.
By Douglas B. Levene, December 3, 2013
The IRS has just proposed new regulations that would effectively prevent many so-called 501(c)(4) organizations from engaging in political activity. These regulations are deeply flawed both from tax and First Amendment perspectives and should be opposed by anyone who supports free speech. Unfortunately, there seems to be a great deal of confusion about what 501(c)(4) organizations are and why they are tax-exempt (though donations to them are not tax-deductible). Once these points are understood, the unfairness of the proposed new regulations is laid bare.
A 501(c)(4) organization is not a charity. Charities are organized under a different section of the Internal Revenue Code, section 501(c)(3), and gifts to them are generally deductible from the donor’s taxable income. A 501(c)(3) organization exists for religious, educational, charitable, scientific, literary, or other similar purposes and is prohibited from participating in political activities.
A 501(c)(4), by contrast, is organized for purposes of “social welfare.” Organizations in this category include not just political groups but volunteer fire departments, veterans’ organizations, civic-improvement leagues, and many others. They are allowed to participate in political activities, within limits. Donors to a 501(c)(4) group cannot deduct the donations from their taxable income, and nothing in the proposed new regulations would change that.
The newly proposed rules would change the status not of the donors’ income taxes but those of the organization. If a political group is eligible to use section 501(c)(4), then under current rules, it is tax-exempt. If you take away that tax exemption, as the new rules threaten to do, it will have to pay taxes on its income, which includes the donations it receives.
The very idea of taxing a nonprofit may seem strange. Since 501(c)(4) groups typically spend every penny they take in and don’t make any profits or distribute any earnings to shareholders, how can they have any liability for income taxes? The answer is that under IRS rules, any organization’s expenses are deductible only if it is engaged in profit-making activities. This rule is not completely illogical. It’s intended to prevent people from deducting expenses for their hobbies: Otherwise, you could declare your unprofitable hobby to be a business and write off everything you spent on it.
For example, consider what would happen if a bunch of fishermen decide to form an organization to promote fishing, buying boats and tackle and running fishing trips. Remember, if they were acting individually, none of them would be able to deduct their fishing expenses. If they form a club, all their contributions count as income to the club, and none of the expenses of the club are deductible — from either the donors’ individual taxes or those of the corporation — because the club is not engaged in a profit-making activity. This makes sense, because we do not want to permit individuals to create deductions for their hobbies by engaging in them collectively rather than individually.
However, we do give the fishing club a tax exemption, to put its members in the same position for tax purposes that they would be in if they were fishing individually: Each member earns money, pays taxes on that money, and then spends that money on fishing. To subject the club to a tax on that income, the money spent on fishing, would be to impose an additional tax on the members’ fishing. To prevent abuses, however, the tax exemption for non-profit groups typically exclude any investment income of the group because otherwise that income would never be subject to tax, whether in the hands of the individual members or of the group.
Now, what about political activities of the kind at issue in the proposed new rules? As with the fishermen, individuals can earn money, pay taxes on that money, and use what’s left to engage in political activities. But under the proposed rules — which would remove a 501(c)(4)’s tax exemption if it engages in virtually any political activity — if they choose to do so collectively, rather than individually, the organization will be subject to income tax on the amount it collects. If an individual spends $1,000 on posters, he will get $1,000 worth; but if he donates $1,000 to the organization, it will have to pay $350 to the IRS and will be left with only $650 to purchase posters.
Needless to say, there is no tax rationale for this proposed rule change. It doesn’t prevent any tax abuses, and it violates fundamental principles of tax fairness by treating similarly situated taxpayers in completely different ways. The purpose of the proposed new rules seems to be precisely to impose a prohibitive tax on group political activities that would not be imposed if the group’s members engaged in them individually. This appears to be a straight-up violation of the First Amendment.
It has been argued that the proposed rules are justified as a way to force political groups to organize under a different tax-exemption provision, section 527, which requires them to disclose their donors. But if the government has a legitimate interest in forcing the disclosure of donors to political groups — a question that is far from clear, as either a policy or a constitutional matter — it should do so directly, with a statute requiring disclosure, rather than through the back door, by twisting the tax code to impose taxes on individuals engaged in collective political activities. For all these reasons, the proposed regulations are fundamentally unfair and ought to be withdrawn.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Don’t Tax Political Speech
The IRS’s proposed new 501(c)(4) rules are fundamentally unfair.
By Douglas B. Levene, December 3, 2013
The IRS has just proposed new regulations that would effectively prevent many so-called 501(c)(4) organizations from engaging in political activity. These regulations are deeply flawed both from tax and First Amendment perspectives and should be opposed by anyone who supports free speech. Unfortunately, there seems to be a great deal of confusion about what 501(c)(4) organizations are and why they are tax-exempt (though donations to them are not tax-deductible). Once these points are understood, the unfairness of the proposed new regulations is laid bare.
A 501(c)(4) organization is not a charity. Charities are organized under a different section of the Internal Revenue Code, section 501(c)(3), and gifts to them are generally deductible from the donor’s taxable income. A 501(c)(3) organization exists for religious, educational, charitable, scientific, literary, or other similar purposes and is prohibited from participating in political activities.
A 501(c)(4), by contrast, is organized for purposes of “social welfare.” Organizations in this category include not just political groups but volunteer fire departments, veterans’ organizations, civic-improvement leagues, and many others. They are allowed to participate in political activities, within limits. Donors to a 501(c)(4) group cannot deduct the donations from their taxable income, and nothing in the proposed new regulations would change that.
The newly proposed rules would change the status not of the donors’ income taxes but those of the organization. If a political group is eligible to use section 501(c)(4), then under current rules, it is tax-exempt. If you take away that tax exemption, as the new rules threaten to do, it will have to pay taxes on its income, which includes the donations it receives.
The very idea of taxing a nonprofit may seem strange. Since 501(c)(4) groups typically spend every penny they take in and don’t make any profits or distribute any earnings to shareholders, how can they have any liability for income taxes? The answer is that under IRS rules, any organization’s expenses are deductible only if it is engaged in profit-making activities. This rule is not completely illogical. It’s intended to prevent people from deducting expenses for their hobbies: Otherwise, you could declare your unprofitable hobby to be a business and write off everything you spent on it.
For example, consider what would happen if a bunch of fishermen decide to form an organization to promote fishing, buying boats and tackle and running fishing trips. Remember, if they were acting individually, none of them would be able to deduct their fishing expenses. If they form a club, all their contributions count as income to the club, and none of the expenses of the club are deductible — from either the donors’ individual taxes or those of the corporation — because the club is not engaged in a profit-making activity. This makes sense, because we do not want to permit individuals to create deductions for their hobbies by engaging in them collectively rather than individually.
However, we do give the fishing club a tax exemption, to put its members in the same position for tax purposes that they would be in if they were fishing individually: Each member earns money, pays taxes on that money, and then spends that money on fishing. To subject the club to a tax on that income, the money spent on fishing, would be to impose an additional tax on the members’ fishing. To prevent abuses, however, the tax exemption for non-profit groups typically exclude any investment income of the group because otherwise that income would never be subject to tax, whether in the hands of the individual members or of the group.
Now, what about political activities of the kind at issue in the proposed new rules? As with the fishermen, individuals can earn money, pay taxes on that money, and use what’s left to engage in political activities. But under the proposed rules — which would remove a 501(c)(4)’s tax exemption if it engages in virtually any political activity — if they choose to do so collectively, rather than individually, the organization will be subject to income tax on the amount it collects. If an individual spends $1,000 on posters, he will get $1,000 worth; but if he donates $1,000 to the organization, it will have to pay $350 to the IRS and will be left with only $650 to purchase posters.
Needless to say, there is no tax rationale for this proposed rule change. It doesn’t prevent any tax abuses, and it violates fundamental principles of tax fairness by treating similarly situated taxpayers in completely different ways. The purpose of the proposed new rules seems to be precisely to impose a prohibitive tax on group political activities that would not be imposed if the group’s members engaged in them individually. This appears to be a straight-up violation of the First Amendment.
It has been argued that the proposed rules are justified as a way to force political groups to organize under a different tax-exemption provision, section 527, which requires them to disclose their donors. But if the government has a legitimate interest in forcing the disclosure of donors to political groups — a question that is far from clear, as either a policy or a constitutional matter — it should do so directly, with a statute requiring disclosure, rather than through the back door, by twisting the tax code to impose taxes on individuals engaged in collective political activities. For all these reasons, the proposed regulations are fundamentally unfair and ought to be withdrawn.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Monday, December 2, 2013
Think we don't need restrictions on "dark money" spending? Instead, we have a case of "... bullshit with a serving of horseshit on the side” ...
..................................................................................................................................
