Home » Archives by category » News » Politics (Page 372)
Citizens United Makes for Blurry Lines for Presidential Campaigns and Super PACs

With the hurricane taking over the new cycle not much has been able to break through – but this outstanding piece in the New York Times was posted yesterday that talks about the unfortunate backlash from the Citizens United ruling. “The event was not a fund-raiser for Mr. Romney’s campaign, however, but for Restore Our Future, a political action committee founded by his allies. And only when Mr. Romney left the room did one of the group’s officials stand up to brief the donors on their plans: to raise and spend millions of dollars in unrestricted campaign donations — something presidential candidates are forbidden to do themselves — to help elect Mr. Romney president.” Romney has been on of the leaders in using open campaign finance laws to raise unlimited amounts of money through state PACs, super PACs, as well as his presidential committee. “The fact that Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor who is weighing a run for president in 2012, has an active political action committee in Alabama might seem puzzling. It is, after all, not a critical early-voting state for the Republican nomination, where these kinds of leadership PACs are often set up by potential presidential candidates. Upon closer inspection, though, Mr. Romney’s interest in Alabama snaps into focus. The state has among the most permissive campaign finance rules in the nation, allowing contributions of unlimited size from individuals and corporations. As a result, the Alabama affiliate of Mr. Romney’s federal PAC, Free and Strong America, has raised more than $440,000 this year, with many of the contributions amounting to tens of thousands of dollars each.” It shouldn’t be shocking that’s the reason that the President intends to raise over $1 billion for his campaign. The graph below shows the difference in time that candidates spend with voters when they’re campaigns are being publicly financed through clean elections vs. when they’re being paid for by donors. enlarge Credit: Professor Michael Miller Since money is speech if you don’t have money does that mean that you don’t have speech? Because it seems clear that unless you pay for it, its the only way you get to actually talk to candidates anymore. A few weeks ago the re-call elections in Wisconsin indicate that about $40 million was spent on a total of nine elections. Contrast that with the 2010 Election where the state had 116 races and a total of only $17.5 million was raised and spent. In the 1976 Buckley vs. Valejo decision from the Supreme Court ruling they made a clear distinction between contributions to a campaign and spending. At that time Justice Kennedy said Buckley opened a dangerous door to campaign finance law saying that on-sided regulations created not clean and free expression but “covert speech funded by unlimited soft money.” Thirty-five years later his words are a haunting reminder of this new world we live in where elections are not about issues or ideas but about money and promises of corporate back-scratching once elected.

Continue reading …
Grizzly bear kills man in Yellowstone national park

Body of John Wallace, 59, discovered on Friday in remote area known for its high population of bears Wildlife rangers are trying to capture a grizzly bear in Yellowstone after it killed a hiker in the second fatal bear attack this summer at the national park. The body of John Wallace, 59, was discovered on Friday in a remote area known for its high population of bears. An autopsy concluded he died from injuries sustained in a bear attack. After a fatal mauling last month – the first inside the increasingly crowded park in 25 years – authorities let the responsible grizzly go because it was protecting its cubs. This time, rangers have set traps with the intent to capture and kill the bear that attacked Wallace. Its guilt would be established through DNA analysis connecting it to evidence found at the mauling scene, park officials said. “We know of no witnesses to the attack,” park superintendent Dan Wenk said on Monday. “We’re going to err on the safe side of caution since we’ll never really know the circumstances in this case.” The bear that killed Wallace is believed to be a different animal than the one in the July killing. The earlier mauling occurred about eight miles away from where Wallace’s body was found. In that instance, a female bear with cubs attacked a couple from California, killing the man before fleeing. There were no signs of cubs in the area where Wallace was killed. Wallace had entered the park alone last Wednesday and pitched a tent in a developed campground, Wenk said. Authorities said he was probably killed on Wednesday or Thursday during a solo hike along the Mary Mountain Trail. The trail is closed from March to June because it passes through an area frequented by grizzlies feeding on the carcasses of bison that died over the winter. There are more than 600 bears in the greater Yellowstone area. Conflicts between humans and grizzlies have been slowly increasing in Yellowstone and surrounding areas in recent years as the bear population recovered from near-extinction last century. Most interactions are relatively benign, such as raids on orchards or rubbish bins. Yet Wallace’s death was the fourth caused by grizzlies in the greater Yellowstone area in the last two years. Despite the killings, park officials said the rate of dangerous encounters is extremely low given that more than 3 million people visit the park every year. “We’ve averaged one encounter that has caused injuries a year for the past 25 years,” Wenk said. “The record speaks for itself.” United States Animals guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
Grizzly bear kills man in Yellowstone national park

