China building South China Sea island big enough for airstrip
Reuters
Satellite images show China is building an island on a reef in the disputed Spratly Islands large enough to accommodate what could be its first offshore airstrip in the South China Sea, a leading defense publication said on Friday.
The construction has stoked concern that China may be converting disputed territory in the mineral-rich archipelago into military installations, adding to tensions waters also claimed by Taiwan, Malaysia, the Philippines, Vietnam and Brunei.
IHS Jane's said images it had obtained showed the Chinese-built island on the Fiery Cross Reef to be at least 3,000 meters (1.9 miles) long and 200-300 meters (660-980 ft) wide, which it noted is "large enough to construct a runway and apron."
The building work flies in the face of U.S. calls for a freeze in provocative activity in the South China Sea, one of Asia's biggest security issues. Concern is growing about an escalation in disputes even as claimants work to establish a code of conduct to resolve them.
Dredgers were also creating a harbor to the east of the reef "that would appear to be large enough to receive tankers and major surface combatants," it said.
Asked about the report at a defense forum in Beijing on Saturday, Jin Zhirui, a colonel with the Chinese air force command, declined to confirm it but said China needed to build facilities in the South China Sea for strategic reasons.
"We need to go out, to make our contribution to regional and global peace," Jin said. "We need support like this, including radar and intelligence."
The land reclamation project was China's fourth in the Spratly Islands in the last 12 to 18 months and by far the largest, IHS Jane's said.
It said Fiery Cross Reef was home to a Chinese garrison and had a pier, air-defense guns, anti-frogmen defenses, communications equipment, and a greenhouse.
Beijing has rejected Washington's call for all parties to halt activity in the disputed waters to ease tension, saying it can build whatever its wants in the South China Sea.
Hong Kong media have reported that China plans to build an air base on Fiery Cross Reef. In August, the deputy head of the Chinese Foreign Ministry's Boundary and Ocean Affairs Departments said he was unaware of any such plans.
November 25, 2014
Incredibly Rare
It’s Incredibly Rare For A Grand Jury To Do What Ferguson’s Just Did
A St. Louis County grand jury on Monday decided not to indict Ferguson, Missouri, police officer Darren Wilson in the August killing of teenager Michael Brown. The decision wasn’t a surprise — leaks from the grand jury had led most observers to conclude an indictment was unlikely — but it was unusual. Grand juries nearly always decide to indict.
Or at least, they nearly always do so in cases that don’t involve police officers.
Former New York state Chief Judge Sol Wachtler famously remarked that a prosecutor could persuade a grand jury to “indict a ham sandwich.” The data suggests he was barely exaggerating: According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. attorneys prosecuted 162,000 federal cases in 2010, the most recent year for which we have data. Grand juries declined to return an indictment in 11 of them.
Wilson’s case was heard in state court, not federal, so the numbers aren’t directly comparable. Unlike in federal court, most states, including Missouri, allow prosecutors to bring charges via a preliminary hearing in front of a judge instead of through a grand jury indictment. That means many routine cases never go before a grand jury. Still, legal experts agree that, at any level, it is extremely rare for prosecutors to fail to win an indictment.
“If the prosecutor wants an indictment and doesn’t get one, something has gone horribly wrong,” said Andrew D. Leipold, a University of Illinois law professor who has written critically about grand juries. “It just doesn’t happen.”
Cases involving police shootings, however, appear to be an exception. As my colleague Reuben Fischer-Baum has written, we don’t have good data on officer-involved killings. But newspaper accounts suggest, grand juries frequently decline to indict law-enforcement officials. A recent Houston Chronicle investigation found that “police have been nearly immune from criminal charges in shootings” in Houston and other large cities in recent years. In Harris County, Texas, for example, grand juries haven’t indicted a Houston police officer since 2004; in Dallas, grand juries reviewed 81 shootings between 2008 and 2012 and returned just one indictment. Separate research by Bowling Green State University criminologist Philip Stinson has found that officers are rarely charged in on-duty killings, although it didn’t look at grand jury indictments specifically.
There are at least three possible explanations as to why grand juries are so much less likely to indict police officers. The first is juror bias: Perhaps jurors tend to trust police officer and believe their decisions to use violence are justified, even when the evidence says otherwise. The second is prosecutorial bias: Perhaps prosecutors, who depend on police as they work on criminal cases, tend to present a less compelling case against officers, whether consciously or unconsciously.
The third possible explanation is more benign. Ordinarily, prosecutors only bring a case if they think they can get an indictment. But in high-profile cases such as police shootings, they may feel public pressure to bring charges even if they think they have a weak case.
“The prosecutor in this case didn’t really have a choice about whether he would bring this to a grand jury,” Ben Trachtenberg, a University of Missouri law professor, said of the Brown case. “It’s almost impossible to imagine a prosecutor saying the evidence is so scanty that I’m not even going to bring this before a grand jury.”
The explanations aren’t mutually exclusive. It’s possible, for example, that the evidence against Wilson was relatively weak, but that jurors were also more likely than normal to give him the benefit of the doubt. St. Louis County prosecutor Robert McCulloch has said he plans to release the evidence collected in the case, which would give the public a chance to evaluate whether justice was served here. But beyond Ferguson, we won’t know without better data why grand juries are so reluctant to indict police officers.
FBI to investigate cops
Newly appointed border town police chief asks FBI to investigate cops, officials
Tom Boggioni
In a tearful press conference, a frustrated Calexico Police Chief Mike Bostic accused his predecessor, some members of his own department, and city officials of illegally trying to undermine a criminal investigation.
“The council-members in conjunction with the police officers association and members of that association have used city funds and city resources to run what I would call an extortion racket,” Bostic said.
“I’ve literally had it,” Bostic said as he began to tear up as he explained that he felt compelled to bring in the FBI to handle the investigation two weeks into his tenure.
“I am so grateful that the FBI is coming. And the reason they are coming is to support me, and the really good officers of this department who have been put under this cloud by a few, ” he said. “So this was literally the most disappointing day in all my years of policing, because I’m the chief. This is my city. This is my community, these are my officers, so how can you be anything but depressed.”