Karl Rove’s dark money group spent more on politics than it reported to the IRS
By Kim Barker, November 25, 2013
On its 2012 tax return, GOP strategist Karl Rove’s dark money behemoth Crossroads GPS justified its status as a tax-exempt social welfare group in part by citing its grants of $35 million to other similarly aligned nonprofits. (Here’s the tax return itself, which we detailed last week.)
The return, signed under penalty of perjury, specified that the grants would be used for social welfare purposes, “and not for political expenditures, consistent with the organization’s tax-exempt mission.”
But that’s not what happened.
New tax documents, made public last Tuesday, indicate that at least $11.2 million of the grant money given to the group Americans for Tax Reform was spent on political activities expressly advocating for or against candidates. This means Crossroads spent at least $85.7 million on political activities in 2012, not the $74.5 million reported to the Internal Revenue Service. That’s about 45 percent of its total expenditures.
The transaction also provides a window into one way social welfare nonprofits work around the tax code’s dictate that their primary purpose cannot be influencing elections. Grants sent from one nonprofit to another may be earmarked for social welfare purposes, but sometimes end up being used to slam or praise candidates running for office.
“They have a bad grantee here,” said Marcus Owens, the former head of the IRS’ Exempt Organizations division, who looked at the documents at ProPublica’s request. “My question would be, ‘What has Crossroads done to recover that money?’ That’s what the IRS would expect.”
Crossroads spokesman Jonathan Collegio did not respond to questions from ProPublica about Americans for Tax Reform’s use of the grant or whether Crossroads would ask for it to be refunded.
Instead, Collegio wondered whether Americans for Tax Reform could have used resources carried over from 2011 to fund the 2012 election spending, rather than money from Crossroads. “Were resources carried over from 2011?” he asked in an email to ProPublica.
But after consulting with tax experts, ProPublica determined Americans for Tax Reform couldn’t have used resources from 2011 for the political spending.
“That’s called bullshit with a serving of horseshit on the side,” Owens said.
Americans for Tax Reform reported a total of $10.3 million in assets in the beginning of 2012. Of those assets, $8.2 million was only available on paper, an amount due from a related charity, the Americans for Tax Reform Foundation. The rest — $2.1 million — was a combination of equipment, leasehold improvements, cash holdings, net accounts receivable, prepaid expenses and deferred charges. None of those amounts changed significantly by the end of 2012. In other words, the only known source for the money Americans for Tax Reform spent on politics was donations from Crossroads and others.
Collegio didn’t respond to an email from ProPublica last Wednesday outlining how some of the Crossroads’ grant had to have been spent on election activities.
John Kartch, the spokesman for Americans for Tax Reform, also didn’t respond to ProPublica questions about the use of the Crossroads grant for politics.
Social welfare nonprofits, also known as dark money groups because they don’t have to report their donors, are allowed to spend money on politics as long as their primary purpose is social welfare. The groups often count so-called issue ads that stop short of advocating for or against a candidate and grants toward that social welfare mission. Since the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision allowed corporations and unions to spend directly on election ads, these nonprofits have turned into the vehicle of choice for anonymous spending, dumping more than $254 million into the 2012 elections.
Of the 150 or so social welfare nonprofits that reported spending to the Federal Election Commission during the 2012 election cycle, Crossroads was king, the biggest anonymous spender by far. Americans for Tax Reform came in fourth, with $15.8 million.
On its 2012 tax return, made public last week, Crossroads said it gave its biggest grant, $26.4 million, to Americans for Tax Reform for “social welfare.”
In the last part of 2012, Americans for Tax Reform told the FEC it spent repeatedly on ads and mailers, $15.8 million altogether on so-called “independent expenditures,” mostly in the month before the election, opposing Democrats and supporting Republicans running for Congress. (Independent expenditures tell people they should vote for or against a certain candidate.) Most of that money, more than $10.7 million, was for media buys, to purchase air time on TV and radio for various ads. More than $1.6 million went to designing, producing and sending mailers. Most of the rest of the money went to ad production and phone banks. (Here are some examples of those ads.)
Americans for Tax Reform told the IRS in its tax return, obtained and made public by the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), that it raised and spent about $31 million in 2012. Since the group got $26.4 million from Crossroads, only $4.6 million of its revenue came from other donors. At least $11.2 million of Crossroads money had to go toward the political ads reported to the FEC.
That means Americans for Tax Reform spent about 51 percent of its money on political ads reported to the FEC in 2012.
But the group also told the IRS on its tax return, signed under penalty of perjury, that it spent only $9.8 million on direct and indirect campaign activity in 2012, defining that spending as “engaged solely in the making of independent expenditures supporting and opposing candidates for federal office.”
Last Tuesday, CREW filed a complaint with the IRS and the tax division of the Department of Justice against Americans for Tax Reform and its president, Grover Norquist, alleging they deliberately provided false information to the IRS in the tax filing.
ProPublica and others have documented how such groups often minimize their political spending to the IRS. Although the IRS has been hesitant to establish any so-called “bright lines” for campaign activity, campaign finance and tax lawyers say independent expenditures reported to the FEC definitely qualify as political spending under the tax code.
Crossroads GPS itself counted all of its independent expenditures reported to the FEC in both 2010 and 2012 as part of its political spending reported to the IRS.
“Clearly, ads that tell people who to vote for or against are campaign intervention,” said a Congressional Research Service report on IRS rules on political ads prepared for Congress in August 2012. Last summer, the IRS told social welfare nonprofits that wanted to expedite their approval that political expenditures included administrative and overhead costs, and any expenditure on printed, electronic or oral statements supporting or opposing the election or nomination of any candidate for public office.
Lloyd Hitoshi Mayer, a law professor and associate dean at the University of Notre Dame who specializes in nonprofits and campaign finance, reviewed the Americans for Tax Reform documents at the request of ProPublica and said it was possible that the group was allocating overhead or other costs differently in its tax return than in its FEC filings.
“I do not see how any reasonable allocation differences could result in such a large disparity, however,” Mayer said.
Owens, the former IRS official, said it was possible that some of the media buy money reported to the FEC was later refunded by the TV stations. But even that money wouldn’t account for such a large gap, he said. Owens speculated that Americans for Tax Reform might have determined that some of its ads wouldn’t qualify for reporting to the IRS.
“There’s just no way that could withstand scrutiny under the laws that exist,” Owens said. “What you have is two documents from the same group, one for the FEC and one for the IRS, both submitted under penalty of perjury. At least one is incorrect.”
Still, on Tuesday, Kartch insisted the $9.8 million figure on Americans for Tax Reform’s tax form, known as a 990, was correct, while ignoring requests from ProPublica to explain how it was derived.
“The correct number to use here is the $9.8 million figure as reported on our 2012 990, not the number you cite from an FEC report,” Kartch wrote. “ATR meets or exceeds the requirements of the FEC and the IRS according to their standards.”
He also scoffed at the CREW complaint, saying, “This attack is political and CREW knows it is nonsense.”
It’s not clear how the IRS might respond to the apparent misuse of the Crossroads grant or to the fact that Americans for Tax Reform seems to have underreported its political spending.
Complaints to the IRS about the tax-exempt status of Crossroads and other political social welfare nonprofits have been made since 2010, but they are still pending. So is an earlier CREW complaint against Americans for Tax Reform for its spending in 2010. A scandal that erupted in May over the IRS targeting the applications of Tea Party and other conservative social welfare nonprofits may have also made the IRS more likely to take a hands-off approach to the groups, experts say.
“They’re going to keep their heads down,” Owens said.
..................................................................................................................................
Karl Rove’s dark money group spent more on politics than it reported to the IRS
By Kim Barker, November 25, 2013
On its 2012 tax return, GOP strategist Karl Rove’s dark money behemoth Crossroads GPS justified its status as a tax-exempt social welfare group in part by citing its grants of $35 million to other similarly aligned nonprofits. (Here’s the tax return itself, which we detailed last week.)
The return, signed under penalty of perjury, specified that the grants would be used for social welfare purposes, “and not for political expenditures, consistent with the organization’s tax-exempt mission.”
But that’s not what happened.
New tax documents, made public last Tuesday, indicate that at least $11.2 million of the grant money given to the group Americans for Tax Reform was spent on political activities expressly advocating for or against candidates. This means Crossroads spent at least $85.7 million on political activities in 2012, not the $74.5 million reported to the Internal Revenue Service. That’s about 45 percent of its total expenditures.
The transaction also provides a window into one way social welfare nonprofits work around the tax code’s dictate that their primary purpose cannot be influencing elections. Grants sent from one nonprofit to another may be earmarked for social welfare purposes, but sometimes end up being used to slam or praise candidates running for office.
“They have a bad grantee here,” said Marcus Owens, the former head of the IRS’ Exempt Organizations division, who looked at the documents at ProPublica’s request. “My question would be, ‘What has Crossroads done to recover that money?’ That’s what the IRS would expect.”