Body of John Wallace, 59, discovered on Friday in remote area known for its high population of bears Wildlife rangers are trying to capture a grizzly bear in Yellowstone after it killed a hiker in the second fatal bear attack this summer at the national park. The body of John Wallace, 59, was discovered on Friday in a remote area known for its high population of bears. An autopsy concluded he died from injuries sustained in a bear attack. After a fatal mauling last month – the first inside the increasingly crowded park in 25 years – authorities let the responsible grizzly go because it was protecting its cubs. This time, rangers have set traps with the intent to capture and kill the bear that attacked Wallace. Its guilt would be established through DNA analysis connecting it to evidence found at the mauling scene, park officials said. “We know of no witnesses to the attack,” park superintendent Dan Wenk said on Monday. “We’re going to err on the safe side of caution since we’ll never really know the circumstances in this case.” The bear that killed Wallace is believed to be a different animal than the one in the July killing. The earlier mauling occurred about eight miles away from where Wallace’s body was found. In that instance, a female bear with cubs attacked a couple from California, killing the man before fleeing. There were no signs of cubs in the area where Wallace was killed. Wallace had entered the park alone last Wednesday and pitched a tent in a developed campground, Wenk said. Authorities said he was probably killed on Wednesday or Thursday during a solo hike along the Mary Mountain Trail. The trail is closed from March to June because it passes through an area frequented by grizzlies feeding on the carcasses of bison that died over the winter. There are more than 600 bears in the greater Yellowstone area. Conflicts between humans and grizzlies have been slowly increasing in Yellowstone and surrounding areas in recent years as the bear population recovered from near-extinction last century. Most interactions are relatively benign, such as raids on orchards or rubbish bins. Yet Wallace’s death was the fourth caused by grizzlies in the greater Yellowstone area in the last two years. Despite the killings, park officials said the rate of dangerous encounters is extremely low given that more than 3 million people visit the park every year. “We’ve averaged one encounter that has caused injuries a year for the past 25 years,” Wenk said. “The record speaks for itself.” United States Animals guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …

Four Democratic members of Congress came out in support of proposed changes being reviewed by the National Labor Relations Board that would update the process through which union formation elections are held. The four were Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.) and Robert Andrews (D-NJ) , who expressed their support in a letter sent to the NLRB this week. In the letter, the Democrats say that current procedures are outdated and cause unnecessary delays that allow for employers to harass and workers who are exercising their rights. They said that the changes would ensure the rights of both workers and employers and lower litigations costs for all involved. Specifically, the new rules would : -Allow for electronic filing of election petitions and other documents. -Ensure that employees, employers and unions receive and exchange timely information they need to understand and participate in the representation case process. -Standardize timeframes for parties to resolve or litigate issues before and after elections. -Require parties to identify issues and describe evidence soon after an election petition is filed to facilitate resolution and eliminate unnecessary litigation. -Defer litigation of most voter eligibility issues until after the election. -Require employers to provide a final voter list in electronic form soon after the scheduling of an election, including voters’ telephone numbers and email addresses when available. -Consolidate all election-related appeals to the Board into a single post-election appeals process and thereby eliminate delay in holding elections currently attributable to the possibility of pre-election appeals. -Make Board review of post-election decisions discretionary rather than mandatory. AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka says he supports the new rules but argues that they don’t go far enough in protecting workers: The proposed rule does not address many of the fundamental problems with our labor laws, but it will help bring critically needed fairness and balance to this part of the process. … When workers want to vote on a union, they should get a fair chance to vote. That’s a basic right. But our current system has become a broken, bureaucratic maze that stalls and stymies workers’ choices. And that diminishes the voice of working people, creates imbalance in our economy and shrinks the middle class. Business leaders have, not surprisingly, criticized the new rules, engaging in significant misinformation about the new rules. The AFL-CIO’s Josh Goldstein clarifies that the changes cut back on delays during the process, cut back on unnecessary litigation, and standardizes procedures. Also, he notes, the new rules do not do what critics say: The rule does NOT deny companies the opportunity to express their opinion about union representation. From the first day workers are hired, companies have full access and ample opportunity to make their views clear to workers. In fact, nearly half of charges of illegal conduct filed with the NLRB during organizing campaigns involve employer misconduct that took place before workers filed a petition. The rule does NOT require that elections be held within a specific time period. It simply makes the process fair by removing opportunities to delay the vote. Delay is a tactic used to wear down and discourage employees who want to form a union. Employers and workers alike are entitled to a process that cannot be manipulated to gain unfair advantage and is clear, precise and efficient. This rule does NOT hurt our economy or stifle business. On the contrary, a fair, efficient and predictable process saves time and resources for companies, workers and the government. And if workers decide to choose a union, the economy benefits. The Economic Policy Institute (EPI) estimates that if 5 million service workers were to join unions, approximately $34 billion in new wages would flow into the economy. Furthermore, unions help build successful partnerships between workers and corporations every day. At companies like AT&T and UPS, workers have formed partnerships with their employers to improve their lives, and these businesses continue to lead their industries. The AFL-CIO also submitted 21,000 comments to the NLRB this week, showing overwhelming support from workers for the new rules. Since the National Labor Relations Act was passed in 1935, the rules for forming unions have been changed more than three dozen times, so these changes are consistent with the history of the law.

Continue reading …
Fox News’ Preemptive Strike Against Gawker

enlarge Credit: quantcast Fox News is all about preemptive strikes. They were cheerleaders for it in Iraq. They still are…unless Obama does it. Then it would be anti-American, socialist and an affront to all things good and decent. Anyway, if I’ve learned anything covering the media it’s that the tactics Fox celebrates in their fellow right-wingers in power are the same tactics their notorious PR department engages in. Yes, they adore bullies and employ them to do publicity. So Gawker is now passe according to Fox. They’re claiming their traffic is WAY down and Gawker is on par with Chatroulette and MySpace (owned by Murdoch by the way). Why? Why is Gawker in the crosshairs of Fox & Cronies ? “It’s wall to wall snark,” says Larry O’Connor editor of Breitbart.com (see a traffic comparison in the graph). Yes, that’s why people don’t go to the Internet anymore…all the trash talk. It’s like that Yogi Berra quote, “Nobody goes there anymore. It’s too crowded.” Gawker ‘s John Cook has a better idea : I have for several weeks been working on a story about a Fox News personality that Fox News really does not want published! Fox knows what the story is, because I’ve asked its PR department for comment (they refused). Tune in next week to see what the story is. He also documents the barrage of ” Gawker sucks” comments on FNC and their website . Cook offers this foreshadowing: And if past is prologue, get ready to see Gawker on Fox News a lot. H/T FishbowlLA