Bostic, a 34-year law enforcement veteran, was hired last month to replace former Police Chief Pompeyo Tabarez who was fired Oct. 13 “in the interests of the citizens.”
According to Bostic, some elected officials and POA members were using thousands of dollars in surveillance equipment recently purchased with department funds to follow other members of the city government.
“Exactly like the Mafioso in New York. That’s exactly how they are operating,” the chief said.
After four days on the job, the new police chief discovered his investigations unit, narcotics unit, and internal affairs division were not working on any active cases.
Bostic said he was unable to find any reports on an alleged kidnapping and assault of a juvenile that took place in October, and blamed it on his predecessor, saying, “The former chief and his investigative unit were so busy trying to save his career and his job rather than focus on that investigation, they completely botched it.”
Bostic also criticized detectives in his department for carrying professional tools often used to break into cars, saying, “There’s a thing called search warrants in the state of California. These were clearly tools for violating people’s rights and we’re trying to get to the bottom of that.”
According to the new chief, several members of the department were placed on paid leave, with others being demoted or reassigned.
Tom Boggioni
In a tearful press conference, a frustrated Calexico Police Chief Mike Bostic accused his predecessor, some members of his own department, and city officials of illegally trying to undermine a criminal investigation.
“The council-members in conjunction with the police officers association and members of that association have used city funds and city resources to run what I would call an extortion racket,” Bostic said.
“I’ve literally had it,” Bostic said as he began to tear up as he explained that he felt compelled to bring in the FBI to handle the investigation two weeks into his tenure.
“I am so grateful that the FBI is coming. And the reason they are coming is to support me, and the really good officers of this department who have been put under this cloud by a few, ” he said. “So this was literally the most disappointing day in all my years of policing, because I’m the chief. This is my city. This is my community, these are my officers, so how can you be anything but depressed.”
Bostic, a 34-year law enforcement veteran, was hired last month to replace former Police Chief Pompeyo Tabarez who was fired Oct. 13 “in the interests of the citizens.”
According to Bostic, some elected officials and POA members were using thousands of dollars in surveillance equipment recently purchased with department funds to follow other members of the city government.
“Exactly like the Mafioso in New York. That’s exactly how they are operating,” the chief said.
After four days on the job, the new police chief discovered his investigations unit, narcotics unit, and internal affairs division were not working on any active cases.
Bostic said he was unable to find any reports on an alleged kidnapping and assault of a juvenile that took place in October, and blamed it on his predecessor, saying, “The former chief and his investigative unit were so busy trying to save his career and his job rather than focus on that investigation, they completely botched it.”
Bostic also criticized detectives in his department for carrying professional tools often used to break into cars, saying, “There’s a thing called search warrants in the state of California. These were clearly tools for violating people’s rights and we’re trying to get to the bottom of that.”
According to the new chief, several members of the department were placed on paid leave, with others being demoted or reassigned.
Experience the weather
Do Democrats and Republicans actually experience the weather differently?
Last week, as extreme and early winter weather crashed into the continental U.S., it was inevitable that we once again started debating global warming. For some conservatives, unusual winter weather seems to spur dismissive comments about climate change -- even as liberals tend to explain why a changing climate may see more "stuck" weather (whether cold or hot) and more powerful snowstorms in some cases, due to greater water vapor in the atmosphere.
Such partisan disagreement about the relationship between climate change and weather extremes has become pretty routine -- but a new study just out in Nature Climate Change puts it in a fascinating new light. The research suggests the climate issue may have become so politicized that our very perceptions of the weather itself are subtly slanted by political identities and cues.
The paper -- by three sociologists, Aaron McCright of Michigan State University, Riley Dunlap of Oklahoma State, and Chenyang Xiao of American University -- examined people's perceptions of the winter of 2012, which was anomalously warm (the fourth warmest on record for the contiguous U.S.). Comparing Gallup polling results from early March 2012 (just after the winter ended) with actual temperature data from the lower 48 U.S. states, the researchers analyzed people's perceptions of the warmth of the winter they'd just lived through in light of the temperature anomalies that actually occurred.
The first result wasn't too surprising: In general, people accurately perceived that their weather had been pretty out of whack. In places where the winter was super warm, they said as much. "The greater the deviation of winter 2012 temperatures from the 30-year winter temperature average in respondents' states, the more likely that respondents report local winter temperatures to be warmer than usual," notes the paper.
But then, things got a little strange. It was no surprise that temperatures predicted people's perceptions of temperatures (duh), but what was surprising is the other factors that also shaped their assessment of how warm it was. The researchers found that political party affiliation had an effect -- "Democrats [were] more likely than Republicans to perceive local winter temperatures as warmer than usual," the paper reports. And beliefs about global warming also predicted temperature perceptions. People who were more likely to think that scientists agree about climate change, or to think humans are causing the phenomenon, also were more likely to report that the recent winter had been "warmer than usual."
It's important to underscore how weird this is: Your politics and climate beliefs should not -- you would think -- change your experience of weather itself. Yet these data suggest that whether people actually physically feel differently, or whether they remember and reconstruct their weather experiences differently, worldview is having a role. "It suggests to me that people have begun to filter their fundamental perceptions of what is going on at least partly through a partisan frame," explains study co-author Riley Dunlap of Oklahoma State.
The influence of partisanship became still more significant when people were asked directly if the warm winter they'd just experienced was due to global warming. Here, not only being a Democrat, but also being a liberal and being a woman, predicted a willingness to blame anomalously warm weather on a changing climate.
For Dunlap, what this suggests is that we probably should give up on the idea that warmer temperatures, alone, will wake people up to the reality of a changing climate. Rather, our experiences of the weather -- and particularly weather extremes -- will be strained through partisan filters.
And if a warm winter doesn't make conservatives more open to climate change, then you can probably forget about trying to explain why certain types of cold extremes -- heavier snowfalls, or a loopy jet stream leading to a "stuck" weather pattern -- could also have a climate change component.
"If you can’t reach the committed conservatives on the fact that a significantly warmer season might be due to anthropogenic global warming," says Dunlap, "I think it’s going to be really hard to convince them that the current situation is due to anthropogenic climate change."