Crossroads spokesman Jonathan Collegio did not respond to questions from ProPublica about Americans for Tax Reform’s use of the grant or whether Crossroads would ask for it to be refunded.
Instead, Collegio wondered whether Americans for Tax Reform could have used resources carried over from 2011 to fund the 2012 election spending, rather than money from Crossroads. “Were resources carried over from 2011?” he asked in an email to ProPublica.
But after consulting with tax experts, ProPublica determined Americans for Tax Reform couldn’t have used resources from 2011 for the political spending.
“That’s called bullshit with a serving of horseshit on the side,” Owens said.
Americans for Tax Reform reported a total of $10.3 million in assets in the beginning of 2012. Of those assets, $8.2 million was only available on paper, an amount due from a related charity, the Americans for Tax Reform Foundation. The rest — $2.1 million — was a combination of equipment, leasehold improvements, cash holdings, net accounts receivable, prepaid expenses and deferred charges. None of those amounts changed significantly by the end of 2012. In other words, the only known source for the money Americans for Tax Reform spent on politics was donations from Crossroads and others.
Collegio didn’t respond to an email from ProPublica last Wednesday outlining how some of the Crossroads’ grant had to have been spent on election activities.
John Kartch, the spokesman for Americans for Tax Reform, also didn’t respond to ProPublica questions about the use of the Crossroads grant for politics.
Social welfare nonprofits, also known as dark money groups because they don’t have to report their donors, are allowed to spend money on politics as long as their primary purpose is social welfare. The groups often count so-called issue ads that stop short of advocating for or against a candidate and grants toward that social welfare mission. Since the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision allowed corporations and unions to spend directly on election ads, these nonprofits have turned into the vehicle of choice for anonymous spending, dumping more than $254 million into the 2012 elections.
Of the 150 or so social welfare nonprofits that reported spending to the Federal Election Commission during the 2012 election cycle, Crossroads was king, the biggest anonymous spender by far. Americans for Tax Reform came in fourth, with $15.8 million.
On its 2012 tax return, made public last week, Crossroads said it gave its biggest grant, $26.4 million, to Americans for Tax Reform for “social welfare.”
In the last part of 2012, Americans for Tax Reform told the FEC it spent repeatedly on ads and mailers, $15.8 million altogether on so-called “independent expenditures,” mostly in the month before the election, opposing Democrats and supporting Republicans running for Congress. (Independent expenditures tell people they should vote for or against a certain candidate.) Most of that money, more than $10.7 million, was for media buys, to purchase air time on TV and radio for various ads. More than $1.6 million went to designing, producing and sending mailers. Most of the rest of the money went to ad production and phone banks. (Here are some examples of those ads.)
Americans for Tax Reform told the IRS in its tax return, obtained and made public by the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), that it raised and spent about $31 million in 2012. Since the group got $26.4 million from Crossroads, only $4.6 million of its revenue came from other donors. At least $11.2 million of Crossroads money had to go toward the political ads reported to the FEC.
That means Americans for Tax Reform spent about 51 percent of its money on political ads reported to the FEC in 2012.
But the group also told the IRS on its tax return, signed under penalty of perjury, that it spent only $9.8 million on direct and indirect campaign activity in 2012, defining that spending as “engaged solely in the making of independent expenditures supporting and opposing candidates for federal office.”
Last Tuesday, CREW filed a complaint with the IRS and the tax division of the Department of Justice against Americans for Tax Reform and its president, Grover Norquist, alleging they deliberately provided false information to the IRS in the tax filing.
ProPublica and others have documented how such groups often minimize their political spending to the IRS. Although the IRS has been hesitant to establish any so-called “bright lines” for campaign activity, campaign finance and tax lawyers say independent expenditures reported to the FEC definitely qualify as political spending under the tax code.
Crossroads GPS itself counted all of its independent expenditures reported to the FEC in both 2010 and 2012 as part of its political spending reported to the IRS.
“Clearly, ads that tell people who to vote for or against are campaign intervention,” said a Congressional Research Service report on IRS rules on political ads prepared for Congress in August 2012. Last summer, the IRS told social welfare nonprofits that wanted to expedite their approval that political expenditures included administrative and overhead costs, and any expenditure on printed, electronic or oral statements supporting or opposing the election or nomination of any candidate for public office.
Lloyd Hitoshi Mayer, a law professor and associate dean at the University of Notre Dame who specializes in nonprofits and campaign finance, reviewed the Americans for Tax Reform documents at the request of ProPublica and said it was possible that the group was allocating overhead or other costs differently in its tax return than in its FEC filings.
“I do not see how any reasonable allocation differences could result in such a large disparity, however,” Mayer said.
Owens, the former IRS official, said it was possible that some of the media buy money reported to the FEC was later refunded by the TV stations. But even that money wouldn’t account for such a large gap, he said. Owens speculated that Americans for Tax Reform might have determined that some of its ads wouldn’t qualify for reporting to the IRS.
“There’s just no way that could withstand scrutiny under the laws that exist,” Owens said. “What you have is two documents from the same group, one for the FEC and one for the IRS, both submitted under penalty of perjury. At least one is incorrect.”
Still, on Tuesday, Kartch insisted the $9.8 million figure on Americans for Tax Reform’s tax form, known as a 990, was correct, while ignoring requests from ProPublica to explain how it was derived.
“The correct number to use here is the $9.8 million figure as reported on our 2012 990, not the number you cite from an FEC report,” Kartch wrote. “ATR meets or exceeds the requirements of the FEC and the IRS according to their standards.”
He also scoffed at the CREW complaint, saying, “This attack is political and CREW knows it is nonsense.”
It’s not clear how the IRS might respond to the apparent misuse of the Crossroads grant or to the fact that Americans for Tax Reform seems to have underreported its political spending.
Complaints to the IRS about the tax-exempt status of Crossroads and other political social welfare nonprofits have been made since 2010, but they are still pending. So is an earlier CREW complaint against Americans for Tax Reform for its spending in 2010. A scandal that erupted in May over the IRS targeting the applications of Tea Party and other conservative social welfare nonprofits may have also made the IRS more likely to take a hands-off approach to the groups, experts say.
“They’re going to keep their heads down,” Owens said.
..................................................................................................................................
Who cares whether Texas is better than California? Actually, any state that produced Rick Perry simply cannot be "better"!
..................................................................................................................................
Texas Versus California
By Jason Stanford, December 2, 2013
Here we go again. Pointing to a conservative study, Gov. Rick Perry proclaimed, “The discussion’s over. The debate’s over. The proof is in. Texas wins.” And who did we beat? California, of course. It’s enough to make you wonder if little Ricky got enough love growing up on the dirt farm. Someone get this kid a 4-H ribbon so the grownups can talk, because we’ve got some work to do.
How about just once we skipped the provincial chest thumping? Yes, Texas, you’re doing fine. The barbecue is the best we’ve ever had, I promise. Oh yes, that’s quite a lot of jobs, yessir. No one could argue that Perry has not created a low-tax, low-regulation utopia for the wealthy and incorporated.
So why is Perry still arguing this point? Does he really need this much validation? I have no idea what it feels like to trip over my own rainbows live on national television, but why isn’t the love of a good woman, the laurels from business magazines, and the grudging thanks of employed Texans enough to heal his injured ego?
Most assume Perry’s jet setting jobs tour is prelude to another presidential campaign, though “I’m right, you’re wrong” seems a strange message to deliver to voters in California, Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland, Missouri and New York. His compulsion to impose his superiority over other states comes across as defensive and insecure. Everything is bigger in Texas, including, it seems, our unmet emotional needs.
If Perry were secure in his legacy, then he’d stick with the economic argument. Instead, Perry tells extravagant lies. In January, Perry claimed that the “funding that we have seen in the state of Texas for public education has been pretty phenomenal” even though school funding has dropped 25 percent since 2002. It ain’t bragging if it’s true, but if it ain’t true, it’s not bragging. It’s just a sad, easily disproved, totally unbelievable lie from Perry, and it’s one of 27 that Politifact has identified as “false” and 14 as “pants on fire.” Bless his heart.
I wish that just once the provincial pom-pom squad would stop making us all look like anxious ninnies in this eternal struggle to prove our superiority over other, less-Texan states. Have some compassion for them, for they know not what they miss.
Instead, how about we ask ourselves a more interesting question: How can Texas be better? Doesn’t that open up a whole new range of blue skies? The alternative to the status quo in Texas has never been California. The choice Texas really faces is different: Do you want more of the same, or do you think Texas can do better?
That question leads to so many others:
If our economy is booming, why is there never enough money for schools?
If Texas is creating wealth, can we reward work as well?