Continue reading …
Fox News’ Preemptive Strike Against Gawker

enlarge Credit: quantcast Fox News is all about preemptive strikes. They were cheerleaders for it in Iraq. They still are…unless Obama does it. Then it would be anti-American, socialist and an affront to all things good and decent. Anyway, if I’ve learned anything covering the media it’s that the tactics Fox celebrates in their fellow right-wingers in power are the same tactics their notorious PR department engages in. Yes, they adore bullies and employ them to do publicity. So Gawker is now passe according to Fox. They’re claiming their traffic is WAY down and Gawker is on par with Chatroulette and MySpace (owned by Murdoch by the way). Why? Why is Gawker in the crosshairs of Fox & Cronies ? “It’s wall to wall snark,” says Larry O’Connor editor of Breitbart.com (see a traffic comparison in the graph). Yes, that’s why people don’t go to the Internet anymore…all the trash talk. It’s like that Yogi Berra quote, “Nobody goes there anymore. It’s too crowded.” Gawker ‘s John Cook has a better idea : I have for several weeks been working on a story about a Fox News personality that Fox News really does not want published! Fox knows what the story is, because I’ve asked its PR department for comment (they refused). Tune in next week to see what the story is. He also documents the barrage of ” Gawker sucks” comments on FNC and their website . Cook offers this foreshadowing: And if past is prologue, get ready to see Gawker on Fox News a lot. H/T FishbowlLA

Continue reading …
‘Now Pakistan and America have some problems. So they’re taking it out on me’

Tensions between Pakistan and the US often made life tricky for Matthew Barrett, a young man from Alabama living in Islamabad, but when he was arrested in May, things went from bad to worse, as he has revealed in a letter smuggled from his jail cell Plagued by old resentments, accusations of infidelity and violent squabbles that end in the diplomatic equivalent of plate-smashing, Pakistan and the US have long been compared to a crisis-stricken married couple. It is a forced marriage, officials like to say, or an unhappy Catholic one:

Continue reading …
Labour could be ruined by proposed cap on political donations

Annual limit on funding would affect all major parties, with Labour facing a potential deficit of £13.5m Labour could face financial ruin under plans being developed to cap the biggest donations to political parties, a Guardian analysis shows. The independent standards watchdog is said to have agreed to recommend a new limit on donations, introducing an annual cap with figures ranging from £50,000 to £10,000 being considered. Such a move, in an attempt to clean up political funding, would end the six- and seven-figure donations to the Labour party from its union sponsors, as well as the Tories’ reliance on the richest city financiers. An analysis of five and a half years’ worth of donations to the parties reveals the move would most dramatically affect Labour’s funding base. If the £50,000 limit had been in place over the period, Labour’s donations would have been reduced by 72%, the Conservatives’ by 37% and the Liberal Democrats’ by 25%. A source close to the Committee on Standards in Public Life, which has been reviewing the party funding system and is due to report in October, said it was trying to find a way to impose a cap without bankrupting any one party. Some committee members are arguing for more public funding for political parties, but most believe this is not achievable in the current economic climate. The debate now appears to rest on whether union money should be treated as single large donations or as multiple small donations from individual members’ affiliation fees, and whether those affiliation fees should automatically go to Labour. Union members could be given the option to donate their fee to another party in what would be the most radical shakeup of Labour’s relationship with the unions in a generation, which would be fiercely opposed by union leaders. “The thing we are going to have to decide is whether to bite the bullet and suggest public funding,” the source said. The committee, chaired by Sir Christopher Kelly, is due to meet on Thursday to decide the core issues. Nick Clegg, who is responsible for political reform, has promised to start cross-party talks on funding reform after the committee reports. There is deep suspicion in Labour that senior ministers want to use the reforms to destabilise the financial foundations of the party. A spokesman said: “We would expect the Conservatives to stick to their promise that they will recognise that this issue needs to be resolved through cross-party consensus. “We value the link with the trade union movement and any attempt to rewrite our constitution and deprive Labour of millions of working people’s voices would leave politics a poorer place.” A Conservative spokeswoman said: “If the purpose of a cap is to deal with the perception that money can buy influence then it must apply equally to individuals, companies and trade unions, from whom the Labour party receives 85% of funding and who get extensive policy concessions in return.” A Liberal Democrat spokesman insisted that the coalition would not impose a deal on the parties. “The history of party funding reform is littered with corpses. You have to do it in consultation with the other parties,” the spokesman said. The analysis also reveals the impact a potential cap of £50,000 would have on all the political parties’ already fragile balance sheets. Party accounts show that the Conservatives’ extravagant spending at the last election – outspending Labour by two to one – and restructuring of their pension liabilities left them temporarily more in deficit last year, with a shortfall of £6.2m in 2010, which would jump by around £13m to £19.6m had their donations been capped at £50,000. Despite its lower spending, the potential impact of the changes on Labour finances would be more severe, with more than £16m of funding disappearing from party coffers, transforming a surplus last year of £3.2m into a £13.5m deficit. The Liberal Democrats’ deficit of £335,000 expands to £1.9m. Labour separately has outstanding debts of nearly £10m, the Tories £2.6m and the Liberal Democrats £411,000. Previous negotiations over funding failed in 2007 with the parties unable to agree a cap. Those were chaired by Sir Hayden Phillips, a former civil servant. Phillips said the problem of the party funding system was “chronic”. He urged the parties to make changes before the next scandal emerged. But he warned that the hurdles facing reform have grown, because of the perceived closer links of the Labour leader, Ed Miliband, to the unions and because the economic climate makes it harder to justify public funding. “When I produced my report and negotiated with the parties, public funding wasn’t a big bone of contention. I think there would be much more reluctance now even though I still believe it is the right solution. The political party system is essential to democracy. It is a perfectly reasonable thing to provide a stake in the way parties are is funded.” Party funding Labour Conservatives Liberal Democrats Trade unions Ed Miliband Nick Clegg Polly Curtis James Ball guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
Nat Geo Infomercial: ‘Why Didn’t We Know This?’ Wonders George Bush After 9/11