Such partisan disagreement about the relationship between climate change and weather extremes has become pretty routine -- but a new study just out in Nature Climate Change puts it in a fascinating new light. The research suggests the climate issue may have become so politicized that our very perceptions of the weather itself are subtly slanted by political identities and cues.
The paper -- by three sociologists, Aaron McCright of Michigan State University, Riley Dunlap of Oklahoma State, and Chenyang Xiao of American University -- examined people's perceptions of the winter of 2012, which was anomalously warm (the fourth warmest on record for the contiguous U.S.). Comparing Gallup polling results from early March 2012 (just after the winter ended) with actual temperature data from the lower 48 U.S. states, the researchers analyzed people's perceptions of the warmth of the winter they'd just lived through in light of the temperature anomalies that actually occurred.
The first result wasn't too surprising: In general, people accurately perceived that their weather had been pretty out of whack. In places where the winter was super warm, they said as much. "The greater the deviation of winter 2012 temperatures from the 30-year winter temperature average in respondents' states, the more likely that respondents report local winter temperatures to be warmer than usual," notes the paper.
But then, things got a little strange. It was no surprise that temperatures predicted people's perceptions of temperatures (duh), but what was surprising is the other factors that also shaped their assessment of how warm it was. The researchers found that political party affiliation had an effect -- "Democrats [were] more likely than Republicans to perceive local winter temperatures as warmer than usual," the paper reports. And beliefs about global warming also predicted temperature perceptions. People who were more likely to think that scientists agree about climate change, or to think humans are causing the phenomenon, also were more likely to report that the recent winter had been "warmer than usual."
It's important to underscore how weird this is: Your politics and climate beliefs should not -- you would think -- change your experience of weather itself. Yet these data suggest that whether people actually physically feel differently, or whether they remember and reconstruct their weather experiences differently, worldview is having a role. "It suggests to me that people have begun to filter their fundamental perceptions of what is going on at least partly through a partisan frame," explains study co-author Riley Dunlap of Oklahoma State.
The influence of partisanship became still more significant when people were asked directly if the warm winter they'd just experienced was due to global warming. Here, not only being a Democrat, but also being a liberal and being a woman, predicted a willingness to blame anomalously warm weather on a changing climate.
For Dunlap, what this suggests is that we probably should give up on the idea that warmer temperatures, alone, will wake people up to the reality of a changing climate. Rather, our experiences of the weather -- and particularly weather extremes -- will be strained through partisan filters.
And if a warm winter doesn't make conservatives more open to climate change, then you can probably forget about trying to explain why certain types of cold extremes -- heavier snowfalls, or a loopy jet stream leading to a "stuck" weather pattern -- could also have a climate change component.
"If you can’t reach the committed conservatives on the fact that a significantly warmer season might be due to anthropogenic global warming," says Dunlap, "I think it’s going to be really hard to convince them that the current situation is due to anthropogenic climate change."
Crime Decline
10 (Not Entirely Crazy) Theories Explaining the Great Crime Decline
From aging to gentrification to Prozac.
By Dana Goldstein
From aging to gentrification to Prozac.
By Dana Goldstein
Global Warming
Global Warming Is Already Locked In, World Bank Says
By Holly Ellyatt
By Holly Ellyatt
Such an increase could have potentially catastrophic consequences for mankind, causing the global sea level to rise more than 30 centimeters by 2100, droughts to become more severe and placing almost 90 percent of coral reefs at risk of extinction."A world even 1.5°C [warmer] will mean more severe droughts and global sea level rise, increasing the risk of damage from storm surges and crop loss and raising the cost of adaptation for millions of people," the report with multiple authors said. "These changes are already underway, with global temperatures 0.8 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial times, and the impact on food security, water supplies and livelihoods is just beginning."
The World Bank called on scientists at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and Climate Analytics and asked them to look at the likely impacts of present day (0.8°C), 2°C and 4°C warming on agricultural production, water resources, cities and ecosystems across the world. Their findings, collated in the Bank's third report on climate change published on Monday, specifically looked at the risks climate change poses to lives and livelihoods across Latin America and the Caribbean, Eastern Europe and Central Asia, and the Middle East and North Africa.
The World Bank called on scientists at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and Climate Analytics and asked them to look at the likely impacts of present day (0.8°C), 2°C and 4°C warming on agricultural production, water resources, cities and ecosystems across the world. Their findings, collated in the Bank's third report on climate change published on Monday, specifically looked at the risks climate change poses to lives and livelihoods across Latin America and the Caribbean, Eastern Europe and Central Asia, and the Middle East and North Africa.
Trashed Oakland
Late-night looters trash Oakland stores
By Vivian Ho, Jill Tucker and Kevin Fagan
As Monday night’s demonstrations over the fatal police shooting of Michael Brown dribbled into Tuesday morning, a hard core of remaining people in Oakland turned into opportunists as they looted two downtown businesses of booze, coffee beans and dog food.
The evening’s protests had started out peacefully in cities throughout Northern California, but in Oakland several demonstrators clashed with police early on — and then it got ugly around midnight.
A couple of hundred protesters lit a bonfire in the middle of Broadway as the Starbucks store on Ninth Street was trashed and looted of equipment and bags of coffee beans. Thieves then smashed into the nearby Smart & Final and ran away with booze bottles, snacks, 12-packs of beer and bags of dog food.
A phalanx of police in helmets with shields ordered the crowd to disperse, but the protesters refused to move, yelling obscenities and tossing bottles of alcohol at the officers. The officers fired flash-bang grenades, rubber bullets and tear gas, forcing back the mob, which ignited new bonfires as it retreated.
Most of the protesters left the scene after the clash, but a remaining 50 retreated to Telegraph and Broadway and lit a fire. They remained there past 1 a.m., many drinking booze looted from Smart & Final while police kept an eye on them from about a block away.
By Vivian Ho, Jill Tucker and Kevin Fagan
As Monday night’s demonstrations over the fatal police shooting of Michael Brown dribbled into Tuesday morning, a hard core of remaining people in Oakland turned into opportunists as they looted two downtown businesses of booze, coffee beans and dog food.
The evening’s protests had started out peacefully in cities throughout Northern California, but in Oakland several demonstrators clashed with police early on — and then it got ugly around midnight.