Why can’t the booming industry responsible for ripping up our state highways pay to fix them?
Speaking of booming, why is it OK for fertilizer plants to keep the fire marshal from inspecting them to make sure they don’t kill the neighbors?
If our economy depends on the human capital educated at universities, how come Texas still has only three Tier I research universities while—forgive me—California has 11?
Is it time to ask why Perry has to go to California in the first place to poach companies? Texas is a great place to grow a company, but why is California a great place to start a company? What do they know about fostering education, collaboration, and innovation that we can replicate here? Instead of stealing their companies, how about stealing their secret recipe?
The opportunity is as big as Texas, but admitting that we have room for improvement is the first step. Unfortunately, “The discussion’s over,” according to Perry. It’s not. Let’s get Perry a big, shiny trophy to distract him while we have a grownup conversation about how Texas can be even better. Otherwise, we’ll still be mired in silly political squabbles about whether Texas is better than California, and the only answer we ever get will be an unsatisfying “it depends.”
..................................................................................................................................
Texas Versus California
By Jason Stanford, December 2, 2013
Here we go again. Pointing to a conservative study, Gov. Rick Perry proclaimed, “The discussion’s over. The debate’s over. The proof is in. Texas wins.” And who did we beat? California, of course. It’s enough to make you wonder if little Ricky got enough love growing up on the dirt farm. Someone get this kid a 4-H ribbon so the grownups can talk, because we’ve got some work to do.
How about just once we skipped the provincial chest thumping? Yes, Texas, you’re doing fine. The barbecue is the best we’ve ever had, I promise. Oh yes, that’s quite a lot of jobs, yessir. No one could argue that Perry has not created a low-tax, low-regulation utopia for the wealthy and incorporated.
So why is Perry still arguing this point? Does he really need this much validation? I have no idea what it feels like to trip over my own rainbows live on national television, but why isn’t the love of a good woman, the laurels from business magazines, and the grudging thanks of employed Texans enough to heal his injured ego?
Most assume Perry’s jet setting jobs tour is prelude to another presidential campaign, though “I’m right, you’re wrong” seems a strange message to deliver to voters in California, Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland, Missouri and New York. His compulsion to impose his superiority over other states comes across as defensive and insecure. Everything is bigger in Texas, including, it seems, our unmet emotional needs.
If Perry were secure in his legacy, then he’d stick with the economic argument. Instead, Perry tells extravagant lies. In January, Perry claimed that the “funding that we have seen in the state of Texas for public education has been pretty phenomenal” even though school funding has dropped 25 percent since 2002. It ain’t bragging if it’s true, but if it ain’t true, it’s not bragging. It’s just a sad, easily disproved, totally unbelievable lie from Perry, and it’s one of 27 that Politifact has identified as “false” and 14 as “pants on fire.” Bless his heart.
I wish that just once the provincial pom-pom squad would stop making us all look like anxious ninnies in this eternal struggle to prove our superiority over other, less-Texan states. Have some compassion for them, for they know not what they miss.
Instead, how about we ask ourselves a more interesting question: How can Texas be better? Doesn’t that open up a whole new range of blue skies? The alternative to the status quo in Texas has never been California. The choice Texas really faces is different: Do you want more of the same, or do you think Texas can do better?
That question leads to so many others:
If our economy is booming, why is there never enough money for schools?
If Texas is creating wealth, can we reward work as well?
Why can’t the booming industry responsible for ripping up our state highways pay to fix them?
Speaking of booming, why is it OK for fertilizer plants to keep the fire marshal from inspecting them to make sure they don’t kill the neighbors?
If our economy depends on the human capital educated at universities, how come Texas still has only three Tier I research universities while—forgive me—California has 11?
Is it time to ask why Perry has to go to California in the first place to poach companies? Texas is a great place to grow a company, but why is California a great place to start a company? What do they know about fostering education, collaboration, and innovation that we can replicate here? Instead of stealing their companies, how about stealing their secret recipe?
The opportunity is as big as Texas, but admitting that we have room for improvement is the first step. Unfortunately, “The discussion’s over,” according to Perry. It’s not. Let’s get Perry a big, shiny trophy to distract him while we have a grownup conversation about how Texas can be even better. Otherwise, we’ll still be mired in silly political squabbles about whether Texas is better than California, and the only answer we ever get will be an unsatisfying “it depends.”
..................................................................................................................................
The U.S. House of Representatives is scheduled to meet only 113 days in 2014, down from 126 this year-- this is shameful!
..................................................................................................................................
Congress is a work-free zone and will likely stay that way
By Joel Connelly, December 2, 2013
The U.S. House of Representatives voted early this fall to knock 3.8 million Americans off the federal food stamp program and to impose stiff work requirements on able-bodied, childless adults receiving federal food aid.
The House put no work requirements on its able-bodied self. The “People’s House” will be in session only 126 days this year, and is scheduled to meet only 113 days in 2014. With money to run the federal government due to run out on Jan. 15, the House will meet just eight days between now and Jan. 7.
“Sadly, the House of Representatives has shown an inability to move on any meaningful legislation: It has been obsessed with repeal of the Affordable Care Act, and blocked progress on everything else,” Rep. Steve Israel, D-New York, who chairs the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said in Seattle last week.
House Speaker John Boehner at times seems proud of the record. Just 15 bills have been sent to President Obama this year for his signature.
“We should not be judged on how many new laws we create: We ought to be judged on how many laws we repeal,” Boehner told CBS’ Bob Schieffer in July. The House under Boehner has voted more than 50 times to repeal health care reform.
October’s federal government shutdown built up Democratic hopes that the “Tea Party House” could change hands in the 2014 midterm elections. The inept roll out of Obamacare has, however, put Republicans back narrowly in the lead in “generic” national polls of which party voters want to run Congress.
Republicans hold an advantage of 30 seats in the House. The GOP has been bolstered by gerrymandering of district boundaries in such big states as Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania and North Carolina. Democrats took a majority of House votes last year in Ohio and Michigan only to wind up a minority of seats.
Washington has no U.S. Senate seat up next year. The state’s 10 House districts were redrawn in 2011, in such a way as to reduce the prospect of competitive races.
Two Republicans — Reps. Dave Reichert and Jaime Herrera Beutler — were given much safer districts. So was Democratic Rep. Rick Larsen. A new, Democratic-leaning South Puget Sound district was created to the specifications of now-Rep. Denny Heck. Democrat Suzan Del Bene easily captured the supposedly up-for-grabs 1st District.
What, then, could upset the applecart?
* A second Republican-caused shutdown of the government, or another debt ceiling crisis, could swing the advantage back to the Democrats. The October shutdown allowed Israel to recruit some front-rank challengers to Republican incumbents. Reichert was among GOP lawmakers to sag in the polls.
* Continued problems with Obamacare could underscore Republicans’ anti-government arguments, and throw Democrats — as the party of government — back on their heels. The Democrats have 21 Senate seats to defend in 2014, and seem likely to lose seats in two states, South Dakota and West Virginia, where incumbents are retiring.
* Turnout will sway the 2014 outcome. The mid-term electorate tends to be older, more white and more male than in presidential years. Democrats need to motivate the coalition of young voters, Hispanics, women and African Americans that has twice put President Obama into the White House.
The food stamps issue might just motivate the Obama coalition. Senate and House negotiators are locked in negotiations over a new farm bill. The Democratic-run Senate has voted to trim $4 billion from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Programin the next 10 years. The GOP-run House would slash $40 billion from the program.
A sharp exchange of correspondence between Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, R-Wash., a member of the House Republican Leadership, and Spokane Democratic activist Sharon Smith shows America’s political divide.
Smith wrote to McMorris Rodgers questioning her vote for food stamp cuts. McMorris Rodgers wrote back with a blame-the-other-side letter.
“Since President Obama took office, the (SNAP) program has grown at an unprecedented rate with one in seven Americans now receiving food stamps,” McMorris Rodgers wrote back. “. . . I believe we need to make responsible and reasonable spending cuts to preserve the integrity of this program for those truly in need.”
Smith has edited McMorris Rodgers’ response on her Facebook page. When McMorris Rodgers claims the House bill is saving taxpayers $40 billion, Smith suggests injecting the words “is nothing compared to how it affects seniors, children, men and women in my district who literally rely on food stamps to live.”
When McMorris Rodgers claims the House bill makes “common sense reforms” and “closes loopholes,” Smith claims this “is a smoke screen to give billions to big agriculture and continue the unfair practice of tax breaks and loopholes to corporations and our most wealthy.”
McMorris Rodgers represents an Eastern Washington district with a higher percentage of people receiving food stamps, and a higher poverty level, than the nation as a whole.