Click here to view this media In an interview that aired Sunday night, President Bush told National Geographic Channel’s Peter Schnall that after 9/11, he didn’t want to blame intelligence agencies for failing to predict the attacks. “At some point in time in the immediate aftermath of the attacks, I thought about why didn’t we know this?” Bush recalled. “I knew we needed to figure out what went wrong to prevent other attacks but I didn’t want to start the finger pointing and say to our intelligence communities, ‘You fouled up. You should have caught this. Why didn’t you know?’” On Aug. 6, 2001 — more than a month before the attacks — Bush received a presidential daily briefing entitled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” “Clandestine, foreign government, and media reports indicate bin Laden since 1997 has wanted to conduct terrorist attacks in the US,” the briefing said. “Bin Laden implied in U.S. television interviews in 1997 and 1998 that his followers would follow the example of World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef and ‘bring the fighting to America.’” “FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.” The day after receiving the report while vacationing on his ranch, “Bush seemed carefree as he spoke about the books he was reading, the work he was doing on his nearby ranch, his love of hot-weather jogging, his golf game and his 55th birthday,” according to The Washington Post . UPDATE: John Amato : Heather posted about Rupert Murdoch’s infomercial for George Bush yesterday, but I didn’t think there would be much news coming out of it. Guess I was mistaken. Who can forget Ben-Veniste’s questioning of Condi Rice during the 9/11 Commission over the Bin Laden PDB? RICE: I remember very well that the president was aware that there were issues inside the United States. He talked to people about this. But I don’t remember the al Qaeda cells as being something that we were told we needed to do something about. BEN-VENISTE: Isn’t it a fact, Dr. Rice, that the August 6 PDB warned against possible attacks in this country? And I ask you whether you recall the title of that PDB? RICE: I believe the title was, “Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States.” Now, the… BEN-VENISTE: Thank you. And in September of 2007, Bill Moyers covered this PDB quite thoroughly: BILL MOYERS: The system was blinking red but the 9/11 Commission report says the American people were not warned. Where were the President’s national security advisers? — RICE: No, Mr. Ben-Veniste, you… BEN-VENISTE: I will get into the… RICE: I would like to finish my point here. BEN-VENISTE: I didn’t know there was a point. RICE: Given that you asked me whether or not it warned of attacks… BEN-VENISTE: I asked you what the title was. RICE: What the August 6th PDB said, and perhaps I should read it to you… BEN-VENISTE: We would be happy to have it declassified in full at this time, including its title. MOYERS: Two days after Rice’s testimony and after the Commission’s most heated showdown with the Bush Administration over access to classified information — the PDB, heavily blacked out — is released on the Saturday night before Easter. The President had been informed that, quote: “Bin Laden told followers he wanted to retaliate in Washington.” The President had been informed that FBI information, quote, “indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.” And the President had been informed of reports that a group of bin Laden supporters are, quote, “in the U.S. planning attacks.” But the President stays at his Texas ranch for 23 more days. His National Security Adviser does not convene a Cabinet-level meeting to discuss the urgent warnings. ROEMER: Not once do the principals ever sit down. You, in your job description as the national security adviser, the secretary of State, the secretary of Defense, the President of the United States and meet solely on terrorism to discuss, in the spring and the summer, when these threats are coming in; when you’ve known since the transition that al Qaeda cells are in the United States; when, as the PDB said on August 6th, “Bin Laden Determined to Attack the United States.” RICE: The PDB does not say the United States is going to be attacked. It says bin Laden would like to attack the United States. I don’t think you, frankly, had to have that report to know that bin Laden would like to attack the United States. The threat reporting… the threat reporting… ROEMER: So why aren’t you doing something about that earlier than August 6th, then? MOYERS: The Commission never gets a satisfactory answer to that question.