A couple of hundred protesters lit a bonfire in the middle of Broadway as the Starbucks store on Ninth Street was trashed and looted of equipment and bags of coffee beans. Thieves then smashed into the nearby Smart & Final and ran away with booze bottles, snacks, 12-packs of beer and bags of dog food.
A phalanx of police in helmets with shields ordered the crowd to disperse, but the protesters refused to move, yelling obscenities and tossing bottles of alcohol at the officers. The officers fired flash-bang grenades, rubber bullets and tear gas, forcing back the mob, which ignited new bonfires as it retreated.
Most of the protesters left the scene after the clash, but a remaining 50 retreated to Telegraph and Broadway and lit a fire. They remained there past 1 a.m., many drinking booze looted from Smart & Final while police kept an eye on them from about a block away.
Hagel Resigns
'Greatest Privilege of My Life': Chuck Hagel Resigns as Defense Secretary
By Jim Miklaszewski
Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel has resigned under pressure amid criticism of the president’s national security team on a series of global issues, including the threat posed by the militant group known as ISIS.
During a statement at the White House, President Barack Obama called Hagel "an exemplary Defense Secretary" and "a great friend of mine" who helped steer the military amid a time of great transition at the Pentagon.
"When it’s mattered most behind closed doors, in the Oval Office, you’ve always given it to me straight. For that, I will always be grateful," Obama said, noting Hagel's willingness to take the job despite hailing from the Republican Party.
Hagel called serving in the post "the greatest privilege of my life."
In a separate written statement sent to Pentagon staff, Hagel said: "You should know I did not make this decision lightly. But after much discussion, the President and I agreed that now was the right time for new leadership here at the Pentagon."
But behind the scenes, the departure appeared to be less rosy. Senior defense officials told NBC News Monday that Hagel was forced to resign. Those officials said the White House lost confidence in the former Nebraska senator to carry out his role at the Pentagon.
According to one senior official, “He wasn’t up to the job.”
Another senior administration official said that Hagel has been discussing a departure from the White House "for several weeks."
"Over the past two years, Secretary Hagel helped manage an intense period of transition for the United States Armed Forces, including the drawdown in Afghanistan, the need to prepare our forces for future missions, and tough fiscal choices to keep our military strong and ready," the official said.
"Over nearly two years, Secretary Hagel has been a steady hand, guiding our military through this transition, and helping us respond to challenges from ISIL to Ebola. In October, Secretary Hagel began speaking with the President about departing the Administration given the natural post-midterms transition time."
Multiple sources also said that Hagel was originally brought to the job to wind down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but, as the fight against the Islamic State ramped up, he was not as well matched for the post.
"Rather than winding down two wars, we’re winding up,” said one source close to Hagel and top Pentagon officials.
In a statement, Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain suggested that Hagel had his own frustrations with Obama's team. "I know that Chuck was frustrated with aspects of the Administration's national security policy and decision-making process," he said. "His predecessors have spoken about the excessive micro-management they faced from the White House and how that made it more difficult to do their jobs successfully. Chuck's situation was no different."
A successor will be named "in short order," an official said, but Hagel will stay in the job until his replacement is confirmed.
That replacement will not be named today, administration sources said, but possible nominees include: Rhode Island Sen. Jack Reed, former Undersecretary of Defense Michele Flournoy (who would be the first female Defense Secretary) and former Deputy Secretary of Defense Ashton B Carter.
In a statement, a spokesman for Reed said that the Rhode Island lawmaker is not interested in the position.
"Senator Reed loves his job and wants to continue serving the people of Rhode Island in the United States Senate," said press secreatry Chip Unruh. "He has made it very clear that he does not wish to be considered for Secretary of Defense or any other cabinet position."
Hagel, the only Republican on the president's national security team and the first enlisted combat veteran to lead the Department of Defense, has served in the job since February 2013. His tenure began with a shaky performance at his confirmation hearing in January of that year.
By Jim Miklaszewski
Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel has resigned under pressure amid criticism of the president’s national security team on a series of global issues, including the threat posed by the militant group known as ISIS.
During a statement at the White House, President Barack Obama called Hagel "an exemplary Defense Secretary" and "a great friend of mine" who helped steer the military amid a time of great transition at the Pentagon.
"When it’s mattered most behind closed doors, in the Oval Office, you’ve always given it to me straight. For that, I will always be grateful," Obama said, noting Hagel's willingness to take the job despite hailing from the Republican Party.
Hagel called serving in the post "the greatest privilege of my life."
In a separate written statement sent to Pentagon staff, Hagel said: "You should know I did not make this decision lightly. But after much discussion, the President and I agreed that now was the right time for new leadership here at the Pentagon."
But behind the scenes, the departure appeared to be less rosy. Senior defense officials told NBC News Monday that Hagel was forced to resign. Those officials said the White House lost confidence in the former Nebraska senator to carry out his role at the Pentagon.
According to one senior official, “He wasn’t up to the job.”
Another senior administration official said that Hagel has been discussing a departure from the White House "for several weeks."
"Over the past two years, Secretary Hagel helped manage an intense period of transition for the United States Armed Forces, including the drawdown in Afghanistan, the need to prepare our forces for future missions, and tough fiscal choices to keep our military strong and ready," the official said.
"Over nearly two years, Secretary Hagel has been a steady hand, guiding our military through this transition, and helping us respond to challenges from ISIL to Ebola. In October, Secretary Hagel began speaking with the President about departing the Administration given the natural post-midterms transition time."
Multiple sources also said that Hagel was originally brought to the job to wind down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but, as the fight against the Islamic State ramped up, he was not as well matched for the post.
"Rather than winding down two wars, we’re winding up,” said one source close to Hagel and top Pentagon officials.
In a statement, Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain suggested that Hagel had his own frustrations with Obama's team. "I know that Chuck was frustrated with aspects of the Administration's national security policy and decision-making process," he said. "His predecessors have spoken about the excessive micro-management they faced from the White House and how that made it more difficult to do their jobs successfully. Chuck's situation was no different."
A successor will be named "in short order," an official said, but Hagel will stay in the job until his replacement is confirmed.