Given the current polarization in America, however, the 5th District will likely vote to reelect the congresswoman who voted to cut the food stamps program that has historically enjoyed bipartisan support. With Chelan and Kittitas counties added to his Western Washington district, Dave Reichert is unlikely to pay a political price for his vote to cut people off food stamps.
The voters may be mad as hell, but they’re likely to keep taking it.
..................................................................................................................................
Congress is a work-free zone and will likely stay that way
By Joel Connelly, December 2, 2013
The U.S. House of Representatives voted early this fall to knock 3.8 million Americans off the federal food stamp program and to impose stiff work requirements on able-bodied, childless adults receiving federal food aid.
The House put no work requirements on its able-bodied self. The “People’s House” will be in session only 126 days this year, and is scheduled to meet only 113 days in 2014. With money to run the federal government due to run out on Jan. 15, the House will meet just eight days between now and Jan. 7.
“Sadly, the House of Representatives has shown an inability to move on any meaningful legislation: It has been obsessed with repeal of the Affordable Care Act, and blocked progress on everything else,” Rep. Steve Israel, D-New York, who chairs the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said in Seattle last week.
House Speaker John Boehner at times seems proud of the record. Just 15 bills have been sent to President Obama this year for his signature.
“We should not be judged on how many new laws we create: We ought to be judged on how many laws we repeal,” Boehner told CBS’ Bob Schieffer in July. The House under Boehner has voted more than 50 times to repeal health care reform.
October’s federal government shutdown built up Democratic hopes that the “Tea Party House” could change hands in the 2014 midterm elections. The inept roll out of Obamacare has, however, put Republicans back narrowly in the lead in “generic” national polls of which party voters want to run Congress.
Republicans hold an advantage of 30 seats in the House. The GOP has been bolstered by gerrymandering of district boundaries in such big states as Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania and North Carolina. Democrats took a majority of House votes last year in Ohio and Michigan only to wind up a minority of seats.
Washington has no U.S. Senate seat up next year. The state’s 10 House districts were redrawn in 2011, in such a way as to reduce the prospect of competitive races.
Two Republicans — Reps. Dave Reichert and Jaime Herrera Beutler — were given much safer districts. So was Democratic Rep. Rick Larsen. A new, Democratic-leaning South Puget Sound district was created to the specifications of now-Rep. Denny Heck. Democrat Suzan Del Bene easily captured the supposedly up-for-grabs 1st District.
What, then, could upset the applecart?
* A second Republican-caused shutdown of the government, or another debt ceiling crisis, could swing the advantage back to the Democrats. The October shutdown allowed Israel to recruit some front-rank challengers to Republican incumbents. Reichert was among GOP lawmakers to sag in the polls.
* Continued problems with Obamacare could underscore Republicans’ anti-government arguments, and throw Democrats — as the party of government — back on their heels. The Democrats have 21 Senate seats to defend in 2014, and seem likely to lose seats in two states, South Dakota and West Virginia, where incumbents are retiring.
* Turnout will sway the 2014 outcome. The mid-term electorate tends to be older, more white and more male than in presidential years. Democrats need to motivate the coalition of young voters, Hispanics, women and African Americans that has twice put President Obama into the White House.
The food stamps issue might just motivate the Obama coalition. Senate and House negotiators are locked in negotiations over a new farm bill. The Democratic-run Senate has voted to trim $4 billion from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Programin the next 10 years. The GOP-run House would slash $40 billion from the program.
A sharp exchange of correspondence between Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, R-Wash., a member of the House Republican Leadership, and Spokane Democratic activist Sharon Smith shows America’s political divide.
Smith wrote to McMorris Rodgers questioning her vote for food stamp cuts. McMorris Rodgers wrote back with a blame-the-other-side letter.
“Since President Obama took office, the (SNAP) program has grown at an unprecedented rate with one in seven Americans now receiving food stamps,” McMorris Rodgers wrote back. “. . . I believe we need to make responsible and reasonable spending cuts to preserve the integrity of this program for those truly in need.”
Smith has edited McMorris Rodgers’ response on her Facebook page. When McMorris Rodgers claims the House bill is saving taxpayers $40 billion, Smith suggests injecting the words “is nothing compared to how it affects seniors, children, men and women in my district who literally rely on food stamps to live.”
When McMorris Rodgers claims the House bill makes “common sense reforms” and “closes loopholes,” Smith claims this “is a smoke screen to give billions to big agriculture and continue the unfair practice of tax breaks and loopholes to corporations and our most wealthy.”
McMorris Rodgers represents an Eastern Washington district with a higher percentage of people receiving food stamps, and a higher poverty level, than the nation as a whole.
Given the current polarization in America, however, the 5th District will likely vote to reelect the congresswoman who voted to cut the food stamps program that has historically enjoyed bipartisan support. With Chelan and Kittitas counties added to his Western Washington district, Dave Reichert is unlikely to pay a political price for his vote to cut people off food stamps.
The voters may be mad as hell, but they’re likely to keep taking it.
..................................................................................................................................
Sunday, December 1, 2013
Small donors, especially via the web, have increasingly helped build war chests for female candidates
..................................................................................................................................
As Fund-Raisers in Congress, Women Break the Cash Ceiling
By Jennifer Steinhauer, November 29, 2013
The first time Senator Patty Murray ran for local office, she was so embarrassed to ask people for money for her campaign that she and her husband held a garage sale. But her generous husband could not stop himself from giving away an expensive lawn mower, she said, leaving the fund-raiser at a net loss.
By the time she ran for the Senate in 1992, she had gained the confidence to hold out the hat enthusiastically.
“I learned that you have to ask people,” said Ms. Murray, Democrat of Washington, adding, “The guys could go to the Chamber of Commerce. I went to the moms who had kids in preschool.”
For decades, female candidates lagged behind their male counterparts in fund-raising, largely because donors, most of them men, did not have faith in their ability to win. Women — the go-to donors for female office seekers — were historically more interested in giving to causes than to candidates.
But over the last decade, women running for Congress have raised on average more than their male counterparts, and substantially more in the Senate in election cycles when prominent women like Hillary Rodham Clinton and Elizabeth Warren were in the game.
Ms. Warren, who has emerged as a fund-raising powerhouse, collected $42.1 million for her race last year in Massachusetts, the most money a woman has ever raised in a Senate campaign. Second place goes to Mrs. Clinton, who raised $38.7 million for her 2006 Senate re-election campaign.
The financial advantage among women is especially true for Democrats, who have benefited from a fund-raising machine for liberal female candidates, the increase in female donors, who tend to give to Democrats, and the rise of small donations, which have helped women in particular.
“There has been a change in people’s perceptions of women’s ability to run and the power they are able to accumulate once elected,” said Dee Dee Myers, the author of “Why Women Should Rule the World” and a managing director at the Glover Park Group, a Washington lobbying and communications firm. “In politics, money follows the winners.”
Women in the Senate, who now hold a record 20 seats and lead some of the most powerful committees, tell a lifetime of stories about running for office and being told they could not win — and therefore would not be getting a check.
Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, recalled her race for governor in 1990, when people suggested that she get her rich husband to pay for the campaign, and women were afraid to spend their own money. “One woman asked me, ‘How can I help?’” Ms. Feinstein said. “I said, ‘You can make a contribution,’ and she said, ‘I’ll need to ask my husband.’ There was enormous bias against women by other women. And that’s been the biggest change.”
Female Democratic candidates have been helped the most by other women. The Center for Responsive Politics reports that Democratic women running for Congress in 2014 have received almost 40 percent of their money from women, compared with 29 percent for female Republicans.
Many Democrats credit Emily’s List, a political action committee established in 1985 to help Democratic women who support abortion rights. Since its founding, it has raised over $350 million and has helped elect hundreds of women around the country.
Senator Barbara Mikulski, Democrat of Maryland and the longest-serving woman in the Senate, said that when Emily’s List paid for a poll in her first Senate race, in 1986, it showed a base of support that indicated she could win. “It showed I had a core base in an area that was determinative,” she said. “Emily’s List has just been an enormous force.”
Republicans have sought to catch up. “There is a lot more money in the Democratic Party,” said Marjorie Dannenfelser, the president of the Susan B. Anthony List, which supports candidates who oppose abortion.
Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, said the men in her party often hurt contributions to Republican women. “There have been times when a few Republican candidates have made truly offensive and outrageous statements that unfortunately have splashed on other Republicans among women donors,” she said.
Once women accumulate power, their fund-raising ability grows much stronger. Representative Nancy Pelosi, Democrat of California, who is one of the most robust fund-raisers in the country, recalled that when she first set out to raise money as a congresswoman, “I could not raise large sums for the party because people would say to me, ‘You don’t have any decision-making power here.’ ”
“That is why I ran for whip,” she added. “When you call people and tell people what your purpose is, you’re likely to get something.”