Continue reading …
CNN Questions Whether Paul and Bachmann Are Even Ready for Presidency

CNN anchor Kyra Phillips asked her “Political Buzz” panel Monday if GOP candidates Ron Paul and Michele Bachmann are “ready for the big office” given their unusual views. “Ron Paul saying that we should get rid of FEMA. Michele Bachmann says the storm and earthquake are signs from God,” stated Phillips. “Okay guys, are these candidates ready for the big office?” [Video below the break.] Bachmann defended her comments, made over the weekend at a campaign appearance in Florida, that God was using the hurricane and earthquake to get the attention of politicians in Washington. The congresswoman's press secretary told TalkingPointsMemo that “Obviously, she was saying it in jest.” The audience could be heard laughing as Bachmann delivered her remarks, but CNN appeared to take them seriously. Dana Loesch, a conservative CNN contributor, defended Ron Paul's long-held opposition to FEMA. “I don't think that there's any argument that FEMA is a completely corrupt department,” Loesch advocated. “But I think what Paul was actually saying is that we need to really rely, again, on states, and states being able to respond,” she added. A transcript of the segment, which aired on August 29 at 10:30 a.m. EDT, is as follows: KYRA PHILLIPS: Ron Paul saying that we should get rid of FEMA. Michele Bachmann says the storm and earthquake are signs from God. Okay guys, are these candidates ready for the big office? Dana? DANA LOESCH, talk radio show host, “The Dana Show”: Well, what I don't understand is how FEMA went from being Satan's spawn under Bush, to now it's like “Yeah FEMA!” I don't think that there's any argument that FEMA is a completely corrupt department, I don't think that there's any argument. You had the Florida Sun-Sentinel, the Los Angeles Times, the Journal of Economics that have all done in-depth investigative reviews and studies of how much money is actually wasted by this department. But I think what Paul was actually saying is that we need to really rely, again, on states, and states being able to respond. For instance, we had – we had family and friends who lived in New Orleans. And they were – they actually – they stopped the Red Cross from coming in and donating, they stopped locals and charities from helping out. That's – that's not disaster relief, that's control.

Continue reading …