That replacement will not be named today, administration sources said, but possible nominees include: Rhode Island Sen. Jack Reed, former Undersecretary of Defense Michele Flournoy (who would be the first female Defense Secretary) and former Deputy Secretary of Defense Ashton B Carter.
In a statement, a spokesman for Reed said that the Rhode Island lawmaker is not interested in the position.
"Senator Reed loves his job and wants to continue serving the people of Rhode Island in the United States Senate," said press secreatry Chip Unruh. "He has made it very clear that he does not wish to be considered for Secretary of Defense or any other cabinet position."
Hagel, the only Republican on the president's national security team and the first enlisted combat veteran to lead the Department of Defense, has served in the job since February 2013. His tenure began with a shaky performance at his confirmation hearing in January of that year.
Retail Workers Bill of Rights
Victory! Retail Workers Bill of Rights Unanimously Passes
First Vote in San Francisco
by Jonathan Williams
by Jonathan Williams
Spend Big on Politics
Big-Box Retailers Spend Big on Politics
By Catherine Ruetschlin, Sean McElwee
The notion that all citizens have a voice in our country’s governance is at the center of the American ideal of democracy. Yet the role of corporate and private money in our political system means that the voices of the majority are often drowned out by those with the most money. The political spending of the country’s largest big-box retailers demonstrates how firms with low-wage business models turn massive profits into political leverage, embedding the inequality they perpetuate in the economy into the political system. This report examines the federal campaign spending and lobbying of the nation’s top earning big-box retailers, and finds that it is large and growing, and targeted at maintaining their economic power through political influence.
In this report we examine the federal election spending of the six big-box retail companies with earnings ranked among the top retail companies in the country, using newly available data from the Center for Responsive Politics. We find that their reach is pervasive, reflected in enormous and growing expenditures to influence electoral and policy outcomes. Among this group, Walmart is the biggest spender by a wide margin, with $2.4 million in donations through its Political Action Committee (PAC) and individual donations and $12.5 million in lobbying expenses during the 2014 electoral cycle—spending about three times more than its nearest rival, Home Depot. This political spending is a problem fovr democracy, because extensive research suggests that the domination of wealth in our electoral process can significantly affect public policy, and that the priorities of the affluent often diverge from majority opinion. On issues like taxation, economic regulation, Social Security, and the minimum wage, the differences can be stark.
There has been a dramatic mobilization of political power among America’s largest big-box retailers over the past four election cycles, with federal campaign and lobbying expenditures growing from $5.2 million during the 2000 political cycle to $29.8 million during the 2014 cycle, an almost six-fold increase. Even that number massively underestimates retail’s reach by excluding state and local elections, as well as contributions to 501(c)3 and 501(c)6 groups like the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and the Chamber of Commerce. The fastest increases in retail political spending over the period appeared with the 2008 election cycle. Total campaign and lobbying expenditures grew by 95 percent in that cycle, driven by lobbying expenditures that more than doubled. In the 2010 midterm election cycle, lobbying topped $25 million. Political spending by big-box retailers peaked at a total of $33.7 million in 2012—the following presidential election year (see Figure 1).
Figure I: Federal political spending by top big-box retailers, by year, 2000-2014 (2013 dollars)
Not all major retailers spend alike, even among the market’s most profitable corporate membership. Two retailers from our list—Walmart and Home Depot—are ranked among the top 100 political donors overall for the period since 1989, a level that earns the designation “Heavy Hitters” from the Center for Responsive Politics. Target and Best Buy, though not distinguished by campaign contributions, amass enormous federal spending totals through their lobbying efforts. Costco’s total federal spending falls at the bottom of the list, with campaign contributions of $2 million over the entire 15-year period and no lobbying expenditures at all (see Figure 2).
Figure II: Federal political spending by the top big-box retailers, by company, 2000-2014 (2013 dollars)
The retail firms with the largest federal political spending—like Walmart and Home Depot—exemplify the relationship between economic and democratic inequity. Walmart is the industry’s largest political spender as well as the world’s largest retailer and private employer, distinctions that give the company considerable influence over labor and product markets in the U.S. and beyond. In markets, Walmart draws upon this economic clout to exacerbate the inequality at the core of its business model. When Walmart comes to town, retail workers see their wages drop and employment growth recede. At the same time, the company’s $16 billion in annual profits are channeled to a much smaller pool of earners, namely the Walton heirs, who inherited their vast wealth from Walmart founders Sam and Bud Walton and today rank among the richest billionaires in the world. The practices are emblematic of the growing concentration of wealth and income at the top of the U.S. economy, a trend that has been linked to slow growth, rising volatility, and even poor sales performance for companies like Walmart whose revenues depend on consumer spending.
But markets are not the only institutions that respond to the outsized power of Walmart and companies like it. There is strong evidence that an important impact of campaign contributions is to shape the views of candidates seeking to run viable campaigns and help candidates with friendly policy views win office, in addition to increasing access to politicians with the intent of setting the political agenda. Studies of the telecommunications industry show that regulators respond to private political spending with regulations that favor the donors. And companies that bid for federal contracts across industries are more likely to be granted those contracts if the bids are complemented by campaign contributions.8 This evidence suggests that political spending provides highly profitable companies like Walmart with the opportunity to influence the conversation in a way that reflects their bottom lines at democracy’s expense and to use campaign contributions and lobbying to leverage their economic power into law (see Figure 3).
Figure III: Wal-Mart political spending by year, 2000-2014 (2013 dollars)
The majority of Walmart’s public shares are owned by the Walton family heirs, who have shown a penchant for political engagement. Over recent years, the family has consolidated their ownership in the company and seen their private wealth balloon. Since the beginning of the Great Recession in 2007, the Walton family wealth has grown by 96 percent while the typical American household’s net worth fell by 40 percent. The spectacular growth of the Walton family’s affluence can be linked, in part, to decades of political influence. According to Bloomberg News, the Waltons started lobbying for a repeal of the estate tax in the 1990s, and continue to exploit obscure tax loopholes that protect the assets of the country’s richest heirs. In a prime example of the revolving door between the private interests of the affluent and policymakers, one Arkansas Congresswoman who supported the repeal of the estate tax and received $83,650 in campaign donations from Walmart works as a lobbyist for the company today. In the period since the late 1990s, the Walton family has spent more than half a million dollars on lobbying through its foundation, Walton Enterprises.