But women, who still run for office at a far lower rate than men, are stymied by the business groups and local boards that tend to give money more readily to first-time male candidates than to first-time female candidates. But women have gotten better at employing social networks and fund-raisers that focus on female guests. Women’s lunches with speakers aimed at female audiences have become important for female candidates, who also work the neighborhoods. “We have great networking at the store and the PTA,” said Senator Claire McCaskill, Democrat of Missouri.
Ms. Collins said she once attended a workshop on fund-raising and asked the women leading it whom to seek out for contributions. “The advice was to use my Christmas card list,” she said. “It was actually great advice.”
Ms. Collins and others said that women routinely asked for too little. When running for the Senate in 1996, she declined to put a $1,000 check box on an envelope for donors because she thought it seemed like too much, sticking instead with a $500 cap. The first thing her campaign manager did, she said, was throw out the donation envelopes and order new ones with a $1,000 box to check.
“Your ask can never be too big, because nobody is insulted by that,” said Roz Wyman, a major Democratic fund-raiser in Los Angeles. “In small states, they never ask for enough money.”
But this has been offset for women by the increasing role of small donors, especially via the web, who have helped build war chests for candidates of both sexes. “The strength of our effort right now is our small donors,” said Ms. Pelosi, who would like to see legislation that provides matching funds for such donations. “It’s a mobilizing tool, as well as a fund-raising tool.” Women still make up only 20 percent of donors to political action committees, compared with 15 percent in 1990.
Small donors started to turn the dollars toward women, and the trend seems likely to continue. Ms. Murray’s fortunes turned when she ran for the Senate and women would send her $10 bills with notes saying, “I know you’ll spend it wisely.”
..................................................................................................................................
As Fund-Raisers in Congress, Women Break the Cash Ceiling
By Jennifer Steinhauer, November 29, 2013
The first time Senator Patty Murray ran for local office, she was so embarrassed to ask people for money for her campaign that she and her husband held a garage sale. But her generous husband could not stop himself from giving away an expensive lawn mower, she said, leaving the fund-raiser at a net loss.
By the time she ran for the Senate in 1992, she had gained the confidence to hold out the hat enthusiastically.
“I learned that you have to ask people,” said Ms. Murray, Democrat of Washington, adding, “The guys could go to the Chamber of Commerce. I went to the moms who had kids in preschool.”
For decades, female candidates lagged behind their male counterparts in fund-raising, largely because donors, most of them men, did not have faith in their ability to win. Women — the go-to donors for female office seekers — were historically more interested in giving to causes than to candidates.
But over the last decade, women running for Congress have raised on average more than their male counterparts, and substantially more in the Senate in election cycles when prominent women like Hillary Rodham Clinton and Elizabeth Warren were in the game.
Ms. Warren, who has emerged as a fund-raising powerhouse, collected $42.1 million for her race last year in Massachusetts, the most money a woman has ever raised in a Senate campaign. Second place goes to Mrs. Clinton, who raised $38.7 million for her 2006 Senate re-election campaign.
The financial advantage among women is especially true for Democrats, who have benefited from a fund-raising machine for liberal female candidates, the increase in female donors, who tend to give to Democrats, and the rise of small donations, which have helped women in particular.
“There has been a change in people’s perceptions of women’s ability to run and the power they are able to accumulate once elected,” said Dee Dee Myers, the author of “Why Women Should Rule the World” and a managing director at the Glover Park Group, a Washington lobbying and communications firm. “In politics, money follows the winners.”
Women in the Senate, who now hold a record 20 seats and lead some of the most powerful committees, tell a lifetime of stories about running for office and being told they could not win — and therefore would not be getting a check.
Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, recalled her race for governor in 1990, when people suggested that she get her rich husband to pay for the campaign, and women were afraid to spend their own money. “One woman asked me, ‘How can I help?’” Ms. Feinstein said. “I said, ‘You can make a contribution,’ and she said, ‘I’ll need to ask my husband.’ There was enormous bias against women by other women. And that’s been the biggest change.”
Female Democratic candidates have been helped the most by other women. The Center for Responsive Politics reports that Democratic women running for Congress in 2014 have received almost 40 percent of their money from women, compared with 29 percent for female Republicans.
Many Democrats credit Emily’s List, a political action committee established in 1985 to help Democratic women who support abortion rights. Since its founding, it has raised over $350 million and has helped elect hundreds of women around the country.
Senator Barbara Mikulski, Democrat of Maryland and the longest-serving woman in the Senate, said that when Emily’s List paid for a poll in her first Senate race, in 1986, it showed a base of support that indicated she could win. “It showed I had a core base in an area that was determinative,” she said. “Emily’s List has just been an enormous force.”
Republicans have sought to catch up. “There is a lot more money in the Democratic Party,” said Marjorie Dannenfelser, the president of the Susan B. Anthony List, which supports candidates who oppose abortion.
Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, said the men in her party often hurt contributions to Republican women. “There have been times when a few Republican candidates have made truly offensive and outrageous statements that unfortunately have splashed on other Republicans among women donors,” she said.
Once women accumulate power, their fund-raising ability grows much stronger. Representative Nancy Pelosi, Democrat of California, who is one of the most robust fund-raisers in the country, recalled that when she first set out to raise money as a congresswoman, “I could not raise large sums for the party because people would say to me, ‘You don’t have any decision-making power here.’ ”
“That is why I ran for whip,” she added. “When you call people and tell people what your purpose is, you’re likely to get something.”
But women, who still run for office at a far lower rate than men, are stymied by the business groups and local boards that tend to give money more readily to first-time male candidates than to first-time female candidates. But women have gotten better at employing social networks and fund-raisers that focus on female guests. Women’s lunches with speakers aimed at female audiences have become important for female candidates, who also work the neighborhoods. “We have great networking at the store and the PTA,” said Senator Claire McCaskill, Democrat of Missouri.
Ms. Collins said she once attended a workshop on fund-raising and asked the women leading it whom to seek out for contributions. “The advice was to use my Christmas card list,” she said. “It was actually great advice.”
Ms. Collins and others said that women routinely asked for too little. When running for the Senate in 1996, she declined to put a $1,000 check box on an envelope for donors because she thought it seemed like too much, sticking instead with a $500 cap. The first thing her campaign manager did, she said, was throw out the donation envelopes and order new ones with a $1,000 box to check.
“Your ask can never be too big, because nobody is insulted by that,” said Roz Wyman, a major Democratic fund-raiser in Los Angeles. “In small states, they never ask for enough money.”
But this has been offset for women by the increasing role of small donors, especially via the web, who have helped build war chests for candidates of both sexes. “The strength of our effort right now is our small donors,” said Ms. Pelosi, who would like to see legislation that provides matching funds for such donations. “It’s a mobilizing tool, as well as a fund-raising tool.” Women still make up only 20 percent of donors to political action committees, compared with 15 percent in 1990.
Small donors started to turn the dollars toward women, and the trend seems likely to continue. Ms. Murray’s fortunes turned when she ran for the Senate and women would send her $10 bills with notes saying, “I know you’ll spend it wisely.”
..................................................................................................................................
"... the GOP, with its Tea Party faction, is leading the way in ruthless, uncaring, self-centered politics."
..................................................................................................................................
Political mean-spiritedness directed at citizens
By Milton Hinton (South Jersey Times), December 1, 2013
Many are familiar with the saying that politics is a dirty business.
But so many want to desperately hold on to the notion that the majority of political endeavors are properly conducted, and most politicians at least try to do the right thing.
In light of recent events this mindset has been weakened, further eroding people’s confidence that elected officials are truly operating in their best interest.
In order for the system to function as designed, those running for, as well as those holding, elected office must conduct the business of the people in a moral and ethical manner.
There is significant evidence, in addition to numerous scandals, that some elected to office are prepared to do anything to hold onto power, while others use their political power for personal gain and benefit.
Most disheartening is the mean-spirited element that has made its way into the political arena. I have never seen such meanness and disdain directed at the very people whom government is supposed to serve.
In today’s political climate, there is absolutely no caring or concern for those with mental illness, no concern for those who are ill and have no health care, and no compassion for those trapped in the vice grip of poverty.
The middle class is viewed as a primary source of cheap labor to toil all their lives to make others wealthy. How can some people elected to powerful political offices that control or influence housing, health care, jobs, and education budgets stand by and allow kids to complete 12 years of school and still be unprepared to compete in the labor market? Or allow seniors to succumb to disease, go without heat in the winter, or survive on a poor diet that leads to malnourishment?
Does no one care that this Congress has gutted the college student loan programs to the point that middle-class kids desiring higher education cannot qualify for loans, or that those who are able to borrow money will start their work careers behind decades of debt?