Demos examined Walton family political contributions over the period between 2000 and 2014 and found that the Waltons made a total of $7.3 million in campaign contributions over the period, with greater total contributions in presidential election years (see Figure 4). The Waltons achieve broad access by contributing to both parties, but their spending heavily favors Republican candidates and PACs. Since 2000, Walton family campaign contributions included $6 million to Republican candidates and PACs, $1 million to Democrats, and $236,085 to independent or non-affiliated candidates. These numbers reveal a savvy investment in their political interests, but still far understate Walton family’s influence through other means. For example the Walton Family Foundation—not included in our calculations here—is one of the biggest education funders in the country, with an emphasis on supporting the privatization of K-12 education. Their use of private lobbyists and spending at the state and local levels is also not included in our calculations.
Although retail political spending is both deep and broad, retailers overwhelmingly support Republicans over Democrats. Since 2000, the country's largest big-box retailers donated to Republicans over Democrats by a margin of more than 2-to-1 . Walmart—which donated to a total of 295 different candidates in the most recent election cycle—gave $1 to Democrats for every $2 donated to Republican campaigns or PACs (see Figure 8). That compares to even greater Republican leanings at Target, Home Depot, Best Buy, and Lowe's, which gave $2.14, $2.95, $3.03, and $3.50 to Republicans for every $1 to Democrats, respectively. Costco was the only company that had a strong Democratic preference, allocating just $0.04 to Republicans for every $1 in Democratic spending. But since Costco’s total spending was far lower than other retailers, its donations to Democrats over the period still amounted to less than those of big spenders Walmart and Home Depot, despite their biases.
This is unsurprising—Republicans are often seen as the party of big business. Over the last two years, House Republicans have unanimously voted against raising the minimum wage and attempted to eliminate Davis-Bacon protections. At the same time, they fought to extend the Bush Tax Cuts and made 50 attempts to repeal the Affordable Care Act. The Senate has taken similar stands on behalf of corporate interests: all Republicans but one signed onto a bill to stop new NLRB rules and all but one voted against the Buffet rule that would ensure that the wealthiest one percent pay a 30% income tax rate.
The influence of wealthy corporate donors has concrete results. Research suggests that campaign contributions like those examined here can significantly affect policy. For example, a recent article in the National Tax Journal finds that increases in business campaign contributions lead to lower state corporate taxes. This outcome exacerbates inequities because companies like Walmart rely on a business model that depends on tax payers to support their low-wage workforce, while simultaneously aiming their political spending to reduce their own tax burdens. Congressional votes to hold down the value of the minimum wage are another example. Polls consistently show that a majority of American voters favor raising the minimum wage. But while 78 percent of the general public favors a minimum that would bring full time workers and their families above the poverty line, only 40 percent of wealthy Americans agree. Organizations representing the minority opinion, like the Chamber of Commerce, have spent tens of millions of dollars to advance their position in legislatures. And policymakers have allowed the real value of the federal minimum wage to erode for the past 5 years.
With the exception of Costco, all of the country's largest big-box retailers spend significant and growing amounts of money on lobbying. Over the period studied, the companies spent a total of $111 million lobbying congress on various bills. This avenue of spending has grown considerably in recent election cycles, from $2.3 million in 2000 to a peak of $26.5 million in the 2012 election cycle
Retailers lobby on a variety of issues, including tax policy, labor issues, and the terms of international trade. A vast literature shows that these efforts produce returns, often at the expense of other democratic interests. In a comprehensive study of such conflicts, researchers found that business interests prevailed in 9 out of 11 issues in which businesses and labor were opposed. The ability of companies to win policy outcomes through massive spending on behalf of their financial interests is problematic for a Congress charged with serving the people.
Taxes were the most frequently lobbied issue by big-box retailers in 2014 by a large margin. This legislative area has proven lucrative for business in the past—experts in corporate strategy research show that a 1 percent increase in businesses lobbying expenditures yields a lower effective tax rate of between 0.5 and 1.6 percent for the firm. One study on the subject finds that the market value of an additional dollar spent on lobbying could be as high as $200. In 2014, the largest big-box retailers reported lobbying on a total of 37 incidences of specific taxation, including corporate tax reform, internet sales tax, and the extension of temporary tax breaks. The next most common issues of lobbying were health care reform, labor, antitrust, and workplace regulations.
Conclusion
Campaign spending and lobbying by moneyed interests is not new to American politics, but it has expanded significantly over the past 15 years. The total political spending of the country's largest big-box retailers grew 6 times over in the years from 2000 to 2014—reaching almost $30 million in the 2014 cycle. These companies and their wealthy owners have increasingly used their massive profits to lobby against the interests of their own workforce and to reduce their responsibility for sustaining the economic system from which they prosper. Accounting for this outsized spending is important because evidence shows that when the priorities of the affluent diverge from majority opinion, policy reflects the preferences of the donor class. Big-box retailers have expressed their preferences emphatically on both sides of the aisle concerning issues like taxation, health care coverage, and unionization rights.
The political spending at retail’s largest companies exemplifies the relationship between economic and democratic inequity. Walmart, in particular, stands out as one of the top political donors in the entire country and the largest retail corporate political spender. Federal political spending by Walmart and the company’s wealthy family heirs embeds the economic disparity at the heart of their low-wage business model into the democratic system.
New policies to mitigate the disproportionate political influence of the affluent minority are a critical step toward a stronger democracy and an economy that works for more than just the wealthy few. A federal matching system for small donations would amplify the voices currently drowned out by big donors, and provide an incentive for candidates to give greater attention to citizens who cannot afford to spend millions of dollars in order to be heard. Research suggests that such programs increase the racial and economic diversity of donors. Alternatively, publicly funding elections would protect candidates from floods of corporate and private spending by wealthy donors, and from their disproportionate influence over campaigns. Finally, research suggests that lobbying regulations lead legislators to weigh citizens’ opinions more equally. Since lobbying expenditures were an important factor in the rise of big-box retailers’ political spending, responsible oversight of this spending is crucial to ensuring that all Americans have an equal voice. It is time to tell retailers that democracy is not for sale.
- Big-box retailers spent $30 million on elections and lobbying during the 2014 election cycle, almost six times more than they spent in 2000.
- Walmart and Home Depot—through their Political Action Committee (PAC) and individual donations—are ranked among the 100 biggest political donors in the country.
- The country's largest big-box retailers spent a total of $111 million since the 2000 election cycle lobbying Congress on issues like corporate tax reform, health care, and labor, antitrust, and workplace regulations.
- The Walton family heirs spent a total of $7.3 million in campaign contributions between 2000 and 2014, adding their vast wealth to the political resources of Walmart’s campaign and lobbying efforts.
- Big retail as a group donates widely, but shows partisan preferences for Republicans by a margin of more than 2-to-1 over Democrats.
- Political spending by big retail firms is a problem for democracy, because extensive research shows that campaign and lobbying expenditures yield policy outcomes that disproportionately reflect the interests of the affluent.
In this report we examine the federal election spending of the six big-box retail companies with earnings ranked among the top retail companies in the country, using newly available data from the Center for Responsive Politics. We find that their reach is pervasive, reflected in enormous and growing expenditures to influence electoral and policy outcomes. Among this group, Walmart is the biggest spender by a wide margin, with $2.4 million in donations through its Political Action Committee (PAC) and individual donations and $12.5 million in lobbying expenses during the 2014 electoral cycle—spending about three times more than its nearest rival, Home Depot. This political spending is a problem fovr democracy, because extensive research suggests that the domination of wealth in our electoral process can significantly affect public policy, and that the priorities of the affluent often diverge from majority opinion. On issues like taxation, economic regulation, Social Security, and the minimum wage, the differences can be stark.
There has been a dramatic mobilization of political power among America’s largest big-box retailers over the past four election cycles, with federal campaign and lobbying expenditures growing from $5.2 million during the 2000 political cycle to $29.8 million during the 2014 cycle, an almost six-fold increase. Even that number massively underestimates retail’s reach by excluding state and local elections, as well as contributions to 501(c)3 and 501(c)6 groups like the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and the Chamber of Commerce. The fastest increases in retail political spending over the period appeared with the 2008 election cycle. Total campaign and lobbying expenditures grew by 95 percent in that cycle, driven by lobbying expenditures that more than doubled. In the 2010 midterm election cycle, lobbying topped $25 million. Political spending by big-box retailers peaked at a total of $33.7 million in 2012—the following presidential election year (see Figure 1).
Figure I: Federal political spending by top big-box retailers, by year, 2000-2014 (2013 dollars)
Not all major retailers spend alike, even among the market’s most profitable corporate membership. Two retailers from our list—Walmart and Home Depot—are ranked among the top 100 political donors overall for the period since 1989, a level that earns the designation “Heavy Hitters” from the Center for Responsive Politics. Target and Best Buy, though not distinguished by campaign contributions, amass enormous federal spending totals through their lobbying efforts. Costco’s total federal spending falls at the bottom of the list, with campaign contributions of $2 million over the entire 15-year period and no lobbying expenditures at all (see Figure 2).
Figure II: Federal political spending by the top big-box retailers, by company, 2000-2014 (2013 dollars)
The retail firms with the largest federal political spending—like Walmart and Home Depot—exemplify the relationship between economic and democratic inequity. Walmart is the industry’s largest political spender as well as the world’s largest retailer and private employer, distinctions that give the company considerable influence over labor and product markets in the U.S. and beyond. In markets, Walmart draws upon this economic clout to exacerbate the inequality at the core of its business model. When Walmart comes to town, retail workers see their wages drop and employment growth recede. At the same time, the company’s $16 billion in annual profits are channeled to a much smaller pool of earners, namely the Walton heirs, who inherited their vast wealth from Walmart founders Sam and Bud Walton and today rank among the richest billionaires in the world. The practices are emblematic of the growing concentration of wealth and income at the top of the U.S. economy, a trend that has been linked to slow growth, rising volatility, and even poor sales performance for companies like Walmart whose revenues depend on consumer spending.
But markets are not the only institutions that respond to the outsized power of Walmart and companies like it. There is strong evidence that an important impact of campaign contributions is to shape the views of candidates seeking to run viable campaigns and help candidates with friendly policy views win office, in addition to increasing access to politicians with the intent of setting the political agenda. Studies of the telecommunications industry show that regulators respond to private political spending with regulations that favor the donors. And companies that bid for federal contracts across industries are more likely to be granted those contracts if the bids are complemented by campaign contributions.8 This evidence suggests that political spending provides highly profitable companies like Walmart with the opportunity to influence the conversation in a way that reflects their bottom lines at democracy’s expense and to use campaign contributions and lobbying to leverage their economic power into law (see Figure 3).
Figure III: Wal-Mart political spending by year, 2000-2014 (2013 dollars)
The majority of Walmart’s public shares are owned by the Walton family heirs, who have shown a penchant for political engagement. Over recent years, the family has consolidated their ownership in the company and seen their private wealth balloon. Since the beginning of the Great Recession in 2007, the Walton family wealth has grown by 96 percent while the typical American household’s net worth fell by 40 percent. The spectacular growth of the Walton family’s affluence can be linked, in part, to decades of political influence. According to Bloomberg News, the Waltons started lobbying for a repeal of the estate tax in the 1990s, and continue to exploit obscure tax loopholes that protect the assets of the country’s richest heirs. In a prime example of the revolving door between the private interests of the affluent and policymakers, one Arkansas Congresswoman who supported the repeal of the estate tax and received $83,650 in campaign donations from Walmart works as a lobbyist for the company today. In the period since the late 1990s, the Walton family has spent more than half a million dollars on lobbying through its foundation, Walton Enterprises.