I have to take it a step further and point out that the Democratic Party has certainly had its fair share of political scandals, but the GOP, with its Tea Party faction, is leading the way in ruthless, uncaring, self-centered politics.
It has become a party of a chosen few who care only about money, with much of it going into their pockets. Republicans in Congress recently approved a bill slashing the budget for food stamps beginning in 2014 which will result in 4 million additional citizens being food challenged, and Congress knows that — due to their actions — more people will suffer.
They do not care. This will happen at a time when there are just not enough jobs for those willing and able to work. I keep repeating what Bob Marley wrote, “a hungry mob is an angry mob,” and we will get to the point where people are not going to accept being hungry any longer.
Although I disagree with Representative Frank LoBiondo on many issues, he did have the courage to stand up for the poor people in the 2nd District and vote against this bill. The man did take a step back away from his party and show some compassion to those just trying to survive.
It is unfortunate, but not surprising, that Congressman John Runyun, R-3rd District, was not willing to give the same consideration to the working poor and children in his own district, as he, and Reps. Scott Garrett (R-5th Dist), Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-11th Dist) and Leonard Lance (R-7th Dist) voted to allow people to be hungry and, I suppose, to “pull themselves up by their own bootstraps.”
On the local level, there certainly is evidence that the quest to maintain power can impede an individual’s grasp on reality, and their ability to discern right from wrong. I do not know former Woodbury Mayor Harry “Ron” Riskie, but in this analysis I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, as there is no verification that he acted improperly.
So I will try to desperately believe the former mayor did not know that his two sons, who reside in Blackwood, N.J., and Geneva, N.Y., cast absentee ballots for their father using his local address. Another improper ballot reportedly came from a woman in Wimauma, Fla., who also used her parents’ Woodbury address.
This certainly sounds to me like voter fraud, but no one has used that term as of yet. Even if one holds on to the belief that the former mayor was not aware of the shenanigans going on, his two sons and Florida friend had to know that two of them were not residents of the state, and another resided in another county.
Thus, it was wrong to use a phony local address in order to vote for the former mayor. Only after a re-count did Harry Riskie lose the council race to incumbent Danielle Carter, 315 votes to 314. One vote made a big difference.
The irony of this is so very apparent. Over the last several election cycles, GOP elected officials in 30 states have passed some type of voter identification laws in an attempt to curb the tide of minorities and seniors voting Democrat. Yet in this case, it is members of the GOP caught up in some “shenanigans” at the polls in an effort to maintain power.
I hope all enjoyed a safe and happy holiday, and I hope we will turn our compassion toward those who have been let down, once again, by so many mean-spirited members of Congress who appear very willing to withhold food assistance from other Americans in need.
Disgraceful.
..................................................................................................................................
Political mean-spiritedness directed at citizens
By Milton Hinton (South Jersey Times), December 1, 2013
Many are familiar with the saying that politics is a dirty business.
But so many want to desperately hold on to the notion that the majority of political endeavors are properly conducted, and most politicians at least try to do the right thing.
In light of recent events this mindset has been weakened, further eroding people’s confidence that elected officials are truly operating in their best interest.
In order for the system to function as designed, those running for, as well as those holding, elected office must conduct the business of the people in a moral and ethical manner.
There is significant evidence, in addition to numerous scandals, that some elected to office are prepared to do anything to hold onto power, while others use their political power for personal gain and benefit.
Most disheartening is the mean-spirited element that has made its way into the political arena. I have never seen such meanness and disdain directed at the very people whom government is supposed to serve.
In today’s political climate, there is absolutely no caring or concern for those with mental illness, no concern for those who are ill and have no health care, and no compassion for those trapped in the vice grip of poverty.
The middle class is viewed as a primary source of cheap labor to toil all their lives to make others wealthy. How can some people elected to powerful political offices that control or influence housing, health care, jobs, and education budgets stand by and allow kids to complete 12 years of school and still be unprepared to compete in the labor market? Or allow seniors to succumb to disease, go without heat in the winter, or survive on a poor diet that leads to malnourishment?
Does no one care that this Congress has gutted the college student loan programs to the point that middle-class kids desiring higher education cannot qualify for loans, or that those who are able to borrow money will start their work careers behind decades of debt?
I have to take it a step further and point out that the Democratic Party has certainly had its fair share of political scandals, but the GOP, with its Tea Party faction, is leading the way in ruthless, uncaring, self-centered politics.
It has become a party of a chosen few who care only about money, with much of it going into their pockets. Republicans in Congress recently approved a bill slashing the budget for food stamps beginning in 2014 which will result in 4 million additional citizens being food challenged, and Congress knows that — due to their actions — more people will suffer.
They do not care. This will happen at a time when there are just not enough jobs for those willing and able to work. I keep repeating what Bob Marley wrote, “a hungry mob is an angry mob,” and we will get to the point where people are not going to accept being hungry any longer.
Although I disagree with Representative Frank LoBiondo on many issues, he did have the courage to stand up for the poor people in the 2nd District and vote against this bill. The man did take a step back away from his party and show some compassion to those just trying to survive.
It is unfortunate, but not surprising, that Congressman John Runyun, R-3rd District, was not willing to give the same consideration to the working poor and children in his own district, as he, and Reps. Scott Garrett (R-5th Dist), Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-11th Dist) and Leonard Lance (R-7th Dist) voted to allow people to be hungry and, I suppose, to “pull themselves up by their own bootstraps.”
On the local level, there certainly is evidence that the quest to maintain power can impede an individual’s grasp on reality, and their ability to discern right from wrong. I do not know former Woodbury Mayor Harry “Ron” Riskie, but in this analysis I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, as there is no verification that he acted improperly.
So I will try to desperately believe the former mayor did not know that his two sons, who reside in Blackwood, N.J., and Geneva, N.Y., cast absentee ballots for their father using his local address. Another improper ballot reportedly came from a woman in Wimauma, Fla., who also used her parents’ Woodbury address.
This certainly sounds to me like voter fraud, but no one has used that term as of yet. Even if one holds on to the belief that the former mayor was not aware of the shenanigans going on, his two sons and Florida friend had to know that two of them were not residents of the state, and another resided in another county.
Thus, it was wrong to use a phony local address in order to vote for the former mayor. Only after a re-count did Harry Riskie lose the council race to incumbent Danielle Carter, 315 votes to 314. One vote made a big difference.
The irony of this is so very apparent. Over the last several election cycles, GOP elected officials in 30 states have passed some type of voter identification laws in an attempt to curb the tide of minorities and seniors voting Democrat. Yet in this case, it is members of the GOP caught up in some “shenanigans” at the polls in an effort to maintain power.
I hope all enjoyed a safe and happy holiday, and I hope we will turn our compassion toward those who have been let down, once again, by so many mean-spirited members of Congress who appear very willing to withhold food assistance from other Americans in need.
Disgraceful.
..................................................................................................................................
Where does campaign money go? To the political industrial complex, the consultant class, that's where....
..................................................................................................................................
Win at all costs: The political industrial complex wrings profits from democracy
By Dave Helling and Scott Canon, November 30, 2013
On July 14, a Sunday, Jeff Roe picked up the phone.
The high-profile political consultant had worked quietly with Kansas City’s business elite for weeks on a nervy plan to pay for breakthrough medical research.
One not-so-small hurdle stood in the way. The corner office guys needed to persuade Jackson County’s voters, in just 90 days, to support a half-cent sales tax hike for something called translational medicine.
It was doable, Roe told them. An early poll suggested support for the concept, but he’d need $1 million for a successful campaign. They didn’t blink.
So he started calling other consultants. Video makers and media buyers. A pollster. Public relations specialists. Graphic artists and direct mail wizards.
The political industrial complex rumbled to life.
Across America, the business of politics now channels up to $10 billion a year — much of it pocketed by the pros who conduct the polls, craft the ads, buy the airtime, spin the news releases.
They flourish at the intersection of democracy and capitalism, their influence both obscure and undeniable. And a growing number of critics claim the industry is a profit-first enterprise that can sully public discourse:
• Political professionals engineer often brutal campaigns that, win or lose, leave ever-shrinking room for compromise after Election Day.
• The consultant class cranks up the importance of money in campaigns that, win or lose, expand the influence donors hold over public policy — and may increase public cynicism about government.
• And eventually the techniques of winning campaigns can leak into government itself, distorting messages and handing authority to non-elected consultants.
“The consultant class has made campaigns more negative, more destructive and less filled with ideas,” said former House speaker Newt Gingrich in an interview. “It’s bad for the system of the country.”
Writes Jill Lepore, a history professor at Harvard: “No single development has altered the workings of American democracy in the last century so much as political consulting. … Political consultants replaced party bosses as the wielders of political power gained not by votes but by money.”
Consultants fiercely resist the criticism. Their job, they insist, isn’t to create division and dysfunction, but to listen to candidates and voters.