Demos examined Walton family political contributions over the period between 2000 and 2014 and found that the Waltons made a total of $7.3 million in campaign contributions over the period, with greater total contributions in presidential election years (see Figure 4). The Waltons achieve broad access by contributing to both parties, but their spending heavily favors Republican candidates and PACs. Since 2000, Walton family campaign contributions included $6 million to Republican candidates and PACs, $1 million to Democrats, and $236,085 to independent or non-affiliated candidates. These numbers reveal a savvy investment in their political interests, but still far understate Walton family’s influence through other means. For example the Walton Family Foundation—not included in our calculations here—is one of the biggest education funders in the country, with an emphasis on supporting the privatization of K-12 education. Their use of private lobbyists and spending at the state and local levels is also not included in our calculations.Although retail political spending is both deep and broad, retailers overwhelmingly support Republicans over Democrats. Since 2000, the country's largest big-box retailers donated to Republicans over Democrats by a margin of more than 2-to-1 . Walmart—which donated to a total of 295 different candidates in the most recent election cycle—gave $1 to Democrats for every $2 donated to Republican campaigns or PACs (see Figure 8). That compares to even greater Republican leanings at Target, Home Depot, Best Buy, and Lowe's, which gave $2.14, $2.95, $3.03, and $3.50 to Republicans for every $1 to Democrats, respectively. Costco was the only company that had a strong Democratic preference, allocating just $0.04 to Republicans for every $1 in Democratic spending. But since Costco’s total spending was far lower than other retailers, its donations to Democrats over the period still amounted to less than those of big spenders Walmart and Home Depot, despite their biases.This is unsurprising—Republicans are often seen as the party of big business. Over the last two years, House Republicans have unanimously voted against raising the minimum wage and attempted to eliminate Davis-Bacon protections. At the same time, they fought to extend the Bush Tax Cuts and made 50 attempts to repeal the Affordable Care Act. The Senate has taken similar stands on behalf of corporate interests: all Republicans but one signed onto a bill to stop new NLRB rules and all but one voted against the Buffet rule that would ensure that the wealthiest one percent pay a 30% income tax rate.
The influence of wealthy corporate donors has concrete results. Research suggests that campaign contributions like those examined here can significantly affect policy. For example, a recent article in the National Tax Journal finds that increases in business campaign contributions lead to lower state corporate taxes. This outcome exacerbates inequities because companies like Walmart rely on a business model that depends on tax payers to support their low-wage workforce, while simultaneously aiming their political spending to reduce their own tax burdens. Congressional votes to hold down the value of the minimum wage are another example. Polls consistently show that a majority of American voters favor raising the minimum wage. But while 78 percent of the general public favors a minimum that would bring full time workers and their families above the poverty line, only 40 percent of wealthy Americans agree. Organizations representing the minority opinion, like the Chamber of Commerce, have spent tens of millions of dollars to advance their position in legislatures. And policymakers have allowed the real value of the federal minimum wage to erode for the past 5 years.With the exception of Costco, all of the country's largest big-box retailers spend significant and growing amounts of money on lobbying. Over the period studied, the companies spent a total of $111 million lobbying congress on various bills. This avenue of spending has grown considerably in recent election cycles, from $2.3 million in 2000 to a peak of $26.5 million in the 2012 election cycle
Retailers lobby on a variety of issues, including tax policy, labor issues, and the terms of international trade. A vast literature shows that these efforts produce returns, often at the expense of other democratic interests. In a comprehensive study of such conflicts, researchers found that business interests prevailed in 9 out of 11 issues in which businesses and labor were opposed. The ability of companies to win policy outcomes through massive spending on behalf of their financial interests is problematic for a Congress charged with serving the people.Taxes were the most frequently lobbied issue by big-box retailers in 2014 by a large margin. This legislative area has proven lucrative for business in the past—experts in corporate strategy research show that a 1 percent increase in businesses lobbying expenditures yields a lower effective tax rate of between 0.5 and 1.6 percent for the firm. One study on the subject finds that the market value of an additional dollar spent on lobbying could be as high as $200. In 2014, the largest big-box retailers reported lobbying on a total of 37 incidences of specific taxation, including corporate tax reform, internet sales tax, and the extension of temporary tax breaks. The next most common issues of lobbying were health care reform, labor, antitrust, and workplace regulations.
Conclusion
Campaign spending and lobbying by moneyed interests is not new to American politics, but it has expanded significantly over the past 15 years. The total political spending of the country's largest big-box retailers grew 6 times over in the years from 2000 to 2014—reaching almost $30 million in the 2014 cycle. These companies and their wealthy owners have increasingly used their massive profits to lobby against the interests of their own workforce and to reduce their responsibility for sustaining the economic system from which they prosper. Accounting for this outsized spending is important because evidence shows that when the priorities of the affluent diverge from majority opinion, policy reflects the preferences of the donor class. Big-box retailers have expressed their preferences emphatically on both sides of the aisle concerning issues like taxation, health care coverage, and unionization rights.
The political spending at retail’s largest companies exemplifies the relationship between economic and democratic inequity. Walmart, in particular, stands out as one of the top political donors in the entire country and the largest retail corporate political spender. Federal political spending by Walmart and the company’s wealthy family heirs embeds the economic disparity at the heart of their low-wage business model into the democratic system.
New policies to mitigate the disproportionate political influence of the affluent minority are a critical step toward a stronger democracy and an economy that works for more than just the wealthy few. A federal matching system for small donations would amplify the voices currently drowned out by big donors, and provide an incentive for candidates to give greater attention to citizens who cannot afford to spend millions of dollars in order to be heard. Research suggests that such programs increase the racial and economic diversity of donors. Alternatively, publicly funding elections would protect candidates from floods of corporate and private spending by wealthy donors, and from their disproportionate influence over campaigns. Finally, research suggests that lobbying regulations lead legislators to weigh citizens’ opinions more equally. Since lobbying expenditures were an important factor in the rise of big-box retailers’ political spending, responsible oversight of this spending is crucial to ensuring that all Americans have an equal voice. It is time to tell retailers that democracy is not for sale.
Grand jury's decision
Six points: How Ferguson prosecutor defended grand jury's decision
By Dana Ford
By Dana Ford
Ferguson smolders....
Streets of Ferguson smolder after grand jury decides not to indict
officer
By Holly Yan and Moni Basu
By Holly Yan and Moni Basu
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)