That’s the only way to win, which is the only thing that matters.
“Anytime I lose a race, I pay a penalty, whether it’s lost business or lost reputation,” Roe said. “When you win, you’re a genius. When you lose, you’re an idiot.”
Aaron Trost, a consultant with the Kansas-based firm Singularis, agreed.
“Political consultants just want to win,” said Trost, who has several high-profile wins on his resume. “If you don’t win, you’re not going to be in business.”
But critics say gluing that capitalist incentive onto a campaign leads directly to polarized government.
“You scare people,” said Bill Allison of the Sunlight Foundation, a government watchdog group. “You stake out the most extreme position.”
Not all campaigns are negative, of course. The campaign for the health levy stayed largely upbeat for 16 weeks.
But the early emergence of an organized opposition to the tax clearly changed the cost calculus. By its end, Roe’s $1 million budget became $2 million.
Eventually, both sides would send a combined $3 million through the political industrial complex.
Win or lose, the complex gets paid.
[major snippage]
POWER BROKERS
Today, hiring a prominent consultant can mark a key turning point in a campaign.
It signals to the folks bankrolling election fights that a campaign is worth backing. It tells party brass that a candidate impressed the pros. It ties a campaign into a network that shares the latest talking points, databases and technical know-how.
“The parties have outsourced much of the technical expertise to their respective consultant classes,” said Brendan Nyhan, a government professor at Dartmouth College who has researched the role of political consultants.
They’re increasingly seen, and often see themselves, as the people who vet candidates early in a campaign cycle.
“They’re sort of kingmakers of their own sort,” said Jim Slattery, a Democrat and former congressman from Kansas who lost U.S. Senate and gubernatorial elections to Republicans.
Now more than 3,000 political consulting firms across the country, by some estimates, run everything from school bond elections to presidential campaigns. They’re networked to hundreds of polling firms, media buyers, ad production houses, direct mail specialists, fundraising advisers, phone bank operators and other businesses related to electing candidates.
In short, the political industrial complex.
[more major snippage]
..................................................................................................................................
Win at all costs: The political industrial complex wrings profits from democracy
By Dave Helling and Scott Canon, November 30, 2013
On July 14, a Sunday, Jeff Roe picked up the phone.
The high-profile political consultant had worked quietly with Kansas City’s business elite for weeks on a nervy plan to pay for breakthrough medical research.
One not-so-small hurdle stood in the way. The corner office guys needed to persuade Jackson County’s voters, in just 90 days, to support a half-cent sales tax hike for something called translational medicine.
It was doable, Roe told them. An early poll suggested support for the concept, but he’d need $1 million for a successful campaign. They didn’t blink.
So he started calling other consultants. Video makers and media buyers. A pollster. Public relations specialists. Graphic artists and direct mail wizards.
The political industrial complex rumbled to life.
Across America, the business of politics now channels up to $10 billion a year — much of it pocketed by the pros who conduct the polls, craft the ads, buy the airtime, spin the news releases.
They flourish at the intersection of democracy and capitalism, their influence both obscure and undeniable. And a growing number of critics claim the industry is a profit-first enterprise that can sully public discourse:
• Political professionals engineer often brutal campaigns that, win or lose, leave ever-shrinking room for compromise after Election Day.
• The consultant class cranks up the importance of money in campaigns that, win or lose, expand the influence donors hold over public policy — and may increase public cynicism about government.
• And eventually the techniques of winning campaigns can leak into government itself, distorting messages and handing authority to non-elected consultants.
“The consultant class has made campaigns more negative, more destructive and less filled with ideas,” said former House speaker Newt Gingrich in an interview. “It’s bad for the system of the country.”
Writes Jill Lepore, a history professor at Harvard: “No single development has altered the workings of American democracy in the last century so much as political consulting. … Political consultants replaced party bosses as the wielders of political power gained not by votes but by money.”
Consultants fiercely resist the criticism. Their job, they insist, isn’t to create division and dysfunction, but to listen to candidates and voters.
That’s the only way to win, which is the only thing that matters.
“Anytime I lose a race, I pay a penalty, whether it’s lost business or lost reputation,” Roe said. “When you win, you’re a genius. When you lose, you’re an idiot.”
Aaron Trost, a consultant with the Kansas-based firm Singularis, agreed.
“Political consultants just want to win,” said Trost, who has several high-profile wins on his resume. “If you don’t win, you’re not going to be in business.”
But critics say gluing that capitalist incentive onto a campaign leads directly to polarized government.
“You scare people,” said Bill Allison of the Sunlight Foundation, a government watchdog group. “You stake out the most extreme position.”
Not all campaigns are negative, of course. The campaign for the health levy stayed largely upbeat for 16 weeks.
But the early emergence of an organized opposition to the tax clearly changed the cost calculus. By its end, Roe’s $1 million budget became $2 million.
Eventually, both sides would send a combined $3 million through the political industrial complex.
Win or lose, the complex gets paid.
[major snippage]
POWER BROKERS
Today, hiring a prominent consultant can mark a key turning point in a campaign.
It signals to the folks bankrolling election fights that a campaign is worth backing. It tells party brass that a candidate impressed the pros. It ties a campaign into a network that shares the latest talking points, databases and technical know-how.
“The parties have outsourced much of the technical expertise to their respective consultant classes,” said Brendan Nyhan, a government professor at Dartmouth College who has researched the role of political consultants.
They’re increasingly seen, and often see themselves, as the people who vet candidates early in a campaign cycle.
“They’re sort of kingmakers of their own sort,” said Jim Slattery, a Democrat and former congressman from Kansas who lost U.S. Senate and gubernatorial elections to Republicans.
Now more than 3,000 political consulting firms across the country, by some estimates, run everything from school bond elections to presidential campaigns. They’re networked to hundreds of polling firms, media buyers, ad production houses, direct mail specialists, fundraising advisers, phone bank operators and other businesses related to electing candidates.
In short, the political industrial complex.
[more major snippage]
..................................................................................................................................
'Nuff said......
....................................................................................
Seems to me that McConnell himself has greatly contributed to that bad name.... after all, he's the one who called for making Obama a one-term President!
..................................................................................................................................
Mitch McConnell: Republicans Need To 'Stand Up To' Conservatives 'Giving Conservatism A Bad Name'
By Chris Gentilviso, November 30, 2013
Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) smacked down a segment of conservatives, calling for establishment Republicans to stand their ground.
In a wide-ranging interview with The Washington Examiner published Friday, McConnell discussed how a cadre of Republicans watched October's government shutdown happen, despite a desire to prevent such an event from going forward.
“There were people who were basically afraid of [conservatives], frankly,” McConnell said. “It’s time for people to stand up to this sort of thing.”
McConnell specifically singled out the Senate Conservatives Fund -- a group that has endorsed his Tea Party challenger, Matt Bevin, for the 2014 Republican nod in Kentucky's Senate race. The incumbent McConnell told the Examiner that groups of that nature are "giving conservatism a bad name."
“What they do is mislead their donors into believing the reason that we can’t get as good an outcome as we’d like to get is not because of a Democratic Senate and a Democratic president, but because Republicans are insufficiently committed to the cause — which is utter nonsense," McConnell said.
Should McConnell win the GOP primary, early polls show that he's headed for a heated fight with Democratic challenger Alison Lundergan Grimes. A compilation of 15 surveys updated earlier in November showed McConnell holding a narrow 40-39 percent lead.
..................................................................................................................................
Mitch McConnell: Republicans Need To 'Stand Up To' Conservatives 'Giving Conservatism A Bad Name'
By Chris Gentilviso, November 30, 2013
Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) smacked down a segment of conservatives, calling for establishment Republicans to stand their ground.
In a wide-ranging interview with The Washington Examiner published Friday, McConnell discussed how a cadre of Republicans watched October's government shutdown happen, despite a desire to prevent such an event from going forward.
“There were people who were basically afraid of [conservatives], frankly,” McConnell said. “It’s time for people to stand up to this sort of thing.”
McConnell specifically singled out the Senate Conservatives Fund -- a group that has endorsed his Tea Party challenger, Matt Bevin, for the 2014 Republican nod in Kentucky's Senate race. The incumbent McConnell told the Examiner that groups of that nature are "giving conservatism a bad name."
“What they do is mislead their donors into believing the reason that we can’t get as good an outcome as we’d like to get is not because of a Democratic Senate and a Democratic president, but because Republicans are insufficiently committed to the cause — which is utter nonsense," McConnell said.
Should McConnell win the GOP primary, early polls show that he's headed for a heated fight with Democratic challenger Alison Lundergan Grimes. A compilation of 15 surveys updated earlier in November showed McConnell holding a narrow 40-39 percent lead.
..................................................................................................................................
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)